3 ms·
>Max Memory Size >>>(dependent on memory type)<<< It's literally hiding right there on every link you provided. Let's just blame everything on Apple, am I righ
by undersuit 10y ago
>Max Memory Size >>>(dependent on memory type)<<<
It's literally hiding right there on every link you provided. Let's just blame everything on Apple, am I right!?! It's not like Intel hasn't hampered previous Apple products with arbitrary limitations... http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/macbook_pro/faq/macbook-pro-core-2-duo-3-gb-memory-limitation-details.html http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/macbook_pro/faq/macboo...
- Const-me 10y agoFunny you’ve linked an article from 2008. The same year, Intel has made two CPUs, L7500 and L7700, exclusively for Apple to power their then-new MacBook Airs: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2422 http://www.anandtech.com/show/2422 If Apple wanted more energy-efficient RAM for their MacBook's, with their volumes, Intel would be happy to help.
- undersuit 10y agoIntel is only so flexible. They didn't make new cpus they accelerated the development of chip packages by a few months so the installed processor could take up less room. >If Apple wanted more energy-efficient RAM for their MacBook's, with their volumes, Intel would be happy to help. The lack of support for the LPDDR3 greater than 16GB is a problem in the memory controller. Intel would have to respin the silicon to fix this issue for DDR3 when they are moving to DDR4. Intel is not going to fix an silicon issue on a product(Skylake) when they have already released the successor(Kabylake).