The Intel models are the way to go. Can run Windows if you need to and apps should just work whereas it’ll take time for some developers to make ARM versions of their apps if they do at all.
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.
Apple M1 MacBook Pro vs. Intel MacBook Pro (13-Inch) Buyer's Guide
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You'd have to have a very specific reason to get a Intel based one at this point, I'd imagine Virtualisation support and bootcamp would be the 2 main reasons but probably there are others like needing the extra TB ports or needing to keep your lap warm.
Just trying to understand your point. How are these different markets? Surely most people, even in the professional world care most about what they get for their money when purchasing a computer and Apple (probably for the first time ever) just looks like a better deal. I think PC manufacturers should be VERY worried because Apple now has the potential to make laptops and desktops cool again with the new Air and Mini. You'll find that most people bought Windows PCs (in any form-factor) because the Apple price-tag was much harder to justify. Not that many cared about the OS or the CPU architecture inside. Apple knows how to market to people's needs, status and dreams. I can totally see them going after the entire PC market and wreaking havoc for manufacturers. Even a sales guy in the shop will find it hard to sell a Windows laptop at the same price as the Air, because everybody talks about Apple now, but nobody about some obscure new Dell or HP. Trends and good marketing are very powerful and when you combine that with solid devices at relatively affordable costs... man, that's not something you'd wanna ignore.
Rosetta is no solution for everything that uses JIT (Just in Time Compilation), which is a large part of today's software. The software is first compiled to Intel-code and than by Rosetta to ARM-Code. At least most software developers need Java, Javascript etc. and for these people the M1-Macs are useless before there is native support for this kind of software. And look at the software, which is available vie homebrew. A lot will currently not run on M1. And as long Apple doesn't get involved in all those projects, it will take in many cases at least until summer.
Isn't the concept of JIT that software is compiled directly into the platform's native machinecode? I can't see any reason why you would use Rosetta for that. When there's a JIT compiler in the M1 version of Big Sur, which I'm sure is available one way or the other, the Java or JavaScript code will be compiled directly to M1 and not through the Intel -> M1 route.
Even if these native compilers are not available at the moment, its just a matter of time before they are. It would be a very temporary problem.
Yes, this is the idea behind JIT. But if the target of the JIT-compiler is Intel-code, this has to be translated by Rosetta before execution, which all together is terrible slow. That's probably the reason, why the M1-native Chrome browser is twice as fast than the Intel-version running with Rosetta. The M1-version has a JIT-compiler, which produces native M1-code.
The beige Mac Classic circa 1991 I used in college went on to live in my uncle's printing business for the next decade serving its purpose dedicated to printing labels.
I think my new MacBook M1 is running a N.I.T ( Never In Time) compiler as everything is just hanging half the time !
🤣🤣🤣🤣
🤣🤣🤣🤣
And currently there is only 1 Windows machine running on ARM: The Surface Pro X.
Microsoft is definitely going to have to make Windows on ARM a thing. When you consider that Windows competes as a platform to run on anything for any purpose, it's only going to make sense that ARM components will be all over the world with IoT, alone. ATMs, cash registers, security cams, dedicated machinery for industry and the medical world. In my own experience in a hospital, there are lots of embedded systems which run a split between boutique Linux platforms and Windows.
Apple Silicon looks like a brand new direction for Apple. But while they compete with Microsoft on one level, all those things above are where Apple doesn't really play in the same space. I assume we'll see Microsoft is going to watch how well Apple works and quietly ramp up. We can lay bets and see if Nvidia's ARM acquisition won't lead to them doing some direct competition with x86 as a Windows platform.
"...For whatever reason, the Apple Silicon machine isn't compatible with external GPUs, including the Blackmagic eGPU that Apple has promoted alongside other Macs and that is available through the online store. That means the M1 MacBook has to rely on its own built-in GPU cores to supply graphics power, which could be a deal-breaker for some..."
cmon aapl no egpu support---ugh
cmon aapl no egpu support---ugh
Simple reason, drivers. Apple didn't write them so they aren't available. Nothing to do with the platform.
Software is already the biggest roadblock on the intel macs too.. I own a Mac Pro from 2019 and while for example davinci resolve and final cut are crazy optimized and it through all sorts of videos like butter, Adobe premiere is a pain to work with! Just simply too old legacy code that gets dragged along and never being rewritten nor properly optimized. Really interesting what Adobe will do with these m1 macs... will they react or just disappear?
Which 13" MacBook Pro to buy really just boils down to:
- Do you need to run Windows or any other x86 OS (including Linux and past releases of macOS) via virtualization or dual-booting? If so, go with the 4-port 10th Generation Intel model. If not, go with the 2-port M1 Apple Silicon model.
- Do your apps either run natively or stably via Rosetta 2? If so, go with the 2-port M1 Apple Silicon model. If not, but you don't mind waiting (and don't need a new Mac this second), wait to buy. If not, but you can't wait and you need a new Mac now, go with the 4-port 10th Generation Intel model.
- Do you need to configure your Mac with more than 16GB of RAM and more than 2TB of storage? If not, go with the 2-port M1 Apple Silicon model. If so, go with the 4-port 10th Generation Intel model.
- Are you cool with being early to this transition (and not having available many of the established apps and services that already exist for Intel Macs and are still forthcoming for Apple Silicon Macs)? If so, buy the 2-port M1 Apple Silicon model. If not, buy the 4-port 10th Generation Intel model.
- Do you need more than 2 Thunderbolt ports? If so, buy the 4-port 10th Generation Intel model. If not, buy the 2-port M1 Apple Silicon model.
Most of that will be pretty cut and dried. Though some of that may come down to how one feels about this transition.
- Do you need to run Windows or any other x86 OS (including Linux and past releases of macOS) via virtualization or dual-booting? If so, go with the 4-port 10th Generation Intel model. If not, go with the 2-port M1 Apple Silicon model.
- Do your apps either run natively or stably via Rosetta 2? If so, go with the 2-port M1 Apple Silicon model. If not, but you don't mind waiting (and don't need a new Mac this second), wait to buy. If not, but you can't wait and you need a new Mac now, go with the 4-port 10th Generation Intel model.
- Do you need to configure your Mac with more than 16GB of RAM and more than 2TB of storage? If not, go with the 2-port M1 Apple Silicon model. If so, go with the 4-port 10th Generation Intel model.
- Are you cool with being early to this transition (and not having available many of the established apps and services that already exist for Intel Macs and are still forthcoming for Apple Silicon Macs)? If so, buy the 2-port M1 Apple Silicon model. If not, buy the 4-port 10th Generation Intel model.
- Do you need more than 2 Thunderbolt ports? If so, buy the 4-port 10th Generation Intel model. If not, buy the 2-port M1 Apple Silicon model.
Most of that will be pretty cut and dried. Though some of that may come down to how one feels about this transition.
Yeah but why is it, that when anyone says:
A $1300 MacBook etc, is such-n-such, and then they go YOU CAN'T SAY it's a $1300 MacBook, because you gotta get 16GBs of RAM and 512GBs of SSD, etc.
Well I am gonna throw one back your way, YOU CAN'T SAY it's a $400 PC.
I heard this story, about oh PCs are $400, from like 2014-2019. I was like you know what I am just gonna get a $400 PC to do website tests, and programming, (this was before the NEW EDGE browser).
I went to look for a $400 PCs, couldn't FIND ONE! not ONE! then I am like wtf, ok well and then guess what?
Had to add this and that, next thing I knew I was up to $1300!! What a laughable night that was.
You keep telling these people to buy $400 PCs and those things will end up "dusty" real quick!
Then I realized, it's a FREAKIN' SCAM. But in the worst way, sure Apple has $1300 MacBooks that they use as a low-ball so that they can say "Hey we've got $1300 MacBooks," and then Education Bulk, maybe as low as $1100.
But the $400 PCs? Dude those things are the worst, that's the bottom of the bucket to say "Oh but you can get a PC as low as $400!" SCAM. Because people think they can get play a game on those? or even USE them? Like I said they will collect dust SOON.
This is because their mom's iPhone or iPad will get stuff done 10x quicker than that $400 PC.
So cut the BS with oh you can get a $400 PC, that's CRAP!
A $1300 MBA or MBP will WORK! Solidly.
And yes it's true, you HAVE to have 16GB and at least 256GB, but when you spec match and processor match, PCs and Macs with Intel chips, were, within $100-300 of each other LAPTOPS. But the PC makers always had these models that were way below Apple's lowest spec. Apple just refused to make them, not for price, just usability.
EDIT (ADD)
A little drunk but this is a funny metaphor for the new Intel or Intel+Win "world" that's out there:
It's like Jor-EL, is running around on Krypton, telling every PC guy, hey Intel Chips are long in the tooth, like they MAXED out, it's been this way for over 5 years, something big is coming! But now is the time, it's gonna end, I am telling you it's gonna end...
You get the gist
.It's like when they say, IN GENERAL, with most things in LIFE and on the planet, "And then someday there will be a new LEADER in charge, or a new TOP DOG", etc, and now is that time..."
It's just like it's freakin' over dawgs! 1968-2020 = 52 years MAN... gees
If you think about if a guy started with them in the begining at 18+52 years he's freakin 70 years old!
They DIDN'T teach the next in line the tricks needed to "re-invent" to make something pass on the legacy...
And Apple just HAD to because of circumstance, and lucked into having to.
So all in all if you're denying that the M1 is gonna succeed, YEESH
Last edited:
I am seriously considering trading in my 2018, 15” MBP for one of these new M1 computers. The trade in value of my comp. Is $1100.. so very tempting. The question is, as a developer, using virtual environments, python, mysql, etc... will I have major issues getting everything set up? ... why does Apple always make me question spending money.
I never said it wouldn’t succeed, as a matter of fact I specifically said that I hope it does. I just don’t think it will reduce the windows world to rubble the way some around here do.Yeah but why is it, that when anyone says:
A $1300 MacBook etc, is such-n-such, and then they go YOU CAN'T SAY it's a $1300 MacBook, because you gotta get 16GBs of RAM and 512GBs of SSD, etc.
Well I am gonna throw one back your way, YOU CAN'T SAY it's a $400 PC.
I heard this story, about oh PCs are $400, from like 2014-2019. I was like you know what I am just gonna get a $400 PC to do website tests, and programming, (this was before the NEW EDGE browser).
I went to look for a $400 PCs, couldn't FIND ONE! not ONE! then I am like wtf, ok well and then guess what?
Had to add this and that, next thing I knew I was up to $1300!! What a laughable night that was.
You keep telling these people to buy $400 PCs and those things will end up "dusty" real quick!
Then I realized, it's a FREAKIN' SCAM. But in the worst way, sure Apple has $1300 MacBooks that they use as a low-ball so that they can say "Hey we've got $1300 MacBooks," and then Education Bulk, maybe as low as $1100.
But the $400 PCs? Dude those things are the worst, that's the bottom of the bucket to say "Oh but you can get a PC as low as $400!" SCAM. Because people think they can get play a game on those? or even USE them? Like I said they will collect dust SOON.
This is because their mom's iPhone or iPad will get stuff done 10x quicker than that $400 PC.
So cut the BS with oh you can get a $400 PC, that's CRAP!
A $1300 MBA or MBP will WORK! Solidly.
And yes it's true, you HAVE to have 16GB and at least 256GB, but when you spec match and processor match, PCs and Macs with Intel chips, were, within $100-300 of each other LAPTOPS. But the PC makers always had these models that were way below Apple's lowest spec. Apple just refused to make them, not for price, just usability.
EDIT (ADD)
A little drunk but this is a funny metaphor for the new Intel or Intel+Win "world" that's out there:
It's like Jor-EL, is running around on Krypton, telling every PC guy, hey Intel Chips are long in the tooth, like they MAXED out, it's been this way for over 5 years, something big is coming! But now is the time, it's gonna end, I am telling you it's gonna end...
You get the gist
It's like when they say, IN GENERAL, with most things in LIFE and on the planet, "And then someday there will be a new LEADER in charge, or a new TOP DOG", etc, and now is that time..."
It's just like it's freakin' over dawgs! 1968-2020 = 52 years MAN... gees
If you think about if a guy started with them in the begining at 18+52 years he's freakin 70 years old!
They DIDN'T teach the next in line the tricks needed to "re-invent" to make something pass on the legacy...
And Apple just HAD to because of circumstance, and lucked into having to.
So all in all if you're denying that the M1 is gonna succeed, YEESH
"None of the above goes for the Intel MacBook Pro, which only runs x86-64 code for Intel's architecture."
When you say it like it, it does make the Intel version running out of steam.
However one could say, it flips over due to the the fact Intel apps don't run native unless you have Rosetta 2.
When you say it like it, it does make the Intel version running out of steam.
However one could say, it flips over due to the the fact Intel apps don't run native unless you have Rosetta 2.
I don't think it will be supported as long as you think, and its resale won't be very good even if it is. I can't think of a good reason to buy any new Intel MacBook now...especially a 16" MacBook Pro (which isn't cheap). If I needed an Intel MacBook for a specific reason, used is probably a better option for most and will only get better as more M1 systems hit the market, driving down the price of used Intel Macs further.
In your case, I'd try to wait it out seven or eight more months for the M1X 16". You may not need the power, but you'll need compatibility. If you need a system today and want something new, I'd think about a 13". It travels a lot better, and you can always get prescription glasses set for the distance your computer is from your eyes (I did). A good thing about macOS is that you can have different apps on different screens and easily swipe between them.
Last edited:
I'm going to wait for the M10X 8port MBP with 256gb ram and 500 tb of ssd
First, the new Apple Silicon Macs are such a huge leap ahead, even if you only look at Apple vs Apple products, but Apple has been stuck in the same place that every other PC maker has, with limited options for chips and having to follow the advancements, and lack thereof, of the chipmakers. That's no longer the case. Now they can advance on their own timeframe, which is clearly far outpacing other chip developers. And unlike every other chip developer, Apple isn't just making the chips. They're integrating hardware and software in a way that Microsoft can't, because each PC maker wants to be able to do their own thing, so MS has to design the software to work on the lowest common denominator. That's worked well enough for 20+ years, mainly because everyone was running chipsets that were mostly the same.
AMD, as one example, may be moving faster than Intel, but they are nowhere close to offering the performance per watt that Apple Silicon has. This advancement, along with their integrated memory architecture is a game changer, as it both offers increase speed and performance, and decrease heat and battery use. Nvidia too, has some great performance GPU's, but to perform, they require HUGE amounts of power and their thermals are ridiculous - making them unusable for any kind of mobile device.
Even for people unwilling or unable to afford anything but a $400 netbook or cheap PC, it won't take long for more consumers to realize that they're getting what they pay for and be unhappy with what what they get. And if they can instead get a $1000 MBA that lasts 17 hours between charges, doesn't heat up or have fans disturbing the peace when doing even fairly simple tasks, you'll see more people make the switch. For those that can't afford new, the secondary used Mac market will help save some, especially over the next couple of years as Apple revamps the line, and people upgrade from this first batch of M1 Macs. I'm not saying that Apple will overnight take over the whole market, but they're definitely going to make a significant impact on the sales that HP and the like have had for years.
As far as gaming laptops go, the market is small even when you're comparing it to what Apple sells in their Mac line (which has been a niche category itself). It's something on the order of $11b gamer laptop sales vs $50b Mac sales (not counting iPad). If it were bigger, you would see Apple going after it, but they're not...yet. If I had to guess, once the next round of Apple Silicon chips is launched with more GPU cores and even better ML, what will be possible on a Mac will embarrass gamer laptops, especially when you factor in efficiency and battery life.
I agree that Microsoft running PC's have been the volume leader, but just because it's been this way, doesn't mean it will stay true going forward, especially with the shift Apple has created with their new silicon. Nokia used to be the biggest cell phone producer. Today there is a generation of smart phone users who likely have never heard of Nokia, so the change in the laptop and desktop market can and will happen, just like it did in the cell phone market. I remember business colleagues who laughed at me back in 2007 when I got the first iPhone, as they were all Crackberry users. They tell me how great their phones were, and that they'd never switch, and that their companies wouldn't support an Apple cell phone anyway, so it was a moot point. A year later, they all switched to iPhones, then started forcing change within the businesses to allow for MacBook Pros and iMacs to be used, and they'd be excited to show ME their new Apple products.
I would bet that even Microsoft will recognize that if their own apps can run faster and more efficiently on an M1 Mac, that it's going to make their PC partners look bad when they're offering un-competitive PC's running the same apps on their Windows platform that work slower and less efficiently.
True enough about existing Intel software... But the initial Intel move encouraged a lot of developers to support the Mac, and my concern with M1 is that devs just won't do the work. It does, however, seem that Apple has made a real effort to minimize the pain of porting, so we'll see. I also wonder if seeing just how crazy these performance numbers are will inspire some on-the-fence devs to make the effort. Hope so. For me, it sounds like the main packages I use do have a plan/roadmap to get to native support, so that's cool.
Hey check this, Apps that were 10.5/10.6 universal, in Xcode, 13-14 years ago, you know how hard it was to make them Universal?
You go in to the compiler settings in Xcode and picked PPC 32-bit, 64-bit, x86 32-bit, 64-bit, and clicked compile. Then there were like 5-10-15 yellow warnings and red alerts, that you had to fix, took all of about 1-2 days MAX, and BOOM... 32/64 Universal App... that was in 2006-2007. Xcode 3.x/4.x!
We are on Xcode 12! and really 15+ years later! Think about that for a sec... I mean sure they have to compile fix and the TEST, which takes some time, the testing that's really all...
This year is gonna go by so FAST!