M4 non-Pro vs M4 Pro - Help a guy stuck down a rabbit hole out?

[Superman041]

Trying to decide between the M4 Pro 12-Core CPU , 16-Core GPU, 24GB Unified Memory , 512GB SSD Storage and Non M4 pro 10-Core CPU,10-Core GPU ,24GB Unified Memory 1TB SSD Storage .

I don't work heavily with video just yet, more social media video editing for now, multiple spreadsheets and soon to be coding (No LLM) . Confused because they're both the same price? According to ArtisRight, order of priority is the below. I want to future proof, I am someone who doesn't upgrade every 3/4 years. More like 7/8!

1. RAM
2. Chip family
3. SSD size
4. Chip varients

How does the base M4 non pro compare to the M3 pro versions?

 

[fw85]

The Pro has two fans instead of one in the non-pro. According to others that makes the machine quieter.

The inclusion of two fans on the M4 Pro does not necessarily make one machine quieter than the other.
Not only do the fans barely ever turn on on either machine (certainly not for OP's described use cases), but the M4 is quite a bit more power efficient (thus less thermally demanding) than the M4 Pro. It's 4x P-Core + 6x E-Core (M4) VS 8x P-Core + 4x E-Core (M4 Pro).
That also shows in battery life tests, where the M4 comes out on top - often quite significantly - which could also be a factor to consider if you're deciding between the two.

The base M4 is like a more power efficient version of the M3 Pro, with comparable CPU performance and a weaker GPU. That should be plenty of power.
The M4 Pro rivals last year's M3 Max performance, which could be an absolute overkill for you.

The unified memory is definitely good at 24GB for what you need to do.
If you're fine with a 512 SSD for your needs, then I'd stick with that, as Apple's storage upgrades are a highway robbery.
For the same price or less, you can get an external SSD of comparable speed and multiple times the capacity, should you ever need one in the future.
Maybe use the money to get the nanotexture screen instead, if it makes sense for you.

Based on what you've described, give this a thought: M4 (base), 24GB memory, 512GB storage, (nanotexture?)

It's a config I'm personally going for soon as well, with similar use cases to yours.

 

[TechnoMonk]

I will max out RAM/Processor for your budget. You can always add external storage for lot less than upgrade prices of Apple. If you keep it for 5-8 years go for Pro and as much Ram you can get.

 

[fw85]

Personally I buy both the speed upgrade and the RAM upgrade because i tend toward long 6-9 year life cycles. Both upgrades make significant improvement as OS and apps become more hardware-demanding over time like they always do.

Instead of overspending today in order to make (probably incorrect) predictions about the future and trying to proof youself against it, wouldn't it be wiser to do this instead?

• buy just the configuration that you need right now
• look to upgrade in 3-4 years' time
• trade your machine in while it still holds a respectable value (usually drops significantly after 3-4 years)
• add in all the cash you would've plowed into today's future-proofing efforts
• repeat with the new machine

...and end up with a much more up-to date system on average?
Likely spending the same amount of money in total, or even less.

 

[fw85]

What are you talking about saying "Just to climb Apple's price ladder for no reason?" The OP stated two boxes same price.

Nor are we looking at short life cycle "computing limits of an M1 chip in 2024." We are talking about a 5-7 year life cycle, and 5 years in the more powerful pro chip will be appreciated. No matter how stagnant one's personal workflow is, the tech world [OS and apps] will continue advancing.

Note: my personal workflow qualifies as stagnant, but I still need a new Mac upgrade ~ every 7 tears.

Just because OP stated 2 options of the same price, doesn't mean there isn't a third option that meets all requirements and would cost $200 less...

And when you extrapolate 5 years into the future, it doesn't mean the base M4 chip wouldn't meet requirements without breaking a sweat.
It's the same performance as the M3 Pro.
Would you have told me 2 months ago that the M3 Pro isn't good for 5 years?

I mentioned the M1 because if that's your starting point as far as meeting computation requirements goes today, then the M4 should already be the chip to serve you very well for 5-7 years.

 

[fw85]

I disagree strongly. The M4 pro chip is a far better life cycle choice. Only folks unwilling to plan should buy a new box for 2025-2032 thinking about just 2024 usage. That is lame analysis.

As to power efficiency pro versus base, who cares? Both are hella power efficient and power usage is mostly about the computing work one asks it to do.

And the M4 pro chip will always be capable of doing more - - if requested. Odds are that in 2025 the extra power of the pro chip will not matter, but for sure it will matter in 2028 and beyond.

Battery life is a similar thing: pro versus base, who cares?All Mac laptops have superb battery performance. The marginal difference is absolutely not a reason to choose a weaker laptop. Using it as an argument to buy a less competent box is just wrong.

For just about all of the use cases OP has listed, even the (4 years old) M1 chip does the job more than well enough.
Perhaps I need to reiterate: the base M4 has the CPU performance of last year's M3 Pro.

Who cares about power efficiency? Well, it's a battery operated device, so it's fair to assume someone would. I sure do. I've seen the M4 outlast M4 Pro machines by a solid 30%+ of runtime.

There was no mention of any heavy GPU requirements - so maybe not everyone needs to care about an extra 30% of useless CPU performance on top. Not when they'd not even run into the computing limits of an M1 chip in 2024.

I fail to see the logic in prescribing overkill performance by default.
Just to climb Apple's price ladder for no reason? I'm sure their marketing team would love that kind of thinking.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Just because OP stated 2 options of the same price, doesn't mean there isn't a third option that meets all requirements and would cost $200 less...

And when you extrapolate 5 years into the future, it doesn't mean the base M4 chip wouldn't meet requirements without breaking a sweat.
It's the same performance as the M3 Pro.
Would you have told me 2 months ago that the M3 Pro isn't good for 5 years?

I mentioned the M1 because if that's your starting point as far as meeting computation requirements goes today, then the M4 should already be the chip to serve you very well for 5-7 years.

You are talking about something else, not the OP. You appear to be saying that Macs stay strong for years, which [quite obviously] is true, but is not the question. The question presented was:
A) M4 base chip with 1 TB SSD versus
B) M4 pro chip with 512 GB SSD
at similar price, and OP seeks a long life cycle.

The B) M4 pro chip is physically substantially larger, with
• twice as many performance cores
• more than double the memory bandwidth
• Thunderbolt 5 instead of TB4

External SSD capacity [which almost all workflows requiring >512 GB mass storage should have anyway, for backup purposes] is fast, competent, cheap and has been getting cheaper every year for 40 years.

IMO choosing B over A is an obvious no-brainer decision. It makes no sense to give up substantial performance and i/o capacity just to get 1 TB mass storage instead of 512 GB mass storage when external mass storage is so cheaply available.

 

[raythompsontn]

Trying to decide

Based on your needs, and longevity of keeping a device, if I was in your position I would go for the M4 (Non-Pro) with the larger storage. The memory is the same but you are getting twice the storage for the same price. I would not consider the M3, unless, you can find a really good price on a M3 with at least 16 gig of memory and the same storage. The difference between the M3 Pro and M4 is not going to be significant for your needs.

I say the M4 (non-pro) because it is the newest and will have the longest support from Apple. And even that may be a non-issue for the next 10 years.

Just my $0.02.

 

[ubinko]

If you have no plans to work in 3D, or play 3D videogames, the non-pro will do you just fine for many years. It will handle high resolution video editing very well.

I agree with @fw85 - a wise choice would be 512GB of storage and an external SSD.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

The inclusion of two fans on the M4 Pro does not necessarily make one machine quieter than the other.
Not only do the fans barely ever turn on on either machine (certainly not for OP's described use cases), but the M4 is quite a bit more power efficient (thus less thermally demanding) than the M4 Pro. It's 4x P-Core + 6x E-Core (M4) VS 8x P-Core + 4x E-Core (M4 Pro).
That also shows in battery life tests, where the M4 comes out on top - often quite significantly - which could also be a factor to consider if you're deciding between the two.

The base M4 is like a more power efficient version of the M3 Pro, with comparable CPU performance and a weaker GPU. That should be plenty of power.
The M4 Pro rivals last year's M3 Max performance, which could be an absolute overkill for you.

The unified memory is definitely good at 24GB for what you need to do.
If you're fine with a 512 SSD for your needs, then I'd stick with that, as Apple's storage upgrades are a highway robbery.
For the same price or less, you can get an external SSD of comparable speed and multiple times the capacity, should you ever need one in the future.
Maybe use the money to get the nanotexture screen instead, if it makes sense for you.

Based on what you've described, give this a thought: M4 (base), 24GB memory, 512GB storage, (nanotexture?)

It's a config I'm personally going for soon as well, with similar use cases to yours.

I disagree strongly. The M4 pro chip is a far better life cycle choice. Only folks unwilling to plan should buy a new box for 2025-2032 thinking about just 2024 usage. That is lame analysis.

As to power efficiency pro versus base, who cares? Both are hella power efficient and power usage is mostly about the computing work one asks it to do.

And the M4 pro chip will always be capable of doing more - - if requested. Odds are that in 2025 the extra power of the pro chip will not matter, but for sure it will matter in 2028 and beyond.

Battery life is a similar thing: pro versus base, who cares?All Mac laptops have superb battery performance. The marginal difference is absolutely not a reason to choose a weaker laptop. Using it as an argument to buy a less competent box is just wrong.

 

[Return Zero]

I would only go base model (non-pro) if you weren't going to upgrade anything else and were only after the entry level pricing value while still having the Pro screen and other benefits. Once you start upgrading, I think it's silly not to get the Pro chip, especially at the 1749 sale prices we've been seeing. That machine will serve you well for a long time, and you'll want the extra RAM and GPU cores eventually. You can always get external storage, but you can't get external RAM and chip cores.

 

[djcerla]

The Pro has two fans instead of one in the non-pro. According to others that makes the machine quieter.

My Pro is completely silent since I installed it.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

It is impossible to predict future workload with any sort of accuracy. The best metric is what a person is doing now, and has been doing for the last 4-5 years.

Do you honestly expect your workload to increase 25%? Even 10%?

Forget AI needs as no one really knows how that is going to impact systems. AI requires access to huge amounts of data and resources. Those most assuredly will not be stored locally. I doubt any M4 system would be unable to handle the requirements for the next 5 years.

Just because forecasting is challenging does not mean we should be lazy and stick our heads in the sand. Even if one is someone who intends a stagnant computing life, the tech world will continue to evolve like it always has. The probability that the Mac tech world will be "has been doing for the last 4-5 years" is exactly zero.

So we think, and plan. Some things like increasing RAM needs are obvious enough after increasing every year for all 40 years of Macs. Perhaps individual workflow is not forecast to change, which is fine. That is just an input to the planning process.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

For just about all of the use cases OP has listed, even the (4 years old) M1 chip does the job more than well enough.
Perhaps I need to reiterate: the base M4 has the CPU performance of last year's M3 Pro.

Who cares about power efficiency? Well, it's a battery operated device, so it's fair to assume someone would. I sure do. I've seen the M4 outlast M4 Pro machines by a solid 30%+ of runtime.

There was no mention of any heavy GPU requirements - so maybe not everyone needs to care about an extra 30% of useless CPU performance on top. Not when they'd not even run into the computing limits of an M1 chip in 2024.

I fail to see the logic in prescribing overkill performance by default.
Just to climb Apple's price ladder for no reason? I'm sure their marketing team would love that kind of thinking.

What are you talking about saying "Just to climb Apple's price ladder for no reason?" The OP stated two boxes same price.

Nor are we looking at short life cycle "computing limits of an M1 chip in 2024." We are talking about a 5-7 year life cycle, and 5 years in the more powerful pro chip will be appreciated. No matter how stagnant one's personal workflow is, the tech world [OS and apps] will continue advancing.

Note: my personal workflow qualifies as stagnant, but I still need a new Mac upgrade ~ every 7 tears.

 

[fw85]

You are talking about something else, not the OP. You appear to be saying that Macs stay strong for years, which [quite obviously] is true, but is not the question. The question presented was:
A) M4 base chip with 1 TB SSD versus
B) M4 pro chip with 512 GB SSD
at similar price, and OP seeks a long life cycle.

The B) M4 pro chip is physically substantially larger, with
• twice as many performance cores
• more than double the memory bandwidth
• Thunderbolt 5 instead of TB4

External SSD capacity [which almost all workflows requiring >512 GB mass storage should have anyway, for backup purposes] is fast, competent, cheap and has been getting cheaper every year for 40 years.

IMO choosing B over A is an obvious no-brainer decision. It makes no sense to give up substantial performance and i/o capacity just to get 1 TB mass storage instead of 512 GB mass storage when external mass storage is so cheaply available.

If you dismiss the potential for having an interesting discussion with a broader picture and coming up with potential alternatives, then yes I agree - the M4 Pro 512GB is better value than the M4 1TB at the same price point.

 

[fw85]

I'm mean I'm somewhat mystified as well! "A gig here, a gig there, pretty soon you're talking about real memory"

6.5GB Memory used on a clean start with no applications open, although there is firewall and anti-virus starting by default.

Then my usual set of applications:

• 3GB for main Firefox process, plus 20+ Isolated Web Content sub-processes varying from 50MB to 600MB, but I've seen over a GB in processes running Jira tags with X-Ray plugin active. Maybe Jira mem usage there is higher because uBlock Origin stops their trackers then they try loading again and again? I've seen well over 100 in the "blocked" count on a long-lived tab, but in a fresh tab it's about 20.
  • Call it another 3GB
• 3GB on PyCharm with ~4 projects open, none particularly complicated IMO but one has a lot of YAML files and the others are multi-microservice monorepo projects so quite a few venvs although they're not indexed.
• Excel is almost a GB even though I've only got a couple of hundred rows across two oworkbooks!
• Outlook about 750MB.
• Miro app with one really big diagram open taking about a GB.
• Slack's renderer is half a GB.

Plus 4GB for a VirtualBox VM for testing and you can see how it adds up.

I just checked my new M4 MBP and it uses 7.75GB before any apps open, according to the bottom panel of Activity Monitor's Memory tab. No wonder Apple upped the base spec to 16GB, if the OS is using almost 8GB there's not a lot left for AI anything!

That's a surprising amount of memory eaten by some apps for sure.

Unused RAM = wasted RAM -> MacOS uses more RAM if you have more available, it's about 3-4GB on an 8GB system after a clean reboot - though that can easily be 13GB on a 32GB system.
I guess they're really looking to eat another 3-5 gigs with Apple Intelligence, which would push 8GB systems into heavy swap usage even in the lightest of workloads...

 

[mbsdf9345992]

What antivirus do you use?

Sentinel I think? Whichever it is, it doesn't use enough resources that I notice it much.

 

[Superman041]

Based on your needs, and longevity of keeping a device, if I was in your position I would go for the M4 (Non-Pro) with the larger storage. The memory is the same but you are getting twice the storage for the same price. I would not consider the M3, unless, you can find a really good price on a M3 with at least 16 gig of memory and the same storage. The difference between the M3 Pro and M4 is not going to be significant for your needs.

I say the M4 (non-pro) because it is the newest and will have the longest support from Apple. And even that may be a non-issue for the next 10 years.

Just my $0.02.

Thanks for the reply. What is the difference between the M4 non pro then and Pro SSD storage aside? Is the difference in Core CPU/GPU a big deal?

 

[raythompsontn]

What is the difference between the M4 non pro then and Pro

The Pro has two fans instead of one in the non-pro. According to others that makes the machine quieter. As you stated, the Pro has more cores. The non-pro maxes out at 2TB of storage, the Pro can get as much as 8TB, which gets really expensive as you have to increase the amount of cores and memory in addition to the cost of the SSD.

The higher specced Pro comes with a 96 Watt charger where the non-pro and the lower specced Pro come with a 70 watt charger. In my opinion, unless one needs to charge quickly, the charger is a non-issue. I use a 35 watt charger and just charge overnight. Using the 35 Watt my 14" Pro went from 75% to 100% in two hours.

 

[Superman041]

The inclusion of two fans on the M4 Pro does not necessarily make one machine quieter than the other.
Not only do the fans barely ever turn on on either machine (certainly not for OP's described use cases), but the M4 is quite a bit more power efficient (thus less thermally demanding) than the M4 Pro. It's 4x P-Core + 6x E-Core (M4) VS 8x P-Core + 4x E-Core (M4 Pro).
That also shows in battery life tests, where the M4 comes out on top - often quite significantly - which could also be a factor to consider if you're deciding between the two.

The base M4 is like a more power efficient version of the M3 Pro, with comparable CPU performance and a weaker GPU. That should be plenty of power.
The M4 Pro rivals last year's M3 Max performance, which could be an absolute overkill for you.

The unified memory is definitely good at 24GB for what you need to do.
If you're fine with a 512 SSD for your needs, then I'd stick with that, as Apple's storage upgrades are a highway robbery.
For the same price or less, you can get an external SSD of comparable speed and multiple times the capacity, should you ever need one in the future.
Maybe use the money to get the nanotexture screen instead, if it makes sense for you.

Based on what you've described, give this a thought: M4 (base), 24GB memory, 512GB storage, (nanotexture?)

It's a config I'm personally going for soon as well, with similar use cases to yours.

Thank you so much for the detailed comprehensive answer! I will look into the nanotexture screen? I don't know much about it; however from what I have read the contrast colour isn't as good & the text clarity is clearer on the gloss version? A moot point for me but just curious as the differences will be miniscule. Also the nanotexture is stated to be easier to clean..

This is the review I was watching

 

[raythompsontn]

I don't know much about it; however from what I have read the contrast colour isn't as good & the text clarity is clearer on the gloss version?

There is some blurring although reports indicate is very minor. If you work in bright environments where reflections are an issue, Nano texture would be a big help. If not, then the extra $150.00 would be better placed on an external SSD to store files.

I personally think that 1TB is a good spot for internal storage. Based on my use, 512GB would be cutting it close at times and the long term for me 1TB made more sense. To each their own based on their needs. I know people getting by quite nicely with 256GB of storage.

I think when you get into the M3, M4 series of processors I don't think a mistake would be made in any of the choices for most users. Buy what feels right to you and be happy.

 

[fw85]

Thank you so much for the detailed comprehensive answer! I will look into the nanotexture screen? I don't know much about it; however from what I have read the contrast colour isn't as good & the text clarity is clearer on the gloss version? A moot point for me but just curious as the differences will be miniscule. Also the nanotexture is stated to be easier to clean..

This is the review I was watching

Yeah, the perception of the nanotexture screen is extremely subjective. There's a whole thread on the forums dedicated to it.

Some say the clarity isn't as good, some don't see a difference, some actually say it makes the screen easier on the eyes for working with text.
Some say the contrast or colors aren't as good, others say you need to pixel-peep with the displays side by side to tell a difference.
What it definitely does well is eliminate reflections and reduce the visibility and accumulation of fingerprints.

Because if you're often in an environment, where the blacks on your screen become a white shining glare instead - any contrast or color argument suddenly becomes moot.

You need to picture what situations and lighting conditions you're going to be using the machine in and go from there. And you really gotta see the nanotexture display in person for youself, if you have the ability to do so - no amount of reviews and online discussion tells you quite the full story as a hands-on demo.

 

[Superman041]

Yeah, the perception of the nanotexture screen is extremely subjective. There's a whole thread on the forums dedicated to it.

Some say the clarity isn't as good, some don't see a difference, some actually say it makes the screen easier on the eyes for working with text.
Some say the contrast or colors aren't as good, others say you need to pixel-peep with the displays side by side to tell a difference.
What it definitely does well is eliminate reflections and reduce the visibility and accumulation of fingerprints.

Because if you're often in an environment, where the blacks on your screen become a white shining glare instead - any contrast or color argument suddenly becomes moot.

You need to picture what situations and lighting conditions you're going to be using the machine in and go from there. And you really gotta see the nanotexture display in person for youself, if you have the ability to do so - no amount of reviews and online discussion tells you quite the full story as a hands-on demo.

Also a secondary question, does running off an external SSD cause longevity issues iterms of the failure of internals? Realise it's a silly dumbed down question, but basically if you run something off an external storage constantly does it 'overwork' the internals causing it to fail earlier?

 

[TechnoMonk]

Also a secondary question, does running off an external SSD cause longevity issues iterms of the failure of internals? Realise it's a silly dumbed down question, but basically if you run something off an external storage constantly does it 'overwork' the internals causing it to fail earlier?

Why would it overwork? Makes no sense, if anything you will be using external disk more. the nand storage last for long time, and easily outlive the life of the Mac.

 

[dmccloud]

Also a secondary question, does running off an external SSD cause longevity issues iterms of the failure of internals? Realise it's a silly dumbed down question, but basically if you run something off an external storage constantly does it 'overwork' the internals causing it to fail earlier?

With modern SSD storage, your device is more likely to become obsolete than the SSD is to fail. Running off external storage would have no effect on internals outside of data transfer between the drive and processor, and wouldn't be working the internal storage much (if at all). As far as your original post goes, I'd recommend getting the model with the most RAM. You can get external storage for much less than upgrading the machine itself at the time of purchase. I have two external M.2 SSDs (2TB each) in Thunderbolt 4 enclosures, and the combined price for both was less than a 2TB upgrade direct from Apple.