I was considering ordering the 14-inch MacBook Pro but remembered reading that it can overheat and throttle more quickly than the 16-inch model, especially when handling multiple files or encoding tasks, likely due to its smaller form factor. Can anyone confirm if this is accurate? I think the 14-inch is a great option, but I’m debating if the 16-inch might be better for performance, though it does seem a bit bulky for travel. Any insights?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
14 inch vs 16 inch which is more ideal?
- Thread starter Crazytile
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Depends how heavy your workflow is. If you are really pushing the limit of either the Mx Pro or Mx Max chip itself, then yes the 14” will likely throttle a bit more than the 16”, simply due to the physically smaller fans and cooling system. In normal use (likely even moderate use), you’ll likely not notice any difference.
I personally prefer 14” due to the smaller size; the 16” feel like a brick (although the screen is really immersive). I don’t think the 16” will fit comfortably (or at all) on a plane tray table if that sort of portability matters at all to you.
I personally prefer 14” due to the smaller size; the 16” feel like a brick (although the screen is really immersive). I don’t think the 16” will fit comfortably (or at all) on a plane tray table if that sort of portability matters at all to you.
I have yet to encounter any throttling with my 14" MBP (M2 Max), let alone any concerns with overheating. I use the machine for everything from photo and video editing to website design, coding, and even gaming when I have the downtime. The 14" is a good size for traveling, and it does fit more comfortably on a plane.
Could you give a bit more info on what you plan to use the computer for OP? 
If you're looking at the new M4 chips and don't need the machine urgently, I would definitely wait till next week when we'll find out more about the thermal properties of the Pro/Max chips - there's a few more performance cores on the Pro chip this year, but also the M4 line seems more efficient than M3 in general... best to wait for reviews and hands on.
Talking in general, I think it's more important to choose the size you want rather than choosing something sub-optimal that might give slightly less throttling. Looking at the last 3 generations of chips, the Pro chip will be absolutely fine in the 14" - the M3 Max in my 16" (unbinned) does get toasty with sustained workloads, to the point where even in the 16" chassis there is some light throttling, so presumably the 14" would have more throttling. If I wasn't looking at sensor charts and digging into the detail though, I would likely never have noticed the throttling in terms of actual performance. I think this is likely the case with the 14" as well, i.e. unless you're doing something time critical where every second matters, I don't think you'll notice the slight dip in performance when doing sustained tasks in the real world.
If you're looking at the new M4 chips and don't need the machine urgently, I would definitely wait till next week when we'll find out more about the thermal properties of the Pro/Max chips - there's a few more performance cores on the Pro chip this year, but also the M4 line seems more efficient than M3 in general... best to wait for reviews and hands on.
Talking in general, I think it's more important to choose the size you want rather than choosing something sub-optimal that might give slightly less throttling. Looking at the last 3 generations of chips, the Pro chip will be absolutely fine in the 14" - the M3 Max in my 16" (unbinned) does get toasty with sustained workloads, to the point where even in the 16" chassis there is some light throttling, so presumably the 14" would have more throttling. If I wasn't looking at sensor charts and digging into the detail though, I would likely never have noticed the throttling in terms of actual performance. I think this is likely the case with the 14" as well, i.e. unless you're doing something time critical where every second matters, I don't think you'll notice the slight dip in performance when doing sustained tasks in the real world.
The prices seem to be somewhat arbitrary. The differences in price between the 14" and 16" are small in the M4 Pros; but step up to the M4 Max, and the gap between 14 & 16 increases In my country, the gap between 14 & 16 was less than the gap in the USA. All very strange.
And the difference price in my country for the nano screen upgrade, is the same for the 16" as the smaller 14".
And the difference price in my country for the nano screen upgrade, is the same for the 16" as the smaller 14".
TDepends how heavy your workflow is. If you are really pushing the limit of either the Mx Pro or Mx Max chip itself, then yes the 14” will likely throttle a bit more than the 16”, simply due to the physically smaller fans and cooling system. In normal use (likely even moderate use), you’ll likely not notice any difference.Could you give a bit more info on what you plan to use the computer for OP?
If you're looking at the new M4 chips and don't need the machine urgently, I would definitely wait till next week when we'll find out more about the thermal properties of the Pro/Max chips - there's a few more performance cores on the Pro chip this year, but also the M4 line seems more efficient than M3 in general... best to wait for reviews and hands on.
Talking in general, I think it's more important to choose the size you want rather than choosing something sub-optimal that might give slightly less throttling. Looking at the last 3 generations of chips, the Pro chip will be absolutely fine in the 14" - the M3 Max in my 16" (unbinned) does get toasty with sustained workloads, to the point where even in the 16" chassis there is some light throttling, so presumably the 14" would have more throttling. If I wasn't looking at sensor charts and digging into the detail though, I would likely never have noticed the throttling in terms of actual performance. I think this is likely the case with the 14" as well, i.e. unless you're doing something time critical where every second matters, I don't think you'll notice the slight dip in performance when doing sustained tasks in the real world.
I was thinking of the 16 inch as well but over the years when travelling and others.. I notice at the airport or even anywhere I notice people struggle with that size of a laptop. I personally like big screen but think I can live with a 14 inch and I like my 13 inch lenovo over the years... yeah slow but I do not do major video editing or anything intensive like LLMs or others... just checking where to go, see photos, some videos, etc.. but I would also like the speed as well. LOL. Thanks everyone for replying
I have both 16" and 14" MacBook Pros, different Apple Silicon generations. The 16" is a pain to travel with, so it stays at home, despite the larger screen. The 14" is way easier to manage luggage-wise and on board planes, bicycles and trains. There is a difference also in compute power. The M4 Max with 16 cores is only available on the 16". The 14" can only have the M4 Max with 14 cores max. Two more P-cores. But both can have 128GB RAM.
I have the 2019 intel 16" - going to upgrade to the 14" M4. I traveled a bunch with the 16" over these 4 years and it's really hard to use on a plane in the poors section. Also just a bit big in the bag and everywhere. I do like the large screen though.
I think after I have the 14" for some years, I will upgrade to the 16" after it just to change it up again.
I think after I have the 14" for some years, I will upgrade to the 16" after it just to change it up again.
The 14 inch m4 max also has the 16 core option on their website. It’s just not a stock configuration
Adding my experience. I’ve bounced between 16 and 13 or 14 for years. Currently 16 and going back to 14 because I travel frequenctly and the 16 is just about too big and heavy.
Which makes me wonder if it doesnt have ideal performance in 14 which is why its not a stock configuration.
Performance for most things on the 14" is fine (more than fine, it's great). I've been happy with my 14" M1 Pro and am going for a 14" M4 Max (mostly for better GPU and more RAM).
I did a bunch of travel with an older 15" machine and it isn't just the carry weight, they're physically larger and more unwieldy to use in small spaces when traveling. It doesn't seem like a huge difference when you're just holding the machine, but they just don't fit in a lot of laptop bags, backpacks, tray tables on aircraft, etc.
Unless you really truly are pushing for every single ounce of performance AND are mostly desk bound... the 16" is maybe going to annoy you. The step up in cost is also significant.
If bulk for travel is in any way a concern - go for the 14". They still smoke basically anything else out there in PC land by a heap and are still some of the fastest Macs you can buy and it isn't even close.
Last edited:
Because apple try and pick a couple of different spec at different price points to suit different demographics.
They only have a few choices for each machine, and that's what they chose based on price/performance and expected customer.
Yes, it will be faster in a 16" machine due to better cooling, but so will any other of the chips. Due to the better cooling.
Well you could be right because the 14 also needs to offer some M4 base stock config options. But its notable that for a 16 there are both maxs available as stock configs. So much so that i've seen multiple people misreport that the non-binned wasnt available on the 14.
Apple doesn't configure based on any cooling issues. And its possible to buy a 14" with 128 GB and 8 TB. Apple sells notebooks based on minimum specs for the machine, which will allow retailers to discount those base specification machines. So at Christmas etc discount places will offer discounts for M4 Maxs for instance - but those will only be with those base specifications.
If you need more than 48 GB RAM, you're going to have to pay for it now, and at full retail.
And as far as cooling goes - more RAM would often allow a macbook to run cooler, because there would be less virtualising via the drive. With Intel there were many methods of adding cooling to notebooks ... there don't seem to be many tricks needed for Macbook Pros. Obvioulsy the 16" will cool better ... but its likely the M4 runs cooler anyway. Perhaps the M4 14" runs more like a 16" M3?
If Apple was concerned by cooling issues, they'd offer higher RAM on only the binned 14". Because its lesser cores would run cooler. But they do not do they? In fact the binned 14" Max is the one Apple doesn't allow a proper RAM upgrade on ...
If having to use it frequently in small cramped spaces), the 14” will be your best bet.
If you’re traveling from place to place (home to office, using in a hotel room or on a desk, etc., go with the 16” as the extra screen realestate is wonderful.
The weight difference is not significant.
I have an MBP M2 Max 16” and love it. Also use a 14” 2010 MBP (original battery). Two days ago I took the 16” MBP and my 12.9” iPP. Both fit easily into the only computer bag I have - made for a 15” laptop. I have a full load of neurological problems, head to toe, require cane to walk, and I did not have any difficulties carrying, handling or using.
However, if your concern is throttling and heat, I think the advice from the 14” users in this thread is good direction.
If you’re traveling from place to place (home to office, using in a hotel room or on a desk, etc., go with the 16” as the extra screen realestate is wonderful.
The weight difference is not significant.
I have an MBP M2 Max 16” and love it. Also use a 14” 2010 MBP (original battery). Two days ago I took the 16” MBP and my 12.9” iPP. Both fit easily into the only computer bag I have - made for a 15” laptop. I have a full load of neurological problems, head to toe, require cane to walk, and I did not have any difficulties carrying, handling or using.
However, if your concern is throttling and heat, I think the advice from the 14” users in this thread is good direction.
In Australia, the 14"Max with 64 GB RAM, is a lot cheaper than the 16". Without the nano, its $Au6,800 compared to the same cores and 64 GB RAM 14" Max at $Au6,050. $Au750 more. Twelve and a half percent extra or one eighth extra.
But it gets worse. With the Pro CPUs, a 14" Pro with 1 TB and 48 GB RAM, costs $Au4,600. One should be able to add $750 to get a 16" then for $5,350 ... but no ... the price for a 16" 1 TB 48 GB RAM with the same M4 Pro is $Au 4,900 - an increase of $300. So Apple stings on for getting the Max processor in a 16".
I am thinking of changing my order from a 2TB/48 Pro 16" Pro cost of $5,500 (although I also got the Nano option) to a 14" Max 1TB/64GB at a cost increase of $550.
I had intended to get a binned CPU and increase the RAM. But Apple have only allowed over 48 GB RAM on the full Max (non binned) chip.
But it gets worse. With the Pro CPUs, a 14" Pro with 1 TB and 48 GB RAM, costs $Au4,600. One should be able to add $750 to get a 16" then for $5,350 ... but no ... the price for a 16" 1 TB 48 GB RAM with the same M4 Pro is $Au 4,900 - an increase of $300. So Apple stings on for getting the Max processor in a 16".
I am thinking of changing my order from a 2TB/48 Pro 16" Pro cost of $5,500 (although I also got the Nano option) to a 14" Max 1TB/64GB at a cost increase of $550.
I had intended to get a binned CPU and increase the RAM. But Apple have only allowed over 48 GB RAM on the full Max (non binned) chip.
If you run multitasking a lot (and split windows for each of them) then go with 16”. Also if you rarely bring the macbook outside then go with 16” as well.
Loose a Thunderbolt port and put in an adapter which includes an ethernet port. 10GbE is the same speed as Thunderbolt 1 was. For a desktop such devices won't even be lost in a bag or left somewhere ...