FINALLY upgrading, but can’t decide between 14/16” (sorry)

[bboyce2009]

I currently still have a 2014 (!) rMBP (15.4”) and have help off for years thanks to the crazy keyboard situation, then the tease of Apple custom chips, then M1 which was exciting but honestly stopped due to the same terrible webcam, among other little things.

With the new M1 Pros, I’m finally ready to make the jump. But here is my dilemma, and I’m sorry if the forum is already flooded with this kind of indecision…

So I also have a 12.9” iPad Pro (M1), to preface this. I was attracted to the 14“ MBP due to its portability, but it’s not that much larger than my iPad. That kind of pushed me towards the 16” but so many are saying it’s massive, and there aren’t too many comparisons between my generation and the newest, other than numbers on paper. So where I’m torn is between these options:

14” MBP (ideally 1TB—$2499) and just sidecar the iPad for extra real estate as needed, since they are similar and good quality. Or,
16” MBP (base model, 512—$2499).

Basically spending the same amount, but not sure which is more worth it. I’m used to the 15.4 size, but sometimes wish it was smaller. Does anyone use the iPad Pro as an extra display when you need extra screen real estate, or is that annoying/unsustainable? It’s a 2” size difference, but no matter which I get, I can still use the iPad for more. I guess it comes down to more memory, too...

I”m just a stupidly indecisive person…sorry…

 

[Gnattu]

Go to an Apple Store and play with the machine in the store, then you will know what to buy. Such decision is too personal to recommend.

 

[wilberforce]

I find extending screen area using Sidecar to an iPad to be not that great. Sounds good in theory, but in reality it is not - in my opinion. I find it a weird combination of using the Mac cursor and the iPad touchscreen, which I find confusing. Maybe I just need to retrain my brain, so I keep trying and keep getting confused. Not the same as a second monitor (again, in my opinion.) I would be interested to hear what others think.

btw, the pixel density on the new 14" MBP is 254 ppi with default scaled resolution of 1512x982, whereas your 2014 MBP is 220 ppi with a default scaled resolution of 1440x900. So actually, if you use the default settings, the 14" will show 5% more content than your 15" (but with everything about 15% smaller in size).

I suggest don't skimp on the size of the SSD in order to get the 16". If you decide on the 16", just bite the bullet and get the 1TB SSD that you want - in 3 years time you will have forgotten the extra $200, but will continually regret not having enough storage space.

Also, there is nothing wrong with the 14" 8-core base model (which I have). Blazing fast already. With a 1TB SSD it is $2200, and is the best bang for the buck, IMO. For me I think the 14" is the goldilocks size, having previously had bigger and smaller laptops, but everyone has different needs and preferences.

 

[UltimateSyn]

There's a lengthy thread about this exact decision-making process over here:

Can't Decide Between 14" and 16"

Mind sharing why exactly you're leaning towards the 16?

forums.macrumors.com

I painstakingly agonized over which size to keep from the announcement through yesterday. I wasn't able to make up my mind before launch day, so when both machines were delivered I opened them up and used them each for a few days. If I didn't think it would be so dramatic I'd say it's one of the harder decisions I've ever made - both devices are amazing and have their own merits.

I do agree that the 14" would either be superfluous or make your 12.9" iPad superfluous - I decided to keep my 14" MBP so my 12.9" iPad is now up for sale. Next year, with the rumors of a redesign and the 11" getting mini-LED, I will buy the 11" iPad Pro as it'll make a better companion. I'm excited about that because now I can have my iPad Pro be a good tablet first and laptop second (whereas with the 12.9" I consider it to be a better laptop and worse tablet).

Anyway, I love big screens and great speakers. The 16" was really enticing. But at the end of the day the increased surface area and weight detracted from the device's appeal - so much so that I didn't want to reach over for it. The proportions and weight on the 14" are just right. I found the ergonomics of the 14" to be better for typing in the lap, and it fits better on a desk. More easily held up with one hand, lighter in a bag full of tech, etc. I also saved $320 when taking AC+ into account, and now that extra money can go towards a nice monitor for when I do want a massive, more immersive screen. My rationale ended up being that I would benefit from the larger display anytime I was watching a movie, for instance, but I was going to pay the price of the increase size and weight every single time I picked up or used the device. And I wasn't willing to do that.

I think 13-14" is a sweet spot on the size vs. portability spectrum, as I've found to be the case over the last few years with my 12.9" iPad Pro, which has been my primary device. Now the device that sits in that sweet spot will be ultra-powerful, ultra-compact MBP 14" which, compared to the iPad its replacing, has a more capable OS, better speakers, larger screen, and more ports. You really, truly can't go wrong either way. I hope you find clarity in the decision soon!

 

[Chancha]

For someone coming from the retina era, you won't think the new 16" is any larger than your current 15", it is only those who have used the touch bar era MBPs especially the 15" who would find the new 16" an increase in bulk.

The 14" while being decently matched in performance compared to the 16", but the loss in screen real estate, battery capacity, generally worse thermals are all pretty notable differences. The space left by the notch is also wider on the 16" so less chance of UI issues created by the new notch mechanism. The 16" also comes with a 140W GaN charger which itself is cutting edge tech, but on the flip side the 14" is easier to be managed with existing type-C power sources including 3rd party ones.

The cost delta between the two when you spec them the same is only $200. So ultimately it depends if you really value portability or not, otherwise the 16" seems like a better fit. But I must say I myself have opted for the base 14" since I use it more or less like an MBA on steroids, also I wanted to spend the least and the lowest bin M1 Pro chip with less cores is only available on the base 14".

 

[wilberforce]

There's a lengthy thread about this exact decision-making process over here:

Can't Decide Between 14" and 16"

Mind sharing why exactly you're leaning towards the 16?

forums.macrumors.com

I painstakingly agonized over which size to keep from the announcement through yesterday. I wasn't able to make up my mind before launch day, so when both machines were delivered I opened them up and used them each for a few days. If I didn't think it would be so dramatic I'd say it's one of the harder decisions I've ever made - both devices are amazing and have their own merits.

I do agree that the 14" would either be superfluous or make your 12.9" iPad superfluous - I decided to keep my 14" MBP so my 12.9" iPad is now up for sale. Next year, with the rumors of a redesign and the 11" getting mini-LED, I will buy the 11" iPad Pro as it'll make a better companion. I'm excited about that because now I can have my iPad Pro be a good tablet first and laptop second (whereas with the 12.9" I consider it to be a better laptop and worse tablet).

Anyway, I love big screens and great speakers. The 16" was really enticing. But at the end of the day the increased surface area and weight detracted from the device's appeal - so much so that I didn't want to reach over for it. The proportions and weight on the 14" are just right. I found the ergonomics of the 14" to be better for typing in the lap, and it fits better on a desk. More easily held up with one hand, lighter in a bag full of tech, etc. I also saved $320 when taking AC+ into account, and now that extra money can go towards a nice monitor for when I do want a massive, more immersive screen. My rationale ended up being that I would benefit from the larger display anytime I was watching a movie, for instance, but I was going to pay the price of the increase size and weight every single time I picked up or used the device. And I wasn't willing to do that.

I think 13-14" is a sweet spot on the size vs. portability spectrum, as I've found to be the case over the last few years with my 12.9" iPad Pro, which has been my primary device. Now the device that sits in that sweet spot will be ultra-powerful, ultra-compact MBP 14" which, compared to the iPad its replacing, has a more capable OS, better speakers, larger screen, and more ports. You really, truly can't go wrong either way. I hope you find clarity in the decision soon!

Personally, I agree so much with this. I think the 14" MBP a perfect size for a MacBook, and the 11" iPad also a perfect size as a tablet, having gone through an expensive history of having had sizes both smaller and larger of each. All sizes have their pros and cons, which makes the decisions hard (and very personal).

 

[bboyce2009]

I guess my indecision is also rooted in the fact that this will be my main computer (I don’t have an at home desktop). The size is appealing, screen wise, but so is the portability of the 14. This is such a stupid first world problem ?

 

[bill-p]

For someone coming from the retina era, you won't think the new 16" is any larger than your current 15", it is only those who have used the touch bar era MBPs especially the 15" who would find the new 16" an increase in bulk.

But the fact is... the 16" is larger, thicker, and heavier than my 2015 15" MacBook Pro. It feels more like a MacBook Pro from before 2011 than something made during recent time.

Honestly, those are just facts. I agree that Apple's quest to push for thinner devices was ridiculous, but... the new 16" is way too much of a reversal. It's heavier than all MacBooks produced in the past... decade!

People who haven't done a direct comparison probably can't tell, but it is just that substantial. No Retina MacBook is as big or heavy as the new 16". And yet if we are counting, Retina MacBooks have more ports than the new 16" device, even, so the thickness can't be chalked up to the need to have more ports.

 

[m1maverick]

I guess my indecision is also rooted in the fact that this will be my main computer (I don’t have an at home desktop). The size is appealing, screen wise, but so is the portability of the 14. This is such a stupid first world problem ?

14" + external display. Problem solved

 

[zarathu]

Go to an Apple Store and play with the machine in the store, then you will know what to buy. Such decision is too personal to recommend.

I love when people say this. My apple store is 3.5 hours away driving time.

 

[zarathu]

I have a late 2013 MBP 15.4 which weighs 4.5 lbs. The new one weighs in at 4.7 lbs. I am unable to tell the difference in 80 oz. The size of the new 16 inch one’s dimensions are so close that its not worth posting them.

 

[bboyce2009]

I have a late 2013 MBP 15.4 which weighs 4.5 lbs. The new one weighs in at 4.7 lbs. I am unable to tell the difference in 80 oz. The size of the new 16 inch one’s dimensions are so close that its not worth posting them.

Yeah, I FINALLY found someone on YouTube that compared the 2013-era rMBP and they are almost identical in size (thickness, aside). I think I’m leaning towards the 16, but somewhere deep down I wish I could justify the smaller screen. I just think I’ll feel cramped on the smaller screen, even if I use the iPad as an external monitor at times.

 

[bboyce2009]

I love when people say this. My apple store is 3.5 hours away driving time.

Saaaame. Like, I wouldn’t be posting here if I was a few minutes from an Apple Store…

 

[zarathu]

Yeah, I FINALLY found someone on YouTube that compared the 2013-era rMBP and they are almost identical in size (thickness, aside). I think I’m leaning towards the 16, but somewhere deep down I wish I could justify the smaller screen. I just think I’ll feel cramped on the smaller screen, even if I use the iPad as an external monitor at times.

The speaker system on the 16 is just plain astounding. I usually sit in my living room opposite my speakers and amps etc. The Mac’s system is way better. Because you are so close, its what we call a line array. Even the bass is astounding. It's another reason to get the 16 over the 14.

 

[Grohowiak]

I downsized from the 16" intel to the 14" and couldn't be happier.
it's just right.
It does take a battery hit but I don't remember the last time that I had to use a laptop without having some sort of power to plug into somewhere.

 

[wilberforce]

Yeah, I FINALLY found someone on YouTube that compared the 2013-era rMBP and they are almost identical in size (thickness, aside). I think I’m leaning towards the 16, but somewhere deep down I wish I could justify the smaller screen. I just think I’ll feel cramped on the smaller screen, even if I use the iPad as an external monitor at times.

So here's a thought: you pretty much already know what the 16" will feel like (basically the same size as your 15.4").
So order the 14" and try it out for 14 days.
Otherwise you will always be wondering if you would have been better off with the 14".

 

[newellj]

I have a late 2013 MBP 15.4 which weighs 4.5 lbs. The new one weighs in at 4.7 lbs. I am unable to tell the difference in 80 oz. The size of the new 16 inch one’s dimensions are so close that its not worth posting them.

Yeah, I FINALLY found someone on YouTube that compared the 2013-era rMBP and they are almost identical in size (thickness, aside). I think I’m leaning towards the 16, but somewhere deep down I wish I could justify the smaller screen. I just think I’ll feel cramped on the smaller screen, even if I use the iPad as an external monitor at times.

And on the other side of the house, the 14" is essentially the same as the old 2013-2015 MBP. (Back then we had to specify that it was the rMBP, but that's a different story...) I long ago sold my 2013 and 2015 13" MBPs but still had some cases and sleeves. (Don't ask...) Guess what - they fit perfectly.

 

[NdTonks]

16" absolutely! I have compared it to my 2013 15" which has been my laptop for 8 years now. and the footprint is very similar as is weight. All the people who are saying its too big to be portable must be overly fussy about laptops. This thing is literally amazing, you won't regret it I assure you.

 

[darngooddesign]

Saaaame. Like, I wouldn’t be posting here if I was a few minutes from an Apple Store…

Sure but what about another store like Best Buy that sells Macs.

 

[Chancha]

But the fact is... the 16" is larger, thicker, and heavier than my 2015 15" MacBook Pro. It feels more like a MacBook Pro from before 2011 than something made during recent time.

Honestly, those are just facts. I agree that Apple's quest to push for thinner devices was ridiculous, but... the new 16" is way too much of a reversal. It's heavier than all MacBooks produced in the past... decade!

People who haven't done a direct comparison probably can't tell, but it is just that substantial. No Retina MacBook is as big or heavy as the new 16". And yet if we are counting, Retina MacBooks have more ports than the new 16" device, even, so the thickness can't be chalked up to the need to have more ports.

I actually have a 2015 15" but I only got the new 14". You may be right, the retina era shape is already slightly tapered, whereas these new 14" 16" have almost a box shape which only starts to be milled until like 2mm radius of the edges. So despite the overall dimension measurements on specs are similar, this boxy shape means it is filled with more volume. In the teardown we can see the extra space is mostly used for battery and the large fan chambers, also the large subwoofers on the two lower corners.

IMO Apple listened to the (legit) complaints to the touch bar era 15"/16", then came up with this "drastic" change of form for the new 16". Even the Intel 16", which was already the best out of that bunch, had serious noise issue under moderate load or even just plugging to a monitor. It may be a really portable machine for its performance, but the balance felt a bit biased towards form factor over (thermal) function.

 

[bill-p]

Yeah, and honestly, I think both the 14" and 16" are very good machine. But at the same time, I think this design with ample room and ample cooling is completely overkill for more efficient chips like the M1 Pro and Max.

Even the 14" seems able to cool and sustain max performance for the M1 Max over a decently long period of time. That's just too much.

And if that's the case, then perhaps Apple could have dialed the design of the 16" back a bit so that at least it would retain the same thickness and weight as before. But no, the M1 Max model of the 16" is even heavier than the M1 Pro version of the same machine.

I feel like they're doing things backward here: chasing thermal performance without regards for form factor or weight. Ideally, there should be a balance. I guess some may treat their 16" more like a walk-around-office/home device, so it doesn't need to be ultra portable. But then there are also those of us who got a MacBook because we prefer the portability/mobility of the setup, and I think we would hate to eventually lose that ability with this "make it thicker/heavier" trend that Apple is chasing. I think the 16" is already teetering on this edge already.

 

[flapflapflap]

I find extending screen area using Sidecar to an iPad to be not that great. Sounds good in theory, but in reality it is not - in my opinion. I find it a weird combination of using the Mac cursor and the iPad touchscreen, which I find confusing. Maybe I just need to retrain my brain, so I keep trying and keep getting confused. Not the same as a second monitor (again, in my opinion.) I would be interested to hear what others think.

btw, the pixel density on the new 14" MBP is 254 ppi with default scaled resolution of 1512x982, whereas your 2014 MBP is 220 ppi with a default scaled resolution of 1440x900. So actually, if you use the default settings, the 14" will show 5% more content than your 15" (but with everything about 15% smaller in size).

I suggest don't skimp on the size of the SSD in order to get the 16". If you decide on the 16", just bite the bullet and get the 1TB SSD that you want - in 3 years time you will have forgotten the extra $200, but will continually regret not having enough storage space.

Also, there is nothing wrong with the 14" 8-core base model (which I have). Blazing fast already. With a 1TB SSD it is $2200, and is the best bang for the buck, IMO. For me I think the 14" is the goldilocks size, having previously had bigger and smaller laptops, but everyone has different needs and preferences.

agree, that the sidecar option is not good for me. I'm not a creative pro and deal with a lot of word docs, excel, powerpoint, and rather keep them all in one screen. It can be useful if the iPad is designated for emails/messaging apps, but it's just too much to carry for me personally. 16 is cleaner, easier, and less charging.

 

[flapflapflap]

But the fact is... the 16" is larger, thicker, and heavier than my 2015 15" MacBook Pro. It feels more like a MacBook Pro from before 2011 than something made during recent time.

Honestly, those are just facts. I agree that Apple's quest to push for thinner devices was ridiculous, but... the new 16" is way too much of a reversal. It's heavier than all MacBooks produced in the past... decade!

People who haven't done a direct comparison probably can't tell, but it is just that substantial. No Retina MacBook is as big or heavy as the new 16". And yet if we are counting, Retina MacBooks have more ports than the new 16" device, even, so the thickness can't be chalked up to the need to have more ports.

Notwithstanding the extra screen real estate and immersive viewing experience you get with the 16, it's just so awkwardly large, clunky and heavy. It sucks that the 14's battery isn't as good, but 9-12 hours (according to reviewers online and some in this forum) seems sufficient. Someone above pointed that you're more limited when it comes to charging options with the 16 and I think that's a great point. I just wish the 14 had better battery!

 

[bill-p]

Even if the 14 only gets 5-6 hours, I'd be okay with that. It's much faster than the M1 and I'm able to complete my tasks twice as fast on average.

As an aside, you really can get more than 12 hours with the 14" if you use Low Power Mode. It limits the maximum amount of performance that the device can dish out, so you'll end up with basically almost the same worst-case power usage as M1, but with a 20% larger battery, and still about 50% faster performance. I know that but I still don't use it. In the end, I prefer to have the machine super responsive at all time.

 

[flapflapflap]

Even if the 14 only gets 5-6 hours, I'd be okay with that. It's much faster than the M1 and I'm able to complete my tasks twice as fast on average.

As an aside, you really can get more than 12 hours with the 14" if you use Low Power Mode. It limits the maximum amount of performance that the device can dish out, so you'll end up with basically almost the same worst-case power usage as M1, but with a 20% larger battery, and still about 50% faster performance. I know that but I still don't use it. In the end, I prefer to have the machine super responsive at all time.

What other limitations comes with Low Power Mode? Do you still get to enjoy ProMotion?