First Real-World Photos and Video of New MacBook Pro Models Begin to Surface

[theorist9]

There is a reason many believe the 2016-2019 MBPs are Apple's worst generation. Apple didn't reach that level of thinness through some sort of innovative or ingenious design. They literally just removed ports, produced a flat keyboard that is considered the worst they've ever made, and struggled with good thermal design. It's not a generation that will be remembered fondly.

"It doesn't fit"
"That's ok, remove it and make it thinner."

I'm glad the obsession with thinness is over. And hell yeah it's ok for a Pro device to be a little thicker if it means you can add more to it. MBPs are not ultra portables, that's what the MBA is for. The only thing I'm disappointed about is that there isn't enough ports.. I'd love ethernet and a usb a port.

I would have liked a USB A port as well. I read a report (forget the source, but it was in a major publication, not someone's tweet), that Apple thought about this, indicating the idea was given some serious consideration, though obviously they ultimately decided not to.

I think a marketing advantage of including HDMI and SD (which would have also applied to USB A) is that, with the M1 Max, Apple is, for the first time, able to exceed the CPU performance of all high-end PC laptops, and meet or exceed the GPU performance of most of them. It thus has a chance of attracting Windows users, thus expanding their market. And Windows users are more comfortable having these ports.

An ethernet port would also be nice, but would have been more challenging because it requires more vertical space than any of the ports they have now, and I don't know if the new case sides are tall enough for it or not. I personally can live without ethernet, because that I genernally only use at home, so there's no need to remember to bring a dongle along for that.

 

[lowkey]

.

I will have to look at the 14.

Like you say it’s all a trade off. Losing 2” of screen in exchange for an SD slot and HDMI port is a pretty big trade off. But I guess the 14” will be lighter and smaller than my 2019 16”.

It’s either that or wait for a 2022 MacMini Pro (if they make one) plus a MacBook Air, but one computer would make life a lot easier.

 

[lowkey]

"If weight is irrelevant to you, get a desktop" isn't a serious comment. It's a strawman. I never said weight was irrelevant, it's about trade-offs. Your comment is in the same category as "If weight is everything to you, get an iPad". Or: "If weight is everything to you, maybe you need to spend more time in the gym".

Plus your comment is pure snark. Note that, in responding to you, I went out of my way to be polite ["Could you live with a 14" display? I'll understand if the answer is no but, if you could,..."]. Looks like my civility was wasted on someone who's really only interested in trolling. Nice social skills, by the way.

Your 14” question came after the comment I made about getting a desktop. Not before.

But yes, that’s my choice now. For work at home it would be fine connected to my external monitor. But will probably require a second monitor at my other office too. Before I could get away with working on the 16” monitor for a few days. But not sure if 14” is going to cut it.

 

[theorist9]

Your 14” question came after the comment I made about getting a desktop. Not before.

That's true, but also avoids the point which was that, in my first interaction with you (i.e, where we hadn't interacted previously), I chose to try to be civil and helpful. By contrast, in your first interaction with me (again, where we hadn't interacted previously), you chose snark. But if you don't want to acknowledge that, obviously I can't make you.

But yes, that’s my choice now. For work at home it would be fine connected to my external monitor. But will probably require a second monitor at my other office too. Before I could get away with working on the 16” monitor for a few days. But not sure if 14” is going to cut it.

Yes, I understand. I'm not sure if I'd want a 14" either. Hopefully there's an Apple retailer near you, so you can spend some time playing with the 14 to see if the screen is big enough when you need to use it by itself.

If you use it mostly at home or work (as opposed to by itself at conferences, etc.), and could connect to an external monitor at both places, that would make the screen size less of a deficiency. And if you're happy with your external monitor at home, I suppose it's just a matter of whether you (or your company) wouldn't mind the extra cost for a 2nd one at work. You would be spending $200 less for the 14" than an equally-spec'd 16", so that could go towards the 2nd monitor.

Just to add some perspective to the weight and size issue: While the new 16" is thicker and heavier than Apple's butterfly-generation 15" laptops, it's still relatively light and portable for its class. I.e., I would characterize the 16" MPB M1 Max as Apple's first upper-end workstation-class laptop and, for this class of laptop, it may be the lightest and thinnest out there. Prior to the M1 Max, the lightest and thinnest laptop in this class was the Dell Precision 7560 Data Science workstation. At 5.4 lbs it's 0.6 lbs heavier than the 16" MBP M1 Max, and with a case that varies from 25 mm - 27 mm thick, it averages 9 mm thicker than the MBP (https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/sho...-b809-4b19-a941-14f775272aad#features_section).

I know this doesn't help you, but it does respond to your contention that, at this weight, it can no longer be considered portable, since there are many who consider this quite portable—light, even—compared to other portable laptops in its class. I grant you that it is not that portable for a consumer laptop, but that's not the kind of laptop it is any more.

 

[lowkey]

^well the good thing this time around is that the 14” gets good CPU and GPU options compared to the previously crippled 13” MBP.

Got to wonder then why the 16” is 34% heavier. Battery mainly?

 

[Falhófnir]

^well the good thing this time around is that the 14” gets good CPU and GPU options compared to the previously crippled 13” MBP.

Got to wonder then why the 16” is 34% heavier. Battery mainly?

Don’t think it’s the battery, it’s the same 99.5Wh (the max that will be allowed on a flight). Maybe lots of little increases that add up, a slightly heavier display panel, less aluminium milled out of the block with the chunkier design, maybe they’ve added a big heat sink to help with low-power tasks running without needing the fans to kick in? The ifixit tear down will be interesting.

 

[BreakYurAnkles]

Depends who you ask. As a former 2017 15”MBP and current 2019 16” MBP owner I was hoping for:-

A cooler running chip
More CPU power
Thinner (back to the 2017)
Lighter (back to the 2017)
6 uSB-c ports.

The 2019 MBP was already getting too big and heavy for a mobile computer and was considerably more so than the 2017 model.

It’s hard to imagine that getting rid of the Intel 8 core i9 chip could result in a computer that’s thicker, bulkier and heavier.

The whole machine, beyond the chip design (no doubt a separate department) just looks amateurish compared to Apples usual attention to detail and ability to innovate.

“It doesn’t fit”
“That’s ok, just make it a bit thicker”

Seemed to be the design process. Perhaps they outsourced the design to Dell or HP this time around??

"And I'd like the McRib to be available year round! But sometimes dreams don't come true!"
-Deadpool 2

 

[theorist9]

^well the good thing this time around is that the 14” gets good CPU and GPU options compared to the previously crippled 13” MBP.

Yup, you give up nothing except the screen size, possibly more fan noise under load, and probably some reduced performance under extended heavy load (the 14" has less thermal dissipation ability than the large one, so it may be more thermally limited); though that diff. might only make itself evident with the Pro Max's 32 GPU cores.

Got to wonder then why the 16” is 34% heavier. Battery mainly?

The % weight diff. between the large and small MBP's is about the same as what we saw with the 2017 models:

2017 (15.4" vs. 13.3"): 16% increase in screen size, 35% increase in volume, 33% increase in weight
2021 (16.2" vs. 14.2"): 14% increase in screen size , 38% increase in volume, 34% increase in weight

So in both cases the increase in weight closely corresponds to the increase in volume--the density remains about the same.

 

[lowkey]

Yup, you give up nothing except the screen size, possibly more fan noise under load, and probably some reduced performance under extended heavy load (the 14" has less thermal dissipation ability than the large one, so it may be more thermally limited); though that diff. might only make itself evident with the Pro Max's 32 GPU cores.


The % weight diff. between the large and small MBP's is about the same as what we saw with the 2017 models:

2017 (15.4" vs. 13.3"): 16% increase in screen size, 35% increase in volume, 33% increase in weight
2021 (16.2" vs. 14.2"): 14% increase in screen size , 38% increase in volume, 34% increase in weight

So in both cases the increase in weight closely corresponds to the increase in volume--the density remains about the same.

But normally there is a huge performance difference in CPU and GPU that helps account for the weight difference. Double the cores, a dedicate GPU and the associated additional cooling.

 

[ignatius345]

Since Apple is constantly changing these, they don't seem satisfied either.

Yeah. For better or worse Apple has stopped its longstanding tradition of just handing designs down from on high instead of following the chatter of the critics.

On one hand, they abandoned the Butterfly keyboard and put some good, usable ports into MacBook Pros. They even resurrected the near-univerally beloved Magsafe as a bonus. These were all pain points for a lot of users who may have been pushed too far by Jony Ive's uncompromising minimalism.

On the other hand, they seem willing to sacrifice basic design principles to port over a clunky hack like the notch from the iPhone to the Mac -- all because the area around the screen has been deemed undesirable by armchair design critics. Love Ive or hate him, I have a hard time believing he wouldn't have found a better way to accomodate a 1080p webcam than by intruding on the display space itself, with all the potential UI awkwardness that's bound to bring.

 

[Sheza]

The XPS has FHD LED, 3.5K OLED and 4K LED displays. None have a chin, and the 4K and 3.5K OLED are stunning.

That's a 'no' then

 

[Sheza]

Can go OLED, which is better than mini (not micro) LED.

Sure, but the question was whether the bottom chin was necessary.

 

[nsayer]

I have used Windows Hello IR on a laptop before. You lift the lid and it logs you in. There's no angling that's needed. FaceID should be superior with ToF sensors unless the angle is not as good as IR right now.

Try it yourself. Put your phone on your laptop display as you normally use your laptop. Then try and get FaceID to work moving only yourself or the laptop.

 

[lcseds]

That's a 'no' then

Yes. I think that was clear.

 

[theorist9]

Yeah. For better or worse Apple has stopped its longstanding tradition of just handing designs down from on high instead of following the chatter of the critics.

On one hand, they abandoned the Butterfly keyboard and put some good, usable ports into MacBook Pros. They even resurrected the near-univerally beloved Magsafe as a bonus. These were all pain points for a lot of users who may have been pushed too far by Jony Ive's uncompromising minimalism.

On the other hand, they seem willing to sacrifice basic design principles to port over a clunky hack like the notch from the iPhone to the Mac -- all because the area around the screen has been deemed undesirable by armchair design critics. Love Ive or hate him, I have a hard time believing he wouldn't have found a better way to accomodate a 1080p webcam than by intruding on the display space itself, with all the potential UI awkwardness that's bound to bring.

I think the notch on the new MBP's is less Apple listenining to its critics than Apple dancing to its own internal tune.

And remember that Ive was around when the notch was introduced to the iPhone. He couldn't find a better way than the notch to combine a camera with small bezels on the iPhone, and thus I doubt he would have found a better way with the MBP's.

 

[theorist9]

But normally there is a huge performance difference in CPU and GPU that helps account for the weight difference. Double the cores, a dedicate GPU and the associated additional cooling.

My guess is that, even with the increased efficiency of the M1, the M1 Max with 32-core GPU will thermally throttle in the 14" if run at max for an extended period of time (which is what you might see with video processing or scientific calculations). Thus, given this, and given they want the 16" to be as peformant as possible, they decided to increase its size by the same percentage they normally do (vs. the smaller one), so the larger device wouldn't throttle at all, even with extended maximum-load tasks. That would be very impressive, since nearly all high-performance laptops (except for, say, very bulky and noisy 7 lb gaming laptops) throttle under extended load.

 

[eelpout]

Perhaps FaceID will come to the Macs eventually...

we all know that's why the notch is there... eventually they likely will put FaceID in that space and (some) people will buy a new MacBook Pro all over again because "This is the (Apple) Way".

Have to admit, touchless authentication is great on my laptop with Windows Hello. It's probably a 50/50 split between that and the fingerprint reader on which gets used.

 

[lowkey]

My guess is that, even with the increased efficiency of the M1, the M1 Max with 32-core GPU will thermally throttle in the 14" if run at max for an extended period of time (which is what you might see with video processing or scientific calculations). Thus, given this, and given they want the 16" to be as peformant as possible, they decided to increase its size by the same percentage they normally do (vs. the smaller one), so the larger device wouldn't throttle at all, even with extended maximum-load tasks. That would be very impressive, since nearly all high-performance laptops (except for, say, very bulky and noisy 7 lb gaming laptops) throttle under extended load.

The 16” model also has 4 hours more battery life, so must have a bigger battery capacity?

 

[theorist9]

The 16” model also has 4 hours more battery life, so must have a bigger battery capacity?

According to https://www.theverge.com/22733390/macbook-pro-14-16-inch-battery-life-question-usage-processors:

13-inch: 58.2 Wh (watt-hours)
14-inch: 70 Wh
16-inch (both last model and current one): 100 Wh (this is the max allowed by the FAA if you want to bring your laptop on an airplane).

So, yes, the 16-inch has 43% more battery capacity than the 14-inch which would, as you were indicating, also account for the increased weight.

*******

I was thinking about the kind of customer you represent--one that might be fine with the performance of the future M2 Air—which will be more performant than the M1, and might also have more ports (though probably not as many as you would like)—but wants a 15" screen. And it occured to me, now that Apple has moved its large-screen laptop (16") into the workstation class, there's a hole in Apple's product line: They no longer have a highly portable large-screen laptop (15"–16"). So I'm wondering if, when they introduce the new Air, they will offer it in both 13" and 15" versions.

Does that sound like the kind of thing you'd want? They probably won't offer it, but it's a thought....

 

[CarlJ]

Requires less engineering and cheaper materials likely used. It’s a cheap design choice. Something the bean counters would do.

They’re doing two-tone anodizing of the case in order to make this work - black in the keyboard well and silver or space gray for the rest. Doesn’t sound like picking the cheapest approach to me, sounds like they spent extra money to make it look the way they wanted.

 

[lowkey]

According to https://www.theverge.com/22733390/macbook-pro-14-16-inch-battery-life-question-usage-processors:

13-inch: 58.2 Wh (watt-hours)
14-inch: 70 Wh
16-inch (both last model and current one): 100 Wh (this is the max allowed by the FAA if you want to bring your laptop on an airplane).

So, yes, the 16-inch has 43% more battery capacity than the 14-inch which would, as you were indicating, also account for the increased weight.

*******

I was thinking about the kind of customer you represent--one that might be fine with the performance of the future M2 Air—which will be more performant than the M1, and might also have more ports (though probably not as many as you would like)—but wants a 15" screen. And it occured to me, now that Apple has moved its large-screen laptop (16") into the workstation class, there's a hole in Apple's product line: They no longer have a highly portable large-screen laptop (15"–16"). So I'm wondering if, when they introduce the new Air, they will offer it in both 13" and 15" versions.

Does that sound like the kind of thing you'd want? They probably won't offer it, but it's a thought....

Unfortunately I have 2 parallel lives. One as a director in an Architecture company and one as an electronic musician.

For Architectural side of things I’m mainly designing and CAD is done by others, so the most taxing thing I do would be Indesign.

But for electronic music I already hit the limit of my 8core i9, so need a more powerful machine. Mainly for CPU. GPU is largely irrelevant for running live audio plugins and synths.

If there are rumours that the upcoming iMacs or Mac mini pros go with a chip that has more than 8 performance cores then I’d wait for that for my music and get a MacBook Air for architecture which is when I do all my travel…15” would be great but I don’t see Apple doing that unfortunately…but who knows, I didn’t think the notch rumors could be true either LOL.

If the iMac and Mac mini pro are basically desktop versions of the MBP chips, then the 14” is probably the way to go.

Going to take a look at the 14” and keep an ear out for Mac mini Rumors the next couple of months.

 

[theorist9]

Unfortunately I have 2 parallel lives. One as a director in an Architecture company and one as an electronic musician.

For Architectural side of things I’m mainly designing and CAD is done by others, so the most taxing thing I do would be Indesign.

But for electronic music I already hit the limit of my 8core i9, so need a more powerful machine. Mainly for CPU. GPU is largely irrelevant for running live audio plugins and synths.

If there are rumours that the upcoming iMacs or Mac mini pros go with a chip that has more than 8 performance cores then I’d wait for that for my music and get a MacBook Air for architecture which is when I do all my travel…15” would be great but I don’t see Apple doing that unfortunately…but who knows, I didn’t think the notch rumors could be true either LOL.

If the iMac and Mac mini pro are basically desktop versions of the MBP chips, then the 14” is probably the way to go.

Going to take a look at the 14” and keep an ear out for Mac mini Rumors the next couple of months.

Since you'd be getting the Pro variant (no need for more GPU cores), the added thermal dissipation of the 16 may have no impact for you. If so, that would be another point in favor of the 14. But you'll find out soon enough when these are released into the wild and thoroughly benchmarked.

I would hope the new large iMac would offer more CPU performance than the MBP. Given what Apple has already signaled about emphasizing performance, it would be surprising if they didn't offer that machine with desktop-class processors. Plus Apple's marketing has made a big deal about the power of their mobile CPU/GPU vs. that of other laptops. People are now expecting them to do the equivalent with desktop-class chips.

How many CPU cores can your audio software make use of? If you're going to go with a desktop, have you considered the new AS Mac Pro, which Gurman predicts will hit the market around the same time as the new iMac (late 2022), and will have a 32-core CPU option? Don't know if it's overkill for your needs (and it may come with too much expensive GPU power to be a good value for you).

 

[lowkey]

Since you'd be getting the Pro variant (no need for more GPU cores), the added thermal dissipation of the 16 may have no impact for you. If so, that would be another point in favor of the 14. But you'll find out soon enough when these are released into the wild and thoroughly benchmarked.

I would hope the new large iMac would offer more CPU performance than the MBP. Given what Apple has already signaled about emphasizing performance, it would be surprising if they didn't offer that machine with desktop-class processors. Plus Apple's marketing has made a big deal about the power of their mobile CPU/GPU vs. that of other laptops. People are now expecting them to do the equivalent with desktop-class chips.

How many CPU cores can your audio software make use of? If you're going to go with a desktop, have you considered the new AS Mac Pro, which Gurman predicts will hit the market around the same time as the new iMac (late 2022), and will have a 32-core CPU option? Don't know if it's overkill for your needs (and it may come with too much expensive GPU power to be a good value for you).

My audio software (Cubase) is pretty good at multi core use.

32 cores is probably over doing it for me. But 16 would be awesome. Especially in a Mac mini as I really don’t need much hard drive space or any other pci slots.

Glad to hear the desktops might have more than the laptop chips!

 

[theorist9]

My audio software (Cubase) is pretty good at multi core use.

32 cores is probably over doing it for me. But 16 would be awesome. Especially in a Mac mini as I really don’t need much hard drive space or any other pci slots.

Glad to hear the desktops might have more than the laptop chips!

Well that's just my speculation. I just looked up the rumors, and they're saying that Apple will use the same chips in the next-gen MBP and iMac. However, the good news is that this next-gen is rumored to include 16 CPU performance cores as an option (for both the MBP and iMac). Plus it's possible they might distinguish the iMac chips by clocking them higher, which would give more performance.

So if you really want those 16 performance cores for your audio processing, you'll need to hold off for a year (and of course there's no guarantees...):

Processor​

The M1 has proven to be a very powerful chip, gaining outstanding benchmarking scores and rave reviews. But Apple hasn't stopped there. The company has now launched the M1 Pro and M1 Max, which are much more powerful variants of the M1 chip.

It is highly likely we will see the M1 Pro or the M1 Max chips in the new iMac. These new processors are already being used in the 14in MacBook Pro the 16in MacBook Pro. It's also likely that they could make an appearance in a new Mac mini.

The new offers a 10-core CPU for both the M1 Pro and M1 Max - although there is an 8-core version for the M1 Pro.

However, we could see more cored: the new chip could offer 16-core CPU. According to a Bloomberg report in December 2020: "For its next generation chip targeting MacBook Pro and iMac models, Apple is working on designs with as many as 16 power cores and four efficiency cores."

Source:

27in iMac discontinued, but not necessarily dead

Apple has removed the 27in iMac from the line up. Does this mean that the company won't launch a new iMac, or is there still an iMac Pro coming?

www.macworld.co.uk

 

[MathersMahmood]

The side by side comparison shows how much more display you get.