New MacBook Pros Max Out At 16GB RAM Due to Battery Life Concerns

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I know that the Apple apologists are going to come out in force on this one with all kinds of reasons why this is revolutionary, magical and forward thinking, but I really want to hear your opinion on this statement:

Q: The lack of a 32GB BTO option for the new MBPs raised some eyebrows and caused some concerns (me included). Does ~3GBps bandwidth to the SSD make this a moot issue? I.e. memory paging on a 16GB system is so fast that 32GB is not a significant improvement?

Schiller: Thank you for the email. It is a good question. To put more than 16GB of fast RAM into a notebook design at this time would require a memory system that consumes much more power and wouldn't be efficient enough for a notebook. I hope you check out this new generation MacBook Pro, it really is an incredible system.
 
So what gives? A number of websites that specialize in hardware say 8 is decent and 16 if you have the money. More then 16 is overkill...

If you need more than that, maybe this computer isn't for you.

I'm calling bash just because its Apple.
 
SanitaryMold said:
So what gives? A number of websites that specialize in hardware say 8 is decent and 16 if you have the money. More then 16 is overkill...

If you need more than that, maybe this computer isn't for you.

I'm calling bash just because its Apple.
Click to expand...

Unless you do productivity with this....I can easily max out my 16GB of RAM doing work in various programs the hardware is capable of doing plenty fine. I can have as many as 15 projects open at once from media editing to raw image work. At the cost they are asking they should not be telling people how they are able to use their hardware.
 
SanitaryMold said:
So what gives? A number of websites that specialize in hardware say 8 is decent and 16 if you have the money. More then 16 is overkill...

If you need more than that, maybe this computer isn't for you.

I'm calling bash just because its Apple.
Click to expand...
The word PRO at the end of macbook begs to differ where virtualization and heavy editing of media can easily eat up 16 gbs if you aren't careful.
 
im not a fan of this MB version. i do not like the lack of < $2k offering for the 15 inch version. What i use my MBP for does not require a dedicated graphics card aaaaaaaaannnnnnddddd an AMD one @ at.

I will be keeping my old MBP for now.
 
Vercinaigh said:
Unless you do productivity with this....I can easily max out my 16GB of RAM doing work in various programs the hardware is capable of doing plenty fine. I can have as many as 15 projects open at once from media editing to raw image work. At the cost they are asking they should not be telling people how they are able to use their hardware.
Click to expand...

Actually, you are telling people. Your saying that all machines should meet your specifications to your work needs or its junk. As I said, this isn't the machine for you if that is the case. Don't buy it.

So out of curiosity, how long does your laptop battery last while doing these 15 projects at a time? Is your laptop also as small and light weight as this machine? Which model do you have?
 
I'm a long time MBP user.

Disappointed.

Less so in the lack of ports - that doesn't really bother me, but being an Apple user, I'm more or less used to obscure, non-standard, or lacking ports and working around that.

The huge price hike on top of what was already a premium price for the hardware. That bothers me.
 
DDR4 would use less power but they didn't want to wait for Kaby Lake, so oh well.
 
I understand the frustration of not getting 768TB of memory in a notebook that has a 15" display.

BUT......

The whole idea of memory was to get around the physical limitations of slow mechanical storage. They do raise a good point that SSD's have become so fast that most users simply will not notice if the system is using physical memory, or if using SSD pagefile.

Would it affect playing a video game and hitting the disk cache? Probably. But most games do not need more then 16GB.

Will Photoshop be noticeably slower because it's hitting the SSD pagefile? Probably not.

Even enabling pagefile on my Chromebook (with an upgraded 128GB SSD) made many many tabs completely unoticable performance wise.

That's why Intel is looking at getting rid of "memory" in the future designs, because solid state will simply be fast enough for everything.
 
So, I personally own a 2008 Macbook that is a Core2Duo and has 4 GB of ram. I replaced the hard drive with an SSD a few years ago. This system runs Xcode, MS Office, and Chrome rather well.
At work I'm using a 2012 MBPro with 8GB ram and a regular hard drive. I also use a new Macbook (with I think 8GB ram, but has a solid state drive). Both systems give me comparable performance. I know I will have doubters, but my original 2008 Macbook *feels* just as fast as the other 2 for how I'm using it.
If I were to buy one of the new MBPro's (which I'm not), I'd have to think real hard if it is worth spending the extra cash for 16GB vs 8. I'd probably do it knowing I could not upgrade in the future, but my current usage does not require it.
Being lazy here, but what is the max memory a Mac Pro (you know, the garbage can edition) can handle? I hope it's a lot higher. These are the computers I assume Apple thinks graphics people are using. Again, they are quite old now and out of date. I'd like to think these will see a refresh - at least in GPU's - soon.
 
My laptop last nearly a entire workday connected to a 4K display mirroring native 4k content on a 4K IGZO display while video sharing over the web at max quality. It supports 64GB ECC DDR4 and up to 4TB flash storage including the PCI-e kind. I already have TB3 and a faster Skylake Xeon CPU in there. I get DP and 4 USB3 and a smart card reader all while costing less than this new toy. So claiming a few GB of RAM is really going to drain battery life is quite pathetic. Simply put unless you are an all apple shop and made of money it's time to jump ship, like it seems a number of people I have spoken to are doing.
 
steakman1971 said:
So, I personally own a 2008 Macbook that is a Core2Duo and has 4 GB of ram. I replaced the hard drive with an SSD a few years ago. This system runs Xcode, MS Office, and Chrome rather well.
At work I'm using a 2012 MBPro with 8GB ram and a regular hard drive. I also use a new Macbook (with I think 8GB ram, but has a solid state drive). Both systems give me comparable performance. I know I will have doubters, but my original 2008 Macbook *feels* just as fast as the other 2 for how I'm using it.
If I were to buy one of the new MBPro's (which I'm not), I'd have to think real hard if it is worth spending the extra cash for 16GB vs 8. I'd probably do it knowing I could not upgrade in the future, but my current usage does not require it.
Being lazy here, but what is the max memory a Mac Pro (you know, the garbage can edition) can handle? I hope it's a lot higher. These are the computers I assume Apple thinks graphics people are using. Again, they are quite old now and out of date. I'd like to think these will see a refresh - at least in GPU's - soon.
Click to expand...

I've used most MBP models since they were Titanium. I have to agree with you here - the biggest difference was the jump to SSD. Apart from that, you'd be pretty hard pressed to tell one model from another in typical day to day use. Sure, some very CPU-heavy things may bench differently based on CPU, but every day stuff the only difference is really SSD, or no SSD.
 
I have 32GB on my personal Precision M4600 and on my work Precision M4800.

Also have the extra battery that plugs into the docking port. So about double the normal battery life. :D

Apple can keep their 16GB max "pro" system.
 
SanitaryMold said:
Actually, you are telling people. Your saying that all machines should meet your specifications to your work needs or its junk. As I said, this isn't the machine for you if that is the case. Don't buy it.

So out of curiosity, how long does your laptop battery last while doing these 15 projects at a time? Is your laptop also as small and light weight as this machine? Which model do you have?
Click to expand...

They are making valid points in that the Pro version is meant for people with higher demand for specs. People editing videos, audio, imagines.... People working in engineering. You are expecting it to run AutoCAD, Final Cut Pro, Adobe, and all those types of programs without issues for your projects as that is what you are paying for. If the device doesn't meet the needs of those types of people then it is failing to meet the needs of the people it is intended for. This isn't meant for your great grandma to get online to check facebook once a day. It is meant for professionals doing actual work. Which that alone is a valid reason for them to care about battery life over a possible small performance hit. But if the device is no longer meeting the needs of those that use it then they do need to be vocal to let them know that.


westrock2000 said:
I understand the frustration of not getting 768TB of memory in a notebook that has a 15" display.

BUT......

The whole idea of memory was to get around the physical limitations of slow mechanical storage. They do raise a good point that SSD's have become so fast that most users simply will not notice if the system is using physical memory, or if using SSD pagefile.

Would it affect playing a video game and hitting the disk cache? Probably. But most games do not need more then 16GB.

Will Photoshop be noticeably slower because it's hitting the SSD pagefile? Probably not.

Even enabling pagefile on my Chromebook (with an upgraded 128GB SSD) made many many tabs completely unoticable performance wise.

That's why Intel is looking at getting rid of "memory" in the future designs, because solid state will simply be fast enough for everything.
Click to expand...

Have to wonder what that will do to the life of a SSD drive if you are making all your reads / writes to that instead of RAM. As for the 15" display part, that is what external screens are for. I know a good number of people that do graphical work on a notebook connected to an external display
 
jwcalla said:
DDR4 would use less power but they didn't want to wait for Kaby Lake, so oh well.
Click to expand...
According to the specs on Intel, the Skylake-U and -HQ stuff does support DDR4-2133. I think Apple was too cheap to put it in or they would come up with some other excuse.
 
westrock2000 said:
I understand the frustration of not getting 768TB of memory in a notebook that has a 15" display.

BUT......

The whole idea of memory was to get around the physical limitations of slow mechanical storage. They do raise a good point that SSD's have become so fast that most users simply will not notice if the system is using physical memory, or if using SSD pagefile.

Would it affect playing a video game and hitting the disk cache? Probably. But most games do not need more then 16GB.

Will Photoshop be noticeably slower because it's hitting the SSD pagefile? Probably not.

Even enabling pagefile on my Chromebook (with an upgraded 128GB SSD) made many many tabs completely unoticable performance wise.

That's why Intel is looking at getting rid of "memory" in the future designs, because solid state will simply be fast enough for everything.
Click to expand...

Solid state would have to be about 20x as fast to even be as fast as "slow" RAM. The current buses that support flash do not even support anywhere that type of speed.

And flash has limited write cycles before it goes bad. RAM does not.

Unless something drastically changes.. like flash goes away AND RAM becomes way cheaper and is basically changed into battery backed up storage, then it ain't gonna happen.
 
Has anybody actually tried to put 32GB RAM in a new Macbook Pro? Unless Apple has physically locked it out in the BIOS, it should just work.

Does it even have RAM slots, or is it just soldered onto the motherboard? If so, then that is the stupidest design since "netbooks" were first released.. which were total crap as well.
 
SanitaryMold said:
So what gives? A number of websites that specialize in hardware say 8 is decent and 16 if you have the money. More then 16 is overkill...

If you need more than that, maybe this computer isn't for you.

I'm calling bash just because its Apple.
Click to expand...


That may have been true a couple years ago, but I'm seeing more performance related problems in the office on windows systems with only 8GB ram.
Seem that even basic office work is marginal on a 8GB system since the users tend to open dozens of windows in various apps.
Besides upgrading older laptops to SSD's I'm also been upgrading them to 16GB. Much cheaper than Apple's solution of buying new laptops.

As for the power users that run multiple VM's, they've been pushing for more than 16GB, but the 32GB upgrades are not technically supported on the current laptops, and are way expensive.

Currently looking at newer model laptops for our next round of upgrades, and being able to upgrade to 32GB (and in a supported configuration) is on my priority list.
Even if I buy them with 16GB, I need the ability to upgrade them later to get a few more years usage.
 
cyclone3d said:
Has anybody actually tried to put 32GB RAM in a new Macbook Pro? Unless Apple has physically locked it out in the BIOS, it should just work.

Does it even have RAM slots, or is it just soldered onto the motherboard? If so, then that is the stupidest design since "netbooks" were first released.. which were total crap as well.
Click to expand...

i believe the cpu and ram are soldered to the motherboard
 
Apple focuses too much on thinness. These new Macbook Pros: performance like a mid to high range PC laptop, priced like a custom gaming laptop, and the ability to upgrade like... a smartphone.
 
Dk975 said:
Apple focuses too much on thinness. These new Macbook Pros: performance like a mid to high range PC laptop, priced like a custom gaming laptop, and the ability to upgrade like... a smartphone.
Click to expand...

Not even close to a high end, mid, at best. And that's being generous. i do have one, so i do know.
 
Terpfen said:
So your preference is for bigger, bulkier laptops? Interesting.
Click to expand...

There are lots of laptops that no one would describe as bulky that have so-dimm slots.

In addition, thinness in and of itself is not a benefit. The whole rush to make things as thin as possible while sacrificing everything else is a perfect example of what is wrong with form over function giving rise to severely compromised devices.
 
MavericK said:
Thin enough to now allow for the use of regular USB ports, apparently. Which is another design fail IMO. Thinness and portability are meaningless if you have to carry around a bunch of adapters.
Click to expand...

Which is pretty laughable when you look at other laptops like the HP Spectre and Razer Blade Stealth... both of which are THINNER than the Macbook Pros... but have full "A" sized USB 3 ports. HDMI, too. This new line of MacBook Pros is just Apple's attempt to force people to pay for overpriced dongles.

You're paying a massive premium on Apple products for a substantially inferior product.

To match a $1999.99 Stealth, the new Macbook Pro would cost $2899.99.

Updated comparison chart between the new Macbook Pro 13" and Razer Blade Stealth models, columns aligned by closest price point.

At the other end, to match a $999.99 Stealth, you'd need to pay for the $1599 13" Macbook Pro 2015 (yes, the OLDER model still costs that much!) configuration.

http://i.imgur.com/tA8mC59.png

There is nothing "Pro" about Apple anymore.
 
Geeze some of you are harsh. I just picked up a used 2015 13" MBP. Got it for a great price too. Upgrade fever from the seller.

Keep in mind the SSD storage is not sata 3, it is PCIe x4 storage. The difference is insane. I can easily run 4 2012/16 GUI VM's (about as much as I would ever run in a laptop) with 16GB of ram and the host is still responsive and snappy. Hitting swap matters even less with this class of storage. Plus the whole thing is so small and light. The Precision we toss around at work has way more horsepower, but fuck is it heavy.

Still, I would not pay Apple retail for the thing. Hell I wouldn't pay Dell retail of their Precision laptops either.
 
Yes, but at least with Dell most people have access to their standard 10% discount, and the MPP adds another 5% discount. I know of no way to get anything beyond a 5% discount on most Apple products.
 
MacBook Pro 10 hours battery. Surface Book 16 hours battery. No 2in1 Mac, nothing like the Studio.

No wonder Apples Mac sales is collapsing. Apple became a dinosaur.
 
Last edited:
The thing is, from what I have seen of 90% of the Macbook Pro owners out in the wild is that they could save a lot of effort and money by just buying a $400 silver Chromebook.

Will handle Facebook and Twitter just fine. They could also afford to buy more coffee and pastries.
 
westrock2000 said:
That's why Intel is looking at getting rid of "memory" in the future designs, because solid state will simply be fast enough for everything.
Click to expand...

Since when? Intel isn't looking to get rid of anything. Just help supplement. If you're talking about that 3D Xpoint, you're sadly mistaken. It's extremely slower than memory and it's endurance is horrible too. It's way faster than today's SSDs, but it's crap compared to memory.

If you tried to use one of those Optane 3D Xpoints as memory, it would literally be broken in probably a week or a day. It's got 1 million read/write endurance. System memory has zero. It's infinite, why? Cause it can go through 1 million read/write cycles in a second. At most, it can be used as a swap. SSD to Optane SSD to System memory. Then of course all the caches within the processor itself.
 
I can tell when I hit swap on my SSD. Doesn't matter if we're talking about my 2015 MBP, or the 950 Pro in my desktop. SSDs are fast, but be realistic, they're not THAT fast.

I think the major complaint here is the Pro moniker indicates it's for heavier usage, but then the hardware is limited for heavier usage. The MBP is listed as an engineering laptop with my company, as that's what the MBP was capable of doing for most of it's lifespan. The lack of a 32GB option severely hinders it in that regard.

Basically, The MBP has gone from an Engineering spec'd laptop to not in the past couple revisions. And that's why people are complaining.

Also, does anybody have any numbers on how much extra power is used to swap to an SSD? I bet it's more than having the extra RAM available. Which would invalidate this whole argument.
 
krotch said:
Since when? Intel isn't looking to get rid of anything. Just help supplement. If you're talking about that 3D Xpoint, you're sadly mistaken. It's extremely slower than memory and it's endurance is horrible too. It's way faster than today's SSDs, but it's crap compared to memory.

If you tried to use one of those Optane 3D Xpoints as memory, it would literally be broken in probably a week or a day. It's got 1 million read/write endurance. System memory has zero. It's infinite, why? Cause it can go through 1 million read/write cycles in a second. At most, it can be used as a swap. SSD to Optane SSD to System memory. Then of course all the caches within the processor itself.
Click to expand...

For RAM intensive applications, I suppose you are right, and having dedicated memory for that would be a good idea. For normal desktop application, memory bandwidth is not critical. Wear leveling algorithms and much larger drives would allow individual cell writes to be minimized. Even now, after several years, you do not see people talking about how dangerous the page file on an SSD is. It turns out it won't ruin SSD's even our archaic NAND based drives.

Anandtech said:
Intel and Micron are claiming that 3D XPoint provides up to a thousand times higher endurance than NAND. Assuming that the numbers are relative to modern (15-20nm) MLC NAND, the endurance should be in the order of a few million P/E cycles; though the marketing materials are claiming up to tens of millions of write cycles. If we assume 3 million write cycles (1000x of what modern MLC has), a 256GB 3D XPoint based drive would have a total write endurance of 768 petabytes. That's equivalent to 420TB per day for five years, or 4.9GB per second.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top