MacBooks 2017

Not gonna lie, if they put in newer CPUs and cut off $200 for the Macbook Pro, I'd buy one.

>>57333450
>Not gonna lie, if they put in newer CPUs and cut off $200 for the Macbook Pro, I'd buy one.
Cupertino says you're at the top of their priority prospects list.
Congratulations!

File: 97pc7s9n.jpg (355KB, 1723x972px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 1723x972px

>>57333431
bullshit.
we have a leaked Intel roadmap, which beats any unfounded speculations.
there are no suitable new 2+3e Intel U-series CPUs till Q2'18 for the 13".
there are no suitable new 4+4e Intel H-series on the horizion at all for 15"

>>57333450
Intel really sucks and the rest doesn't even notice till Apple tries to push the envelope.

>>57333431
What the fug they just released one what's this for

>>57333529
exactly that analyst makes zero sense, the any suitable CPU would be 2+2 CNL-U 15W.
that's only somewhat suitable for the MacBook Escape that currently uses a 2+3e SKL-U 15W. Apple will unlikely want to lose 50% igpu for like 5% more IPC.

let's quote him:
>>the new MacBook to be launched in 2H17 may support 32GB DRAM, eventually attracting more core users; this depends on whether or not Intel ships Cannonlake CPU on time in 2017, which features 15-25% less power consumption of LPDDR 4, versus the existing LPDDR 3.
so only MacBook Escape could use LPDDR4, which would allow 32GiB RAM.
that clearly won't happen as it makes zero sense for Apple to offer more RAM only for the slow MacBook Escape and not for the real MacBook Pros in 13" and 15".
>If Cannonlake doesn't enter mass production as expected, the new models launched in 2H17 will adopt Coffee Lake, which continues to adopt LPDDR 3, and maximum DRAM support will also remain unchanged at 16GB.
Exactly, Intel only plans to offer LPDDR4 for low-power CPUs that aren't suited for the MacBook Pro.

>>57333644
so to offer 32GiB RAM Apple would need to bite the bullet and use normal DDR4.
that will like eat ~30% idle battery life and there's no way they could compensate for that except a bigger battery, which would need a new chassis.
sounds very unlikely.

>mac
Wrong board, you were looking for >>>/fa/ or >>>/lgbt/

>>57333431
>>57333450
I wouldn't mind a version of the macbook pro with core M that's designed to be more of a "macbook air successor" for $1000. I would love to get 15 hour battery life from a Core M.

>>57333529
>there are no suitable new 4+4e Intel H-series on the horizion at all for 15"
since 15" MBP now always has an dGPU, they might be able to drop the Iris requirement and go to GT2. will cost battery obv.

>>57333724
won't happen.
that's basically a MacBook with a bigger battery for less.
MacBook might hit the $1k price-point sometime and then they can stop selling the old mba.

File: 453534.jpg (89KB, 1326x602px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1326x602px

>>57333431

>>57333431
I wonder if it will survive 7-8 years daily usage without any problem.

>>57335194
The battery will probably not last that long, other than that it's fine.

>>57333724
I was really holding out for an upgraded air. Not massively so, just like you say a core M processor, reduced screen bezel and increased resolution to something equivalent to 1080p. Those machines are so great and for me exemplify the good aspects of apples philsopophy.

And they've killed the line completely.

>>57335741
Just get a standard Mac

I've heard from an insider that next years MBPs will use AMD cpus

I live near the cemetery Steve is buried in and there's an earthquake because he's rolling so much in his grave rn desu.

File: 1464586237429.jpg (110KB, 1632x1224px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 1632x1224px

>>57336891
Steve Jobs was all about fucking the customer. He'd be proud.

>>57336832
Thatd be absolutely hilarious, especially since we'll have Appletards paying premium price for AyyMD curryshit yet still bitch at MS for using a last gen Nvidia in the Surface.

>>57337442
I can tell a lot about you from this post.

>>57336832
I hope so.
Here is why:
AMD is still lagging behind Intel by a lot and it needs to invest more into research

Macfags would pay for overpriced shitty AMD CPUs, and AMD could finance new processors that I'll get when they get better
Macfags would then be stuck on the old shit for years, like they currently are with Intel's old shit

>>57333431
>New MacBooks Said to Launch in 2017
No fucking shit sherlock, every year there is a refresh