3 ms·
IIRC the explanation is really "this is what Intel's stuff is supporting, and we're stuck with what Intel supports", and it would've been potentially another ye
by ubernostrum 10y ago
IIRC the explanation is really "this is what Intel's stuff is supporting, and we're stuck with what Intel supports", and it would've been potentially another year or more of no MBP refresh if they waited for Intel to get there.
- mmarx 10y ago> IIRC the explanation is really "this is what Intel's stuff is supporting, and we're stuck with what Intel supports" All of the available CPUs support 32 GB; the i7s in the 15" model even support 64 GB. [0] http://ark.intel.com/products/91156/Intel-Core-i5-6360U-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-3_10-GHz http://ark.intel.com/products/91156/Intel-Core-i5-6360U-Proc... [1] http://ark.intel.com/products/88967/Intel-Core-i7-6700HQ-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_50-GHz http://ark.intel.com/products/88967/Intel-Core-i7-6700HQ-Pro...
- stephenr 10y agoThey support > 16GB if you use DDR4. LPDDR3 is limited to 16GB. Given that Apple maximises for long battery life/power efficiency/thin-ness (where heat = bad), I think they made the right decision. There are very few people who genuinely need more than 16GB of RAM in a laptop computer. Would I get 32GB if it was available? Yes. It would make my work a little easier (multiple VM environments), but it's hardly the end of the world on 16GB.
- muninn_ 10y agoYeah. I mean look, they could design a laptop for the vast majority of their users, or they could design one that is best for <1% if their users. It's a clear choice.