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

Waiting for 2021 MBP

Mackan said:
I would like a simple USB-C charger, just like on current M1 Macbooks.
Click to expand...
Yeah, USB-C should be here to stay. Apple was a pioneer in USB-Cing everything (except the iPhone and the darn mouse/keyboards), so I'd hate to see them move away from it now.

Paratriplel said:
I’d be pleasantly surprised, if Apple has had thoughts about extending the functionality of the power brick (they did obviously have them for the 24” M1 iMac as they provided the power brick with an Ethernet-port) if Apple offered us to “upgrade” the power brick to a hub
Click to expand...
If you move enough stuff out of the iMac into the brick, you end up with a mac mini + external screen setup. It's ridiculous. Adding the Ethernet port to the power brick is the most silly idea I've ever seen. Except possibly for a USB pencil sharpener. Ports go in the computer. Power goes into the computer. Ideally, with a single cord because there is no brick at all.
 
Arctic Moose said:
Why would you prefer that over an updated MacBook Air?
Click to expand...
Air doesn't have a fan and doesn't connect to 2 monitors.. However if you mean an updated Mini-LED air it would be due to additional thunderbolt ports on the right side and hopefully the fan for when it's on clamshell. Like fully connected to my dock I sometimes hit 55c..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arctic Moose
PeterJP said:
If you move enough stuff out of the iMac into the brick, you end up with a mac mini + external screen setup. It's ridiculous. Adding the Ethernet port to the power brick is the most silly idea I've ever seen. Except possibly for a USB pencil sharpener. Ports go in the computer. Power goes into the computer. Ideally, with a single cord because there is no brick at all.
Click to expand...
Well, the Ethernet port in the power brick on the iMac isn’t something I really care about or think is genius in any way, it’s pretty obvious Apple wanted to make a really thin iMac to show that they now can thanks to Apple Simon instead of Intel, though of course the Ethernet port could probably have fitted somewhere on the iMac, such as on the sides but it would have looked a bit “funny”…

I do however not agree with you about that ports belong just on the computer, not sure why you’d say that. Of course ports in the computer is essential but if there are ports only used by a handful of people or if the ports are too large to fit in the computer (and if there’s a reason for the computer not being slightly larger, such as a laptop that is meant to be taken with you and therefore benefits from being smaller and having less weight etc…) but only as long as the computer has the essential ports to be used without the power brick or course.

There are however more to a computer than ports and a screen. It would make things a bit smoother and easier for me if I got something like 1x or 2x USB-A, HDMI, Thunderbolt and preferably SD-card and Ethernet-port (for the rare occasions I might need them) on my power brick.
then of course I would of course want to have 3-4 TB3 (or even TB4) ports on my MacBook Pro. That way I can easily unplug one cable and use my computer in another room and fast and easy plug them back in when I’m going to work in my usual workplace (which currently is my Music studio and there I’ve got enough of a cable mess as it is, hehe).

Bur I guess we all have different preference about these sort of things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Buntschwalbe
Hells bells I would love it if I the ethernet adapter was on the mag safe power brick. you set it up once. I don't see the hate for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Buntschwalbe
Paratriplel said:
Well, the Ethernet port in the power brick on the iMac isn’t something I really care about or think is genius in any way, it’s pretty obvious Apple wanted to make a really thin iMac to show that they now can thanks to Apple Simon instead of Intel, though of course the Ethernet port could probably have fitted somewhere on the iMac, such as on the sides but it would have looked a bit “funny”…
Click to expand...
I haven't had any strong opinions on the 24" design until I saw one in store the other day.

Man does it look thick!

The edges are what matter, and the tapered design of the 27" sitting next to it made it look a lot slimmer despite it of course being significantly thicker where the stand attaches to it.

I had the same feeling the first time I held an iPad Pro 11", and the design really isn't growing on me.

It turns out the iMac is actually 11.5 mm thick, which is almost twice as thick as an iPad Pro 11". This really seems like a failure to me for a computer that is practically a big iPad, but with a huge chin and no battery.

The 24" could have looked much thinner with tapered edges, and then the power supply and ports could then have gone where they belong.

I don't really have a problem with the Ethernet port on the power brick, it would be great for a computer that needs a power brick, such as a laptop. Hell, put an HDMI, SD card reader and a few USB ports on it too. It is the power brick itself I don't like. The iMac is supposed to be an all-in-one. Now it is not. Moving ports, cables and peripherals under the desk is fine if that is what you prefer, but there are Thunderbolt docks for that.
 
Last edited:
Arctic Moose said:
I haven't had any strong opinions on the 24" design until I saw one in store the other day.

Man does it look thick!

The edges are what matter, and the tapered design of the 27" sitting next to it made it look a lot slimmer despite it of course being significantly thicker where the stand attaches to it.

I had the same feeling the first time I held an iPad Pro 11", and the design really isn't growing on me.

It turns out the iMac is actually 11.5 mm thick, which is almost twice as thick as an iPad Pro 11". This really seems like a failure to me for computer which is practically a big iPad, but with a huge chin and no battery.

The 24" could have looked much thinner with tapered edges, and then the power supply and ports could then have gone where they belong.

I don't really have a problem with the Ethernet port on the power brick, it would be great for a computer that needs a power brick, such as a laptop. Hell, put an HDMI, SD card reader and a few USB ports on it too. It is the power brick itself I don't like. The iMac is supposed to be an all-in-one. Now it is not. Moving ports, cables and peripherals under the desk is fine if that is what you prefer, but there are Thunderbolt docks for that.
Click to expand...
I see. Sorry, now I understand where you were coming from! I can agree with that.
 
Arctic Moose said:
It turns out the iMac is actually 11.5 mm thick, which is almost twice as thick as an iPad Pro 11". This really seems like a failure to me for a computer that is practically a big iPad, but with a huge chin and no battery.
Click to expand...
If it was as thin as the iPad Pro you easily topple the iMac from a desk with just a finger. Heck the stand would be heavier than the iMac then and that would result in a iMac thats prone to falling down with just a tap of a finger.

The headlines/news sites then would mock Apple. You already have a M1 based Mac in tablet form its just running iOS.
The iPP M1 could easily run macOS.

Right now the 24" iMac is the thinnest PC/AIO in existence that is feat of it self.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: ModusOperandi, 3Rock, macsplusmacs and 1 other person
JayKay2021 said:
I am unsure whether I should get 14“ or 16“. Can you give some pro/cons from your point of view? Thx
Click to expand...
Well it largely depends on your budget, where you plan to use it and how you plan to use it. In years past, the larger 16" (or 15") cost $600 more than the 4tb 13" MBP but offered a bigger screen in addition to a much better CPU and a dedicated GPU which made it an overall better machine for anyone doing task that require high performance. On the downside, the 16" (15") has a bigger footprint and weighs more which means its not quite as portable.

This year things will be different but at this point we don't know how much different. Obviously the 16" will have a bigger display which means a larger chassis and more weight but beyond display size, we don't know much about how the 14" will compare to the 16". They will both use the M1X which gives the assumption that they will both have the same CPU performance. However, its certainly possible that the 16" with its larger battery and extra thermal room might be able to run the M1X at full throttle for longer but that's just an assumption and judging by the M1, I don't think thermal throttling will be an issue for either size.

On the GPU side, things get a little tricky... All rumors thus far have pointed to the M1X coming in either 16 core or 32 core variants. Those same rumors point to these chips being 2 different chips (Jade C-Chop and Jade C-Die) which means the 16 core GPU is not just a "binned" version of the 32 core GPU (like the 7 core GPU is a binned version of the 8 core GPU on the M1) these are 2 different M1X chips. So with all of that in mind, there are 2 trains of thought. The first says both the 14" and 16" base models will have the 16 core GPU with the 16" having the option to move to the 32 core. This would mean that the $1799 14" and the $2399 16" would have exactly the same performance for both CPU tasks and GPU task and at that point choosing between the 2 base models will just be a matter of screen size. The 2nd opinion (the one I agree with) says the 14" will use the 16 core Jade-C Chop and the 16" will use the 32 core Jade-C Die regardless of SKU which will give the $2399 16" its usual GPU power advantage over the $1799 model.

So long story short: At this point, we don't know enough about the differences between the 2 sizes. If its just screen size, then get the 16" if you want a bigger screen and get the 14" if you want something that weights less and is more portable. If the GPU turns out to be different then get the 16" if you need extra graphics power.
 
Last edited:
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: Christopher Kim, PetrolFuel, JayKay2021 and 1 other person
JayKay2021 said:
I am unsure whether I should get 14“ or 16“. Can you give some pro/cons from your point of view? Thx
Click to expand...

We gotta wait to tell you.

For the first? time, both sizes may have the same CPU / CPU / mem specs. If this is the case then it all comes down to screen size and battery.
 
Kung gu said:
If it was as thin as the iPad Pro you easily topple the iMac from a desk with just a finger. Heck the stand would be heavier than the iMac then and that would result in a iMac thats prone to falling down with just a tap of a finger.
Click to expand...

I don’t think that’s how physics works.

Anyhow, I’m sure Apple could figure it out, just like they did when they ballasted the iMac G4 base to accommodate a 20” screen.

Kung gu said:
Right now the 24" iMac is the thinnest PC/AIO in existence that is feat of it self.
Click to expand...

Even if that is true, it hardly matters when the iMac LOOKS and FEELS thick compared to the decade-old 27” design which has all the ports and a power supply.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ModusOperandi
terminator-jq said:
Well it largely depends on your budget, where you plan to use it and how you plan to use it. In years past, the larger 16" (or 15") cost $600 more than the 4tb 13" MBP but offered a bigger screen in addition to a much better CPU and a dedicated GPU which made it an overall better machine for anyone doing task that require high performance. On the downside, the 16" (15") has a bigger footprint and weighs more which means its not quite as portable.

This year things will be different but at this point we don't now how much different. Obviously the 16" will have a bigger display which means a larger chassis and more weight but beyond display size, we don't know much about how the 14" will compare to the 16". They will both use the M1X which gives the assumption that they will both have the same CPU performance. However, its certainly possible that the 16" with its larger battery and extra thermal room might be able to run the M1X at full throttle for longer but that's just an assumption and judging by the M1, I don't think thermal throttling will be an issue for either size.

On the GPU side, things get a little tricky... All rumors thus far have pointed to the M1X coming in either 16 core or 32 core variants. Those same rumors point to these chips being 2 different chips (Jade C-Chop and Jade C-Die) which means the 16 core GPU is not just a "binned" version of the 32 core GPU (like the 7 core GPU is a binned version of the 8 core GPU on the M1) these are 2 different M1X chips. So with all of that in mind, there are 2 trains of thought. The first says both the 14" and 16" base models will have the 16 core GPU with the 16" having the option to move to the 32 core. This would mean that the $1799 14" and the $2399 16" would have exactly the same performance for both CPU tasks and GPU task and at that point choosing between the 2 base models will just be a matter of screen size. The 2nd opinion (the one I agree with) says the 14" will use the 16 core Jade-C Chop and the 16" will use the 32 core Jade-C Die regardless of SKU which will give the $2399 16" its usual GPU power advantage over the $1799 model.

So long story short: At this point, we don't know enough about the differences between the 2 sizes. If its just screen size, then get the 16" if you want a bigger screen and get the 14" if you want something that weights less and is more portable. If the GPU turns out to be different then get the 16" if you need extra graphics power.
Click to expand...
Ugh, I sure do love a thorough and informative reply.
 
  • Like
Reactions: terminator-jq
terminator-jq said:
Well it largely depends on your budget, where you plan to use it and how you plan to use it. In years past, the larger 16" (or 15") cost $600 more than the 4tb 13" MBP but offered a bigger screen in addition to a much better CPU and a dedicated GPU which made it an overall better machine for anyone doing task that require high performance. On the downside, the 16" (15") has a bigger footprint and weighs more which means its not quite as portable.

This year things will be different but at this point we don't know how much different. Obviously the 16" will have a bigger display which means a larger chassis and more weight but beyond display size, we don't know much about how the 14" will compare to the 16". They will both use the M1X which gives the assumption that they will both have the same CPU performance. However, its certainly possible that the 16" with its larger battery and extra thermal room might be able to run the M1X at full throttle for longer but that's just an assumption and judging by the M1, I don't think thermal throttling will be an issue for either size.

On the GPU side, things get a little tricky... All rumors thus far have pointed to the M1X coming in either 16 core or 32 core variants. Those same rumors point to these chips being 2 different chips (Jade C-Chop and Jade C-Die) which means the 16 core GPU is not just a "binned" version of the 32 core GPU (like the 7 core GPU is a binned version of the 8 core GPU on the M1) these are 2 different M1X chips. So with all of that in mind, there are 2 trains of thought. The first says both the 14" and 16" base models will have the 16 core GPU with the 16" having the option to move to the 32 core. This would mean that the $1799 14" and the $2399 16" would have exactly the same performance for both CPU tasks and GPU task and at that point choosing between the 2 base models will just be a matter of screen size. The 2nd opinion (the one I agree with) says the 14" will use the 16 core Jade-C Chop and the 16" will use the 32 core Jade-C Die regardless of SKU which will give the $2399 16" its usual GPU power advantage over the $1799 model.

So long story short: At this point, we don't know enough about the differences between the 2 sizes. If its just screen size, then get the 16" if you want a bigger screen and get the 14" if you want something that weights less and is more portable. If the GPU turns out to be different then get the 16" if you need extra graphics power.
Click to expand...
If Apple go that route I can honestly see the 32 core GPU being a $600 upgrade.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: smoking monkey
JayKay2021 said:
I am unsure whether I should get 14“ or 16“. Can you give some pro/cons from your point of view? Thx
Click to expand...
As others have said, there might be something spec-wise on the 16" which you need - i.e. the GPU options.

If everything else is equal (although the speakers and mics on the current 16" are way better than the 13" for example), the only downside I've ever found with the 15/16" MBP is the footprint of it which can be limiting if you're working on the move - i.e. trains, planes, small tables.
 
Metrosey said:
If Apple go that route I can honestly see the 32 core GPU being a $600 upgrade.
Click to expand...
It could go either way. It just depends how Apple is positioning the 14” and 16” in their lineup. Currently (and for many years) if you go to the Mac section on Apples website, you’ll see that the 13” MacBook Pro and the 16” MacBook Pro are in their own sections. The 16” (15”) is its own product… its not just a larger 13”. Apple has continually positioned the 16” (15”) as its “ultimate” laptop.

So with all of that in mind, then we take into account that there are reportedly 2 versions of the M1X. Jade-C Chop is the 16core GPU version and by the name suggest it’s a “chopped” smaller chip (and less power draw) vs the larger Jade-C Die which has the 32 cores. Since the 16” has more internal space, more thermal headroom and larger battery, it makes sense that the larger “Jade-C Die” would be for the 16” and the smaller “Jade-C Chop” would go into the 14”.

If Apple keeps the 16” positioned as a higher end laptop, then the base model lineup should look something like this:

- 14” ($1799): M1X (Jade-C Chop with 16 core GPU), 16gb RAM, 512gb SSD. Options to upgrade RAM and storage.

- 16” ($2399): M1X (Jade-C Die with 32 core GPU), 16gb RAM, 512gb SSD. Options to upgrade RAM and storage.

IMO the most likely option, due to manufacturing cost, would be a base model 14” with a binned version of the 16 core GPU (maybe 12 cores) with the option to upgrade and a 16” with a binned version of the 32 core (maybe 24 cores) with the option to upgrade.

With the Apple silicon rollout this far, we have seen a pattern of Apple reducing the SKU variants. This lowers manufacturing cost quite a bit and helps Apple deliver more products even with the chip shortage. Therefore, I really don’t see Apple shipping the 16” with both versions of the M1X… I think the 16” chassis gets you the larger Jade-C Die and the smaller 14” chassis gets you the Jade-C Chop.

Of course it’s all a guess and I could be very wrong… We shall see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: the future, smoking monkey, macsplusmacs and 1 other person
Kung gu said:
Thats because the stand for that was different.
Click to expand...

I’m not saying it is the same, I’m saying Apple would figure it out.

You do understand that a light top and a heavy base means a lower center of gravity which provides more stability, not less, yes?

Kung gu said:
IMO, the 24" iMac backside looks VERY nice and I really like the flat back.
Click to expand...

The back is fine. Great, even.

It is the thick sides (compared to the 27”) that look horrendous to me.

I see the sides a lot more than I see the back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ModusOperandi
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