Exclusively buying base models seems to be the best course of action.

[avgvstvs]

I'm a freelance developer making the switch to Mac. What I'm getting at is that I spend 10 hours per day on my machine and use it to make money, I'm probably the epitome of what Apple is trying to market to with the 'pro' moniker. I had no idea if 16GB would even be enough, as I would use 32 gb on Windows and have heard that Macs' use RAM more efficiently than Windows, which I often hear Linux users say as well. That rang true whenever I booted into Linux, so why would the Mac users be lying about it?

Didn't want to wait a month for a custom build to ship so I just said screw it and bought a 16gb base model 16' pro and a 16' max. $1000 difference, would work on each for 13 days and return the one I thought was a poor choice. $1000 is $1000. But it's really more like ~$750 because I can write the full price off on my taxes and save some money there. Still, $750 is a decent chunk of change, I'm not some moron who just throws that money around like it's nothing, but I don't mind spending more on computers because I spend most of my waking moments on them.

I am seriously struggling to notice any significant differences in performance between the two at all. And my workflow as a developer isn't even that simple. I have node running, multiple docker containers, multiple tabs in multiple browsers when doing frontend (Chromium, Firefox, and now Safari as-well, because something always manages to look screwed up amongst them), slack, spotify, spacemacs, etc.

I've come to the conclusion that exclusively buying base models and upgrading every 1-2 years really is the best option on a dollars-per-performance basis. I have no idea what the computers will be like in 2 years, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if a base model m1 mac 2 years from now smoked the m1 maxes of today. Does anyone else agree with this assessment? I seriously have no idea why anyone would buy a fully-specced out m1 max unless they were trying to like edit 8k video or doing some wild machine learning stuff (which I admittedly don't really know much about, but assume most of the 'learning' portion doesn't even run on your local machine regardless?). Why would you spend $4k today and hang onto it for +4 years when you can spend $3k, sell it for $1.5k in two years, and buy a brand new computer at no overall differences in cost?

 

[TechRunner]

My use case is significantly less robust than yours (blogging/writing, news reading, music, YouTube, light photo editing) and I went this route awhile back, as I found that I typically, even with my light use, upgraded every three to four years to take advantage of newer technologies/designs. For what I use them for, base configuration Macs do the job well. For now, anyway. Looking to get back into video editing in the future, and more involved photo editing. I'll re-evaluate then.

 

[MajorFubar]

You're probably right, unless the base spec isn't good enough for you. I need a machine with at least 1TB of storage, so by the time I've spec'd a low-end laptop to have 1TB of storage , I may as well throw a bit more at a higher-end machine because the percentage difference in price is smaller.

 

[playtech1]

Apple's base laptops pretty much always represent the best value proposition and with M1 being a really good CPU in all its flavours and MacOS being a really good OS at managing RAM and staying snappy, the base models feel even better value these days.

 

[lambertjohn]

Unless the base model is the new MBP for $1999 and $2499...which is way too expensive in my opinion. The base M1 Air is the best value in my opinion, especially when you can get it on sale.

 

[Adarna]

~80% of use case buy the base model. That's why they're prominent on the website.

 

[deeddawg]

Buy whatever config meets your anticipated needs for the expected duration of ownership.

For a lot of people that'll be the base config, and for others it won't be.

 

[benwiggy]

Apple usually offer three stock configs of each model. I've always (for the last 20 years or so) gone for the middle option.

The low-end config is the one they use to advertise the price. "From $xxxx". Consequently, they've pared it to the bone.
The top-end one is the one they use to show off the specs. "Runs an infinite loop in 3 seconds!"
The middle one is, obviously, better than the cheapest, and not as expensive as the best.

so I just said screw it and bought a 16gb base model 16' pro and a 16' max.
I am seriously struggling to notice any significant differences in performance between the two at all.

The M1 Pro and the M1 Max have exactly the same 10-core CPU. The Max just has a better GPU, and can access 64 Gb of RAM.

I bought the middle 16" MBP (the only difference being the SSD size), but returned it and ordered one with 32Gb RAM. Just for 'comfort', given the scale of the purchase.

 

[wilberforce]

Apple usually offer three stock configs of each model. I've always (for the last 20 years or so) gone for the middle option.

The low-end config is the one they use to advertise the price. "From $xxxx". Consequently, they've pared it to the bone.
The top-end one is the one they use to show off the specs. "Runs an infinite loop in 3 seconds!"
The middle one is, obviously, better than the cheapest, and not as expensive as the best.



The M1 Pro and the M1 Max have exactly the same 10-core CPU. The Max just has a better GPU, and can access 64 Gb of RAM.

I bought the middle 16" MBP (the only difference being the SSD size), but returned it and ordered one with 32Gb RAM. Just for 'comfort', given the scale of the purchase.

I have felt this for almost all Macs, where the low spec option is a skimped bait price leader, and the middle option is the "sweet spot" for best value.
However, making generalizations like this is not always wise or true.
In this case, for these new MBPs, I think the sweet spot for best value is actually the base models. This does not mean that there is no benefit to any upgrades (there indeed is), but the base models are very very capable, and most of the upgrades are not cheap and add up quickly.

 

[clevins]

If you're looking at cost as $/day (vs the lump cost of the machine) then the formula would factor in initial purchase price, resale price at various intervals (1 year, 3 years etc) and account for the performance bump moving from the current machine to the new one.

Simple example - buy a machine for $2000. If you can sell it for $1000 at 3 years, then it's cost you about $0.91 per day. You can keep it for longer, say 5 years, but if it sells for $500 at 5 years old, that only decreases your cost to $0.82 per day. So, in this made up example, you're likely better off selling it at 3 years old, assuming each new update in the machine brings real performance or feature gains.

If you want to be obsessive about it, you could monitor resale and calculate this more closely but I think the key point here is that it DOES make sense to buy a machine that fits your needs but isn't massively overpowered and then to sell that about every 3 years and rebuy the equivalent machine. Whether that's the base model or another one will usually depend on someone's specific requirements.

 

[Fishrrman]

Both times I've bought MacBook Pro's, I bought the base models, and they served me "well enough".

So... going for the base model MBP 14" once again...

 

[GoldPunch]

I agree with you. But as an user of macrumors forum, we really like the tech, computers, software etc. That's why we sign-up this forum. Basically we always want to buy higher spec macs than rest of other people, even we dont need them. So, I can feel you guys.

 

[sb in ak]

I would be curious about cost to environment about changing out laptops every couple years vs. 5+. Maybe it's nil as it might open up more of a used market for machines that are a few years old or if Apple is able to efficiently recycle machines that are submitted for trade in. Still, I like to think I'm limiting environmental damage caused by lithium mining, etc by up-speccing a machine a little to get 5 good years out of it.

 

[deeddawg]

I would be curious about cost to environment about changing out laptops every couple years vs. 5+. Maybe it's nil as it might open up more of a used market for machines that are a few years old or if Apple is able to efficiently recycle machines that are submitted for trade in. Still, I like to think I'm limiting environmental damage caused by lithium mining, etc by up-speccing a machine a little to get 5 good years out of it.

I’d be very surprised if a couple year old laptop traded into Apple isn’t resold on the used market by their third party partner rather than broken down for recycling.

 

[clevins]

I would be curious about cost to environment about changing out laptops every couple years vs. 5+. Maybe it's nil as it might open up more of a used market for machines that are a few years old or if Apple is able to efficiently recycle machines that are submitted for trade in. Still, I like to think I'm limiting environmental damage caused by lithium mining, etc by up-speccing a machine a little to get 5 good years out of it.

What does it matter if you use it from years 3 to 8 (for example), or if someone else does? It's still being used. More importantly is whether at the end of its life, it's recycled properly.

 

[Booji]

I agree 100% in this cycle and for the most part base Apple products are by the best value. However, with the 2020 M1 Pro the 8gb base RAM just did not make sense.

 

[Love-hate 🍏 relationship]

Both times I've bought MacBook Pro's, I bought the base models, and they served me "well enough".

So... going for the base model MBP 14" once again...

and now the 16 .or did you end up getting another 14 ? lol

 

[Adarna]

Base models are ~80% of all items sold.

 

[chrismu]

I have felt this for almost all Macs, where the low spec option is a skimped bait price leader, and the middle option is the "sweet spot" for best value.
However, making generalizations like this is not always wise or true.
In this case, for these new MBPs, I think the sweet spot for best value is actually the base models. This does not mean that there is no benefit to any upgrades (there indeed is), but the base models are very very capable, and most of the upgrades are not cheap and add up quickly.

We as humans really like to pick the „middle“ option. It’s called extremeness aversion I think. Maybe that’s why they have 3 options?

 

[Basic75]

Exclusively buying base models seems to be the best course of action.

Disagree as I'm quite sure the 10 year old MBAs people around me are still using now for web browsing and video conferencing and office stuff would hardly be usable had they not ordered them with 8GB instead of 4GB of RAM.

 

[MajorFubar]

Disagree as I'm quite sure the 10 year old MBAs people around me are still using now for web browsing and video conferencing and office stuff would hardly be usable had they not ordered them with 8GB instead of 4GB of RAM.

They would be just as usable if they didn't (have to) update them to the latest OS, each version of which requires exponentially more resources to do basic tasks. Want to see the fastest PC in the world? Stick Windows 3.1 on a bog-spec dirt cheap modern laptop.

 

[leperry]

My base model dual-core 2013 MBP with 4GB of ram lasted six years. I do heavier tasks now, but nothing that requires extreme computing power. 16GB of ram will last probably last me another six years.

 

[rodrigezlopez]

I'm a freelance developer making the switch to Mac. What I'm getting at is that I spend 10 hours per day on my machine and use it to make money, I'm probably the epitome of what Apple is trying to market to with the 'pro' moniker. I had no idea if 16GB would even be enough, as I would use 32 gb on Windows and have heard that Macs' use RAM more efficiently than Windows, which I often hear Linux users say as well. That rang true whenever I booted into Linux, so why would the Mac users be lying about it?

Didn't want to wait a month for a custom build to ship so I just said screw it and bought a 16gb base model 16' pro and a 16' max. $1000 difference, would work on each for 13 days and return the one I thought was a poor choice. $1000 is $1000. But it's really more like ~$750 because I can write the full price off on my taxes and save some money there. Still, $750 is a decent chunk of change, I'm not some moron who just throws that money around like it's nothing, but I don't mind spending more on computers because I spend most of my waking moments on them.

I am seriously struggling to notice any significant differences in performance between the two at all. And my workflow as a developer isn't even that simple. I have node running, multiple docker containers, multiple tabs in multiple browsers when doing frontend (Chromium, Firefox, and now Safari as-well, because something always manages to look screwed up amongst them), slack, spotify, spacemacs, etc.

I've come to the conclusion that exclusively buying base models and upgrading every 1-2 years really is the best option on a dollars-per-performance basis. I have no idea what the computers will be like in 2 years, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if a base model m1 mac 2 years from now smoked the m1 maxes of today. Does anyone else agree with this assessment? I seriously have no idea why anyone would buy a fully-specced out m1 max unless they were trying to like edit 8k video or doing some wild machine learning stuff (which I admittedly don't really know much about, but assume most of the 'learning' portion doesn't even run on your local machine regardless?). Why would you spend $4k today and hang onto it for +4 years when you can spend $3k, sell it for $1.5k in two years, and buy a brand new computer at no overall differences in cost?

Yeah, I'm also almost sure that you wouldn't notice any difference even with base Air M1 with 8 Gb of RAM. At least this was my experience as of frontend dev when I switched from my base Air M1 to new base MBP16. Air was just enough for all my activities: dockers, figma, few browsers with many tabs, ms teams, building large front-ends at the same time - I just couldn't slow it down or make it hot in these scenarios. The only difference I feel now on MBP16 is the larger screen and better speakers, but perfomance-wise I feel like I'm still using my base Air. I think you should render some heavy videos or doing some other heavy stuff to notice difference in perfomance, but for frontend development even base new MBP is overhead. Too sad that they don't have Air 16" - it would be an ideal machine for me If it had smaller weight with the same screen estate.

 

[Tikatika]

Yeah, I'm also almost sure that you wouldn't notice any difference even with base Air M1 with 8 Gb of RAM. At least this was my experience as of frontend dev when I switched from my base Air M1 to new base MBP16. Air was just enough for all my activities: dockers, figma, few browsers with many tabs, ms teams, building large front-ends at the same time - I just couldn't slow it down or make it hot in these scenarios. The only difference I feel now on MBP16 is the larger screen and better speakers, but perfomance-wise I feel like I'm still using my base Air. I think you should render some heavy videos or doing some other heavy stuff to notice difference in perfomance, but for frontend development even base new MBP is overhead. Too sad that they don't have Air 16" - it would be an ideal machine for me If it had smaller weight with the same screen estate.

Your last sentence…nailed it! I want a larger screen. I don’t want to sit/stand at a desk with a heavy MacBook connected to multiple monitors. I don’t want to pay 1-2K more than a current Air just to be able to get a larger screen. But, this is Apple, and they know it.

 

[Jára Tyky]

I have returned base 16” M1 Pro. 16 GB uniffied RAM was not enough for casual usage