5 ms·

So I guess this means that we'll have to wait an additional year for the MacBook Pro that finally smashes through this archaic limit of 16 gigabytes of memory :

So I guess this means that we'll have to wait an additional year for the MacBook Pro that finally smashes through this archaic limit of 16 gigabytes of memory :( Except if Intel wakes up and relieves us from our pains by inserting a Kaby Lake revision of sorts with an updated memory controller capable of driving more low-power RAM. I personally couldn't care less about 10-20% more processing power per watt from Cannonlake and 10nm, it's the memory limit that's really limiting me.

fhood 9y ago
I am honestly shocked that it hasn't happened already. Apple must be leaning on them pretty hard
- Slartie 9y ago
  It's not even only Apple anymore. As far as I have seen, the Microsoft Surface Pro suffers from the exact same limitation. Practically every manufacturer who wants to build some high-end, but still thin and lightweight laptop runs into this problem.
  - cjbillington 9y ago
    What's the deal with the dell xps 15 and precision 5520 laptops then? They're 15 inch but they're still pretty thin and light (1.78kg for the precision 5520), but you can get them with 32 GB of RAM and their battery life apparently isn't terrible. I'm planning on getting one and never realised this was a compromise.
glhaynes 9y ago
Add one more to the "Reasons Apple would want to take control of their own destiny by putting their own chips in Macs" tally.
- runeks 9y ago
  But how many x86 legacy Mac apps would break if they switched to ARM? Could it be the case that we’re really waiting on Apple’s lawyer team to figure out how to sidestep Intel’s x86 patent, so OSX can emulate x86 with a bunch of ARM chips?
  - erikj 9y ago
    Apple doesn't seem to care much about legacy software given their recent history. They could revive their Rosetta binary translator.
    - pcwalton 9y ago
      Intel is litigious when it comes to emulating x86.
      - masklinn 9y ago
        The biggest issue is likely that they don't have performance headroom they could spend on the emulation though, x86-on-ARM would be way slower than Rosetta let alone m68k
        Skunkleton 9y ago
        Microsoft is doing exactly this: https://www.extremetech.com/computing/249292-microsoft-declares-windows-10-arm-devices-will-run-x86-code-near-native-speed https://www.extremetech.com/computing/249292-microsoft-decla...
- marricks 9y ago
  Not to mention they've already done something similar when they switched chips from Power PC to Intel. I find it hard to see how they'd license x86, but who knows, they do have ridiculous amounts of money piled up...
  - ChrisLTD 9y ago
    ... and unfortunately they aren’t likely to spend it on the Mac given the size of the market. Makes me sad.
  - slezyr 9y ago
    I think it's easier for them to turn iPad + iOS into laptop that make a x86 processor.
bogomipz 9y ago
>"So I guess this means that we'll have to wait an additional year for the MacBook Pro that finally smashes through this archaic limit of 16 gigabytes of memory." Can you elaborate? What are the details of the current chips that limits Macbooks to 16 Gigs? Is it power consumption?
- masklinn 9y ago
  16GB is the limit on LPDDR3 (not sure whether it's spec or Intel's implementation), so you can pick either battery life and 16GB with LPDDR3 or 32+ at the cost of battery life (and a mainboard redesign) with desktop-class DDR4.
  - dsp1234 9y ago
    Micron makes, at least, 32GB LPDDR3 modules. https://www.micron.com/products/dram/lpdram/32Gb#/technology%5B%5D=LPDDR3 https://www.micron.com/products/dram/lpdram/32Gb#/technology...
    - dijit 9y ago
      But the CPU can't support the "LP-ness" of it.
    - wyldfire 9y ago
      Those are individual 32 Gb (gigabit) ICs for use on memory modules (which contain an array of such ICs).
    - snuxoll 9y ago
      Gb != GB, those are 4GB full-width (x64) modules, making them 512MB per x8 chip, half the size of what Apple already uses in the MBP line's fully maxed out configuration.
  - rbanffy 9y ago
    Why not multiple channels?
masklinn 9y ago
What I can't help but wonder is: is the 16GB LPDDR3 limit one of spec or implementation? And will an eventual support for LPDDR4 simply bump the hard limit up to 32GB?
jarym 9y ago
The other option Apple might consider by then is keep RAM at 8/16Gb but offer an Optane module in addition? Dunno if that'll be viable but it might be a better option.
RivieraKid 9y ago
What do you need more than 16GB for? Until less then a year ago, I used to have a 4 GB RAM (+ 4GB SSD swap) laptop, used it for everything, including software development (Android mostly). Even ran virtual machines occasionally. It wasn't that horrible. Now I have a MacBook Pro with 16GB and this amount seems more than comfortable.
- milesokeefe 9y ago
  Right now on my MPB I'm sitting at 14.68GB used with another 3.73GB in swap. Between Chrome, electron-based desktop apps, and Docker containers it's easy to hit that limit. This is just full stack web dev too, nothing rendering related.
- kakarot 9y ago
  Video and image processing/editing, for starters. Working with large datasets. Running several vms with reasonable memory allocation. Running local DBs. High-end / VR gaming. Etc. I do all of these things daily for both work and pleasure and with 16GB RAM I have run into countless headaches. Personally I don't use a Mac and could upgrade at any time but I'm waiting out of principle because DDR4 RAM is still seeing exorbitant prices from the shortage.
pasbesoin 9y ago
With the reported performance of the A11 in the new iPhones, my speculation remains that Apple may well be moving to an in-house MacBook (Pro, and whatever) CPU/GPU system. I don't know what that would mean with respect to system memory. IIRC, I read that the iPhone 8 comes with 2 GB of RAM. But, its predecessor, the 7, doesn't seem to be lacking, despite this.

fhood 9y ago

I am honestly shocked that it hasn't happened already. Apple must be leaning on them pretty hard

Slartie 9y ago
It's not even only Apple anymore. As far as I have seen, the Microsoft Surface Pro suffers from the exact same limitation. Practically every manufacturer who wants to build some high-end, but still thin and lightweight laptop runs into this problem.
- cjbillington 9y ago
  What's the deal with the dell xps 15 and precision 5520 laptops then? They're 15 inch but they're still pretty thin and light (1.78kg for the precision 5520), but you can get them with 32 GB of RAM and their battery life apparently isn't terrible. I'm planning on getting one and never realised this was a compromise.

glhaynes 9y ago

Add one more to the "Reasons Apple would want to take control of their own destiny by putting their own chips in Macs" tally.

runeks 9y ago
But how many x86 legacy Mac apps would break if they switched to ARM? Could it be the case that we’re really waiting on Apple’s lawyer team to figure out how to sidestep Intel’s x86 patent, so OSX can emulate x86 with a bunch of ARM chips?
- erikj 9y ago
  Apple doesn't seem to care much about legacy software given their recent history. They could revive their Rosetta binary translator.
  - pcwalton 9y ago
    Intel is litigious when it comes to emulating x86.
    - masklinn 9y ago
      The biggest issue is likely that they don't have performance headroom they could spend on the emulation though, x86-on-ARM would be way slower than Rosetta let alone m68k
      - Skunkleton 9y ago
        Microsoft is doing exactly this: https://www.extremetech.com/computing/249292-microsoft-declares-windows-10-arm-devices-will-run-x86-code-near-native-speed https://www.extremetech.com/computing/249292-microsoft-decla...
marricks 9y ago
Not to mention they've already done something similar when they switched chips from Power PC to Intel. I find it hard to see how they'd license x86, but who knows, they do have ridiculous amounts of money piled up...
- ChrisLTD 9y ago
  ... and unfortunately they aren’t likely to spend it on the Mac given the size of the market. Makes me sad.
- slezyr 9y ago
  I think it's easier for them to turn iPad + iOS into laptop that make a x86 processor.

bogomipz 9y ago

>"So I guess this means that we'll have to wait an additional year for the MacBook Pro that finally smashes through this archaic limit of 16 gigabytes of memory." Can you elaborate? What are the details of the current chips that limits Macbooks to 16 Gigs? Is it power consumption?

masklinn 9y ago
16GB is the limit on LPDDR3 (not sure whether it's spec or Intel's implementation), so you can pick either battery life and 16GB with LPDDR3 or 32+ at the cost of battery life (and a mainboard redesign) with desktop-class DDR4.
- dsp1234 9y ago
  Micron makes, at least, 32GB LPDDR3 modules. https://www.micron.com/products/dram/lpdram/32Gb#/technology%5B%5D=LPDDR3 https://www.micron.com/products/dram/lpdram/32Gb#/technology...
  - dijit 9y ago
    But the CPU can't support the "LP-ness" of it.
  - wyldfire 9y ago
    Those are individual 32 Gb (gigabit) ICs for use on memory modules (which contain an array of such ICs).
  - snuxoll 9y ago
    Gb != GB, those are 4GB full-width (x64) modules, making them 512MB per x8 chip, half the size of what Apple already uses in the MBP line's fully maxed out configuration.
- rbanffy 9y ago
  Why not multiple channels?

masklinn 9y ago

What I can't help but wonder is: is the 16GB LPDDR3 limit one of spec or implementation? And will an eventual support for LPDDR4 simply bump the hard limit up to 32GB?

jarym 9y ago

The other option Apple might consider by then is keep RAM at 8/16Gb but offer an Optane module in addition? Dunno if that'll be viable but it might be a better option.

RivieraKid 9y ago

What do you need more than 16GB for? Until less then a year ago, I used to have a 4 GB RAM (+ 4GB SSD swap) laptop, used it for everything, including software development (Android mostly). Even ran virtual machines occasionally. It wasn't that horrible. Now I have a MacBook Pro with 16GB and this amount seems more than comfortable.

milesokeefe 9y ago
Right now on my MPB I'm sitting at 14.68GB used with another 3.73GB in swap. Between Chrome, electron-based desktop apps, and Docker containers it's easy to hit that limit. This is just full stack web dev too, nothing rendering related.
kakarot 9y ago
Video and image processing/editing, for starters. Working with large datasets. Running several vms with reasonable memory allocation. Running local DBs. High-end / VR gaming. Etc. I do all of these things daily for both work and pleasure and with 16GB RAM I have run into countless headaches. Personally I don't use a Mac and could upgrade at any time but I'm waiting out of principle because DDR4 RAM is still seeing exorbitant prices from the shortage.

pasbesoin 9y ago

With the reported performance of the A11 in the new iPhones, my speculation remains that Apple may well be moving to an in-house MacBook (Pro, and whatever) CPU/GPU system. I don't know what that would mean with respect to system memory. IIRC, I read that the iPhone 8 comes with 2 GB of RAM. But, its predecessor, the 7, doesn't seem to be lacking, despite this.