Ah just chatting. Didn’t mean any offense. Just funny that computers are now disposable as iPhones.
Anyways I’m looking forward to my 16” mbp with final cut.
I don't know why people get upset about some financials. Businesses are supposed to analyse by using the average cost of finance, by the expected return by the risk factor.
But even if we are businesses, buying these items has a lot of emotion, and for many, a lot of uncertainty.
OK I'll say this: when a notebook's battery dies, its a real bummer. And with these products, its going to cost something significant I reckon to change the battery. So it's a future cost of ownership that I think about. Edit - not so significant - $US200.
For myself, a 100 w battery over a 70 watt one, with the same CPU choice but with a larger screen, what is the work the battery will do?
So if the screen is the main differential power use, then:
14" = 3024 x 1984 = 5,999,616 pixels
16" = 3456 x 2234 = 7,720,704 pixels
16"/14" screen pixels = 1.286866 => 28.7% more pixels hence 29% more power draw.
However the 16" has better cooling, which should reduce power consumption by .... I have to include it, so back of the envelope, I'll save 3.7%.
So ... 28.7 - 3.7= 25% more power draw from the 16" than the 14.
Battery size: 69.6 watt-hours (14-inch model) or 99.6 watt-hours (16").
99.6/69.6 = 1.431 => 43% more battery capacity in the 16".
My conclusion is that the battery will last longer in the 16" if you're going to use the computer off its battery a fair bit of the time. So the replacement cost will happen later. 43% capacity - 25% less power usage = 18% longer battery life (and 15% if you disagree with my heat saves power usage hypothesis).
HP:
Generally speaking, your typical mid-range laptop should last roughly three years. And if you take good care of your computer, it may even last a bit longer than that.
... It’s really all subjective; a gaming laptop that’s being overclocked will no doubt wear down more quickly than a device primarily used for email and web browsing.
ASUS:
The life of a Li-ion battery is approximately between 300-500 cycles. Under normal usage conditions and in ambient temperatures (25℃), the Li-ion battery is expected to discharge and recharge normally for 300 cycles (or about one year). Afterwards the battery capacity will drop to 80% of its initial capacity.
Battery life decline varies with the system design, model, system power consumption, program and operating software consumption, and power management settings. High/low operating temperatures and abnormal operations may result in 70% or more rapid decrease of the battery’s life cycle within a short time.
So what does this mean financially, 14.2" v 16.2"? Basically, $US50 better value for the 16".
My workings: if the 14" battery will need replacement in 3 years, the 16" will last another 6 months. You'll have to replace the 14" battery in year 6 as well, while the 16"'s battery which you've replaced at 3 and half years, should last until its 7th year.
Since a battery cost in the USA for a "service", $US200 to change the battery, this means that the 14" costs a bit more to run ... about $50 more over 5 years, or its battery cost is $US5.55 per month, compared to the 16" 's $US4.65 ... OK just 90 cents a month extra for the 14".
OK not big deal ... but value wise, the 16" has $50 bucks extra value in its battery. If Apple had charged more for changing the 14's battery, then that value for the 16" would not be the case.
My gut feel is that the 16" has a decent advantage in battery, but at the end of the day, not one to get worried about. I thought the gap would be wider. Apple know what their doing don't they!
An argument for the 14" is that if you use it as a desktop most of the time, its battery life suffering will not happen anyway.
A counter to that point on the 14", is that if you use these things as desktops a fair bit of the time, the 14's lack of cooling and lack of a high speed mode (yet to come though on the 16" but its certainly going to happen on all the 16 models) will mean the 14" is slower. But only if one has a 14" with the Pro Max CPU. It's only that CPU that has the higher speed mode available on the 16".
But the 14" is more portable too ... IMO, that portability is not a factor, but for some, it might be a big deal. My eyes are old so if I was younger and didn't need the flank speed of the 16", the 14" might look good to me ... IMO though, the flank speed of the 16" brings it closer to how the MPro iMacs will perform, so for me, that flank speed is a deal if I was pushing the Macbook Pro.
It would be fun to put a dollar figure on what high speed can achieve too ... We need a Pro to do that here ... time is still money isn't it.
It seems to me that the 16" better fits me, but then, I'm old and I use a 15.4" MBP from 2017. A smaller screen would be a downgrade for me.
Pricing in the US:
14" in 2,500.00 10-Core CPU 16-Core GPU 16GB Unified Memory 1TB SSD Storage
16" in 2,700.00 10-Core CPU 16-Core GPU 16GB Unified Memory 1TB SSD Storage
Note that I added $50 to the 14" price for the shorter battery life.
So I'd say the 14" is 2,500 versus the 16" at 2,650. $150 for the screen I guess.
Step up to the Max Processors:
14": $3,350: 10-Core CPU 32-Core GPU 32GB Unified Memory 1TB SSD Storage
16": $3,500: 10-Core CPU 32-Core GPU 32GB Unified Memory 1TB SSD Storage
Note that I added $50 to the 14" price for the shorter battery life.
I haven't even looked at the 24 core choices ...
So IMO at that higher level, the 16" makes more sense, due to the extra flank speed ability.
At least there is a wide choice here ... but I think $150 extra for the better cooling and the bigger screen is well worth it. I haven't even looked at the 16's better sound either.
!
