Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Deals: Get the New 512GB 13-Inch MacBook Pro for $1,299.99 ($200 Off)

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
69,516
40,665


Amazon today has introduced new discounts on Apple's 13-inch MacBook Pro from 2020. Deals start with the 1.4GHz model that has 8GB RAM and a 512GB SSD, priced at $1,299.99, down from $1,499.00.

13inchmacbookpro2020.jpg
Note: MacRumors is an affiliate partner with these vendors. When you click a link and make a purchase, we may receive a small payment, which helps us keep the site running.

You can also get the 2.0GHz model with 16GB RAM and a 1TB SSD for $1,799.99, down from $1,999.00. Both of these sales are also being matched at Best Buy, and they each represent new low prices for these models.



Apple updated the 13-inch MacBook Pro last month, introducing more standard internal storage and a new Magic Keyboard with a refined scissor mechanism. We've begun tracking the best monthly deals on all new MacBook Pro and MacBook Air notebooks in our new "Best Deals" guide. Be sure to visit the guide and bookmark it if you're on the hunt for a new Apple notebook; we'll be updating it weekly as we discover new MacBook offers across the web.

Article Link: Deals: Get the New 512GB 13-Inch MacBook Pro for $1,299.99 ($200 Off)
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2020/06/01/deals-new-macbook-pro/
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
I know there’s more than just the number but I can’t get over a processor speed of 1.4 ghz in 2020, especially for a normal price of $1499. My 12 inch PowerBook G4 was 1.0 ghz in 2003, single core with a 133 MHz system bus 😂 To clarify, I’m just talking about the literal GHz number and making a joke about with the comparison..
 
  • Like
Reactions: invisibleshoes and JosephAW
Spock said:
I know there’s more than just the number but I can’t get over a processor speed of 1.4 ghz in 2020, especially for a normal price of $1499. My 12 inch PowerBook G4 was 1.0 ghz in 2003, single core with a 133 MHz system bus 😂 To clarify, I’m just talking about the literal GHz number and making a joke about with the comparison..
Click to expand...

Yes but they are quad core! 1.4ghz (4)=
 
Lots of deals floating around. Do we think there'll be a spec bump this year for the MBP 16"?
 
I wish something similar happening for iPad Pros in future, then I would wait for a month or two patiently!
 
Spock said:
I know there’s more than just the number but I can’t get over a processor speed of 1.4 ghz in 2020, especially for a normal price of $1499. My 12 inch PowerBook G4 was 1.0 ghz in 2003, single core with a 133 MHz system bus 😂
Click to expand...

The point is single core. That is all the PPC 7447 had. Just one. The current Mac Pro that is 1.4 GHz for four cores. For work that can spread out over multiple cores that is more than four times faster. [ that is if the architectures were similar ... which not in this case. caches and implementation on current i5 are also much better. ] On a wide variety of workloads this processor will beat the slop out of a 7477 is isn't that close. ( e.g, even web browsers can assign a core to a tab. Multiple running applications can each have a core. etc. )

For modern processors there are two numbers. The base frequency and the 'Turbo' number. If all doing is comparing long term historical processors then comparing the turbo number is more indication of whether there has been any substantial progress or not. In this case, that is comparing 1.1 to 3.9GHz. Again in the range of 3x-4x better than. Even is all you are doing is emulating Mac Paint app .... the new one isn't even close to that old one.


To clarify, I’m just talking about the literal GHz number and making a joke about with the comparison..
Click to expand...

Core count matters. Especially in these age comparisons. Generally, the highest core counts leads to lower "base" clock speeds. Getting to highest core counts at the same time as fastest possible clock speed doesn't mix well. Often what get if chase that particular combination is a very high power consumption. Very high power consumption in a laptop is not a good thing. Especially, in a lightweight one designed to be mobile ( not just plopped down on a desk and moved only once in a relatively long while. )

The joke is the apples-to-oranges comparison. At least pick the appropriate clock number. ( single core to single core. ) .
 
Last edited:
Note: Only the 2.0 GHz+ models are 10th gen Intel processors. The others are 8th gen.

I just got my 13", 2.0 GHz, 16GB, 512GB in last week. I bought it a few weeks ago for $1799 from Apple. I consider it to be a good deal. 16GB of RAM by default is great, turbo up to 3.8GHz is also great.

I alredy put it to the test at processing the ~200 RAW files I shot with my Nikon this weekend in Lightroom. It kicked major ass.

Note: HD size means nothing to me, everything is in cloud storage. My photos are in Creative Cloud or iCloud, and my documents are in iCloud. I only need enough local disk to cache what I'm working on right now - and accept the newest dump of photos. 512GB is more than enough for that.

For those worried about 1.4GHz... you really need to look at the turbo-boost numbers. That 1.4 turbos to 3.9GHz. The 1.7GHz turbos to 4.5GHz (!).

In the old days processors mostly used their base clock and would only rarely run above that. These days, if there is work to do, it is extremely rare for a processor to go down to its base clock. Use Intel Power Gadget to watch what the clock frequency is doing over time.

I have an 8 core 16" MBP for work - it has a base clock of 2.4GHz and turbos to 5GHz. When doing anything it never goes below 4GHz. And that's pushing all 16 threads hard. If I'm only using one processor it will happily sit at about 4.5GHz.

I haven't tested my 13" MBP - but I will soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jwolf6589
friedmud said:
Note: Only the 2.0 GHz+ models are 10th gen Intel processors. The others are 8th gen.

I just got my 13", 2.0 GHz, 16GB, 512GB in last week. I bought it a few weeks ago for $1799 from Apple. I consider it to be a good deal. 16GB of RAM by default is great, turbo up to 3.8GHz is also great.

I alredy put it to the test at processing the ~200 RAW files I shot with my Nikon this weekend in Lightroom. It kicked major ass.

Note: HD size means nothing to me, everything is in cloud storage. My photos are in Creative Cloud or iCloud, and my documents are in iCloud. I only need enough local disk to cache what I'm working on right now - and accept the newest dump of photos. 512GB is more than enough for that.

For those worried about 1.4GHz... you really need to look at the turbo-boost numbers. That 1.4 turbos to 3.9GHz. The 1.7GHz turbos to 4.5GHz (!).

In the old days processors mostly used their base clock and would only rarely run above that. These days, if there is work to do, it is extremely rare for a processor to go down to its base clock. Use Intel Power Gadget to watch what the clock frequency is doing over time.

I have an 8 core 16" MBP for work - it has a base clock of 2.4GHz and turbos to 5GHz. When doing anything it never goes below 4GHz. And that's pushing all 16 threads hard. If I'm only using one processor it will happily sit at about 4.5GHz.

I haven't tested my 13" MBP - but I will soon.
Click to expand...

Nikon? I hate Nikon cameras. I have one and want to get rid of it. I think Canon is much better.
 
all the models are $200 off including 10th Gen. Mostly this should be starting price.

With MBA heat sink issue, $1099/$1299 MBP is better option for many of us
 
deconstruct60 said:
The point is single core. That is all the PPC 7447 had. Just one. The current Mac Pro that is 1.4 GHz for four cores. For work that can spread out over multiple cores that is more than four times faster. [ that is if the architectures were similar ... which not in this case. caches and implementation on current i5 are also much better. ] On a wide variety of workloads this processor will beat the slop out of a 7477 is isn't that close. ( e.g, even web browsers can assign a core to a tab. Multiple running applications can each have a core. etc. )

For modern processors there are two numbers. The base frequency and the 'Turbo' number. If all doing is comparing long term historical processors then comparing the turbo number is more indication of whether there has been any substantial progress or not. In this case, that is comparing 1.1 to 3.9GHz. Again in the range of 3x-4x better than. Even is all you are doing is emulating Mac Paint app .... the new one isn't even close to that old one.




Core count matters. Especially in these age comparisons. Generally, the highest core counts leads to lower "base" clock speeds. Getting to highest core counts at the same time as fastest possible clock speed doesn't mix well. Often what get if chase that particular combination is a very high power consumption. Very high power consumption in a laptop is not a good thing. Especially, in a lightweight one designed to be mobile ( not just plopped down on a desk and moved only once in a relatively long while. )

The joke is the apples-to-oranges comparison. At least pick the appropriate clock number. ( single core to single core. ) .
Click to expand...

It was a joke, I even put in a disclaimer saying that it was a joke. I did not need a detailed explanation as to why a 2020 notebook is better than one from 2003 but thanks.
 
jwolf6589 said:
Nikon? I hate Nikon cameras. I have one and want to get rid of it. I think Canon is much better.
Click to expand...

For landscape photography, Nikon has a few advantages. I started out with Canon, my last one was the 7D. When I was looking to go full-frame Canon simply didn't have the lenses I wanted and was missing a few good features for landscape photography... so I went with a Nikon D600.

They're both good systems. At this point, the thing that matters more is the photographer...
 
friedmud said:
For landscape photography, Nikon has a few advantages. I started out with Canon, my last one was the 7D. When I was looking to go full-frame Canon simply didn't have the lenses I wanted and was missing a few good features for landscape photography... so I went with a Nikon D600.

They're both good systems. At this point, the thing that matters more is the photographer...
Click to expand...
More than the photographer, the lens prices. :D
 
Thank you for this! I just got a new 13” MBP last week from Best Buy. It’s now $200 off so I called and they refunded me the difference. Wouldn’t of known if not for the article.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back