I over bought, 16" Max, 32GB

[Realityck]

I bought the 14in also 2 weeks ago and am wondering whether I should have bought the 16in. I only use it at home as a "portable" iMac. Might send it back and replace. Amazon allows me to do this until mid Jan 22 (assuming no cosmetic defects etc)

You might want to visit a Apple store and compare the 16" display versus your present 14" you have. The 14" is really the portable version of the two, but most here aside from 2017-2019 MBP owners have been using a 4.5 pound MBP for years anyway so it not humongous unless your use to something smaller IMHO. The increased resolution the 16" display offers one to see 2 pages side by side was key to my decision over the 14". They are both attractive, but once you get past the weight difference its down to your usage preferences.

 

[Realityck]

I bought the 16 inch Max with 32GB. I'm looking at iStat and it shows that I have yet to get the CPU above 25%, and the memory hasn't hit 50% according to the graph. I haven't heard the fans come on once. I've had it about 2 weeks. It's been three days since I charged the battery. This machine has far exceeded my expectations. Guess I'm not a "pro".

Having said all that, I'm still very satisfied with my purchase. I am certain that I could have done everything I do on the basic level 14". But I do like the large screen and I don't travel with the device so size/weight isn't a concern for me.

Maybe this information will help someone trying to decide which model to buy.

Blame Apple for not offered any M1 Pro models with 32 GB Ram standard stock. They were purposely steering you to your M1 Max model.

 

[drsox]

You might want to visit a Apple store and compare the 16" display versus your present 14" you have. The 14" is really the portable version of the two, but most here aside from 2017-2019 MBP owners have been using a 4.5 pound MBP for years anyway so it not humongous unless your use to something smaller IMHO. The increased resolution the 16" display offers one to see 2 pages side by side was key to my decision over the 14". They are both attractive, but once you get past the weight difference its down to your usage preferences.

It's not really my usage that will decide, it's the screen. My eyes are flaky these days so the extra screen should give better readability. The 14in is already better than the 13in M1 MBA I used to have.

 

[macintoshmac]

The increased resolution the 16" display offers one to see 2 pages side by side was key to my decision over the 14".

Same with me.

 

[nothingtoseehere]

Having said all that, I'm still very satisfied with my purchase.

That is the main point ?

Moral of the story? It's better to "over buy" than to do the opposite

Indeed! To put it another way: Over-purchasing won‘t get you into the troubles under-purchasing does.

 

[HarryMudd]

We should just purchase what we want and can, within reason, of course. If 16 GB is sufficient, people often make it sound like going for 32 is criminal. It is not. It is a choice. The ones who make it are the ones who pay for the choice and end up with a lighter wallet. That's the cost of their choices. No harm done.

I know 16 GB is going to be sufficient for me. I went with 32 GB because I wanted the M1 Max GPU cores. At that point, going for the top config in stock made more sense. I did not need 1 TB. I have been using 256 GB since 2013 and that, too, 150 GB free more or less, at all times. Store most of my data on external drives, and only the 'running data' is what stays on the laptop.

That happened because of the 256 GB drive. The 1 TB now offers me more leeway. Did I need it? No. But, will certainly appreciate and use it. That is all tools are about. You can have the bare minimum screwdriver do the job, and then you can have an assisted screwdriver, or a screwdriver with a better grip and handle. It's just about choices.

That was my thought process almost exactly.

To answer another poster, the biggest demand I put on the laptop is import/export large numbers of RAW images from Lightroom. The largest photo I have worked on in Photoshop is 2GB, but that’s really unusual. I don’t do any video or play any games.

To another point, I usually set my budget then get as much bang for it as I can. I was surprised this year that I could get so much for what I had set aside. I budgeted the same amount for this purchase as my last one, and got WAY more computer. Plus I got what I thought was a good deal on my trade in.

As I said in my original post, I am happy with the purchase and will not be returning it, or exchanging it for a different configuration.

I do not use external monitors, the only external device I use is a card reader and a pen/tablet.

But if I was still looking and wanted to save some money, I would appreciate hearing from a current owner that I could most likely be satisfied with a less expensive configuration. Also like Max on the YouTube channel Max Tech, one might want to have a more portable device that’s still capable. I think that could easily be done in my case.

 

[profcutter]

I think the reason that folks warn against over-purchasing to “future proof” is that nothing magical is going to happen that makes the GPU cores keep the machine from getting obsolete. When the 16” Pro with 16 cores is obsolete, then the 32 core MAX will also be obsolete. Unless you think you’re going to be doing really graphics intensive work in the next 5 years that you’re not doing now, getting more graphics cores will not be of much use, you’re paying for something you’re not using. If you don’t mind spending extra money for a room in your house you never use, that’s not a problem, but it’s generally bad advice now to tell people that spending top dollar on a maxxed out MAX will future-proof them, or give them a dramatically improved experience in the day to day. If my car has 240 HP, or 160, I can tell the difference every day. If I have 8 unused cores, it’s not making anything faster, but it is draining the battery a bit more than it needs to.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

I bought the 16 inch Max with 32GB. I'm looking at iStat and it shows that I have yet to get the CPU above 25%, and the memory hasn't hit 50% according to the graph. I haven't heard the fans come on once. I've had it about 2 weeks. It's been three days since I charged the battery. This machine has far exceeded my expectations. Guess I'm not a "pro".

Having said all that, I'm still very satisfied with my purchase. I am certain that I could have done everything I do on the basic level 14". But I do like the large screen and I don't travel with the device so size/weight isn't a concern for me.

Maybe this information will help someone trying to decide which model to bu

I bought the 16 inch Max with 32GB. I'm looking at iStat and it shows that I have yet to get the CPU above 25%, and the memory hasn't hit 50% according to the graph. I haven't heard the fans come on once. I've had it about 2 weeks. It's been three days since I charged the battery. This machine has far exceeded my expectations. Guess I'm not a "pro".

Having said all that, I'm still very satisfied with my purchase. I am certain that I could have done everything I do on the basic level 14". But I do like the large screen and I don't travel with the device so size/weight isn't a concern for me.

Maybe this information will help someone trying to decide which model to buy.

A new box should always over-perform. One buys a box for some future time period (IMO 3-5 years, but that is just me). Both hardware and software tech will evolve over the lifecycle of a box, so expect over-performance at the beginning and under-performance at the end of one's chosen lifecycle time frame.

 

[thekev]

That was my thought process almost exactly.

To answer another poster, the biggest demand I put on the laptop is import/export large numbers of RAW images from Lightroom. The largest photo I have worked on in Photoshop is 2GB, but that’s really unusual. I don’t do any video or play any games.

If you're using layers there, that image is cached many times over with various mip-mapping and possible compression of cached versions. Just storing that image in memory is going to use many times that amount of ram. When it was a 32 bit application, PS relied on explicitly caching on disk rather than store everything in memory that would end up being swapped out anyway.

A new box should always over-perform. One buys a box for some future time period (IMO 3-5 years, but that is just me). Both hardware and software tech will evolve over the lifecycle of a box, so expect over-performance at the beginning and under-performance at the end of one's chosen lifecycle time frame.

Five years is too high of a risk for my taste, since you can get very unlucky via damage, theft, or major hardware transition. I wouldn't personally want to commit to a 2019 Intel model through 2024, which would be in line with the high end of your range. The low end of your range is more realistic there. These things usually come up in more subtle ways. Apple released the cylindrical mac pro in 2013 with a heavy emphasis on the TB2 connectors. They went all in on usb-c within a few years, and its hardware missed AVX2 and FMA3 by one hardware generation, in spite of the number of years they kept it alive.

 

[Appleinapot]

You are prepared for the next 6 years! It is totally worth it

 

[wilberforce]

No such thing as over purchasing

Apple thanks you for your donation?

 

[m1maverick]

I never imagined someone would need to max out an Apple computer because of Microsoft Teams. Gates must be smirking with a devilish smile, but that hurts users and nets Apple a better bottomline! Teams should not cause anyone to max out a configuration !

Teams just needs to go away. It's horrible.

 

[adib]

Teams just needs to go away. It's horrible.

Well, it’s practically free for organizations that already has a need to subscribe to Office 365.

 

[smirking]

Maybe this information will help someone trying to decide which model to buy.

Lots of us are going to end up buying the "wrong" model in the coming months. Everyone is basing their knowledge on prior assumptions that may not necessarily hold true on the new architecture. I managed to hold out long enough to read some reports of people pushing their M1 Pro 16GB hard in the same way I would with no issues. I ended up canceling my M1 Max order and re-ordered as a base M1 Pro with extra storage instead.

 

[smirking]

Same with the new MBP. My MBA 2017 worked fine, I could have attached a USD 400 monitor and called it a day. I didn't need retina.

Oh, I think retina is a far better feature than you expect it to be. I'm a heavy user and had serious eyestrain problems before I started using retina screens. Ever since I got my LG 5K and a MBP with a Retina screen, I won't use anything less if I can help it. My eyes just feel so much better after 10 hours and I don't feel like I have to put my work down anymore because my eyes just won't let me continue.

 

[throAU]

If you wanted the 16" screen, you didn't over-buy by a huge amount - you would have been paying most of the cost to get to 32 GB of ram and a 16" screen alone. Enjoy it!

 

[throAU]

Blame Apple for not offered any M1 Pro models with 32 GB Ram standard stock. They were purposely steering you to your M1 Max model.

To be fair, Apple's model specs are generally fairly balanced. If you think you need 32 GB of RAM it probably makes sense to get the extra GPU cores as well, 90% of the time.

Unless you KNOW you have some oddball workload AND you're prepared to deal with the hassle of a non-off-the-rack configuration (which will be a pain if you ever need RMA) then staying within the pre-built options is probably a good idea.

I've bought 2 off the rack MacBooks and 2 BTOs. I've sort of regretted the BTOs both times.

 

[macintoshmac]

Oh, I think retina is a far better feature than you expect it to be. I'm a heavy user and had serious eyestrain problems before I started using retina screens. Ever since I got my LG 5K and a MBP with a Retina screen, I won't use anything less if I can help it. My eyes just feel so much better after 10 hours and I don't feel like I have to put my work down anymore because my eyes just won't let me continue.

I never experienced true retina on the MBP. I got my first retina in 2016 with 13” which wasn’t true retina at 1440x900. Setting it to 1280x800 was just too less, although it was remarkably better. So never got the real retina experience before my current 2021 MBP 16. I went with this computer 50% for its display itself.

 

[macintoshmac]

I think the reason that folks warn against over-purchasing to “future proof” is that nothing magical is going to happen that makes the GPU cores keep the machine from getting obsolete. When the 16” Pro with 16 cores is obsolete, then the 32 core MAX will also be obsolete. Unless you think you’re going to be doing really graphics intensive work in the next 5 years that you’re not doing now, getting more graphics cores will not be of much use, you’re paying for something you’re not using. If you don’t mind spending extra money for a room in your house you never use, that’s not a problem, but it’s generally bad advice now to tell people that spending top dollar on a maxxed out MAX will future-proof them, or give them a dramatically improved experience in the day to day. If my car has 240 HP, or 160, I can tell the difference every day. If I have 8 unused cores, it’s not making anything faster, but it is draining the battery a bit more than it needs to.

I personally think it’s the measly 16 neural engine cores that would be why the computer would become obsolete sooner than later. Yes, next gen M-series would obviously have more of everything, it’s the only way to keep people hooked. It makes more sense for companies to have people run unoptimised software on the latest hardware all the time as against sitting and optimising software for current hardware and just working on bettering the offering - like they used to do just a decade or two ago.

 

[macintoshmac]

A new box should always over-perform. One buys a box for some future time period (IMO 3-5 years, but that is just me). Both hardware and software tech will evolve over the lifecycle of a box, so expect over-performance at the beginning and under-performance at the end of one's chosen lifecycle time frame.

Precisely. This is what it should be. Over-performance today and adequate performance by the time you want to get something newer - that’s the only way you’re gonna feel your money gave you value. Else you’re gonna be dissatisfied with your spending like I was with the debacle of the 13” MBP 2016. In comparison, 2017 MBA felt (and worked) much better.

 

[throAU]

I never imagined someone would need to max out an Apple computer because of Microsoft Teams.

To be fair, on Intel Macs, teams is a pig CPU and fan noise wise. On Apple Silicon? Don't even know it's running in the background.

 

[macintoshmac]

To be fair, on Intel Macs, teams is a pig CPU and fan noise wise. On Apple Silicon? Don't even know it's running in the background.

I used Teams on the Intel-enabled MBA 2017 only for messaging clients. Never an audio or video call. So didn’t quite feel the pain as others describe.

On Apple Silicon it requires Rosetta, so I’m down to using it in Firefox. Not installing Rosetta. Not that I think it would be a performance hit, far from it. I just want to use native apps as much as I can.

 

[throAU]

On Apple Silicon it requires Rosetta, so I’m down to using it in Firefox. Not installing Rosetta. Not that I think it would be a performance hit, far from it. I just want to use native apps as much as I can.

I'm using rosetta on mine; no complaints so far.

I was going to try avoid it, but I simply have too many non-native apps I NEED for work to not use it. OneDrive for example is Rosetta, and I need that for syncing my password database in my work password manager.

When all my apps go native I'll maybe do a clean install but for now, necessarily evil for me. But... like I said; no complaints so far. I wouldn't be too put off by installing it.

 

[Miat]

I don't travel with the device so size/weight isn't a concern for me.

Genuine question: If portability for travel was not a requirement, then why get a laptop in the first place? Why not a desktop?

 

[throAU]

Genuine question: If portability for travel was not a requirement, then why get a laptop in the first place? Why not a desktop?

In the case of the current MacBook Pros - you still retain the OPTION to move them around, but they outperform everything else in the Mac lineup.

Also, there's "travel" and there's the ability to use on the couch, in other rooms of the house, etc. Wouldn't class that as "travel" (where the 14" would come into its own on aircraft tray tables, etc.) but it's still something a desktop Mac can not do.