4 ms·
Like 5 years old machine. So why upgrade? We don't buy for years-ago needs, but for now-and-future. And even ignoring this: Is also signaling. We expect top-o
by mamcx 10y ago
Like 5 years old machine. So why upgrade?
We don't buy for years-ago needs, but for now-and-future.
And even ignoring this: Is also signaling. We expect top-of-the-line machine for work.
IF we use at FULL capacity OR NOT, is not the business of Apple.
- rbanffy 10y agoA computer built from parts running an unsupported OS is most definitely not top-of-the-line. If you are spending on memory and CPU you don't need, you are spending your money (ou your client's money) foolishly. Spend it on things that'll make you more productive.
- stephenr 10y ago> top-of-the-line Define top of the line. What measurement do you use? The reason the 2016 MBP has a 2015 Intel CPU is the same reason it has a 16GB memory limit. Intel hasn't shipped a LPDDR4-capable quad-core mobile processor yet. Even dual-core Kaby Lake mobile processors released already don't support LPDDR4, and even if they did, they're less appropriate for a "pro" machine than previous generation quads. [In competing devices the only machines that exceed 16GB of RAM will be using regular DDR3/4, (i.e. not low-power) and there will be a significant battery life effect, not to mention running hotter. (More power in == more heat out) As a developer (i.e. not video/audio/graphics editing/production) the only use I can imagine that would regularly benefit from > 16GB of RAM is running multiple virtual machines to simulate a complex server environment. This is the exact scenario I personally would like 32/64 GB of RAM to better handle. And yet, I'm still in favour of the highly portable configuration they settled on, rather than a power-hungry, hot machine using regular DDR.