M1 MacBook Pro Replaces Low-End Model, Higher-End Intel Options Still Available

[Freida]

Thats a very good question. I think the whole point of AS is to have everything on the same silicon so I don't see them doing 2 separate chips. Isn't Sony Playstation 5 with RDNA 2 just one chip too? (not sure now)

But yeah, I feel that Apple will most likely be doing on one chip otherwise their presentation (the part where they mentioned how it doesn't make sense to have things separated) would make sense. So my bet is on one chip.

Maybe M1 for low power computers and M1 Pro for higher end. We shall see

Do you think they will put the GPU on the chip, or have something to the side of it?

Pretty interesting that the RAM is on the chip too. Should help with speeds. Very, very curious to see the 16”, I was sad when they stopped at the 13”

 

[anticipate]

No one seems to be talking about the GPU, which is half as fast as 5600M and about the speed of the old discrete 560X from AMD in 2018. Not super fast. (Based on Tflops plus the comparison graphs)

MUCH faster than the old integrated gfx, but no way these new machines will blow away a 16" MBP doing any real GPU intensive work - nowhere close. And you're sharing that RAM with the GPU. That's why there isn't a 16" one out yet.

 

[steveebeatz]

So if these M1 chips with Big Sur can run IOS apps - Won't the current iPad Pro be able to run Big Sur on the A14 Chips and IOS14?

 

[Aries79]

No one seems to be talking about the GPU, which is half as fast as 5600M and about the speed of the old discrete 560X from AMD in 2018. Not super fast. (Based on Tflops plus the comparison graphs)

MUCH faster than the old integrated gfx, but no way these new machines will blow away a 16" MBP doing any real GPU intensive work - nowhere close. And you're sharing that RAM with the GPU. That's why there isn't a 16" one out yet.

And that's why they reinstated that the transition will last 2 years. People expects 64 or even 128GB of memory and the power of a discrete videocard in a Pro machine. I'm curious to see how Apple will implement 64 or 128GB of RAM, if they are touting that they want to use only the integrated one. Also, toady people is upgrading to 64 or 128Gb at very low prices not buying Apple overpriced RAM, if they are switching to integrated only RAM that option would not be available anymore.

 

[anticipate]

And that's why they reinstated that the transition will last 2 years. People expects 64 or even 128GB of memory and the power of a discrete videocard in a Pro machine. I'm curious to see how Apple will implement 64 or 128GB of RAM, if they are touting that they want to use only the integrated one. Also, toady people is upgrading to 64 or 128Gb at very low prices not buying Apple overpriced RAM, if they are switching to integrated only RAM that option would not be available anymore.

Yes, this is definitely just round one.

 

[Digital Skunk]

I can guarantee 16gb of ram will last users for 7-10 years.

Getting 32gb of ram to future proof is stupid waste of money. In 7-10 years you are still going to get a new computer.
Also 32gb ram with old cpu and hardware is not going to work better than tech in the future with faster cpu and ram type

Again, this is a moot point.
- you don't know a users application specifications
- you don't know what that user is going to add in the 7-10 years
- you don't know what OS requirements will be in 7-10 years
- you don't know when a user is going to want to upgrade

Again, again, again, there is NOTHING to argue here.

If someone wants 32GBs of RAM in their computer let them have it. If the M1 doesn't have it, then it's not for them.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

With Steve still alive - the first M1 would have wiped the floor with competing Intel silicon - not only the low end ones ...

While Steve WAS known for his Reality Distortion Field, I don’t believe he had completely conquered physics yet.

So if these M1 chips with Big Sur can run IOS apps - Won't the current iPad Pro be able to run Big Sur on the A14 Chips and IOS14?

The M1 is more capable. That COULD be because that’s what macOS requires, but iPadOS doesn’t. If the iPad Pro gets a similarly configured processor, who knows? I’d think not, though. They’d rather macOS eventually die out with it’s last few years being extended by folks porting their iOS code to macOS.

 

[Digital Skunk]

We are almost in 2021, and you still talking about upgradeable RAM? Apple hasn't had an upgradeable RAM laptop since 2012. If anyone really needs 16GB now, it's obvious that if you want your computer to last better wait for the higher 13" MBP and 16" MBP that will have 32GB next year. Apple said it's a 2 year transition anyway, don't expect everything to be done in day 0.

1.) I already said this.
2.) upgradeable RAM or user upgradeable RAM? Eitherway Apple still sells computers with both.

 

[Mizouse]

Only noobs are waiting for M2, M7 is where the REAL action is /s

I think you mean “M7 is where the REAL motion is”?

Apple motion coprocessors - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[MrMacintoshIII]

$200 for an extra 8GB? That stopped my purchase right there.

Same. I can’t stick with 8gb but I also won’t even pay the $180 on the education store. Even after that $100 discount I still feel dirty paying to upgrade to what should now be the base RAM... so I’ll be holding off until 16gb is the default. Maybe summer 2021 or 2022 at the latest?? Early 2023? How cheap can Tim be???

256gb HD space on the other hand is reasonable and I don’t exactly mind paying $200 to put it to 512gb, but I absolutely will not pay $380-$400 to upgrade both. Stuff that.

 

[kovalchuk71]

These new laptops are amazing, but the one letdown is the bezels, jeez Apple, what's with the fat bezels in 2020? It's really annoying we could fit a larger screen in there, when you're talking about 13" vs 14" that's a big difference in usability.

I'm guessing its because they wanted to keep the screen sizes as close as possible to whole numbers, and could not physically decrease the dimensions of the case anymore than they currently have.

 

[avonord]

Again, this is a moot point.
- you don't know a users application specifications
- you don't know what that user is going to add in the 7-10 years
- you don't know what OS requirements will be in 7-10 years
- you don't know when a user is going to want to upgrade

Again, again, again, there is NOTHING to argue here.

If someone wants 32GBs of RAM in their computer let them have it. If the M1 doesn't have it, then it's not for them.

Exacly. It depends on the use case. For me, I plan to run windows VM. 16gb is simply NOT enough.

I also see some silly arguments here about the new architecture somehow uses the RAM more efficiently. Whether RAM is used efficiently is up to the app, not the memory architecture. Given the way most current pro apps are written, they will expect plenty of ram as they do today when they run on the apple silicon Mac. The efficiency will be further curtailed by the JIT emulation. To use RAM efficiently, these apps have to be rewritten with limited RAM in mind.

I get that the RAM is within the same CPU die and is created with 5nm process. They will be super fast. But they will be super slow when forced to swap memory pages with the SSD, where the SSD is the bottleneck.

 

[jonnysods]

Thats a very good question. I think the whole point of AS is to have everything on the same silicon so I don't see them doing 2 separate chips. Isn't Sony Playstation 5 with RDNA 2 just one chip too? (not sure now)

But yeah, I feel that Apple will most likely be doing on one chip otherwise their presentation (the part where they mentioned how it doesn't make sense to have things separated) would make sense. So my bet is on one chip.

Maybe M1 for low power computers and M1 Pro for higher end. We shall see

Yeah I’m wondering if they will call it M1X or something and they are a larger chip with the ram/GPU in it. Hoping they have 32gb as an option.

Still, I’m very impressed with the results today. If they can get a 16” with 20 hours of battery? Sign me up!

 

[jonnysods]

Same here, and those questions remind me of the Thunderbolt/MacPro conundrum.

Back before the trashcan Mac Pro we were all in a hissy fit about how Apple would handle GPUs. Hell, even after it only a few of us MR nerds brought up the solution of custom GPU boards.

I hope Apple doesn't place their tech above established GPU cards and industry leading workstation class chips. I'd love to see a 16" MBP with some serious BITE in the graphics arena.

If not, then I hope they don't cripple the eGPU options.

This is my fear too. Unless they can come out with something insane themselves, I kind of hope they use AMD/nvidia GPUs in the 16’s still. The M1 GPU could be the onboard video for graphics switching?

 

[Digital Skunk]

Exacly. It depends on the use case. For me, I plan to run windows VM. 16gb is simply NOT enough.

I also see some silly arguments here about the new architecture somehow uses the RAM more efficiently. Whether RAM is used efficiently is up to the app, not the memory architecture. Given the way most current pro apps are written, they will expect plenty of ram as they do today when they run on the apple silicon Mac. The efficiency will be further curtailed by the JIT emulation. To use RAM efficiently, these apps have to be rewritten with limited RAM in mind.

I get that the RAM is within the same CPU die and is created with 5nm process. They will be super fast. But they will be super slow when forced to swap memory pages with the SSD, where the SSD is the bottleneck.

All of this, and in the end who wouldn't want a faster machine that will last longer? Or a machine that will hold its resale value years later? What if you plan on giving the thing to someone and 32GBs does become the standard?

It's a win win win no matter how you look at it.

Anyone who says "it doesn't need .... blah blah blah is grossly oversimplifying the discussion.

This is my fear too. Unless they can come out with something insane themselves, I kind of hope they use AMD/nvidia GPUs in the 16’s still. The M1 GPU could be the onboard video for graphics switching?

That's what I'm hoping for. Even if subsequent upgrades cost more money (e.g. cMP) because Apple has to take a workstation GPU and retool/re-engineer it to work with Apple SoCs. Many 15"/16" users are accustomed to paying more for their machines .... and we don't mind so long as they remain fast.

Right now the GPU is where Apple is lacking.

On the other hand, if they truly can make a better GPU, that's faster, consumes less power, etc. etc. then .... just wow. Imagine three years from now buying a Mac Pro with custom, cheaper, MPX modules.

okay okay okay okay okay okay maybe I'm dreaming a bit there 😆

 

[Patriks7]

You’d think the M1 prices would be dramatically less since we no longer have to pay the exorbitant Intel cpu core prices

Right, because Apple spend tons of time and money to develop these out of the kindness of their hearts.

 

[bobmans]

Only two usb4/thunderbolt ports on the new MacBook Pro is a deal breaker for me. I ordered one and then cancelled it as soon as I realized it had this limitation.

What limitation? The one it replaced also only had 2 ports?
The M1 chip is Apple's low-end chip and therefore only replaced the low-end Macbooks/low-end Mac Mini.

 

[CJRhoades]

Trust me, in RAW power, the Zephyrus G14 will be out powered by the M1 from the 13" MBP.
both has 16gb Ram , only the mac has unified memory, and lets not forget how heavy is windows 10....so keep dreaming that the Zephyrus G14 can outperformed the 13" macbook pro
Did you have the dev kit mac mini with A12Z ?
Zephyrus G14 will throttle for sure under load...because the perf/w is no wear near the MBP M1. So less heat too.
better SSD also, better I/O also

No.

Unified memory just means the memory is on chip and shared between the CPU and GPU. It's not going to have a big impact on performance, if any.

The G14 does not throttle per reviews. It is a higher TDP chip at 35W but it has adequate cooling.

The M1 likely has better single core performance, but the Ryzen 9 4900HS has 8 high performance cores, not 4, and all of them have SMT for a total of 16 threads. In heavy multicore workloads, the 4900HS will be faster.

The biggest difference is in GPU performance. The M1 may have good performance compared to Intel integrated graphics, but the RTX 2060 in the G14 is orders of magnitude faster and has 6GB of dedicated VRAM in addition to the 16GB of system RAM.

I have no doubt that Macbook Pro and Air with the M1 chips will be super efficient, with great battery life and excellent performance for light productivity like web browsing, office, and photoshop. I'm buying one for those reasons because I have a high performance desktop for actual work. They are not comparable to a notebook like the G14 though, especially in heavy productivity like 3D modeling, tile based rendering, particle simulation, or video rendering that can take advantage of CUDA acceleration.

 

[BerBot]

I think I speak for a lot of people when I say: I can't wait for M2.

Indeed. They should update the outdated Pro 16" Intel. I guess sales are fine anyway, so they do not feel the need? Better look beyond Apple for your new high end..

 

[hans1972]

Exacly. It depends on the use case. For me, I plan to run windows VM. 16gb is simply NOT enough.

The RAM is not your problem, it is you can't run Windows virtual machines on these machines at all. At least not yet.

 

[CJRhoades]

Exacly. It depends on the use case. For me, I plan to run windows VM. 16gb is simply NOT enough.

I also see some silly arguments here about the new architecture somehow uses the RAM more efficiently. Whether RAM is used efficiently is up to the app, not the memory architecture. Given the way most current pro apps are written, they will expect plenty of ram as they do today when they run on the apple silicon Mac. The efficiency will be further curtailed by the JIT emulation. To use RAM efficiently, these apps have to be rewritten with limited RAM in mind.

I get that the RAM is within the same CPU die and is created with 5nm process. They will be super fast. But they will be super slow when forced to swap memory pages with the SSD, where the SSD is the bottleneck.

The RAM is on package, not in die, and it is not on the same 5nm process. See below, the RAM is the 2 chips to the right of the die.

 

[johnalan]

While Steve WAS known for his Reality Distortion Field, I don’t believe he had completely conquered physics yet.


The M1 is more capable. That COULD be because that’s what macOS requires, but iPadOS doesn’t. If the iPad Pro gets a similarly configured processor, who knows? I’d think not, though. They’d rather macOS eventually die out with it’s last few years being extended by folks porting their iOS code to macOS.

And what will they build the iOS kernel on? An iPad?

 

[Unregistered 4U]

This is my fear too. Unless they can come out with something insane themselves, I kind of hope they use AMD/nvidia GPUs in the 16’s still. The M1 GPU could be the onboard video for graphics switching?

Graphics switching originally switched between graphics chips. However, I think after Nvidia and Apple worked together on a motherboard that had nothing “Intel” in it but the CPU, Intel started requiring ALL solutions to have AND enable Intel GPU’s. So now, not only did it muscle AMD and Nvidia out of the low power game (if you’re making a small light laptop, you have to either make room for two GPU’s, Intel and the other, OR just use Intel), “switching” now just turns off the discrete GPU. You can’t disable the integrated one anymore.

Apple could have parallel GPU subsystems I guess (all Apple, though), and REALLY switch from one to the other, but they’re more likely to have something like low and high power GPU cores just like their CPU cores. Of course, this doesn’t matter on a desktop, so it’d only be for something like a 16-incher.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

And what will they build the iOS kernel on? An iPad?

Yes, of some form or another. Or a new “i” system that hasn’t been released. Leakers have noted that Xcode has been seen running on an iPad form factor device which makes sense because as of next week, Xcode will be publicly running on ARM. It’s just a matter of designing a sufficient workspace for developers.

 

[gnasher729]

So are the Intel Macs still considered to be faster, more powerful? If not, why are the M1's being positioned as lower end?

Partly because of not reading the specs carefully. The Intel Macs start with 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD. So to make the prices comparable, update the ARM Macs to 16GB + 512GB as well and there is little difference.

The ARM MacBooks Pro's are £100 cheaper in the UK once you make RAM and SSD the same. The ARM ones have more CPU power, and the battery lasts longer. The Intel ones can connect three monitors which the ARM ones can't, which is either very important or very unimportant to you, and they can upgraded to more RAM. And of course the Intel ones can use Bootcamp and Intel VMs, which is either a deal breaker or of absolutely no interest, while the ARM ones run any iPhone or iPad app.

They are just different. I wouldn't call them "low end" and "high end".