5 ms·

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

otterley 10y ago
Technically speaking, it's a CPU-imposed limitation when used with LPDDR3 modules. See http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/core/7th-gen-core-family-mobile-u-y-processor-lines-datasheet-vol-1.html http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/core/7th-g... (See section 2.1.1.3, "LPDDR3 supported memory devices")
- yuhong 10y ago
  I wonder when Intel will support LPDDR4.
  - officialchicken 10y ago
    For more than 6 months now... My skull canyon NUC system supports 32g SODIMM DDR4-2133+ @ 1.2v.
    - yuhong 10y ago
      DDR4 is not LPDDR4.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
- stu2010 10y ago
  This surprises me, because LPDDR3 looks to operate at the same 1.2V as DDR4. I'm guessing that LPDDR3 has some aggressive power saving functionality not illustrated by operating voltage.
beamatronic 10y ago
Isn't a "battery life" discussion really a "battery size/thickness" discussion? Which developer wouldn't accept a 1-2mm thicker laptop in exchange for TB's of RAM?
- blacksmith_tb 10y ago
  Not sure I could really take advantage of TBs of RAM on my local dev machine... 32GB or 64GB, though, would be nice.
  - beamatronic 10y ago
    1TB of RAM is exactly the kind of visionary move I would have expected Apple to make edit: words
    - drakonandor 10y ago
      It takes more courage to only allow 16 GB.
- wodenokoto 10y ago
  I'm a developer and I wouldn't pay the price of TB's of RAM in a laptop, no matter if it made the machine thicker or thinner.
bcheung 10y ago
Maybe if they optimized for features instead of making it smaller. This is the Pro not the air. People who care about size are going to get the Air. People who get the Pro want Pro features and don't care as much about size and weight.
- gumby 10y ago
  As someone who lugged 17" lunch trays around for years, I beg to disagree. I don't know about Apple's market research so have no idea why they think this particular configuration will appeal to the fat part of the pro-buyer bell curve. I think you are 100% correct for photographers and music(ians/ engineers et al) in that they have big heavy cases of stuff anyway so the weight difference is in the noise. But as a software developer I decided weight is paramount for me. Disclaimer: my development these days is mostly in the command line, with code running on remote machines, so even speed of compilation isn't as big a deal as it used to be. I had the 17" machines mainly for number of pixels on the screen and secondarily for disk space.
  - melq 10y ago
    If weight really is the most important aspect of a laptop may I ask why you are even bothering with an MBP? Seems kind of silly. Even with the relatively large difference in size and weight from my last one (mid 2009, which I think might've been the last year they made 17"), I've never found myself thinkin "man I'm glad I dont have to walk around with that extra 2.5 lbs in my bag anymore". It's definitely alot sexier, but at some point can't they be satisfied with their success in slimming it down, rather than making terrible design decisions to shave off another 0.3 inconsequential pounds? Personally I long for the keyboard of my '09 mbp and would love for Apple to stop obsessing over making their already thin enough shit thinner. I would gladly accept the formfactor of those older models if it meant I didn't have to deal with the miserable keyboards they're using these days, and had the option to increase my ram sometime down the road. Typing on my 2015 mbp feels like I'm drumming my hands on a countertop.
    - gumby 10y ago

Technically speaking, it's a CPU-imposed limitation when used with LPDDR3 modules. See http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/core/7th-gen-core-family-mobile-u-y-processor-lines-datasheet-vol-1.html http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/core/7th-g... (See section 2.1.1.3, "LPDDR3 supported memory devices")

yuhong 10y ago
I wonder when Intel will support LPDDR4.
- officialchicken 10y ago
  For more than 6 months now... My skull canyon NUC system supports 32g SODIMM DDR4-2133+ @ 1.2v.
  - yuhong 10y ago
    DDR4 is not LPDDR4.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
stu2010 10y ago
This surprises me, because LPDDR3 looks to operate at the same 1.2V as DDR4. I'm guessing that LPDDR3 has some aggressive power saving functionality not illustrated by operating voltage.

beamatronic 10y ago

Isn't a "battery life" discussion really a "battery size/thickness" discussion? Which developer wouldn't accept a 1-2mm thicker laptop in exchange for TB's of RAM?

blacksmith_tb 10y ago
Not sure I could really take advantage of TBs of RAM on my local dev machine... 32GB or 64GB, though, would be nice.
- beamatronic 10y ago
  1TB of RAM is exactly the kind of visionary move I would have expected Apple to make edit: words
  - drakonandor 10y ago
    It takes more courage to only allow 16 GB.
wodenokoto 10y ago
I'm a developer and I wouldn't pay the price of TB's of RAM in a laptop, no matter if it made the machine thicker or thinner.

bcheung 10y ago

Maybe if they optimized for features instead of making it smaller. This is the Pro not the air. People who care about size are going to get the Air. People who get the Pro want Pro features and don't care as much about size and weight.

gumby 10y ago
As someone who lugged 17" lunch trays around for years, I beg to disagree. I don't know about Apple's market research so have no idea why they think this particular configuration will appeal to the fat part of the pro-buyer bell curve. I think you are 100% correct for photographers and music(ians/ engineers et al) in that they have big heavy cases of stuff anyway so the weight difference is in the noise. But as a software developer I decided weight is paramount for me. Disclaimer: my development these days is mostly in the command line, with code running on remote machines, so even speed of compilation isn't as big a deal as it used to be. I had the 17" machines mainly for number of pixels on the screen and secondarily for disk space.
- melq 10y ago
  If weight really is the most important aspect of a laptop may I ask why you are even bothering with an MBP? Seems kind of silly. Even with the relatively large difference in size and weight from my last one (mid 2009, which I think might've been the last year they made 17"), I've never found myself thinkin "man I'm glad I dont have to walk around with that extra 2.5 lbs in my bag anymore". It's definitely alot sexier, but at some point can't they be satisfied with their success in slimming it down, rather than making terrible design decisions to shave off another 0.3 inconsequential pounds? Personally I long for the keyboard of my '09 mbp and would love for Apple to stop obsessing over making their already thin enough shit thinner. I would gladly accept the formfactor of those older models if it meant I didn't have to deal with the miserable keyboards they're using these days, and had the option to increase my ram sometime down the road. Typing on my 2015 mbp feels like I'm drumming my hands on a countertop.
  - gumby 10y ago