Can't Decide Between 14" and 16"

[HardBall]

Well, I’ve been using a 16” M3 at work for a while now and have the 14” at home.

The 16 is a brick, but no difference to my previous Intel 16” pro. The display is stunning though, with the 14” I often long for a bigger (or external) display; rarely so for the larger one.

Yeah, the 16" is much much heavier than I remember the 15 inch, although I haven't really used a 15 inch for a couple of years now, so my impression might be a little off.

The 14" M1 Max that I use today is basically perfect in terms of the blend of power and portability. And when I am back at home at a desk, I just plug it into two additional displays, and no issues with screen real-estate at all.

I think you can only justify the 16" if you for some reason cannot have an additional display at the desk. It is too heavy to lug around to use at conference, on a train, or at a coffee shop, and still not enough real-estate to truly work at a desk. Seems like the worst of both worlds.

 

[dropadrop]

I spend most of my days running around meetings without the ability to plug into an external display. My eyesight is not good and there really is a big difference between the 14” and 16” screens.

I think I’ve been switching between a smaller (I want portability) and bigger (I need screen estate) for over 20 years and this might be the first time I keep the same size over an upgrade.

I carry the laptop home every night and travel 5-6 times a year and feel the weight - especially having a 14” for personal use to always reference. Still no regrets, the 16 is the right one for me (or 15” air if it had hdmi).

 

[bradl]

Yeah, the 16" is much much heavier than I remember the 15 inch, although I haven't really used a 15 inch for a couple of years now, so my impression might be a little off.

The 14" M1 Max that I use today is basically perfect in terms of the blend of power and portability. And when I am back at home at a desk, I just plug it into two additional displays, and no issues with screen real-estate at all.

I think you can only justify the 16" if you for some reason cannot have an additional display at the desk. It is too heavy to lug around to use at conference, on a train, or at a coffee shop, and still not enough real-estate to truly work at a desk. Seems like the worst of both worlds.

I honestly can't say that. I currently have two 27" monitors mounted onto my desk. My Windows PC is below my desk. I have my 16" M1 Pro sitting open underneath one of those monitors, while the other is mounted above and to the left of my M1 Pro. Instead of using a KVM, I am going directly into those monitors; the one above and to the left is connected to my M1 Pro by HDMI, and then DisplayPort to my PC. The other monitor (the one directly above my M1 Pro) is also going to the PC via DisplayPort.

When traveling, I definitely am not using it on a flight, especially when sitting on a crowded flight anywhere; that is one of those times I can stay disconnected from tech and enjoy the scenery I am flying over, or just simply rest and listen to music. For a conference or any type of meeting, it actually is perfect for me. If I go naked (read: no case on it), it fits in the same backpack I have used for my mid-2011 13" MBA. But it definitely is portable, durable, and powerful enough to be both my daily driver at my desk as well as for any business I have out of town.

BL.

 

[DHagan4755]

My eyesight is not good and there really is a big difference between the 14” and 16” screens.

Not discounting the other points of your post, but others have written something similar (quoted above) and it doesn't make sense to me. Can someone explain why they find the larger model better for their eyes?

I believe both MacBook Pros have the same or very close pixels-per-inch, meaning if your eyes are struggling with the 14 it's not going to get better with the 16 since all of the elements on the screen (fonts, icons, etc) will be the same size on both just more screen space on the larger model obviously.

 

[PROFESS0R]

I have used the largest laptop Apple has offered ever since the 17” (which gave to my granddaughter who is still using it). I carry my 2019 i9 16” laptop to the university in a laptop backpack every day I work, and I will do the same with the new 16” M3 max I recently ordered. I do not find the weight to be burdensome, nor the size to be at all unwieldy except when I use it on a commercial flight and I am stuck in a center seat (something that rarely happens).

My i9 thermal throttles anytime (which is most of the time) I use my analyses program or drive multiple monitors. When I saw the YouTube video of the 14” M3 MacBook Pro throttling under the exact same conditions as a 16” MacBook Pro which was identically configured, I knew that there was no way I would even consider the 14”.

For the record, my 16” i9 did not throttle for the first couple of years, but throttling ramped up as I used more powerful programs and upgraded Mac OS X. After 5 years, it throttles so badly and the response latency is so long I can barely stand it. I now direct a 12” fan at the i9 to keep it from throttling.

Performance degradation over time is real if one updates to the latest software that pushes the performance envelope of the computer. Ideally, I would like my computers to be useful for 7 years, not 5 years.

I also realize that I am an outlier when it comes to typical use of these machines. I am confident that the 14” version of the MacBook Pro suffices for 90+% of the population of MacBook users in the US.

Joe

 

[ctjack]

For the record, my 16” i9 did not throttle for the first couple of years, but throttling ramped up as I used more powerful programs and upgraded Mac OS X. After 5 years, it throttles so badly and the response latency is so long I can barely stand it. I now direct a 12” fan at the i9 to keep it from throttling.

Performance degradation over time is real if one updates to the latest software that pushes the performance envelope of the computer. Ideally, I would like my computers to be useful for 7 years, not 5 years.

In hard use cases, I found barely any paste on the CPU after 2-3 years. I would definitely say that 5 years (2019 MBP 16) is due for a second repaste of CPU with the Arctic MX4.

Did that to my 2012 and it became snappier - because overheated CPU doesn't work well when there is no paste.

 

[maerz001]

Not discounting the other points of your post, but others have written something similar (quoted above) and it doesn't make sense to me. Can someone explain why they find the larger model better for their eyes?

I believe both MacBook Pros have the same or very close pixels-per-inch, meaning if your eyes are struggling with the 14 it's not going to get better with the 16 since all of the elements on the screen (fonts, icons, etc) will be the same size on both just more screen space on the larger model obviously.

Cos u can change the resolution and so get bigger font

 

[dtakias]

I have used the largest laptop Apple has offered ever since the 17” (which gave to my granddaughter who is still using it). I carry my 2019 i9 16” laptop to the university in a laptop backpack every day I work, and I will do the same with the new 16” M3 max I recently ordered. I do not find the weight to be burdensome, nor the size to be at all unwieldy except when I use it on a commercial flight and I am stuck in a center seat (something that rarely happens).

My i9 thermal throttles anytime (which is most of the time) I use my analyses program or drive multiple monitors. When I saw the YouTube video of the 14” M3 MacBook Pro throttling under the exact same conditions as a 16” MacBook Pro which was identically configured, I knew that there was no way I would even consider the 14”.

For the record, my 16” i9 did not throttle for the first couple of years, but throttling ramped up as I used more powerful programs and upgraded Mac OS X. After 5 years, it throttles so badly and the response latency is so long I can barely stand it. I now direct a 12” fan at the i9 to keep it from throttling.

Performance degradation over time is real if one updates to the latest software that pushes the performance envelope of the computer. Ideally, I would like my computers to be useful for 7 years, not 5 years.

I also realize that I am an outlier when it comes to typical use of these machines. I am confident that the 14” version of the MacBook Pro suffices for 90+% of the population of MacBook users in the US.

Joe

I would suggest to restore the macbook to a previous OS where the performance was acceptable and also take it to a store to reapply cpu thermal paste and remove any dust from inside.

 

[dropadrop]

Not discounting the other points of your post, but others have written something similar (quoted above) and it doesn't make sense to me. Can someone explain why they find the larger model better for their eyes?

I believe both MacBook Pros have the same or very close pixels-per-inch, meaning if your eyes are struggling with the 14 it's not going to get better with the 16 since all of the elements on the screen (fonts, icons, etc) will be the same size on both just more screen space on the larger model obviously.

Display resolution is pretty flexible, but to fit the ”same amount” of window content on a 14” I’d have to zoom out one step. This is fine for most things, untill it’s not, and then I zoom back.

On the 16” I don’t need to do that. I’ll have pretty much the same content on screen, but a bit bigger.

At home with the 14” this does not bother me. I use Logic where I need to fit a lot on screen, I just don’t have the other part (somebody screen sharing something so small I can barely see see it).