Apple M1 MacBook Pro vs. Intel MacBook Pro (13-Inch) Buyer's Guide

[jmgregory1]

Given these are different markets I'm not sure it's really like that. Apple isn't going to weigh Intel vs AS. And I doubt PC manufactures are worried about Apple. To be honest, I'd think they are more worried about people buying ANY PCs at this point.

just my 2 cents.

For sure PC makers, if they’re not currently in the smart phone and tablet markets in a big way, have to be worried about their future. That’s another reason why Apple really has such a lead over the old guard. They’ve got the devices, services, and now a consistent chip platform that allows them to leverage what they’ve done in iPhones and apply it to their laptop and desktop products. No more being beholden to Intel and their horrid schedule of advancements, not to mention having to compete with PC makers using similar chips.

 

[Hastings101]

I wouldn't recommend any Intel Mac to anyone now, especially considering how well Rosetta 2 works and the performance of Apple's chips. I mean, if you need an Intel-based Mac you *know* that you need one (virtualization, Boot Camp, whatever). For everyone else it just feels like a bad decision (like those poor suckers who bought those 5400 RPM hard drive iMacs that were finally discontinued).

 

[jmgregory1]

Honestly I don't think PC makers care, they aren't going to lose much to Apple. I know it's nice to think that Apple will see amazing market share growth because of the blazing fast M1, but if as you say history is a guide, Apple will remain in roughly the exact same spot they have been in for decades.
The massive size of the Windows ecosystem, the fact that you can get a useable Windows PC for less than $400 are a part of it. The availability of upgrade parts, ability to build your own machine are another part. And not to mention games. If you are serious about gaming on a computer, the Mac just doesn't compare to what you get with a Windows computer.
I would love to see Apple get more support from developers for the M1, but honestly I just don't see it happening as you say the way Microsoft saw in the 90s.

Apple grew exponentially because of iPhone and changed not only their future, but that of effectively all of us who use our smart phones in a way that no other company could have foreseen. They’ve been stuck in the laptop and desktop market because of their reliance on Intel, much like every other PC maker. They could only do so much with the complete crap scheduling and advancements that Intel offered.

And the days of building your own devices, upgrading, etc. - they’re done, gone. Other than a tiny niche group of tech nerds, the mass volumes of people and companies don’t want to buy a device that they have to think about upgrading parts and pieces. Frankly, what you’re going to see is that most other PC makers are going to move away from selling beige boxes and upgradable laptops, just as Apple has, because they’re not making money by selling products that they only get one sale out of.

The same thing with gaming computers. It’s a niche market and as developers of games realize the power of Apple Silicon, they too will start shifting from the PC market.

 

[pers0n]

Summary, don't buy any Intel Macs, unless its used.

The 2013 Mac Pro was a trashcan design and the $50k 2019 Mac Pro is going in the physical trashcan in 2021 when the M2 comes out.

 

[apparatchik]

" Even when emulating x86 under Rosetta 2, the M1 MacBook Pro is still faster than all previously released Macs."

ummmmmmm...they must mean all previous Macbooks?

Well, It depends on how you measure faster, if you measure by Single Thread performance, the M1 is faster than all previously released Macs, full stop. Yes, faster than any Mac Pro and iMac Pro, this applies to the fanless M1 MBA as well, which is faster than the current base Mac Pro both in Single and Multiple Thread scenarios, all, as said before, without using a fan and with 15+ hours battery life.

 

[ohbrilliance]

" Even when emulating x86 under Rosetta 2, the M1 MacBook Pro is still faster than all previously released Macs."

ummmmmmm...they must mean all previous Macbooks?

The article is referring to single-core performance. The M1’s single core performance beats out all Intel offerings across the entire Mac line.

 

[PickUrPoison]

I agree totally. I only need a MBA, but also need a 16" screen, and also need mobility. This idea that if I need a 16" screen, then I also somehow must need a super duper expensive high power processor and GPU, is super annoying, and a huge huge reason why I am still holding onto my mid-2015 15" rMBP. It's a brilliant machine, one of the best Apple has ever made, but it is 5 years old already, and won't last forever. Come on Apple, there is a huge market out there for low power laptops with large screens.

I don’t expect to see a 16” Mac notebook significantly less than the current $2400. If you think Apple’s going to make an inexpensive 16” Air, my guess is you will be waiting for many, many years.

Similarly: There’s at least the possibility we’ll see a $1,200 12” MBP. But a $900 12” MBA is extremely unlikely imo.

 

[PickUrPoison]

MacBook Pro designated products should support more than one display, up to 32 GB of RAM and have more than 2 TB3 ports. In fact, they should ideally have TB4 ports. The M1 MacBook Pro is more of a MacBook Air with a fan.

Not at all. The $1,300 two TB3 MBP has been around for many years, and has never supported more than 16GB of RAM. Why must it do so now?

And you can say that the M1 version should support two external monitors like the Intel version, but Apple doesn’t agree. To most buyers of the $1,300 entry-level MBP, it’s a non-issue since they don’t have a want/need to plug in two external displays.

But anyone who needs two external monitors definitely should not buy the current M1 notebooks.

The model you describe, with four TB3 ports and >16GB RAM, is the higher-spec’ed $1,800 model. It’s only available with an Intel CPU at the moment. When an Apple silicon version arrives next year, I’d expect it at right about $1,800.

 

[woocintosh]

Forget Intel now... no need to hesitate between them...

 

[mdriftmeyer]

The article is referring to single-core performance. The M1’s single core performance beats out all Intel offerings across the entire Mac line.

Yes, under a specific wattage domain and they do that because their unified memory at 4266 Mbps. Xeons RAM run at 2666 Mbps. Mac Mini ram runs at 2666 Mbps because it doesn't use LPDDR4x in the M1. That LPDDR4x memory also reduces power consumption by nearly 20% and throughput by 17% or more.

LPDDR5 will arrive for general consumption in 2021. Suddenly, any system with that will see considerably improvements in benchmarking, especially APUs like Zen and even iGPUs from Intel.

A lot of performance is dependent upon the type of energy efficient RAM a system has, never mind whether it is unified memory or not.

 

[pilotpat]

Apple grew exponentially because of iPhone and changed not only their future, but that of effectively all of us who use our smart phones in a way that no other company could have foreseen. They’ve been stuck in the laptop and desktop market because of their reliance on Intel, much like every other PC maker. They could only do so much with the complete crap scheduling and advancements that Intel offered.

And the days of building your own devices, upgrading, etc. - they’re done, gone. Other than a tiny niche group of tech nerds, the mass volumes of people and companies don’t want to buy a device that they have to think about upgrading parts and pieces. Frankly, what you’re going to see is that most other PC makers are going to move away from selling beige boxes and upgradable laptops, just as Apple has, because they’re not making money by selling products that they only get one sale out of.

The same thing with gaming computers. It’s a niche market and as developers of games realize the power of Apple Silicon, they too will start shifting from the PC market.

That’s a nice crystal ball you have, but I disagree. You say it like you have all the answers but you didn’t address the a few things, and a few others you are wrong about.
The windows PC market gained and has massively retained the market using the exact same chips that caused apple to have problems? Do you have an explanation for that? What about the advances that AMD have brought in the last few years? How about the massive response to the new nVidia gpus? Are they selling out in seconds because the days of upgrading and building PCs are over? Plus, average people want something that works and is cheap. Low cost computers sell way more as a whole than MacBooks do. And that’s not going to change.
And you say gaming on pc is niche, umm no it isn’t. It is a huge market, all of the major pc makers have gaming machines for one reason, they sell millions of them.
The simple fact is that Windows commands approximately 78% of the OS market share. And until that changes developers aren’t going to abandon windows for the Mac. If I’m wrong in a few years I’ll admit it, but the chances of what you are saying actually happening are slim. I like apple, I have been a Mac guy since the mid 80s. I have a new air coming soon, and I’m typing this on an iPhone 12 Pro Max! But I have been around long enough to see how Microsoft won the pc wars, and this isn’t the windows killer. Sorry.

 

[ohbrilliance]

Yes, under a specific wattage domain and they do that because their unified memory at 4266 Mbps. Xeons RAM run at 2666 Mbps. Mac Mini ram runs at 2666 Mbps because it doesn't use LPDDR4x in the M1. That LPDDR4x memory also reduces power consumption by nearly 20% and throughput by 17% or more.

LPDDR5 will arrive for general consumption in 2021. Suddenly, any system with that will see considerably improvements in benchmarking, especially APUs like Zen and even iGPUs from Intel.

A lot of performance is dependent upon the type of energy efficient RAM a system has, never mind whether it is unified memory or not.

Under all wattage domains. No other Intel chip has had a higher single-core benchmark in Macs, whether in a laptop or Mac Pro.

You can't yet buy systems with chips from 2021.

 

[Dozer_Zaibatsu]

Honestly I don't think PC makers care, they aren't going to lose much to Apple…

The massive size of the Windows ecosystem, the fact that you can get a useable Windows PC for less than $400 are a part of it. The availability of upgrade parts, ability to build your own machine are another part. And not to mention games.

I am of the opinion that this will definitely help Apple. To your point, I actually think that PC makers will worry specifically on the high end while $400 PCs will still outsell everything. But this will make a dent to the high end market. I used a 2017 XPS when I could have purchased a Mac for the same because I got more for my money with the Dell. That wouldn't necessarily be the case after today. (Assuming more applications update to run natively and all that). This also is where Apple reaps the benefit of being a premium brand. Lots of people will buy these because of the brand rep. If you throw in reasons for them to feel like they're going to get something extra for the money, you couldn't position a product any better.

 

[Dozer_Zaibatsu]

I don’t expect to see a 16” Mac notebook significantly less than the current $2400. If you think Apple’s going to make an inexpensive 16” Air, my guess is you will be waiting for many, many years.

Similarly: There’s at least the possibility we’ll see a $1,200 12” MBP. But a $900 12” MBA is extremely unlikely imo.

Isn't the big question here really what is going to happen with GPUs? If Apple could make a system on a chip with a GPU that could deliver performance like a discrete AMD chip, that might make it possible to have a price break. However, pulling off that engineering itself would be bigger news than a price drop.

 

[pilotpat]

I am of the opinion that this will definitely help Apple. To your point, I actually think that PC makers will worry specifically on the high end while $400 PCs will still outsell everything. But this will make a dent to the high end market. I used a 2017 XPS when I could have purchased a Mac for the same because I got more for my money with the Dell. That wouldn't necessarily be the case after today. (Assuming more applications update to run natively and all that). This also is where Apple reaps the benefit of being a premium brand. Lots of people will buy these because of the brand rep. If you throw in reasons for them to feel like they're going to get something extra for the money, you couldn't position a product any better.

Oh I agree with you, it definitely will help Apple, probably immensely. But for all of the good apple is gaining, it’s still not going to cause a seismic shift if the pc world. That’s all I’m saying.
And another uphill battle, the corporate it world. All those nerds with all those windows and Microsoft certifications aren’t going to suddenly start recommending to switch to a platform that is largely unsupported by the software that they use to run their businesses.

 

[grjj]

Oh I agree with you, it definitely will help Apple, probably immensely. But for all of the good apple is gaining, it’s still not going to cause a seismic shift if the pc world. That’s all I’m saying.
And another uphill battle, the corporate it world. All those nerds with all those windows and Microsoft certifications aren’t going to suddenly start recommending to switch to a platform that is largely unsupported by the software that they use to run their businesses.

buying decisions are ultimately made by management. Give managment the right combination of data points and they will switch. Front-line IT support techs don't cut POs for 20,000 desktops, VPs do that.
Higher reliability: √
Lower TCO: √
Fewer support calls: √
faster performance: √
Lower energy costs: √
Higher data security: √

To make up facts: most corporate apps and software are web based now and the platform for client access doesn't really matter like used to.

 

[pilotpat]

buying decisions are ultimately made by management. Give managment the right combination of data points and they will switch. Front-line IT support techs don't cut POs for 20,000 desktops, VPs do that.
Higher reliability: √
Lower TCO: √
Fewer support calls: √
faster performance: √
Lower energy costs: √
Higher data security: √

To make up facts: most corporate apps and software are web based now and the platform for client access doesn't really matter like used to.

I’m not making anything up. I have worked in IT, did it for 13 years. A VP makes a decision based on facts, and the professional opinions of the people they have hired to run their it department. You can’t prove any of your points on a computer that doesn’t currently exist. There are no workstation class M1 computers, no M1 servers. No M1 dummy terminals. And even when the M1 class workstation is released, they aren’t going to buy 20000 6000 dollar pros with 1000 dollar wheels and 500 dollar monitor stands. And what do a large majority of those web apps run on? Microsoft platforms like Azure, I mean seriously come on. There is no platform that apple has currently to compete in that space.

 

[goobot]

"In some cases, apps built with x86-64 actually run faster in Rosetta 2 than they do on Intel Macs."

huh?

That’s how it exactly is, many apps using Rosetta run faster on m1 than on Intel native.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Summary, don't buy any Intel Macs, unless its used.

The 2013 Mac Pro was a trashcan design and the $50k 2019 Mac Pro is going in the physical trashcan in 2021 when the M2 comes out.

Or, buy only Intel-based Macs if you need to run Windows and/or virtualize x86-64.

re: beating the 2019 Mac Pro in multicore, I doubt it’ll be with a 2021 M2; it’s more likely to be the top SKU of the 2022 M3 series. I’d be very surprised if it offers 1.5TB of RAM though. It’ll be interesting to see if there’s enough demand to keep the current Mac Pro in the lineup.

btw an iMac Pro with a miniLED screen is rumored for next year, and that would be an Intel-based machine.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Isn't the big question here really what is going to happen with GPUs? If Apple could make a system on a chip with a GPU that could deliver performance like a discrete AMD chip, that might make it possible to have a price break. However, pulling off that engineering itself would be bigger news than a price drop.

Apple can definitely make a GPU equivalent to the 35W version that’s in the 16” MBP, and the iMac GPUs as well.

Not sure what they have in store for the iMac Pro or the much higher performance GPUs that are used in the Mac Pro though. You’re not going to get a high-end GPU onto an Mx SoC.

 

[MacLC]

If I had to update now, I'd just feel bad spending so much if I needed bootcamp or something

Same situation here. My 5 1/2 year old MBP w/bootcamp is gonna have to keep chuggin' a few more months.

Seems like unless someone needs 4 ports, or the ability to run Windows, drive more displays, or run specialized software that won't run (or run well) on the M1, the M1 is the one to get.

Unfortunately, that's my situation.

OTH, that's why I'm excited about the 2 year transition coming to fruition. M1 is essentially a proof of concept SoC that Apple gets paid to put in laptops and Mac Minis. The chips Apple will release in 2 years will have been designed from the ground up to be used in Macs and will be more functional.

 

[Aston441]

I'll pass till next year with the new design and M2 cpus

I’m waiting for USB5

 

[Aston441]

MacBook Pro designated products should support more than one display, up to 32 GB of RAM and have more than 2 TB3 ports. In fact, they should ideally have TB4 ports. The M1 MacBook Pro is more of a MacBook Air with a fan.

and non parts bin microphone 🎤

 

[Aston441]

Apple grew exponentially because of iPhone and changed not only their future, but that of effectively all of us who use our smart phones in a way that no other company could have foreseen. They’ve been stuck in the laptop and desktop market because of their reliance on Intel, much like every other PC maker. They could only do so much with the complete crap scheduling and advancements that Intel offered.

And the days of building your own devices, upgrading, etc. - they’re done, gone. Other than a tiny niche group of tech nerds, the mass volumes of people and companies don’t want to buy a device that they have to think about upgrading parts and pieces. Frankly, what you’re going to see is that most other PC makers are going to move away from selling beige boxes and upgradable laptops, just as Apple has, because they’re not making money by selling products that they only get one sale out of.

The same thing with gaming computers. It’s a niche market and as developers of games realize the power of Apple Silicon, they too will start shifting from the PC market.

The one thing that really turns me off about the M1 though, is that when Apple drops OS support for the model, it’s done. In contrast, my 2011 MBA, discontinued by Apple years ago, lives on like a champ running latest Windows and Linux OSes.

 

[PickUrPoison]

<snip>
M1 is essentially a proof of concept SoC that Apple gets paid to put in laptops and Mac Minis. The chips Apple will release in 2 years will have been designed from the ground up to be used in Macs and will be more functional.

You just described the current M1 🙂

But you’re right, it only gets better from here on out.