Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
the node size reductions are there to get you more gains in processing power which would have been impossible before when cooling is limited.
no one in the consumer market will care if your next gen CPU will offer you "exactly the same as before, just smaller" unless you are producing for an Apple Watch or similar.
so you can count on that the next generations of chips will continue to offer you higher transistor counts, more cores and/or higher clock speeds
 
  • Like
Reactions: heretiq
You’re right, current Air specs would not meet my needs even with a 15” display.

What I’m hoping for is a 15” 2023 M2/M3 MacBook Air that can match the 32 GB RAM, 12 core CPU and 32 core GPU specs of the 2021 M1 Max MacBook Pro — nothing more.

My assumption is that Apple would maintain the same thickness and provide a 15” Retina display comparable to the 15” MacBook Pro Retina display.

Given the expected gains with 3nm AS, I’m hoping this is not entirely out of the question; but not expecting it.
Those specs would be awesome, maybe too much for an Air, but it will cannibalize the MB Pro sales. And, it would not be as light weight as it is now! To be honest, I don't see anything more than a base MX being offered for the Air for the time being. Even the M2 Pro is currently limited to 19 cores/32G. I would be suprised if they offer the M3 base with 32G option (even if it is not a big gap from the current 24G max), but for sure for graphic power you will need to go for the Pro/Max/Ultra versions.
 
Couldn't agree more. I never bring my 16" MBP out of the house. Only use it to work from odd locations in the house where I don't have a large screen to connect to (living room, kitchen table, bed). For everything else, I just use the M1 MacBook Air and connect to external screens. I don't really need the 16" power; just need a large screen. When travelling where external monitors are not readily available, I bring an LG Gram 17". That thing is unbelievably light for it's size. When I know I will need to run some MacOS specific tasks, I bring along BOTH the LG Gram AND the MacBook Air in the same bag for roughly the same total weight budget as the 16" MBP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heretiq
No. 14" M1 Pro here. Dead silent yet cool running, excellent keyboard, excellent speakers, superb battery life, all the ports. I'd rather not lose any of that for the sake of a few grams. That's what the Air's for, isn't it? And this is far lighter than the 2009 MacBook it's replaced.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tozovac
the node size reductions are there to get you more gains in processing power which would have been impossible before when cooling is limited.
no one in the consumer market will care if your next gen CPU will offer you "exactly the same as before, just smaller" unless you are producing for an Apple Watch or similar.
so you can count on that the next generations of chips will continue to offer you higher transistor counts, more cores and/or higher clock speeds
Yep. Apple has kept the thermals and Power same/similar with higher performance. It’s crazy that Intel/Nvidia/AMD keeps pumping that extra power with more heat/Power rating. My 4090 easily draws 600W if I don’t under lock or under volt it to 70%. The size comparison with previous gen 3090 shows the ridiculous size of 4090.
I would be happy if Apple keeps the same thermal as M1/m2 while boosting the performance in M3. I don’t think we would see reduction in power or heat for sustained loads.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heretiq
I don't think this is going to happen, you will be extremely lucky if a M2/M3 Pro chip gets put into the Air.
If they put a Pro chip into a non-Pro machine, it kind of kills the point of a Pro model. Sure, you can add things like "nicer screen" and "more ports" but if a Pro machine doesn't exclusively have a Pro chip, it seems a bit less of an easy sell. What makes the real base Pro a true Pro?
 
If they put a Pro chip into a non-Pro machine, it kind of kills the point of a Pro model. Sure, you can add things like "nicer screen" and "more ports" but if a Pro machine doesn't exclusively have a Pro chip, it seems a bit less of an easy sell. What makes the real base Pro a true Pro?
The "chip" is a moving target as every Apple Silicon generation has received more and better cores -- so what might have been considered a "pro" chip in 2021 will likely not be considered a "pro" chip in 2023. For example:

2021 M1 Pro MacBook Pro "chip" specs:
  • 10-core CPU with 8 performance cores and 2 efficiency cores
  • 16-core GPU
  • 16-core Neural Engine
  • 200GB/s memory bandwidth
2023 M2 Pro MacBook Pro "chip" specs:
  • 12-core CPU with 8 performance cores and 4 efficiency cores
  • 19-core GPU
  • 16-core Neural Engine
  • 200GB/s memory bandwidth
Notice the increase in CPU and GPU cores from generation to generation. Is it not conceivable that an M3 2nm "Pro" chip could have significantly higher CPU and GPU core counts?


But to answer your question about "what makes a real base Pro a true Pro?" how about:
  1. ProMotion ?
  2. mini LED ?
  3. HDMI port ?
  4. CF card slot ?
  5. More Thunderbolt ports ?
  6. Highest # of available CPU and GPU cores ?
  7. Active cooling ?
  8. All of the above ?
Point is: there are many ways to define and differentiate a current "Pro" device from a high-performance non "Pro" device that has none of the above but has CPU and GPU performance that is comparable to a two-year old "Pro" device.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Silencio
The "chip" is a moving target as every Apple Silicon generation has received more and better cores -- so what might have been considered a "pro" chip in 2021 will likely not be considered a "pro" chip in 2023. For example:

2021 M1 Pro MacBook Pro "chip" specs:
  • 10-core CPU with 8 performance cores and 2 efficiency cores
  • 16-core GPU
  • 16-core Neural Engine
  • 200GB/s memory bandwidth
2023 M2 Pro MacBook Pro "chip" specs:
  • 12-core CPU with 8 performance cores and 4 efficiency cores
  • 19-core GPU
  • 16-core Neural Engine
  • 200GB/s memory bandwidth
Notice the increase in CPU and GPU cores from generation to generation. Is it not conceivable that an M3 2nm "Pro" chip could have significantly higher CPU and GPU core counts?


But to answer your question about "what makes a real base Pro a true Pro?" how about:
  1. ProMotion ?
  2. mini LED ?
  3. HDMI port ?
  4. CF card slot ?
  5. More Thunderbolt ports ?
  6. Highest # of available CPU and GPU cores ?
  7. Active cooling ?
  8. All of the above ?
Point is: there are many ways to define and differentiate a current "Pro" device from a high-performance non "Pro" device that has none of the above but has CPU and GPU performance that is comparable to a two-year old "Pro" device.
Yet the chip is always front and center in Apple's marketing. The display is second, the rest are basically not very well marketed unless you're looking to find those specs.

Chips improve over time. That the M10 will be better than the M1 Pro is entirely irrelevant. Computers are named based on their specs at the time, not whether they will be outclassed at some future point by some future spec.

Feel free to @ me, but my prediction is that Apple will not, at least for the next 5 years, put a "Pro" labeled chip into a MacBook or MacBook Air while the MacBook Pro exists. If anything, I could see them differentiating between base M models. An M4 10-core and an M4 14-core or something.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dmccloud
All in all, I don’t really share OPs opinion. The new 16” is still thinner than the original retina model, and it’s a very compact computer for its performance factor. For folks who think it’s too bulky there is always the 14”. And of course, a 15” MBA will be very successful regardless.

I love my M1 Pro, but I find it surprisingly uncomfortable to handle in comparison to my 15" tbMBP and I'm not sure why that is.

I've hauled around two 15" Unibody MBP's before so I know what heavy and bulky feels like, but I don't recall always feeling like those would fly out of my hand if I wasn't careful.

It seems like my M1 Pro is just thin enough to make getting a secure grip difficult and just heavy enough to make keeping a firm grasp on it hard. Probably the finish is also more slippery than the Unibody's finish was.

It could also be the way the weight is distributed that makes it feel heavier than it really is.
 
The high performance Apple silicon seems to run hot. I am all for giving it the cooling air flows and material reserves needed as first priority not thin design. Sort of function over form please and long life and robustness as a reliable tool.
 
Just to get a perspective of a "Pro": It is the level just above ordinary users. Above it is Max and Ultra users.;)
 
I think the "beefy" label misses the mark - Apple's current pro designs are guided by practicality: the need for larger chips, better cooling systems, better sound system, etc.

In the Ive days, designs were guided by ideology.

I understand that there are use cases such as yours that sort of fall in between the pro/air distinction, but on the whole, I am delighted that apple has re-adopted practicality over ideology in their HW design.
 
I think the "beefy" label misses the mark - Apple's current pro designs are guided by practicality: the need for larger chips, better cooling systems, better sound system, etc.

In the Ive days, designs were guided by ideology.

I understand that there are use cases such as yours that sort of fall in between the pro/air distinction, but on the whole, I am delighted that apple has re-adopted practicality over ideology in their HW design.
I agree that the current designs are guided by practicality. However I disagree that the Ive era was guided by ideology.

I think a better characterization of the Ive era is “design-led”. In this era, design challenged engineering to deliver on an ideal experience defined by functional, emotional and social factors (not ideology). Sadly, Engineering was constrained largely, but not entirely by “Intel Inside” which limited their ability to achieve that ideal.

In the current era, design is defined by practicality as you’ve stated. But ironically, this era of constrained design ambition coincides with the availability of the revolutionary Apple Silicon M series platform — which is better suited to the unconstrained design ambition of the Ive era.

I am personally looking forward to a revival of the design-led strategy and the breakthroughs that Apple can deliver when Engineering is challenged by idealistic design and properly resourced.
 
I am personally looking forward to a revival of the design-led strategy and the breakthroughs that Apple can deliver when Engineering is challenged by idealistic design and properly resourced.
just so that you're not getting "everything" out of your devices again?
so a Pro that's not so pro actually?
sure, Apple Silicon might be better in regards of thermals, but you can rest assured that they haven't built their Mac Studios that super thick just for the sake of a "new design language"
if they were smaller, they'd either be louder, or thermally handicapped during sustained loads.
and with (ultra) thinness often other things become unreliable, fragile or just prone to fail, even if you're not taking into account that your system will not be as performant (and / or silent) anymore.
Past Macs have shown this and as far as i'm aware, the Dell XPS13 Plus for instance with an ultra sleek design is said to have quite a few hardware issues,too, that the cheaper non Plus "standard" XPS 13 supposedly doesn't have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heretiq
I agree that the current designs are guided by practicality. However I disagree that the Ive era was guided by ideology.

I think a better characterization of the Ive era is “design-led”. In this era, design challenged engineering to deliver on an ideal experience defined by functional, emotional and social factors (not ideology). Sadly, Engineering was constrained largely, but not entirely by “Intel Inside” which limited their ability to achieve that ideal.

In the current era, design is defined by practicality as you’ve stated. But ironically, this era of constrained design ambition coincides with the availability of the revolutionary Apple Silicon M series platform — which is better suited to the unconstrained design ambition of the Ive era.

I am personally looking forward to a revival of the design-led strategy and the breakthroughs that Apple can deliver when Engineering is challenged by idealistic design and properly resourced.

I would be curious to hear what evidence you might be able to produce to support the claim that Apple's current pro designs are not "design-led"?

I would also push back against Ive not being ideologically motivated - the butterfly keyboards, the obsession with thinness, the removal of almost all ports from Macs all point to ideology under Ive's reign.

Steve Jobs was fond of saying that design is not how something looks, but how it works.

Much of Ive's designs post Jobs fail that test and Apple seem to be correcting them now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heretiq
I agree that the current designs are guided by practicality. However I disagree that the Ive era was guided by ideology.

I think a better characterization of the Ive era is “design-led”. In this era, design challenged engineering to deliver on an ideal experience defined by functional, emotional and social factors (not ideology). Sadly, Engineering was constrained largely, but not entirely by “Intel Inside” which limited their ability to achieve that ideal.

In the current era, design is defined by practicality as you’ve stated. But ironically, this era of constrained design ambition coincides with the availability of the revolutionary Apple Silicon M series platform — which is better suited to the unconstrained design ambition of the Ive era.

I am personally looking forward to a revival of the design-led strategy and the breakthroughs that Apple can deliver when Engineering is challenged by idealistic design and properly resourced.

I don't think that this has ever changed. Apple's design for the MBP is still making the most compact laptop within a given performance target. The fine details of course vary from model to model, and other manufacturers have caught up in the meantime, but the basic principles are still the same.

Reading this thread I again became painfully aware how popular misconceptions and makeshift beliefs have formed a very stubborn public opinion. For example, we have hard empirical evidence that the "thin" 2016+ chassis can dissipate more heat than the previous 2012+ chassis. The "heat and performance issue" commonly associated with 2017-2018 15" MBPs are primarily because of the increased power consumption of the Intel CPUs. But the "internet wisdom" has decided that "thin is bad for performance" and here we are. Just read what people are arguing that it's the bigger chassis that allows M1 Max to be "fast", completely ignoring the fact that M1 Max CPU uses half the power (or less) for the same level performance as an Intel chip. We didn't get better performance because of the bigger chassis, we got better performance because of better silicon. And of course it "runs hot"! That's how Apple configures it to run! They always matched the fan curve and power management so that the chip runs at maximal safe temperature (100C) at maximal performance level, they've been doing it since 2014! But now I'm just ranting.

No, I think the reason why the new Pro got a bit of "bulk" has everything to do with user psychology. Users have been complaining about thin laptops being bad for performance and the "lack of ports", so Apple decided to capitalise on these (often irrational) emotions. They wanted to create the impression that they care about the "Pros" and that they take the feedback seriously. So they integrated some visual cues from early MBPs and Powerbooks, made the chassis styling more aggressive and "industrial" and made the cooling system stand out more. It was a brilliant move really, especially their "here is your MagSafe/HDMI/card reader back" — allows them to save tons of money on the actually expensive fourth thunderbolt port by giving you a cheap integrated USB hub, AND make more money out of MagSafe cable sales. Just genius. And the consumer loved it. Indeed, Apple marketing is second to none.

Anyway, let's get some perspective in here. This is the picture of three generations of the large MBP. Bottom-to-top: 16" M1 Max, 2015 15", 2017 15". I am very bad at photography, so the perspective is probably not the best, but the point is that the surface size of these laptops is almost identical, with very small variations. Not pictured is the 2019 Intel 16" (which I also have here) — that one is slightly wider funnily enough.

IMG_4459.jpeg


Here is the M1 Max vs the 2015 15" chassis side by side. Looks much thicker, right? Well, most of it is an optical illusion, notice how the bottom of the silver chassis is almost invisible thanks to the slightly tapered shape. And the M1 Max has these very large rubber feet that easily add another 2mm to it. Don't get me wrong, the new one is thicker. But only barely so.

IMG_4460.jpeg


And lastly, here is the old-school 2009 MBP (from the internet, as I don't have one). Notice something? Exactly!

3090947928.jpg
 
I would also push back against Ive not being ideologically motivated - the butterfly keyboards, the obsession with thinness, the removal of almost all ports from Macs all point to ideology under Ive's reign.

This is again a popular argument, but I don't think it holds to scrutiny. Obsession with thinness is not just Ive, it's Apple. The first ever Intel MBP was described as "thin and light". Making computers as thin as possible has always been Apple's mission and it didn't change a bit. Even the new M1 chassis is still thinner than other laptops with comparable performance. Reducing the port types was a push towards embracing the new universal standard (read up on the complains Apple got for moving to USB in 1998 — it's literally the same story), sadly the rest of the industry lagged massively (not least because the consortium botched a lot of things). Butterfly keyboard was an attempt to design a new type of switch that promised a better typing experience, unfortunately, plagued by systematic issues. Sometimes stuff just doesn't work out. Sometimes you make something new and later discover it's not up to expectations. Doesn't mean it's Ive's ideology.

Much of Ive's designs post Jobs fail that test and Apple seem to be correcting them now.

Not really. It's just that a negative public opinion has been formed around these models and certain subtle design cues and Apple is now using that to their advantage by negating these cues. See my post just above this.
 
that it's the bigger chassis that allows M1 Max to be "fast", completely ignoring the fact that M1 Max CPU uses half the power (or less) for the same level performance as an Intel chip. We didn't get better performance because of the bigger chassis, we got better performance because of better silicon. And of course it "runs hot"! That's how Apple configures it to run! They always matched the fan curve and power management so that the chip runs at maximal safe temperature (100C) at maximal performance level, they've been doing it since 2014! But now I'm just ranting.

how do you explain the super thick Mac Studios?
not even taking the Ultra into account, but the "base" Studio Max is basically the same chip as the one in the laptop and yet it is thick as a brick.
and as far as i know it is running way cooler than the laptop chip (i think even under heavy sustained loads usually not more that in the mid 60 degrees of celsius)

it might be true that the chips themself are designed to work at ~100 Celsius, but the usual "internet wisdom" is saying that this isn't idea for siliconl in the long run and many developers are trying to avoid running stuff this hot when possible (even Apple does in the Studio)

and then there's the unavoidable soldering points. sure, close to 100 degrees celsius won't directly melt them, but it's still not good for a truly long lifespan, especially with the "new" regulations that made them more fragile (from the beginning of this millenium IIRC) due to the prohibition of use of lead for the solderings outside of some exceptions for cases of high risks for human life, such in aviation, etc
 
how do you explain the super thick Mac Studios?
not even taking the Ultra into account, but the "base" Studio Max is basically the same chip as the one in the laptop and yet it is thick as a brick.
and as far as i know it is running way cooler than the laptop chip (i think even under heavy sustained loads usually not more that in the mid 60 degrees of celsius)

Is there much to explain? The studio is designed with the Ultra in mind. The Mini chassis can do around 60 watts of power, which is less than any of the 15" MBPs produces since 2012. And I'm not surprised that the Studio runs cooler, its thermal system is massively over-provisioned in respect to M1 Max.

it might be true that the chips themself are designed to work at ~100 Celsius, but the usual "internet wisdom" is saying that this isn't idea for siliconl in the long run and many developers are trying to avoid running stuff this hot when possible (even Apple does in the Studio)

There is very little evidence that running at high temperatures is bad for your silicon in any sense that matters*. Most of this "wisdom" comes from the overclocker communities who used to overvolt the CPUs which would put them at a much higher chance of burning out. At this point this is really one of those persistent myths. Apple in particular has been running chips at Tjunction under load for many years, and their laptops are still considered very reliable. As to Mac Studio, well, you are operating a chip that draws less than 40 watts on average in a chassis designed to dissipate 150 watts. Again, I don't see much mystery here.

*to be clear, silicon does deteriorate under higher temperatures, that is a known fact. It's just that this deterioration occurs over timescales that is completely irrelevant for modern computing. You could be running a modern CPU at 110C 24/7 for many many years before you'd expect it to lose function due to electromigration. Experimental evidence is scarce but the papers I've seem seem to show that a rapid increase in decay rate only starts after 120C. There is a reason why everyone's Tjunction (maximal safe operating temperature) is set at around 100C — that still leaves you a nice safety margin before things actually get critical. My point is, if a CPU maker is willing to give you full warranty when you run their chips that hot, it is indeed safe to run them this hot.


and then there's the unavoidable soldering points. sure, close to 100 degrees celsius won't directly melt them, but it's still not good for a truly long lifespan, especially with the "new" regulations that made them more fragile (from the beginning of this millenium IIRC) due to the prohibition of use of lead for the solderings outside of some exceptions for cases of high risks for human life, such in aviation, etc

Unleaded solders actually have higher melting points than leaded solders. What you are talking about is a series of failures attributed to poor quality solders or subpar manufacturing processes. This stuff has been long fixed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heretiq
For years there's been a lot of complaints that Apple, under Jony Ive's vision, were prioritising style over substance and making devices thinner & lighter whilst sacrificing things like battery life and performance.

The good news is they've done a u-turn on this, but they're also still making things like the MacBook Air and a range of different iPads in different sizes, so there's much more choice, as well as a range of devices with lots of ports. Thanks to Apple Silicon, devices like the Air are no longer compromised in terms of performance & battery life just because they're thinner.

So no, I think the new design language is very good and its exactly what the majority of posters on here have been asking-for for a long time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heretiq
I would be curious to hear what evidence you might be able to produce to support the claim that Apple's current pro designs are not "design-led"?

I would also push back against Ive not being ideologically motivated - the butterfly keyboards, the obsession with thinness, the removal of almost all ports from Macs all point to ideology under Ive's reign.

Steve Jobs was fond of saying that design is not how something looks, but how it works.

Much of Ive's designs post Jobs fail that test and Apple seem to be correcting them now.
A lot of internal politics within Apple. Under Jobs, Ive was given free reign and decision power. But of course, there's Jobs who was a very product person, looking at how things are, keeping things in check. Tim Cook, unfortunately, is not that kind of person. So post Jobs, unchecked, Ive went out of control, and the results were obvious.

But that's over now, and we now have a new Apple, for better or worse. We return to engineering-led designs that doesn't mainly prioritize form over function, but it seems like some of that bold vision has lessened. And the cost cutting focus is not helping. But that's the new Apple with mostly new leadership team. Many high executives from Jobs era have left.

I don't think we will see bold moves like the iPod shuffle (reimagining a low cost device), Macbook Air (reimagining the laptop), iPhone (reimagining the smartphone), etc anymore. Those things were bold and revolutionary when they were first recevealed. All Apple's lineup other than Apple Watch have been established during Jobs era, and all we have today are mere improvements. Seeing how Apple services is now making quite a lot of money, I guess it's the nature of a large company. Conservative.
 
Last edited:
But that's over now, and we now have a new Apple, for better or worse. We return to engineering-led designs that doesn't mainly prioritize form over function, but it seems like some of that bold vision has lessened. And the cost cutting focus is not helping. But that's the new Apple with mostly new leadership team. Many high executives from Jobs era have left.

Conservative.
And there is the risk for Apple. Stagnation. Designs are reintroduced from before. See MBP for example from leman. Current iPhones are copied from iPhone 4. Mac Studio is a thick Mac mini that is a decade old(?). Originally great designs from who? Ive.

Apple has always rethought what a computer should be and the driver now is iPads not Macs. Look how eager many are (often the self proclaimed "Pro" people here) to put MacOS on iPads! Other uses touch on computers to moving the boundaries.

Engineers have a tendency to design for engineers not "normal" people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heretiq
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.