MacBook Pro Buying Advice, You Hate Me

[Allen_Wentz]

1. The M1 will be more than enough for you.
2. As you are looking for longevity, I would recommend the M2 which is a current, 2023 machine.
3. The M1 is a solid machine, but is a 2021 build. Yes, it's a great chip, but it's not current tech.

4. Very good to go with 16 GB of ram and 1 TB hard drive.

5. You should consider the new 15" MBA. It's a bit smaller than your old 2017 MBP but can get you a brand new machine with 8 core CPU, 10 core GPU, 16 GB of ram and a 1 TB hard drive for $1899.

1) Be aware that MBAs have 1/3 [Edit: corrected to 2/3] the i/o bandwidth of MBPs (2 TB3 rather than 3 TB4). That can be a huge deal for some workflows but meaningless to others.

2) 16 GB RAM will be workable thanks to Mac OS magic but will be limiting over 2023-2028 5 year life cycle. E.g. my 2016 MBP with 16 GB RAM has been being limited by RAM since ~2019, with zero changes in workflow, just regularly upgraded apps and OS. My expectation is that Apple's fast new Unified Memory Architecture will have apps/OS demanding even more RAM over time, but that is purely a guess.

 

[Wokis]

1) Be aware that MBAs have 1/6 the i/o bandwidth of MBPs (2 TB3 rather than 3 TB4). That can be a huge deal for some workflows but meaningless to others.

FYI TB3 and TB4 have the same bandwidth. 40Gbit/s. They're both based on PCIe 3.0 lanes. Apple doesn't get to label the MBA as TB4-compliant because one of the requirements is that the device must support multiple external displays.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

FYI TB3 and TB4 have the same bandwidth. 40Gbit/s. They're both based on PCIe 3.0 lanes. Apple doesn't get to label the MBA as TB4-compliant because one of the requirements is that the device must support multiple external displays.

Not exactly true. TB4 can drive two 4K displays versus one for TB3, and TB4 specs at 32 Gbps PCIe versus 16 Gbps PCIe for TB3. Like I said, means nada to some workflows, more to others. Just a point of info because so many folks often imply MBA = MBP, which is not true.

 

[CraigJDuffy]

You hate these posts. But I have no Mac nerd friends and I'm looking for opinions/advice!

Running a 2017 MacBook Pro 15, but the screen is dying. I'm mostly a writer, but I do some graphic design and video editing. Nothing fancy, usually shoot and edit 1080p, rarely 4k, never RAW footage. Sometimes I do some work in After Effects. I travel a bit and coffee shop surf, but mostly use my Mac with a monitor and peripherals. My current MacBook Pro works fine. Render times aren't great, but they don't bother me.

SO! I want to get a new machine this year for a tax write off and also before the screen on this old girl dies. I'm positive I want to downsize. The 16 is beautiful, but I want the smaller size for portability and also I want something different. Considering these two machines:

• Refurbished M1 MacBook Pro 14 (10/16 core) w/1TB for $1575
• Refurbished M2 MacBook Pro 14 (12/19 core) w/1TB for $2120

Despite this being a business expense/tax write-off, I'm still on a budget. So, question:

• Is the M2 worth an extra $545 given my limited use case?
• I usually keep my machines for about five years, think the M1 will be good for 4-5 years?

Cheers!

-Dustin

Correct answer for you is an M1/2 MacBook Air - you don’t need anything more than a M1 and don’t need a MacBook Pro so save your money.

I’d say 1TB seems a bit steep, and honestly a base model M1 MacBook Air would be totally fine for you but storage can’t be changed after purchase so whatever if you can afford it.

 

[Wokis]

Not exactly true. TB4 can drive two 4K displays versus one for TB3, and TB4 specs at 32 Gbps PCIe versus 16 Gbps PCIe for TB3. Like I said, means nada to some workflows, more to others. Just a point of info because so many folks often imply MBA = MBP, which is not true.

Like I said, Apple doesn't get to call it TB4 on MBA due to only having one available display-controller for external displays.

This is why the Mac Mini with the same SoC actually gets to say it supports TB4. No internal screen so instead it has two controllers available. Then the daisy-chaining works and it gets to be certified.

What you're saying about PCIe is, to borrow your phrase, not exactly true. That is the minimum allowed. Apple hasn't implemented half-speed TB3 ports on the MBA.

In fact, the PCIe-mode in thunderbolt 4 is *worse* than TB3. Not that it matter because a TB4-port can always be asked to run in TB3-mode. But there is no PCIe-card advantage for TB4. This is why the external PCIe boxes all run in thunderbolt 3 mode. I have a video for you from Sonnet which I highly suggest you watch.

All of this is too irrelevant to OP's original question and I apologise ahead of that. But squashing myths is important too.

 

[FocusAndEarnIt]

Yeah, I spent some time with them in the store and I had a 13-inch MBP as my work machine for a while. Liked the 13, but prefer the 14. The 16 is incredible, but it's a beast. I've had 15-inch MBPs for a long time and I'm ready to downsize a touch. Plus I like the way the 14 looks. Really good proportions on that machine for some reason. Not logical, but whatever. 😂

You know what it is? The 14 reminds me of my old 12-inch Powerbook! I've been in the 'book game forever.

The 12” PowerBooks were really a good era for Apple. I miss them. The 13” M2 MacBook Air is as close as they’ve gotten IMO.

And as a side note, it’s just absolutely wild to me how much more powerful my M2 MacBook Air is compared to my old 16” Intel i9 8 core MacBook Pro. Hardly any comparison, the MBA smokes it every way around. Except it doesn’t have an SD slot. That’s literally it to me.

And last side note, not that you asked: I have not noticed a real world difference between my M1 Pro 16” and my M2 MBA. I’m sure there are some, but it’s never caught my attention. Our use cases are similar, fwiw. Take it for what it’s worth…

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

Personally, if I were you, I’d go for this machine right here…

Refurbished 14-inch MacBook Pro Apple M2 Pro Chip with 10‑Core CPU and 16‑Core GPU - Silver

Supercharged by M2 Pro or M2 Max, MacBook Pro takes its power and efficiency further than ever. It delivers exceptional performance whether it’s plugged in or not, and now has even longer battery life. Combined with a stunning Liquid Retina XDR display and all the ports you need — this is a pro...

store.apple.com

It’s only an extra $90 over your second option, and it comes with 32 GB of ram. And it still maintains the terabyte of storage.
If you can find an M1Pro with 32 GB of ram for even cheaper, that’s even better.

 

[missingar]

You do not mention RAM, which will be very relevant over the life of any new box. The Max chip with 50% more GPU cores and at least 32 GB RAM make most sense. Sure the excellent memory management in the Mac OS allows 16 GB RAM to function, but it will be limiting to ideal operation. It makes no sense to intentionally limit a new box.

You make it sound like the computer is barely squeezing by with 16GB of RAM and that's not true at all. If you read the original post, there's no need for OP to upgrade to the Max chip and 32GB of RAM.

No need for childish sarcasm. I did not say what to buy, I just pointed out the consequences of different choices. Many folks want a free lunch, but there is no free lunch: save some money by skimping on a 2023 purchase and spend 2024, 2025, 2026, 2027 and 2028 living with a box limited from day one. Or pay more.

First, you got sarcasm because your response was completely tone deaf to what the OP said fit into their needs and budget, so naturally it wasn't taken seriously.

Second, there is no "future proofing" computer purchases. You can overpay for the highest specs but they're still going to come out with new features that rely on updated processing tech or other hardware that your computer still won't be able to do. Your OS upgrades will still be limited to the same OS version as everyone else.

 

[dalestrauss]

If you compare Apples to Apples, that M1 MBP 14 with 16gb/1tb will outperform the similarly spec'd M2 MBA 15, which will cost you $1899. Add to that the fact that the MBP 14 has a 120hz miniLED screen, three Thunderbolt 4 ports, HDMI port, and SDXC card slot, you are getting an extraordinary value for only 3 oz more weight in your backpack.

PS - where did you find the 10c/16c version (with 1tb) for $1575? I thought I got a great deal on the 8c/14c version for $1550 two weeks ago...

 

[leifp]

For your use case scenario the M1Pro chip in the older 14” MBPro is ideal. That performance difference makes no difference for you. It has a media encode engine, which helps video editing (potentially). The sole benefit of the M2 for you is minor speed bumps. Put that $545 aside for the next one you buy. In 5 to 10 years…

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Like I said, Apple doesn't get to call it TB4 on MBA due to only having one available display-controller for external displays.

This is why the Mac Mini with the same SoC actually gets to say it supports TB4. No internal screen so instead it has two controllers available. Then the daisy-chaining works and it gets to be certified.

What you're saying about PCIe is, to borrow your phrase, not exactly true. That is the minimum allowed. Apple hasn't implemented half-speed TB3 ports on the MBA.

In fact, the PCIe-mode in thunderbolt 4 is *worse* than TB3. Not that it matter because a TB4-port can always be asked to run in TB3-mode. But there is no PCIe-card advantage for TB4. This is why the external PCIe boxes all run in thunderbolt 3 mode. I have a video for you from Sonnet which I highly suggest you watch.

All of this is too irrelevant to OP's original question and I apologise ahead of that. But squashing myths is important too.

Thanks for that! I stand corrected. MBA i/o bandwidth is 2/3 of MBP, not 1/3.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

The sole benefit of the M2 for you is minor speed bumps.

We agree that the speed bumps of M2 are not that important for most folks. However we disagree with the statement that the sole benefit of M2 is minor speed bumps.

Over the 2023-2028 life cycle under discussion, for many users M2's WiFi 6E and Bluetooth 5.3 will provide significant improvements to daily operations. My office is already WiFi 6E, for instance. Choosing M1 means choosing to never take advantage of the 6E and 5.3 benefits for the life of the box, and coincidentally was a big part of why I waited for M2 before I upgraded my 2016 MBP.

There is also the reality that Apple engineers spent tens of thousands of hours upgrading M1 to M2, much of which was undocumented under the hood improvements.

Correction edit: WiFi and Bluetooth upgrades discussed are not intrinsically part of the chip. Per Apple, All new Mac, iPhone, iPad Pro, and Apple Watch models released since September 2022 support Bluetooth 5.3.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

You make it sound like the computer is barely squeezing by with 16GB of RAM and that's not true at all. If you read the original post, there's no need for OP to upgrade to the Max chip and 32GB of RAM.

First, you got sarcasm because your response was completely tone deaf to what the OP said fit into their needs and budget, so naturally it wasn't taken seriously.

Second, there is no "future proofing" computer purchases. You can overpay for the highest specs but they're still going to come out with new features that rely on updated processing tech or other hardware that your computer still won't be able to do. Your OS upgrades will still be limited to the same OS version as everyone else.

You say
"If you read the original post, there's no need for OP to upgrade to the Max chip and 32GB of RAM."
I did read the OP and have been using essentially the same 16 GB RAM MBP as the OP since 2017. The OP stated:
-------------------
mostly a writer, but I do some graphic design and video editing. ...some work in After Effects. I travel a bit and coffee shop surf, but mostly use my Mac with a monitor and peripherals. My current MacBook Pro works fine. Render times aren't great, but they don't bother me.
-------------------

That described work reasonably fits in 16 GB RAM today. However it is a big mistake to plan for today when the life cycle of the new box is the next five years, not yesterday. RAM needs always increase; always. Certain special situations can suffice with limited RAM (e.g. granny's email-only, or a K-12 sysop aggressively managing app usage of dozens of Macs to fit in less expensive limited RAM space) but all regular users should plan on RAM needs increasing as OS and apps evolve.

Your second para:
"Second, there is no "future proofing" computer purchases. You can overpay for the highest specs but they're still going to come out with new features that rely on updated processing tech or other hardware that your computer still won't be able to do. Your OS upgrades will still be limited to the same OS version as everyone else."

makes no sense to me. Although I intentionally do not use the term future proofing, certainly forward thinking makes hella sense and unequivocally makes for more cost effective decision making. Forward thinking means realizing 2027 demands on RAM will be higher. Forward thinking means accepting loss of access to WiFi 6E and Bluetooth 5.3 2023-2028 to save money with M1 (or not).

We agree about not overpaying for the highest specs, but it depends on the specs in question and one's likely future needs. E.g. I bought a 2016 MBP in 2017 and got i7 not i9, but otherwise a maximum box and saved >$1k. I never regretted the weaker, slower, year-older i7 in the least (the 16 GB RAM did become limiting, but 2017 versions had the same limitation). Awareness of limitations like RAM, WiFi 6E and Bluetooth 5.3 does not preclude buying the cheaper choices. Folks just need to recognize said limitations for the life cycle of the box, which sometimes means planning a shorter life cycle to meet current financial constraints.

 

[IconDRT]

Looks like we can be an argumentative bunch. No wonder OP doesn’t have (or maybe want) any Apple nerd friends.

Totally agree with the “there’s no such thing as future-proofing” in general. But in the context of Apple, future-proofing for me means making the right choice of memory and storage for today and for OP’s five-year laptop lifecycle.

In addition, Apple’s current/vintage/obsolete service and support cycle means (at least based on current Apple practices) that the M2 will likely get longer support than the M1 just by virtue of the M2 being newer (but if OP plans to update again in 5 years this isn’t really an issue for M1 or M2).

I think there is general agreement that OP’s two options are both more than adequate. OP already said the Air is not an option. For OP’s current workflow the M1 option is more than enough, but I’d still lock in the M2 if budget allows.

 

[Mr. Heckles]

How about a refurbished MacBook Air with a M2 and 16 GB of RAM? I see some from $1369 to $1909. Maybe others can chime in.

edit: I just priced a 15in MacBook Air with a M2 and 24GB of RAM for $1899 (if you want a bigger screen).

 

[Alex Cai]

MacBook Pro 14 seems like overkill for writing and 1080P video editing
My M2 Air handles more than 3 streams of 4k video in Final Cut. It brings longer battery life and still a decent display (no 120hz)

 

[Allen_Wentz]

We agree that the speed bumps of M2 are not that important for most folks. However we disagree with the statement that the sole benefit of M2 is minor speed bumps.

Over the 2023-2028 life cycle under discussion, for many users M2's WiFi 6E and Bluetooth 5.3 will provide significant improvements to daily operations. My office is already WiFi 6E, for instance. Choosing M1 means choosing to never take advantage of the 6E and 5.3 benefits for the life of the box, and coincidentally was a big part of why I waited for M2 before I upgraded my 2016 MBP.

There is also the reality that Apple engineers spent tens of thousands of hours upgrading M1 to M2, much of which was undocumented under the hood improvements.

How about a refurbished MacBook Air with a M2 and 16 GB of RAM? I see some from $1369 to $1909. Maybe others can chime in.

edit: I just priced a 15in MacBook Air with a M2 and 24GB of RAM for $1899 (if you want a bigger screen).

Obviously MBAs are much cheaper, but it seemed like the OP had determined that he needed the superior display and ability to drive more external displays that the MBPs provide.

Strong recommendation to the OP: diligently review all the detail under "Tech Specs" on Apple's website for each precise product that you evaluate. Unfortunately recent changes to Apple's site make Tech Specs much harder to find, but such review is an essential step to avoid getting hosed by some unexpected limitation of a lesser box.

Folks familiar with PCs often expect typical features seen in cheap PCs, but Apple carefully configures each product to fit a position in a product line. We cannot assume that any given product has some expected capability unless it is specifically shown under Tech Specs.

 

[phrehdd]

Obviously MBAs are much cheaper, but it seemed like the OP had determined that he needed the superior display and ability to drive more external displays that the MBPs provide.

Strong recommendation to the OP: diligently review all the detail under "Tech Specs" on Apple's website for each precise product that you evaluate. Unfortunately recent changes to Apple's site make Tech Specs much harder to find, but such review is an essential step to avoid getting hosed by some unexpected limitation of a lesser box.

Folks familiar with PCs often expect typical features seen in cheap PCs, but Apple carefully configures each product to fit a position in a product line. We cannot assume that any given product has some expected capability unless it is specifically shown under Tech Specs.

Apple carefully configures each product ... I often feel they create upgrades in the way to best empty our pockets and nothing more. Sometimes they'll leave off features so they can be waved in front of us on the next model release thus enticing people to abandon their 5 year or so longevity of purchase to 2-3 years.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Apple carefully configures each product ... I often feel they create upgrades in the way to best empty our pockets and nothing more. Sometimes they'll leave off features so they can be waved in front of us on the next model release thus enticing people to abandon their 5 year or so longevity of purchase to 2-3 years.

The high end (MBPs, Studios) will typically hit the longer 4 to 6+ year life cycles while lesser boxes (MBAs, Minis, downspec'd MBPs) are likely to show their weaknesses sooner, 2 to 4 years. How an individual box is built-to-order also is huge. Most 2016 MBPs were sold at 8 GB RAM; if mine had not been preordered at 16 GB RAM it would have required replacing circa 2019 instead of 2023.

RAM was literally the only reason the 2016 MBP required replacing; I probably should have upgraded sooner but I was waiting for an M2 Studio. M2 Studios took so long I bought an M2 MBP instead.

 

[leifp]

We agree that the speed bumps of M2 are not that important for most folks. However we disagree with the statement that the sole benefit of M2 is minor speed bumps.

Over the 2023-2028 life cycle under discussion, for many users M2's WiFi 6E and Bluetooth 5.3 will provide significant improvements to daily operations. My office is already WiFi 6E, for instance. Choosing M1 means choosing to never take advantage of the 6E and 5.3 benefits for the life of the box, and coincidentally was a big part of why I waited for M2 before I upgraded my 2016 MBP.

There is also the reality that Apple engineers spent tens of thousands of hours upgrading M1 to M2, much of which was undocumented under the hood improvements.

Correction edit: WiFi and Bluetooth upgrades discussed are not intrinsically part of the chip. Per Apple, All new Mac, iPhone, iPad Pro, and Apple Watch models released since September 2022 support Bluetooth 5.3.

You missed the most important part of my sentence “for you” and that is not… for you…

 

[phrehdd]

The high end (MBPs, Studios) will typically hit the longer 4 to 6+ year life cycles while lesser boxes (MBAs, Minis, downspec'd MBPs) are likely to show their weaknesses sooner, 2 to 4 years. How an individual box is built-to-order also is huge. Most 2016 MBPs were sold at 8 GB RAM; if mine had not been preordered at 16 GB RAM it would have required replacing circa 2019 instead of 2023.

RAM was literally the only reason the 2016 MBP required replacing; I probably should have upgraded sooner but I was waiting for an M2 Studio. M2 Studios took so long I bought an M2 MBP instead.

Similar here. I had a 2015 MBP 512/16. Served me extremely well. However, between the battery bloat and apps that didn't fair as well as one would hope with 16 gigs of RAM, I went for the M1 Mini similarly spec'd. Strangely it seem to be even more* a problem with just 16 gigs of RAM. Ultimately, ended up with the Studio Max 1TB/64. All my apps now seem not to have issues and nearly never see swapping going on. 64 might be overkill as 32 probably would be fine but I am far from complaining about it now.

Long ago, when I was at work we had to throw "Windows Vista" on the workbench to see if it was a viable option for the company. We rejected it for all the right reasons. I was so put off by Vista, that after all my days at work and home with PCs (built so many I lost count) I opted to jump ship and go to Macs. With Intel inside and a surface knowledge of Unix/Linux, it seem like the right thing to do. I have only have Macs since then. I do snicker from time to time when I could boast about my PC having an amazing 8 megs of RAM and a video card with 2 megs of VRAM.

 

[Yebubbleman]

You do not mention RAM, which will be very relevant over the life of any new box.

He mentioned that he has 16GB of RAM and isn't choking with that at the moment.

The Max chip with 50% more GPU cores and at least 32 GB RAM make most sense.

That's seriously overkill for what the OP needs. Hell, it's overkill for the vast majority of Mac users.

Sure the excellent memory management in the Mac OS allows 16 GB RAM to function, but it will be limiting to ideal operation. It makes no sense to intentionally limit a new box.

Unless you are getting serious with video editing, audio work, virtualization, scientific work, development, gaming, or anything else resource intensive, you will not need more than 16GB. I do not know where you get the idea that the best you're going to do on an Apple Silicon Mac with 16GB of RAM is to get it to function. Hell, I can get 8GB of RAM on Apple Silicon to function, and so long as I'm not using more than 15 Safari tabs and more than 4 other apps at once, the experience is fine.

It makes no sense to buy an M2 Max to get cores and RAM that aren't even necessary for the use case being presented. Plus the M2 Pro can accomodate 32GB of RAM which is already going to be more than enough for someone who never found 16GB on an Intel MacBook Pro to be all that limiting.

Also do note that M2 has many benefits over M1; WiFi 6E and Bluetooth 5.3 being very obvious. Other benefits are less obvious. And it may not matter to you, but adding 5 years to a 2021 box will likely put an M1 MBP unable to use the Mac OS of 5 years from now.

Apple JUST dropped support for 2017 Macs with Sonoma. They just discontinued their last Intel Mac. It's going to be a lot longer than five years from now before they're dropping support for M1 Pro and M1 Max. Even when they do inevitably drop support for those Macs on a new macOS release, those Macs will still have two more years of updates on that final OS thereafter. I have no clue where you get your logic and figures from.

I am sensitive to those issues because my 2016 MBP A) became substantially limited by its (max available at the time) 16 GB RAM

First rule of technology consulting: do not treat the user like the person you see in the mirror. You both will have inherently different needs and pain points in your setups. Furthermore, you are different people with different needs.

Personally, if I were you, I’d go for this machine right here…

Refurbished 14-inch MacBook Pro Apple M2 Pro Chip with 10‑Core CPU and 16‑Core GPU - Silver

Supercharged by M2 Pro or M2 Max, MacBook Pro takes its power and efficiency further than ever. It delivers exceptional performance whether it’s plugged in or not, and now has even longer battery life. Combined with a stunning Liquid Retina XDR display and all the ports you need — this is a pro...

store.apple.com

It’s only an extra $90 over your second option, and it comes with 32 GB of ram. And it still maintains the terabyte of storage.
If you can find an M1Pro with 32 GB of ram for even cheaper, that’s even better.

That's a solid system and if they had that exact same config (10 CPU Cores; 16 GPU Cores; 32GB RAM), but with 2TB instead of 1TB, I'd be very much tempted. But, I think that's definitely overkill for the OP's use cases.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

He mentioned that he has 16GB of RAM and isn't choking with that at the moment.

You object to my statement that "You do not mention RAM, which will be very relevant over the life of any new box," but that comment was made in response to the original post, in which RAM had not yet been mentioned.

That's seriously overkill for what the OP needs. Hell, it's overkill for the vast majority of Mac users.

Unless you are getting serious with video editing, audio work, virtualization, scientific work, development, gaming, or anything else resource intensive, you will not need more than 16GB. I do not know where you get the idea that the best you're going to do on an Apple Silicon Mac with 16GB of RAM is to get it to function.

I did not say "that the best you're going to do on an Apple Silicon Mac with 16GB of RAM is to get it to function." What I actually said was:
-----------
16 GB RAM will be workable thanks to Mac OS magic but will be limiting over 2023-2028 5 year life cycle.

That described work reasonably fits in 16 GB RAM today. However it is a big mistake to plan for today when the life cycle of the new box is the next five years, not yesterday. RAM needs always increase; always.
----------
The key word in my commentary was (future) limiting. My experience suggests that many, perhaps most, workflows - specifically including where the OP described being at today extrapolated to where the OP will likely be 4 years from now - will likely be being limited by 16 GB RAM. Not barely functional, but limited.

Let me be crystal clear: per the OP 16 GB RAM apparently works fine for him today, and 16 GB should also work fine for him on any Apple SoC today. But based on history I lived and anyone can research, RAM needs always increase over time. Very simply, that means 16 GB will become limiting at some point; IMO 2-3 years.

The Mac OS will allow function but the 16 GB RAM chosen in 2023 will be limiting to the operation of the multi-thousand-dollar computer - - despite that multi-thousand-dollar computer still being an otherwise fine tool. My 2016 MBP with 16 GB RAM followed exactly that path, with no changes in apps/OS except upgrades.

IMO that would be bad 2023 decision making, because I do not think that a new multi-thousand-dollar computer should intentionally be limited in 2 years by a RAM decision made when building the original box. Obviously any 2023 box will be limited relative to more tech-advanced 2025 boxes; that is fully expected and OK. But to intentionally and unnecessarily cause a box to become RAM-lame (yet functional thanks to Mac OS) in 2 years IMO represents poor planning, unless:

There is a valid alternate analytical view based on short life cycles that some follow for various good reasons. One can spend less now, meeting today's needs only like you have been focusing on and then replace the box in 2 years. Makes total sense for some, especially for large entities. Such folks intend to deal with things like increasing RAM demands with a new box in 2 years, easy-peasy.

It seems to me that the OP was not intending a short life cycle, and my comments have been made accordingly.

It makes no sense to buy an M2 Max to get cores and RAM that aren't even necessary for the use case being presented. Plus the M2 Pro can accomodate 32GB of RAM...

IMO M2 Max MBP versus M2 Pro MBP both at the same 32 GB RAM (minimum) are both acceptable choices for the OP, depending upon what the actual street costing gets to be versus the performance benefits the Max provides (OP's analytical/financial choice). But for $200 more today, 2 years from now the Max's additional GPU cores and twice the memory bandwidth may well matter to someone who (today) does "some graphic design and video editing. ...some work in After Effects. ...mostly use my Mac with a monitor and peripherals. My current MacBook Pro works fine. Render times aren't great..."

My whole point here is that tech evolves (hardware, OS, apps) and we should plan accordingly when building hardware for 4+ year life cycles.

Apple JUST dropped support for 2017 Macs with Sonoma. They just discontinued their last Intel Mac. It's going to be a lot longer than five years from now before they're dropping support for M1 Pro and M1 Max. Even when they do inevitably drop support for those Macs on a new macOS release, those Macs will still have two more years of updates on that final OS thereafter. I have no clue where you get your logic and figures from.

Again, what I actually said was: ...likely put an M1 MBP unable to use the Mac OS of 5 years from now.

Never have I suggested "dropping support for M1 Pro and M1 Max." You and I agree here. My last two MBPs went 6 and 7 (and still working) years, and I never did experience loss of support (inability to upgrade to the newest OS is not dropping support in my lexicon). I upgraded the still fully operational 2016 MBP to an M2 MBP A) because it evolved to be RAM-lame at 16 GB and B) because I use Apple-ecosystem-wide features enabled by Mac OS Sonoma that (still supported) Monterey does not facilitate.

 

[maxsquared]

I have both and using both too… The M1Pro is my own, it has 32 GB ram, the M2Pro is from work, it has 16 GB ram.

99% of the time, I don’t feel any difference at all, two machines run identical.

In terms of RAM usage, 16 GB does use swap a lot, from time to time I’d run activity manager to see memory usage, I’d day 2-3/10 times, it used swap, when I, say have all the apps for work (mail messenger calendar and etc), plus a few Figma tabs, it is guaranteed it will use swap, or say, when I use it for automation tasks that require a lot of ram, for example, if I convert 1000 raw photos to DNG in Lightroom, or run batch Photoshop actions with a few pictures, swap will definitely kick in, and the extra ram will help, though the M2Pro uses swap, it’s slower, but it’s not noticeable slower, I can wait.

A benefit of the M2Pro is the connectivity as well, it allows 160 mhz, which means you can get closer to 1 gigabits connection, my M1Pro can only peak around 650 mbps, but my M2Pro can peak around 850 mbps, do you have a fast internet connection? Is the speed important for you? TBH, 650 mbps is plenty fast for most things.

M2Pro “seems” to run warmer than the M1Pro, my M1Pro only gets warm after I ran some intensive tasks, but M2Pro is warm even when after a conference call.

TBH, day to day, I don’t feel there is any significant difference at all between the two machines, if I were in your shoes, I’d pick the M1Pro and use the left over money to get something else… Is M1Pro with 32 GB ram not an option? That’s be my number one choice.

 

[Yebubbleman]

You object to my statement that "You do not mention RAM, which will be very relevant over the life of any new box," but that comment was made in response to the original post, in which RAM had not yet been mentioned.

I did not say "that the best you're going to do on an Apple Silicon Mac with 16GB of RAM is to get it to function." What I actually said was:
-----------
16 GB RAM will be workable thanks to Mac OS magic but will be limiting over 2023-2028 5 year life cycle.

That described work reasonably fits in 16 GB RAM today. However it is a big mistake to plan for today when the life cycle of the new box is the next five years, not yesterday. RAM needs always increase; always.
----------
The key word in my commentary was (future) limiting. My experience suggests that many, perhaps most, workflows - specifically including where the OP described being at today extrapolated to where the OP will likely be 4 years from now - will likely be being limited by 16 GB RAM. Not barely functional, but limited.

Let me be crystal clear: per the OP 16 GB RAM apparently works fine for him today, and 16 GB should also work fine for him on any Apple SoC today. But based on history I lived and anyone can research, RAM needs always increase over time. Very simply, that means 16 GB will become limiting at some point; IMO 2-3 years.

The Mac OS will allow function but the 16 GB RAM chosen in 2023 will be limiting to the operation of the multi-thousand-dollar computer - - despite that multi-thousand-dollar computer still being an otherwise fine tool. My 2016 MBP with 16 GB RAM followed exactly that path, with no changes in apps/OS except upgrades.

IMO that would be bad 2023 decision making, because I do not think that a new multi-thousand-dollar computer should intentionally be limited in 2 years by a RAM decision made when building the original box. Obviously any 2023 box will be limited relative to more tech-advanced 2025 boxes; that is fully expected and OK. But to intentionally and unnecessarily cause a box to become RAM-lame (yet functional thanks to Mac OS) in 2 years IMO represents poor planning, unless:

There is a valid alternate analytical view based on short life cycles that some follow for various good reasons. One can spend less now, meeting today's needs only like you have been focusing on and then replace the box in 2 years. Makes total sense for some, especially for large entities. Such folks intend to deal with things like increasing RAM demands with a new box in 2 years, easy-peasy.

It seems to me that the OP was not intending a short life cycle, and my comments have been made accordingly.

IMO M2 Max MBP versus M2 Pro MBP both at the same 32 GB RAM (minimum) are both acceptable choices for the OP, depending upon what the actual street costing gets to be versus the performance benefits the Max provides (OP's analytical/financial choice). But for $200 more today, 2 years from now the Max's additional GPU cores and twice the memory bandwidth may well matter to someone who (today) does "some graphic design and video editing. ...some work in After Effects. ...mostly use my Mac with a monitor and peripherals. My current MacBook Pro works fine. Render times aren't great..."

My whole point here is that tech evolves (hardware, OS, apps) and we should plan accordingly when building hardware for 4+ year life cycles.

Again, what I actually said was: ...likely put an M1 MBP unable to use the Mac OS of 5 years from now.

Never have I suggested "dropping support for M1 Pro and M1 Max." You and I agree here. My last two MBPs went 6 and 7 (and still working) years, and I never did experience loss of support (inability to upgrade to the newest OS is not dropping support in my lexicon). I upgraded the still fully operational 2016 MBP to an M2 MBP A) because it evolved to be RAM-lame at 16 GB and B) because I use Apple-ecosystem-wide features enabled by Mac OS Sonoma that (still supported) Monterey does not facilitate.

Your words have a funny way of changing when you quote them. Incidentally, I quoted what you said as it was written.

In any case, someone, whose needs would be perfectly met on a Base M1 or M2, does not need an M1 Max or M2 Max over an M1 Pro or M2 Pro just because adding more GPU cores would future-proof the device. If you study (a) how Apple has dropped support for Intel Macs and (b) how Apple has dropped support for its other SoCs in other devices, GPU makes no difference. Apple never said "yeah, we'll support the 2015 15-inch MacBook Pro, but only the AMD Radeon models and not the Intel Iris Pro 5200 only models". That's not how they draw lines when determining what gets support versus what doesn't. RAM will likely matter; though, not at the border between 16GB and 24GB/32GB; other key architectural differences will be what causes an M1 or M1 Pro Mac to lose support; not the difference between a Pro and a Max chip.