Which way is up?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boyzeee
|
Yeah, that's the problem. They don't clarify what "high end" even means or what they're referring to. It's poorly written, and that may be due to a lack of information from the "leaker". Or it may just be the typical pile of desperate reaching.
No idea. I don't see Apple's processors ever costing more than Intel's, so I suspect the price increases would be in relation to the M1, which should be obvious. If the M1X (or M2X) isn't more expensive, then it would be the shocker of the century. - AppleNova is the best Mac-users forum on the internet. We are smart, educated, capable, and helpful. We are also loaded with smart-alecks! :) - Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Mat 5:9) |
quote |
Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
Yeah. I think these models are going to drop right into the existing $1,799 and $1,999 slots (the 14" I'm talking about). I barely even know about/acknowledge the 16", but it's up in the $2,000's somewhere.
They didn't change the prices on anything else - Mac mini, MacBook Air, iMac and those lower-end MacBook Pros - when they transitioned to the M1 so even if the M1x (I wish they'd give the name already so I'd know what to type in these scenarios) is more expensive than the M1 (I assume it would be...more cores, more power, cooler hair, etc.), those higher-end MacBook Pros are already starting at $1,800 anyway, and I just think they will continue to do so. The lineup is such a confusing, jumbled mess, it's even hard to talk about/assess rumors because nobody knows which "13-inch Pro", etc. is being talked about. This might be a cool, interesting rumor if anyone knew what the hell they were writing about (or reading). |
quote |
Which way is up?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boyzeee
|
|
quote |
‽
|
Quote:
Phil Schiller even introduced that model with some off-hand remark of "we think some people might consider this the new Air" or something. OK, then why call it the 13-inch Pro? And why introduce it in addition to a different 13-inch Pro? They've at least made those two models a bit more alike after a few years, but… I just can't imagine anyone at Apple marketing thinking, "yeah, it totally makes sense that we have two models with different logic boards". And the answer is right there! Like, imagine if there were an iPhone 12, and another iPhone 12 that's pricier, has different internals and also offers a better camera system. There isn't, because they've simply called one the "Pro" and the other not. |
|
quote |
Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
I think they have needlessly clouded the waters and confused some folks over the years, no doubt.
In the pre-M1 days I had several people ask me why one 13” MacBook Pro was $1,299 and the other $1,799. I’d say, well the $1,299 model has a slower processor, fewer ports, half the base RAM and storage and… “Then why is it called ‘MacBook Pro’? It looks the same but isn’t it more like a bulkier MacBook Air?” Why, yes. It is. Simply removing the word “Pro” from those $1,299 and $1,499 models - just MacBook - would’ve simplified/streamlined things quite a bit. They could, and should, have done this some time ago. Then I wouldn’t have to have the above exchanges and try to explain something silly. “…but why is one 13” ‘Pro’ $500 less than the other, with literally half the specs/ports? WTF is ‘pro’ about that?!” I know, I know. Don’t fuss at me…I didn’t set it up that way! Now that the M1 is here, it’s even more so. Two different architectures, still $500 apart. We know that $1,299 model, for most users, is probably a better option, but will regular, casual buyers look at that pricing difference and assume, at $500 less, the M1 is an inferior, lesser version of the Intel-based 13” MacBook Pro (it certainly isn’t, but could you blame folks who don’t hang out at places like this for not knowing that? “Well I’ve heard of Intel, so I should probably spend the $1,799 to get the good one!” That’s how many would approach it. I know this for a fact based on some conversations with friends and family in recent months. If you looked at a website and saw two things called the same, but one is $500 cheaper, what would you think? Either a) it’s a less-than version or b) maybe they should name this stuff in a way that doesn’t put both on an equal perch? There’s a reason there’s a $500 difference… They could’ve addressed a lot of this last November and didn’t. Now that we know those higher-end models are about to transition to AS, we’ll see how they go about it on this go-around. I know what I’d like to see, but who knows… Just take the damn word “Pro” off those two lower-end models if you’re going to keep them around. Otherwise in two months they’re gonna have two smaller pro notebooks, with two different designs, display sizes (13” vs 14”), processors (M1 vs. M1x or whatever), stock RAM/SSD, etc. It’ll be even more idiotic and jumbled than it is now. I just don’t know why they’re so hell-bent on calling those two lower-end 13” models MacBook Pro. That is the crux of all this. It’s like their egos or marketing concerns won’t let them just call it “Macbook”, even if doing so instantly simplified everything and made the notebook lineup 10x easier to figure out/shop for. “I get it…that 13” M1 MacBook is the midpoint between the $999 Air and that new $1,799 14” Pro…it even looks different than the other two. It’s really the default model, huh? I can go cheaper/thinner/lighter with no fan, or I can step up to the Pro with the all-new design and next-gen guts. But this $1,299 MacBook is perfect for my needs.” - the majority of buyers Last edited by psmith2.0 : 2021-08-25 at 08:22. |
quote |
‽
|
Quote:
If that's why, that's frankly dumb. It's like if the original $1299 iMac came with thirty asterisks, like lacking Ethernet and a modem, and coming with just one USB port, and if you want Ethernet, a modem and USB, it starts at $1799. The $1299 MacBook Pro should be a compelling default of a "pro" Apple laptop, and it's not. |
|
quote |
‽
|
Quote:
Yeah, you can upgrade those (say, to add cellular on the Apple Watch SE), and some of those surcharges are a bit much (changing the wrist size shouldn't cost extra at all, and $129 for cellular on an iPad or $200??? on an iPad Pro is a lot), but as someone who has an Apple Watch SE, it doesn't feel like "well, it's not realllly an Apple Watch". The $1299 MacBook Pro feels "well, it's not reallllly 'Pro' until you add another $500" to me. |
|
quote |
Which way is up?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boyzeee
|
|
quote |
Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
Yeah, we’re just in a weird in-between period.. Hopefully in another month or two the entire notebook lineup is AS-based and they’ll address some of these things. They don’t have to do a thing to that $1,299 and $1.499 model except make new faceplates and packaging that just says “MacBook”. Every other feature/spec stays the same. Boom…easy!
But they won't. Last edited by psmith2.0 : 2021-08-25 at 16:11. |
quote |
Sneaky Punk
|
To a point. The Air and 13”MBP don’t have the GPU power of the current high end Intel based machines. There are still tasks that benefit from GPU more than CPU, like video rendering and other heavy compute based jobs.
|
quote |
Sneaky Punk
|
Think back less than a year to the iMac Pro, which other than the top models was not as fast as a the normal iMacs that cost half as much. Same limbo that exist with the MBP right now. Similar things happened during the transition from PPC to Intel, it just happened way faster.
|
quote |
Which way is up?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boyzeee
|
True. But I was referring to the 13" model, which was the context.
|
quote |
‽
|
Quote:
|
|
quote |
Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
Okay, here's something I've wanted to do for a while, to clearly show what the differences are, at a glance, on the 13" MacBook Pro front (both Intel and M1).
I did not include/factor in where the two models below were the exact same (screen size, resolution, nits, audio, wireless, etc.). Using that "compare" tool at Apple's site I only show below where things differ between the two models being compared. And then I colored green the "better" one. On this first graphic, comparing the discontinued $1,299 Intel-based 13" MacBook Pro, it only "beats" the higher-end $1,799 model in pricing and battery (barely enough to point out). Look at all that green over on the $1,799 side! Everything else is better. $500 worth of "better"? That's up to the buyer. But it's interesting that the RAM, storage and port count is literally twice that - both stock and max - than the $1,299 model. Taking all that together, why in the hell is the $1,299 called "pro" when it's really not in the same league in any serious way? A fine machine, I'm sure, but it looks weird to be called "pro" when you put the stuff side-by-side like this, huh? It's a MacBook. So that's the Intel vs. Intel 13" MacBook Pro face-off. All other specs/features are exactly the same, only the differences between the two are shown above, and the $1,799 model "wins" if you're after a compact "pro" notebook. Now here's where things get interesting... Comparing the $1,299 13" M1-based MacBook Pro to the same $1,799 Intel one above, all that green suddenly shifts over to the left column...in every area except the RAM and storage specs (both stock and max). You'll notice that I left two categories - Graphics and Ports - both black because I didn't know what to do with them...I wasn't really sure which was "best" (some of you here may, I just don't know enough about the M1 graphics compared to the Intel Iris Plus, or the Thunderbolt / USB 4 vs. the Thunderbolt 3 (USB-C). If someone declares a "winner" (and everyone here agrees), I'll recolor them accordingly and update the graphic...and then it'll really be lopsided in the M1's favor! This isn't out to "prove" anything, necessarily. It's just a quick, nice way to see how things stack up and how the low-end M1 looks really good against the higher-end Intel 13" (but also how much that higher-end model trounced the discontinued $1,299 Intel model in nearly every way). Anyway, here's the M1 13" MacBook Pro ($1,299) vs. the Intel-based 13" MacBook Pro ($1,799)... PS - I realize some of the above may be subjective (the M1 processor vs. the Intel stuff, depending on what the user needs, etc.). But just going by the general reviews of how the M1 really performs, and at cooler temps and with longer battery life, I thought I should color that green. To me, it's "better". YMMV. If folks wanna chime in about the Graphics and Ports situation, please do. I'll color one of them green if needed, to help paint a more complete picture. |
quote |
Which way is up?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boyzeee
|
Apple's Unified Memory is performing better and with higher efficiency, and tests have shown that M1 Macs can accomplish more with less. So, RAM is less important. Storage capacity is meh. So, the two advantages you give the Intel models aren't really advantages, especially when you consider the cost of that 4TB upgrade.
As far as GPU is concerned (you have that blank for the M1, where you could populate it with the M1 8-core GPU), the M1's 8-core is on par with the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M in the 16", which is a fair bit faster than the integrated Intel thing in the 13". - AppleNova is the best Mac-users forum on the internet. We are smart, educated, capable, and helpful. We are also loaded with smart-alecks! :) - Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Mat 5:9) |
quote |
Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
I was just copying/pulling from that Apple comparison chart. They rolled the graphics into the general M1 talk which I copied above. What would I call it on the M1 side? Just put the "8-core GPU" there, head-to-head with the Intel Iris Plus?
I still think higher stock RAM (and the ability to BTO to more, both at double that available on the M1) earns it green. For some, storage is key (I’d never use 4TB, or even 2TB, but someone would and it’s available for a reason). 16 is more than 8, 32 is more than 16, 512 is more than 256, etc. The Intel model offers/provides for more...it wins. Nobody would ever say less RAM/storage capacity is preferable or "wins". I assume the 14" will offer the same RAM numbers, stock and max. Any thoughts on the ports section? Last edited by psmith2.0 : 2021-08-25 at 19:13. |
quote |
Sneaky Punk
|
Nonsense, they are just hitting the newer faster SSD's for virtual memory use, so the slow downs are less notable. RAM use didn't change one bit. All the tests I've seen bare this out.
|
quote |
Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
In 2021 - and beyond - I'd never consider anything less than 16GB. In fact, I'd probably never consider anything more than 16GB either (that could change down the road if/when 32GB ever became an affordable ~$200 upgrade), But as someone who spent 11+ years with 3GB RAM (2008-2019 ) and then the past 18 or so months with 8GB, 16GB would be a treat.
|
quote |
‽
|
I think Apple has overstated the unified memory benefits a fair bit.
(Which is also odd, as they’re gonna have to contradict themselves soon enough anyway.) |
quote |
Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
So are we all on the same page that one of the things these new 14"/16" models will feature is matching (if not surpassing) the RAM ceilings of the current Intel models (32GB for the smaller one, 64GB for the 16")?
That's surely part of the M1x/whatever-it'll-be-called, right? No way, after all this time, these new, redesigned models max out at 16GB, going "backwards" on that front from the Intel. One of the features/capabilities of the next-gen AS that we've been waiting on for this stuff is the higher-than-16GB max RAM? Do you think it'll match the current offerings, or will the new 14" also be able to reach 64GB RAM for those who'd want to pay for it? What reason/limitations currently keep the 13" Intel MacBook Pro limited to 32GB, while the 16" can go up to 64GB? Are those legit, technical-based reasons, or arbitrary marketing ones ("we don't want to make that 13" too attractive...gotta give folks a reason to step up to the 16"). At the very least, the 14" will come with 16GB (and top out at 32GB), wouldn't you think? And the 16" model would be 16/64 max, as it is currently? Would be cool to see that 14" have the ability to go to 64GB RAM too. In fact, that story the other day said, for the first time ever, that performance between the two sizes is expected to be identical and that screen-size is really the only deciding factor in buying. If that's true, that kinda implies the same set of "guts" is going in both? And if those guts support 64GB RAM, then... Interesting stuff, realizing just how much of a powerhouse that upcoming 14" may actually be. That would be impressive to see the smaller pro notebook no longer held back or hobbled next to its larger counterpart. If that's the case, I think the 14" model will be the one they can't make enough of. They'll absolutely fly off the shelves if people can get that much power/performance in such a compact, mobile-friendly package. Last edited by psmith2.0 : 2021-08-26 at 09:55. |
quote |
‽
|
Quote:
So my guess/hope is: yes, same ceiling as before, or perhaps even higher (maybe both models now go to 64). But unlike with the M1, not on the same package, but rather as one or two separate chips, just like on Intel Macs. Quote:
The 16-inch uses an "H" CPU, which typically burns 45 Watts, and which Intel supports with 64 GB. The 13-inch uses "U" CPUs, which typically burn 15 (for the weird low-end 13) or 28 (for the $1799 one) Watts, and Intel only supports 32 for those. Basically, Intel is saying "if you want that much RAM, you might as well go with a higher-performing CPU along with it", which makes sense to me. But then Apple is saying "yeah, but then we'd have to make the 13-inch a lot fatter, to make up for the lost horizontal pace", which is what they did do back in the aluminum PowerBook G4 era (the 12-inch was much thicker especially than the 17-inch) but apparently don't want to do any more. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The same question comes up for the GPU: right now, the 14-inch (13-inch) has an integrated GPU, and the 16-inch has both an integrated and a discrete GPU, and on the one hand, that's powerful, but on the other hand, that's kind of not great. (Switching GPUs is a source of bugs, using the discrete GPU burns more energy, and so on.) If the two do move more closely together, my personal hope is that the $1999 16-inch makes a return, with only the integrated GPU, and the $2399 price point is for those who really need the power of an AMD GPU. (And then, a few years down the road, Apple either decide nobody cares about that, and/or their own integrated GPU becomes powerful enough.) Quote:
|
||||||
quote |
Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
Interesting. Thanks for the info (heat, etc.). Yeah, smaller body - and them refusing to go one mm thicker - does paint them into some corners. But maybe this AS stuff - running cooler and all - changes that, so things that weren't possible before, with Intel, are now? Mind you, I'm not calling for/demanding that the 14" go to 64GB RAM, just that it would be cool/surprising if it did. 32GB is 2x more than I could ever imagine/dream of, but if getting 64GB requires stepping up to a larger screen, then sure.
32GB RAM is still a lot (but it's pricey too, And Apple ain't ever gonna make it not so). I don't know enough about this side of things to really know. I just kinda blindly hope/wish for stuff. PS - It would indeed be nice to see at ~$2,000 16" model, however they managed to do so (integrated graphics only, etc.). That would probably be a strong seller too. Off-topic (click to toggle):
|
|
quote |
Which way is up?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boyzeee
|
We (the shop) learned the same lesson at roughly the same time. People were getting themselves convinced that they needed these >$2000 laptops because, well, someone said so! We began to realize that people were spending a lot of money for a small-screen lapdesktop when they should have just been buying an iMac.
- AppleNova is the best Mac-users forum on the internet. We are smart, educated, capable, and helpful. We are also loaded with smart-alecks! :) - Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Mat 5:9) |
quote |
Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
Yeah. I've always been more of a desktop guy (iMac, to be specific). Plan to be so again, as soon as I can. Knowing those 16/256 refurb 24" models are available for $1,439 helped. I see a silver one with my name on it. Oddly, orange and purple are the only two colors I've yet to see pop up in the refurbs. Tons of silver, blue, green and pink. And I finally saw a yellow yesterday.
UPDATE: Just saw my first purple refurb 24" M1 iMac. That means orange is the only one that's not made it yet, and...well what do you expect?! It's the best color of them all and nobody is returning them. Of course there are no orange refurbs! Why would there ever be?! Everyone who got one is a buyer of immaculate, distinguished tastes and knows they selected the color to have. I'm not surprised one bit that there are no orange refurbs available. And there probably never will be. There will be 27 orange ones available this evening... Last edited by psmith2.0 : 2021-08-26 at 14:27. |
quote |
Which way is up?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boyzeee
|
I've been in front of yellow for a few months, now, and I love it!
It's very warm and summery, and about as unobtrusive a color as I've ever experienced on a computer. - AppleNova is the best Mac-users forum on the internet. We are smart, educated, capable, and helpful. We are also loaded with smart-alecks! :) - Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Mat 5:9) |
quote |
Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
I think all those colors look great, in their own way. I don't hate any of them. But I also know how I am, and I don't think I'd want to own one, long term, and see it every day (I liked colors better on curvy, see-through plastic...and they don't do that anymore, so...). But I've never regretted getting anything - Mac, phone, car, etc. - in silver/light grey.
No matter how much my moods/tastes might shift over time, I've never woken up to silver objects/vehicles in my life and have gone "oh, shit...what was I thinking?!" |
quote |
‽
|
Quote:
1) What you said. They'll say "you know what, whatever CPU we were gonna put in the 14-inch is also plenty good and then some for the 16-inch". But that is, of course, a compromise for the 16-inch — it could have even more power. 2) They'll do it just like on Intel: the thickness between 14 and 16 is roughly the same, so the 16 has significantly more volume, and therefore gets to have higher specs, and and it imply isn't commented on — because it has been that way for over a decade. 3) They'll go back to the aluminum PowerBook-era way and simply make the 14-inch a little thicker so the internal volume is closer to the 16-inch's, allowing both to be very beefy. Seems like in the latter Ive era, they really didn't want to do that, but maybe now they will. (I don't find this very likely. We haven't seen any rumors to the effect either, I think.) Quote:
|
||
quote |
Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
I kinda agree with #1 above. To have the performance between the new pro models "match" for the first time ever, and since this M1 stuff seems to be, by all accounts, quite speedy, cool-running, battery-friendly, etc., I could see them doing something like that and possibly opting to make the 16" slightly "less than all it could be", and simply not talking about it in any presentation or marketing, so as not to wake up the spec whores.
If it were just another round of Intel bumps, I'd expect things to stay as they are. But there's so much unknown here, that it opens up all kinds of possibilities or routes for them to go, should they choose. "Hey, both pro models perform the same, for the first time ever...and by 'same', we mean 'faster than shit on a drag strip', more than you've ever seen in a Mac portable, by far. So shut up already. We've done it the other way for about two decades...it's time the smaller one sets the pace, as we've got power to spare at this point!" They'd have to do it in such a way that the performance was really "OMG!", so nobody would squawk that "yeah, but...but...the 16" could've been even more gooder!" It's all in the presentation and assuring, I guess. "This 'hobbled', as you call it, new 16" is still 8x faster than any MacBook Pro you've ever dreamed about owning in three lifetimes!" Or whatever it takes. Last edited by psmith2.0 : 2021-08-26 at 17:22. |
quote |
Which way is up?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boyzeee
|
The 16" could also have a much larger battery. So, its calling card would be 25% more battery life and better speakers.
Or maybe Apple has solved the dual SOC questions, and there will be an option for *2* M1X chipsets? - AppleNova is the best Mac-users forum on the internet. We are smart, educated, capable, and helpful. We are also loaded with smart-alecks! :) - Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Mat 5:9) |
quote |
Posting Rules | Navigation |
Page 10 of 12 First Previous 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 Next |
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
16-inch MacBook Pro | chucker | Apple Products | 24 | 2019-11-20 18:13 |
20 inch G5 Imac vs. 17 inch core duo? | bigbuckeye | Purchasing Advice | 1 | 2006-02-09 00:48 |
15-inch PowerBook | chucker | Purchasing Advice | 16 | 2005-10-20 14:23 |
Design 12 inch iB/PB | davidgilmour | Apple Products | 7 | 2005-09-05 22:35 |
500 mhz 17 inch Ti PB ? How much? | Darwin | Purchasing Advice | 10 | 2005-08-31 07:38 |