Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple doesn't configure based on any cooling issues. And its possible to buy a 14" with 128 GB and 8 TB. Apple sells notebooks based on minimum specs for the machine, which will allow retailers to discount those base specification machines. So at Christmas etc discount places will offer discounts for M4 Maxs for instance - but those will only be with those base specifications.

If you need more than 48 GB RAM, you're going to have to pay for it now, and at full retail.

And as far as cooling goes - more RAM would often allow a macbook to run cooler, because there would be less virtualising via the drive. With Intel there were many methods of adding cooling to notebooks ... there don't seem to be many tricks needed for Macbook Pros. Obvioulsy the 16" will cool better ... but its likely the M4 runs cooler anyway. Perhaps the M4 14" runs more like a 16" M3?

If Apple was concerned by cooling issues, they'd offer higher RAM on only the binned 14". Because its lesser cores would run cooler. But they do not do they? In fact the binned 14" Max is the one Apple doesn't allow a proper RAM upgrade on ...

While I accept its unlikely that its for performance reasons, i dont follow your reasoning. I personally dont believe more ram meaningfully makes a computer cooler. Perhaps in some very specific use cases, i mean its unlikely they wont be accessing data on the SSDs anyway, even if they need to do it less often. I think the extra 2 p cores and 8 graphics cores are a much bigger issue for the max binned vs unbinned in terms of thermals for the 14.

I think that the 14 max (unbinned 16 cpu 40 gpu) being a non-ideal experience could explain why its not a stock configuration. The more straightforward option of course is they dont consider it to be as popular a model, and that a max chip is more popular in the 16 pro. I dont see a good reason for them otherwise to leave it off as a stock configuration.
 
is there a TB 10GbE adapter?
Yes. Lots of them. Amazon has several for $10.

10 GbE is the same as 1000 MBs. So look for one with that capability. By the way, USB USB 3.1 Gen 2 provides 10 Gbps. USB 3.1 supports 5 Gbps. So check that an ethernet dongle is at least USB 3.1 Gen 2. A thunderbolt 3 will cost more, but it supports 40 Gbps. No point in it unless other things attached will be working while you want the faster ethernet. Although the "other things" might benefit from 40 Mbps.

Many "dongles" or external devices have many ports, some with HDMI, USB, SDX card slots and ethernet. Thunderbolt 3 or 4 has speed 4 times greater than 10 GbE, so a device doing duel work (via other ports such as a USB port for something) won't be effected. I'm unsure if higher priced units work better or not ...
 
Last edited:
...

I think that the 14 max (unbinned 16 cpu 40 gpu) being a non-ideal experience could explain why its not a stock configuration. The more straightforward option of course is they dont consider it to be as popular a model, and that a max chip is more popular in the 16 pro. I dont see a good reason for them otherwise to leave it off as a stock configuration.
Sorry, I have a tendency to be blunt or rude when I try to reduce my words. This is not personal! So please excuse me if it seems I am being aggressive.

The M4 is a more efficient chip. Evidence is clear - battery life has been extended by 10%, the batteries are the same, and the processors are quite a lot faster. They are a lot more efficient, hence cooler.

So - we should have now established that the previous binned Pro M3 Max processor ran hotter than today's M4 Max binned processor.

However we could order 64 or 96 GB RAM with the M3 Max binned processor. But not now. We are capped at 36 GB.

It's all about profit margins. To get more RAM, you have to buy a more expensive processor.

Also consider the Mac mini M4 Pro is very tight in packaging, it does not even have a fan, yet we can buy 64 GB RAM for it. But with a duel fan 16" Mac M4 Pro, its maximum RAM is 48 GB.

Here is another example: you cannot buy an 8 TB drive with the standard M4 or the M4 Pro processor. If you want 8TB, you have to buy an M4 Max processor. Do you think that an 8 TB drive runs hotter than 4 TB one?

It's all about forcing those who want RAM or storage to future proof their computers, to pay extra for the privilege. Apple would rather we replace our computers because as time goes forward, Memory requirements increase, so if we save money on RAM, we are actually probably bringing the replacement requirement forward. Which suits Apple very nicely.

M4 Mac Spec page:
 
Last edited:
  • Wow
Reactions: G5isAlive
I used to be a 16" MacBook Pro guy, and then when I started a new job a few years ago, I switched to 14", as I'd be traveling more. Now I'm going back to 16". Here's the deal... In a standard airplane economy seat, I find even my 14" to be nearly unusable. So why not just get the 16" so you have more space in the hotel room or coffee shop?
 
I used to be a 16" MacBook Pro guy, and then when I started a new job a few years ago, I switched to 14", as I'd be traveling more. Now I'm going back to 16". Here's the deal... In a standard airplane economy seat, I find even my 14" to be nearly unusable. So why not just get the 16" so you have more space in the hotel room or coffee shop?
How do you find the 16 on your lap. I'm a bit worried i'll find it a bit bulky on the couch or in bed.

I can live with not using it on a plane given I dont particularly enjoy working on planes anyway and most of my flights are under 2 hours.
 
How do you find the 16 on your lap. I'm a bit worried i'll find it a bit bulky on the couch or in bed.

I can live with not using it on a plane given I dont particularly enjoy working on planes anyway and most of my flights are under 2 hours.
Went to an Apple store and tried both today. The 14 is a lot more compact. It is thinner. And it feels a lot lighter (although the screens were open which would have made the 16" feel heavier when lifting it).

The screen is a lot smaller though ... it really comes down to your eyesight, and if that can handle a 14", it is better value if one buys a Max. IMO the Pro is better value in its 16" form. In bed I reckon the 14" would be better. On one's lap is very personal. I have a 15.4" touch bar Mac Pro and it feels close to being a 15" Air. So the 16" really is a lot bulkier than the older Ives 4 Thunderbolt ports Macbook Pro.
 
Sorry, I have a tendency to be blunt or rude when I try to reduce my words. This is not personal! So please excuse me if it seems I am being aggressive.

No worries.

The M4 is a more efficient chip. Evidence is clear - battery life has been extended by 10%, the batteries are the same, and the processors are quite a lot faster. They are a lot more efficient, hence cooler.

So - we should have now established that the previous binned Pro M3 Max processor ran hotter than today's M4 Max binned processor.

I think m4 pro and m4 max are different to the base m4. For instance only m4 pro and up chips have tb5. I'm not convinced m4 pros/max run cooler, I think we have to wait and see. While they may be cooler, it may also be that Apple has pushed those higher end chips harder given their use case.

While stated battery life has improved that is claimed in tasks they are pretty energy efficent at. That is probably to say, that the efficiency cores may run cooler and better able to do streaming video with the dedicated media engine. But that does not mean they are more energy efficient when doing large renders, ai tasks, gaming or other tasks which really push the chips.

However we could order 64 or 96 GB RAM with the M3 Max binned processor. But not now. We are capped at 36 GB.

It's all about profit margins. To get more RAM, you have to buy a more expensive processor.

Personally, i think its more likely about how many SKUs they want to offer. Also its not clear to me they could increase the ram without increasing the memory bandwidth to match the unbinned max. The binned m4 max is a very interesting machine, I'm curious how it benchmarks, because its possibly the all round performance value in the pro-range. I am torn between currently thinking the binned max is the best value and the worst. For 3d work, its 50% extra power (and if form factor is not a key factor) you can get a 14 in m4 max 36gb 1tb for the same price as a 16 inch m4 pro 1tb 48gb. I think that 50% extra GPU and extra media engine, could be a real boon for 3d work, games and renders, and possibly not matter much for AI.

I find it interesting they are doing 36gb, not 48 like every other model. Perhaps what ever ram module size they had last year that made them offer 18 and 36 options, they have enough left in inventory to fill these machines, but cost has improved on the modules they use to make up 24/48gb configurations that they have become preferred.

So I guess I agree its for profit margins, but on the supply end, not the force consumer to upgrade end.

Also consider the Mac mini M4 Pro is very tight in packaging, it does not even have a fan, yet we can buy 64 GB RAM for it. But with a duel fan 16" Mac M4 Pro, its maximum RAM is 48 GB.
I dont think the ram is causing or easing the heat, so the fact you can get 48 or 64gb doesn't convince me of anything.

I'm also pretty sure i've seen it confirmed that the m4 mac minis have a fans.

Here is another example: you cannot buy an 8 TB drive with the standard M4 or the M4 Pro processor. If you want 8TB, you have to buy an M4 Max processor. Do you think that an 8 TB drive runs hotter than 4 TB one?

It's all about forcing those who want RAM or storage to future proof their computers, to pay extra for the privilege. Apple would rather we replace our computers because as time goes forward, Memory requirements increase, so if we save money on RAM, we are actually probably bringing the replacement requirement forward. Which suits Apple very nicely.

M4 Mac Spec page:

No i dont think the 8tb drive runs hotter.

I think probably even Apple thinks that offering 8tb at their upgrade prices looks ridiculous on entry level machines. So would be both an unpopular model and look bad.

It's also possible that they have extra ssd pads on the max chip, so they can only offer it on the max variant.

Again the whole point was about the stock configs they offer. I see two plausible reasons for why they dont offer the unbinned m4 max on the 14 inch as a stock configuration:

(1) they felt it wouldnt be a very popular configuration, people who want that more likely to get a 16, and they need a limit on stock configurations for good inventory management;

(2) they consider the unbinned m4 max may be more likely to throttle and have a non ideal performance in the 14 and so they dont want to push it as a standard option. This is unlikely, but given there were some cases where the 14 inch max chips have throttled in the past, its plausible.


For 1, if you think they were only trying to force the most profit. Then the answer would be to make the unbinned m4 max chip the stock configuration and the binned chips the BTO. People are impatient, plenty would cave on the full m4 max if it meant they could get it sooner.
 
  • Like
Reactions: throAU
Went to an Apple store and tried both today. The 14 is a lot more compact. It is thinner. And it feels a lot lighter (although the screens were open which would have made the 16" feel heavier when lifting it).

The screen is a lot smaller though ... it really comes down to your eyesight, and if that can handle a 14", it is better value if one buys a Max. In bed I reckon the 14" would be better. On one's lap is very personal.
Yeah I've tried that in store. I find the 15" air kind of perfect size in screen real estate. But the 14 pro feels a bit too cramped to me to have two documents side by side, or terminal/text editor/app all sized nicely. But I could get by.

Partly i'm wondering if a 16 is more likely to slide off the couch or bed given its length and weight.

It's funny the weight, i dont think that is that noticable by itself. I think in a backpack with other stuff, it would make a big difference, but if its all i'm carrying. Based on my tests in store i didnt find it super noticable.

Anyway, i've ordered a 16, eventually i got tired of decision paralysis and just picked that a few months ago. So i'll give it a go. I'm only reconsidering given i could downsize to the 14 and switch to the binned max for the same price and since 70%+ of my use will be docked, maybe performance is more important that form factor.

Part of the reason i've been wondering about the m4 max thermal performance in teh 14, is the hope that it thermal throttles and that perhaps id only see a minor improvement over m4 pro in the 16.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Melbourne Park
How do you find the 16 on your lap. I'm a bit worried i'll find it a bit bulky on the couch or in bed.

I can live with not using it on a plane given I dont particularly enjoy working on planes anyway and most of my flights are under 2 hours.
Fine on the lap. If you're on a couch in an odd position, like half laying / lounging, then yeah the lighter, the better. A MacBook Air is even better. In bed, it depends on if you're on your back / stomach, etc. If lap / couch / bed is most important, get a MacBook Air. I'm just saying that after having been a 15 / 16 inch user for a long time, and then moving to 14", I didn't really see much benefit, in terms of portability when traveling, and I certainly missed not having the screen real estate in hotel rooms, meetings, etc.
 
How about a desktop replacement? Was debating MBP or a Mini for use with 38" monitor. The MBP allows some use around the house or in bed. It won't be leaving home at all. You can get the Max chip with the MBP for much greater GPU than the Mini. Downside is no 10GbE.

My 16” M2 is mainly used as my desktop. Using a 27”? Apple display.
 
As I mentioned before, I have both 14" and 16" models. At home and my office, I have a monitor (27" in office, and 57" in home office), so why do I need a 16" screen? No. When traveling, I have to carry my laptop on the plane and other transportation. I found the 16" a pain when I traveled to Japan. I am not a business class traveler, so I really regretted ordering the 16". So when someone gave me a 14" as a gift, I used it on my last trip. It's way more portable. And the 14" screen is usable on board the Shinkansen (I'm not in Green car or GranClass) and 11 hour United Airlines economy. I can't leave my laptop around, so I lug it around all day, to dinner with colleagues after work, back to hotel etc., the 16" was unnecessary weight, and after 10 days of this, my shoulders ached. And at the work place in Japan, I can borrow a regular monitor. I see no upside of the 16". I used to have a 12" MacBook. Wish they still made one in Apple Silicon.
 
I think this depends on how much you are 'mobile. I used to buy 15 inchers (or the larger size laptop) before the larger, M1 redesign. Since the laptop has gotten larger, the 16 incher feels a lot more like the 17 inch laptop back in the day. I think the 14 incher is more portable and easier to manage.
 
I think this depends on how much you are 'mobile. I used to buy 15 inchers (or the larger size laptop) before the larger, M1 redesign. Since the laptop has gotten larger, the 16 incher feels a lot more like the 17 inch laptop back in the day. I think the 14 incher is more portable and easier to manage.
I mean this is objectively true, as it is indeed smaller and lighter. I just think it's not smaller / lighter by a large enough margin to make an impact with my travel patterns. I had an 11" MacBook Air, back in the day. That was pretty great, because I used it plugged in, but when on a plane, it was so small and compact.
 
...

Anyway, i've ordered a 16, eventually i got tired of decision paralysis and just picked that a few months ago. So i'll give it a go. I'm only reconsidering given i could downsize to the 14 and switch to the binned max for the same price and since 70%+ of my use will be docked, maybe performance is more important that form factor.

Part of the reason i've been wondering about the m4 max thermal performance in teh 14, is the hope that it thermal throttles and that perhaps id only see a minor improvement over m4 pro in the 16.
Agree that the 15' Air is the perfect screen size. It's why I still prefer my 2017 MacBook Pro's form factor.

On performance of the M4 Pro :
" Immediately after its release, the first Geekbench 6 benchmark results were released. Based on the 14-core CPU + 48 GB integrated memory configuration, the single-core score was 3925 points and the multi-core score was 22669 points, surpassing the scores of the previous M3 Pro as well as the M3 Max in both single-core and multi-core. Even compared to the M2 Ultra, which has 10 more cores, the M4 Pro has higher multi-core performance ."

And while Apple said the Max is the world's fastest processor - that website confirms it really is the world's fastest. 25% faster or more than Intel's fastest Intel Core Ultra 9 285K Processor . And Ryzen's as well. The Intel cost in Australia $1,100 and in the USA $650 before tax, when its available. And it runs hot too ... and no GPU included.

I think I may be satisfied with the Pro after all ... just wish one could get even 64 GB RAM.
 
Last edited:
I think this depends on how much you are 'mobile. I used to buy 15 inchers (or the larger size laptop) before the larger, M1 redesign. Since the laptop has gotten larger, the 16 incher feels a lot more like the 17 inch laptop back in the day. I think the 14 incher is more portable and easier to manage.
Yep ... one is only a plug in monitor away from whatever screen size one needs. But if not able to use a monitor, the 16" does have advantages. You can have your cake and eat it too if you have a monitor.
 
Last edited:
I have yet to encounter any throttling with my 14" MBP (M2 Max), let alone any concerns with overheating. I use the machine for everything from photo and video editing to website design, coding, and even gaming when I have the downtime. The 14" is a good size for traveling, and it does fit more comfortably on a plane.
I was considering ordering the 14-inch MacBook Pro but remembered reading that it can overheat and throttle more quickly than the 16-inch model, especially when handling multiple files or encoding tasks, likely due to its smaller form factor. Can anyone confirm if this is accurate? I think the 14-inch is a great option, but I’m debating if the 16-inch might be better for performance, though it does seem a bit bulky for travel. Any insights?
16" is definitely bulkier. It weighs 2.15 kg while 14" weighs 1.62 kg. Weight difference is almost a 13" M4 iPad Pro.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chars1ub0w
Interesting things about the 14" M4 Pro, is that it has two fans. The M4 14" has just the one.

The 14" M3 also has just one fan compared to the two in the M3 Pro & Max variants, based on iFixit teardowns...

m3compare.jpg
 
I have also thought about this deeply as I am also trying to decide upon which size to get. In my opinion, for travel and general purpose the 16" models are actually better, which might seem surprising as they're heavier and larger than the 14". The reason is simply, the 16" is so much easier to work on with a larger display. At home and work I have a 32" monitor for work and trying to use a 14" when mobile is very challenging. Even at home, on the couch or bed, the bigger screen is nicer for videos and sharing your screen with others.

My ideal size would be the 15" air, but in the pro model, but I don't think apple will ever do that as the 16" pro fills in a niche not offered by the 15" air.

Now if they shaved off 0.5lb I would be very happy. As the only thing that is a downside of the 16" model compared to the 14" is the extra weight. However, the extra battery life is super and you can work without having to carry an extra charger, so keep that in mind (saving a minimal amount of weight).
 
Last edited:
You also have a 'screen tax' it seems. Going from a 14" to a 16" costs a minimum of around $700.
You get other things, so it's not like the ram tax really, but nevertheless.......
 
For what it's worth I get a new laptop every 4 years or so and fine myself in a tik Tok cycle with 16 and 14. currently I am on a 16 M1 Max but heavily considering a m4 pro 14. tired of the size and weight of this thing in my bag.
 
You also have a 'screen tax' it seems. Going from a 14" to a 16" costs a minimum of around $700.
You get other things, so it's not like the ram tax really, but nevertheless.......
It's only a $300 premium, like spec for like spec. The base 16" MacBook Pro with 14 core CPU, 20 core GPU, 24GB of RAM, and 512GB of storage is $2500. The same configuration in a 14" chassis is $2200. All the upgrades from there on up are priced the same.

Now if you're comparing the 16" MacBook Pro to a lower spec'd 14" MacBook Pro, then yes, the 16" can be much more expensive. But that can't be directly attributed to size, just available spec options.
 
The prices seem to be somewhat arbitrary. The differences in price between the 14" and 16" are small in the M4 Pros; but step up to the M4 Max, and the gap between 14 & 16 increases In my country, the gap between 14 & 16 was less than the gap in the USA. All very strange.

And the difference price in my country for the nano screen upgrade, is the same for the 16" as the smaller 14".
with the Max... no brainer for 16", the Max chips has always been so much more potent the 16" ensures it stays silent and well performing Knowing this probably explains why there's a larger jump
 
with the Max... no brainer for 16", the Max chips has always been so much more potent the 16" ensures it stays silent and well performing Knowing this probably explains why there's a larger jump
While true, with the 14" M4s the Pro & Max versions have two fans, rather than the M3 14" ones which only had one fan. I suspect the M4 is a cooler chip anyway so with two fans the 14" may not bottleneck as much due to heat. Tests will tell I guess.
 
While true, with the 14" M4s the Pro & Max versions have two fans, rather than the M3 14" ones which only had one fan. I suspect the M4 is a cooler chip anyway so with two fans the 14" may not bottleneck as much due to heat. Tests will tell I guess.
I think that’s normal for the base chip. The mba doesn’t have a fan and uses the base chips as does the ipad (albeit slightly clocked down I believe). The performance difffenxe between air m3 and MacBook Pro m3 (base) was pretty minimal but observable in sustained workloads. Unlikely an additional fan would do anything performance wise.

But be good to see tests in due course to be sure I guess.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.