Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Should Apple put the M2 chip in the 16" MacBook Pro?

Should Apple put the M2 chip in the 16" MacBook Pro

  • Yes.

    Votes: 25 39.1%

  • No.

    Votes: 43 67.2%
  • Total voters
    64
It would be nice. But it shouldn't be a Pro. Just a 16" Macbook with an appropriately lower price. Also the low end MBP should be rechristened Macbook.
 
Apple's pretty predictable. They're just following their product standards.

Want a big screen iPhone? GO PRO
Want a big screen iPad? GO PRO
Want a big screen MacBook? Pro it is!
Want an iMac larger than 24" (most likely) go Pro!

Anyone that just wants a larger screen device with a standard processor will unfortunately have to buy more than they need.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VaruLV, mca19 and Srao1982
adamjackson said:
Apple's pretty predictable. They're just following their product standards.

Want a big screen iPhone? GO PRO
Want a big screen iPad? GO PRO
Want a big screen MacBook? Pro it is!
Want an iMac larger than 24" (most likely) go Pro!

Anyone that just wants a larger screen device with a standard processor will unfortunately have to buy more than they need.
Click to expand...
I thought bigger screen iPhones were called PLUS and MAX?
 
adamjackson said:
Apple's pretty predictable. They're just following their product standards.

Want a big screen iPhone? GO PRO
Want a big screen iPad? GO PRO
Want a big screen MacBook? Pro it is!
Want an iMac larger than 24" (most likely) go Pro!

Anyone that just wants a larger screen device with a standard processor will unfortunately have to buy more than they need.
Click to expand...
Typically larger screens are higher resolution which have more pixels which requires more computational power. They are also more expensive to produce due to lower yields. So...yes?

I can assure you that having a large/high resolution screen paired with underpowered guts is not an enjoyable experience.
 
dtm84 said:
Typically larger screens are higher resolution which have more pixels which requires more computational power. They are also more expensive to produce due to lower yields. So...yes?

I can assure you that having a large/high resolution screen paired with underpowered guts is not an enjoyable experience.
Click to expand...

We’ll have to disagree on this one and I’m sorry but you can attach a large screen to a small computer no problem. Apple, when it came to the first generation 5K iMac built a special ribbon connector to drive it but those weren’t powerful computers, they just needed to make an in-house bus that could drive the pixels from logic board to display.

The first 12.9” iPad was powered by an A9X. The A15 in the current iPad mini could easily power a 12.9” iPad. The same A15 in the iPhone Mini is in the iPhone 13 Pro Max just with 2 extra GBs of memory if my memory serves me.

My 17” Powerbook in 2006 was powered by a 1.25Ghz G4 Processor. The new displays have more pixels and colors but 16” doesn’t require M1 Pro just like 13” iPad Pro doesn’t require an M1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VaruLV and mopatops
Looking on Dell's website, you can buy an XPS 15" with an 11th gen Core i7, 16GB, 512GB, Nvidia RTX 3050, albeit with full 1920x1200 display for $1,349. The 4K touch screen brings the price up to $1,749. There's no reason Apple couldn't offer a similarly spec'd 15" with an M1 for ~$1,799 or so.
 
While there's no doubt that 1) Apple could do it if they wanted to, and 2) There would be a decent number of customers for a large-screen / non-high-end laptop, I think it's very unlikely Apple would do it.

They've historically and consistently kept the large screen sizes reserved for their high-end devices only. iPad Pro 12.9", iPhone Pro Max, and 15/16" Macbook Pros. Basically a marketing / brand / pricing exercise, to keep "big" correlated with "high-end".

All those customers today who want a larger-size MBA, are they settling for the 13" MBA? Or ponying up for the 16" MBP? Depending on exact numbers / customer preferences, the increase in customers buying a larger-size "Macbook Air" might not make up for the decrease in customers buying the 16" MBP (who otherwise don't need the power, but are paying up the higher price to get it). And that's just from a $ perspective. The loss of "big" = "higher-end" might not be worth it, even if from a $ perspective, it was net-positive to Apple.

Hard to say... But overall, I think it's very unlikely Apple does it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VaruLV
Since Apple listened to customer feedback on the MacBook Pro, brought back SD card and HDMI ports, and sacrificed their mantra of thinness over function, maybe they will finally do it this time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ugru
adamjackson said:
We’ll have to disagree on this one and I’m sorry but you can attach a large screen to a small computer no problem. Apple, when it came to the first generation 5K iMac built a special ribbon connector to drive it but those weren’t powerful computers, they just needed to make an in-house bus that could drive the pixels from logic board to display.

The first 12.9” iPad was powered by an A9X. The A15 in the current iPad mini could easily power a 12.9” iPad. The same A15 in the iPhone Mini is in the iPhone 13 Pro Max just with 2 extra GBs of memory if my memory serves me.

My 17” Powerbook in 2006 was powered by a 1.25Ghz G4 Processor. The new displays have more pixels and colors but 16” doesn’t require M1 Pro just like 13” iPad Pro doesn’t require an M1.
Click to expand...
Your Powerbook wasn't running a retina display, but even my mid-2012 15" MBP handles its retina screen just fine. I'd imagine an Apple processor designed with power comparable to a machine from 2-4 years ago could run a 16" screen just fine, while being cheaper, quiet, efficient, and still have more than enough power for most non-professional needs.
 
It depends. If Apple plans to continue the "Max" chips, then Apple would most likely update the 16-inch in the future with the M2 pro & M2 Max.
 
Pakaku said:
Your Powerbook wasn't running a retina display, but even my mid-2012 15" MBP handles its retina screen just fine. I'd imagine an Apple processor designed with power comparable to a machine from 2-4 years ago could run a 16" screen just fine, while being cheaper, quiet, efficient, and still have more than enough power for most non-professional needs.
Click to expand...

That was my point. I think the iPad comparison is more succinct. If an an A9X can power a 12.9” Retina display then anything apple makes can. 6.7” or 12.9” doesn’t require a ‘pro’ price. Apple just chooses to make people pay for more than they need. I think a 16” MacBookshould exist with an M1 / M2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VaruLV
There is no M2 chip going to be in the 16" MBP. The hardware was engineered for a M1 Max and M2 Max chip.

To give you a bit of perspective, the 16" MBP stays quite with the M1 Max inside, so that's why the M2 will never be put in a 16" MBP as it is complete overkill.

The best you can hope for is a M2 chip in a redesigned 14" MBP (without mini-LED and promotion to keep the price down and maintain battery life) .
 
adamjackson said:
That was my point. I think the iPad comparison is more succinct. If an an A9X can power a 12.9” Retina display then anything apple makes can. 6.7” or 12.9” doesn’t require a ‘pro’ price. Apple just chooses to make people pay for more than they need. I think a 16” MacBookshould exist with an M1 / M2.
Click to expand...

The difference between a 16" M1 Max and 16" M1 Pro is only $300 (if you select the same RAM and SSD size).

So theoretically, you might also save only $300 going for the M1 chip instead of the M1 pro in the 16" M1 MBP, which is very expensive machine if you look at what PC's offers in terms of performance in the same price range.
 
GoldPunch said:
So do you think even base M2 will be more powerful than M1 Max?
Click to expand...
Clearly not, as it's likely to have half the performance core count.

However there will be some awkwardness in the lineup if the M2 cores are based on A15 cores, versus the M1 cores based on A14 cores - some tasks that are not heavily threaded and don't need the massive memory bandwidth will run faster on M2 machines than on M1 Pro/Max. The efficiency cores in the A15 generation are even further improved so altogether it will be interesting to see just how close M2 machines get.

In general I'm slightly surprised by just how big the A-core to M-core lag is - I'm certain Apple could have done this much faster if they'd felt the need, but at this point they are shipping M-cores based on A-cores from almost 18 months previously (in the case of the M1 Pro/Max), and if they continue with the M1 base for their other pro machines they are going to be shipping M cores that are architecturally almost two years old - by the time an M1 based Mac Pro ships it seems likely that the core will be two generations behind the A cores.

What's ironic there is that one of the issues with Intel over the last decade is that they got themselves architecturally stuck and kept shipping the same core in different guises. I really hope that Intel's 'leadership' in this manner hasn't affected the culture at Apple in this regard. Though, there does seem to be a certain kind of 'withholding' in the Apple product culture - keeping back the pace of development of certain features and releases because the market is willing to tolerate it and they can be more financially streamlined in the process. It's a shame really, because it is clear that the idea of delivering the 'best product possible' at any given time isn't necessarily the absolute first priority.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: VaruLV and Christopher Kim
UBS28 said:
The difference between a 16" M1 Max and 16" M1 Pro is only $300 (if you select the same RAM and SSD size).

So theoretically, you might also save only $300 going for the M1 chip instead of the M1 pro in the 16" M1 MBP, which is very expensive machine if you look at what PC's offers in terms of performance in the same price range.
Click to expand...

Before I bow out of the thread, all I’m saying is there are consumers out there that want very large screens and don’t want 8 CPU cores and 32GB of RAM. My wife likes my large Screen MacBook Pro 16” but the only computer for her is a MacBook Air that meets her budget. There are people out there who would pay $1799 for a 16” Air with an M1 chip. Pros can spend $2499 for the Pro / Max chips.

Same for the iPad. She has an IPad Air 9.7” She’d like a larger screen but that requires spending an extra $500. She doesn’t need Apple Pencil 2, MiniLED display, XDR, 4 speakers, center stage, 2 cameras, LiDAR and on and on. She just wants the bigger screen. Apple says bigger screen = $500 more because that’s a Pro feature. I disagree. Non-Pros want to see their recipes and watch Netflix too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MRxROBOT, VaruLV, DHagan4755 and 1 other person
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back