The M1's - yes -- but when you factor in their pure extortion on SSD/RAM upgrades (which can only come from them) -- the value conversation gets muddy.
And we'll see what prices look like on this next tier up when it releases
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
When the new MBPs release, Apple will have walked back on most 2016 changes
- Thread starter senttoschool
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The M1's - yes -- but when you factor in their pure extortion on SSD/RAM upgrades (which can only come from them) -- the value conversation gets muddy.
And we'll see what prices look like on this next tier up when it releases
I get around this with a NAS for storage. I also run RAM-intensive programs on a Windows desktop. That said, I plan on getting 32 GB for a MacBook Pro and 32 or 64 on a mini.
Intel is charging an arm and a leg for Alder Lake CPUs and I suspect that you will pay through the nose for new motherboards, RAM, SSD, GPUs and PSUs. Apple computers, even with more RAM, may look downright economical compared to 12th-gen Intel systems. AMD and Intel won't be able to touch M1X laptops on performance.
Hope so!
Although my more cynical side thinks Apple will take this opportunity to raise prices themselves.
Apple didn't jack up prices on M1 system though they obviously wanted a good reception which they got. Apple Silicon still needs to prove itself, especially as you can't run x86 programs on it and I think that they aren't going to screw customers like Intel is doing right now. I think that Apple will continue to crank up performance at a cadence which will be hard for Intel and AMD to match and they won't have to pay the Intel and AMD taxes on CPUs and GPUs.
Me neither. The problem was, I was always accidentally touching the ESC key, which did different things on different applications I used.
The virtual ESC key gave me anxiety when working.
I bet this is the primary reason Apple made the ESC key physical again. It's not that it's used a lot. It's that people were touching it accidentally which gave them anxiety.
You're being way too generous with the 7% marker. On some years, Intel had 0% to 5% gain. I believe in some years, the new chips were actually noticeably slower in certain applications.
I have the 15” MacBook Pro 2018. I had to take it in twice and they have replaced everything in it except the screen.
But, regardless of that…And the hassle..I like it. I like the Touch Bar. If it was more customizable it would be better. With Big Sur, it runs cooler. The butterfly keyboard, I like it. No issues with it. But…if you do a lot of typing like all day writing, then you hands get tired. Generally it works for me. Yes, the design has issues and too many stuck key problems, but failure..no.
i don’t mind the lack of ports, but at first was a hassle..but got use to it over time. I needed all the old ports (power user), but it made me “rethink” how I produce and helped me slim-line my work flow to my advantage over the course of changing. Change was good for me, not for all of course.
I would not call it a “failure”. Yes, I can list technical and design issues (like the usb-c port easily can break, and how hard you type causes key malfunctions etc. or if you eat over the keyboard with crumbs etc.) and those are all true and a real reality, but when you try to make improvements with standard stuff like keyboards and ports, you take the risk of these issues.
The keyboard was a departure away from a tried but true design and was a first and an attempt to improve, but overall did not do…Apple recognized this and made the change. Sucks with those who bought, but that is part of the game.
There is many reasons why Apple “may” get rid of the Touch Bar and go back to more ports. Apple Silicone infancy may be the main reason. Going “back” may be that and not admitting to bad choices. I am not an Apple apologist or an Apple negative-ist, but many do like the Touch Bar and what Apple did, even the keyboard. They are not on this forum as many can see why…
I think Apple will raise prices.
It's a redesign but I think the base config will be 512SSD and 16GB RAM for $1899-$1999 for the 14" MBP.
Of course it was a furnace. And of course the new Apple Silicon will run much more efficiently. But that is all besides the point. You have to work with what you'e got. And if all you got are CPUs that get hotter and hotter each year, well, that's what you have to work with.
I am not contesting the fact that the later Intel Mac laptops run hot. But I am definitely contesting the claims that they are somehow hotter or slower than other laptops running same hardware. These myth of "unproportionally throttling MacBook Pro" can be traced back to a power management controller bug in an early Touch Bar release, which indeed caused CPU throttling that has been mentioned in the tech press. Appel fixed the bug within two weeks of the original report, but the opinion stuck. That's it. Really, all complete nonsense. An average gaming laptop with an i9 Intel will be within 10% performance window, and likely significantly hotter on the chassis.
Yup, I was just picking a crude average. 5% wasn't uncommon. Their biggest gains were mostly adding cores in 2018 where single threaded perf stayed modest but we saw double MT.
Mostly just saying it has been nothing like the mobile cpu gains averaging 20%+ per year (and some insane years that were like 40%)
One main reason we may not see prices raised is that they have a lot more margin using their own Apple silicon. They are probably saving $100-$200 per cpu/gpu by not buying intel or AMD.
Would love to see 1TB as the default SSD option on a 16" but unlikely it will happen.