What I’m saying is that the older models (like the 2016 MacBook Pro Touch Bar) didn’t throttle very much and were thermally acceptable. Fast forward to Intel’s newer chips in 2018-2019 and the same chassis was much more limiting to the newer processor SKUs.
> Apple's 2016 MacBook Pro chassis was designed at the latest, in early 2016. We got the first glimpse of it in a photograph in May of 2016. It looks like Apple is sticking with a four-year chassis design, so it's entirely possible that this is the last year of this enclosure.
> We aren't expecting a thicker machine.
> We've also said this before — we think Apple got hosed by Intel, when they were gearing up for the 2016 MacBook Pro enclosure in 2015. We know that in 2015, Intel was promising delivery of 10nm process Core chips well before now. With any luck, Intel will finally deliver on its promises for a die-shrink that was expected nearly three years ago which will help alleviate the situation further. Or, maybe the next will be ARM-based — we don't know.
Apple’s stop-gap 16” model would prove to be thicker, and the article correctly hinted at a future ARM system.
This quote is important context because Intel had been promising lithography advancements that were delayed.
In 2016 Apple designed a chassis that they wanted to keep around for the next several years, but Intel basically didn’t deliver on their stated roadmap. There was no way to update the system without pushing the thermal solution to its limits or partially redesigning the thing.
As far as thermal performance on 2015 systems (pre-USB-C), those designs are so old that I don’t think replacing Intel was on Apple’s near-term radar.
Here’s an article: https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/05/26/tested-thermal-th...
> Apple's 2016 MacBook Pro chassis was designed at the latest, in early 2016. We got the first glimpse of it in a photograph in May of 2016. It looks like Apple is sticking with a four-year chassis design, so it's entirely possible that this is the last year of this enclosure.
> We aren't expecting a thicker machine.
> We've also said this before — we think Apple got hosed by Intel, when they were gearing up for the 2016 MacBook Pro enclosure in 2015. We know that in 2015, Intel was promising delivery of 10nm process Core chips well before now. With any luck, Intel will finally deliver on its promises for a die-shrink that was expected nearly three years ago which will help alleviate the situation further. Or, maybe the next will be ARM-based — we don't know.
Apple’s stop-gap 16” model would prove to be thicker, and the article correctly hinted at a future ARM system.
This quote is important context because Intel had been promising lithography advancements that were delayed.
In 2016 Apple designed a chassis that they wanted to keep around for the next several years, but Intel basically didn’t deliver on their stated roadmap. There was no way to update the system without pushing the thermal solution to its limits or partially redesigning the thing.
As far as thermal performance on 2015 systems (pre-USB-C), those designs are so old that I don’t think replacing Intel was on Apple’s near-term radar.