M1 MBA to replace my 2014 15" MBP

[Peet_B]

Since I've been studying from home for the last year my 2020 iMac has served me more than well. But now that the world is slowly turning back to normal, it means than starting September I'll be working in the office 3/4 days a week, to which I obviously can't bring my iMac.

My "portable Mac" is a mid-2014 15" MacBook Pro which is the second highest spec model you could buy back then, and served me well over the last almost 8 years. It's beginning to struggle now, especially since my workflow will get intenser with 3D graphic work etc.

Since I'm a student I don't really want to spend any money unless I absolutely have to, but I don't think it's possible to keep working on my old MBP. That's why I'm considering the M1 MacBook Air as a replacement. Would the base model be better (except for storage but 256GB is just fine for me) than my current MBP? And is the M1 chip with 8GB more RAM efficient than a regular Intel system? I could technically sell my MBP for around €800-€850, and the base model M1 MBA costs €1050, and that is about as much as I'm able to spend without having to resort to dry bread and water

If any of you guys have different solutions please let me know!

 

[Apple_Robert]

If you use Final Cut, Logic, XCode or other high CPU programs, get the 16GB RAM model. The M1 MBA rocks.

 

[Significant1]

Would the base model be better (except for storage but 256GB is just fine for me) than my current MBP?

Be warned that universal binaries containes twice the amount of binary files (intel and arm) and therefore also take up almost twice the space. I anticipate that to be the norm, many years on while Intel machines are still supported or Apple introduces come cleanup function that can slim it down.

And is the M1 chip with 8GB more RAM efficient than a regular Intel system?

No. Don't fall into that trap. Intel machines can also be quite efficient with 8GB ram. I am writing this on my old 8GB 11" MBA air and it is impressive what it can handle. But ram is ram and while M1 can swap faster due to faster ssd and have some unified memory handling, it doesn't magically equal more ram, when you connect a high resolution external monitor, are working with virtual machines etc. I have this 8GB MBA, a 16GB MBA M1 and 24GB 27" iMac and I have monitored memory in activity monitor and my 16GB M1 swaps less than my old 8GB, but my iMac swaps even less or (mostly) not at all. Everything as expected according to their ram configuration and I don't really see any efficiency difference in memory handling.

 

[casperes1996]

Be warned that universal binaries containes twice the amount of binary files (intel and arm) and therefore also take up almost twice the space. I anticipate that to be the norm, many years on while Intel machines are still supported or Apple introduces come cleanup function that can slim it down.

The binary itself, yes. But the binary is a very small percentage of what makes up an app bundle. And universal app bundles are also there on Intel Macs anyway, so it's the same regardless if you're on an Intel or Apple Silicon Mac. Final Cut 10.5.2 is a 3.68GB app bundle. Of that the universal binary makes up just 3.7MB. Resource files do not need another version unless they are executable machine code binaries. Interpreted executable files do not need more space either; Only machine code binaries

 

[Peet_B]

I always have multiple applications open (like Photoshop and illustrator) with each of them having multiple large files opened. My iMac has 32GB RAM and more than 20GB of it is in use quite regularly. My GF had a 2019 base model MBP with 8GB of RAM, and ran into issues where when she had 2 or 3 photoshop files open, it wasn’t even able to save them because of a lack of system memory… I just don’t want to run into that issue, but I really want to not spend €200 extra when I don’t actually need to

 

[iHorseHead]

If you use Final Cut, Logic, XCode or other high CPU programs, get the 16GB RAM model. The M1 MBA rocks.

I use those programs with 8GB RAM. Have no issues yet.

 

[Peet_B]

The synthetic benchmarks of the M1 MBA compared to my current '14 MBP are doubled CPU wise, and almost 10 times as good GPU wise. So I won't doubt there being incredible performance gains, and the only issues I face are the 8GB of RAM and the smaller 13" screen which sort of bothers me a little. I could of course always hook it up to an external monitor so that is one issue solved.

 

[casperes1996]

The synthetic benchmarks of the M1 MBA compared to my current '14 MBP are doubled CPU wise, and almost 10 times as good GPU wise. So I won't doubt there being incredible performance gains, and the only issues I face are the 8GB of RAM and the smaller 13" screen which sort of bothers me a little. I could of course always hook it up to an external monitor so that is one issue solved.

I think the smaller screen is your most important consideration here. Can you really be satisfied with 13" not just today, but years into the future? Presumably you want this to last a while.
How comfortable is life on your 2014 right now? Maybe you'd be better off stretching it a bit longer and seeing what bigger options come out of Apple, and maybe in a year or so get a used 16" M1X or something instead. Or if they end up making it, a 15" MBA which there's been talks of potentially happening, but bit doubtful

 

[Peet_B]

How comfortable is life on your 2014 right now?

It's practically unusable for anything other than basic web browsing and light workloads. Since Big Sur it idles at 60C with even watching YouTube videos making the temps go to 90C+ with the fans taking off into the distance. The battery life is terrible. Even with a brand new battery it only manages about 4 hours while doing basically nothing, and when I'm doing "intensive" work it's completely dead within an hour... And with that comes the performance, or either lack thereof. I know I'm spoiled with my 8-core i7 and Radeon 5700 graphics in my iMac, but stepping back to my MBP is like going back to the gym after 8 months of being at home in lockdown... (believe me I know how it feels and it sucks lol)

As for the screen also, yes a 15" (or bigger) display has my preference, but comparing my old MBP display with my iMac is like using an iPhone 4s in direct sunlight when you're used to a 12 Pro.

I'd love to get a 16" M1X or M2 or Mwhatever MBP when it comes out, but I just don't have the money after I spent nearly €3200,- on my iMac 6 months ago (and I haven't regretted it a bit though). My solution with selling my MBP and buying a M1 MBA would only set me back about €300,- which I can actually handle, but given the 16" models will cost upwards of €2500,- here in the Netherlands I'd be spending over €1700,- for a machine that is my 2nd option.

The screen size is something I'd be willing to compromise in, especially since I still have my "old" Dell 4K monitor hanging around which I could leave in the office.

p.s. thanks for all the amazing feedback and suggestions guys! I really appreciate it!

 

[Significant1]

The binary itself, yes. But the binary is a very small percentage of what makes up an app bundle. And universal app bundles are also there on Intel Macs anyway, so it's the same regardless if you're on an Intel or Apple Silicon Mac. Final Cut 10.5.2 is a 3.68GB app bundle. Of that the universal binary makes up just 3.7MB. Resource files do not need another version unless they are executable machine code binaries. Interpreted executable files do not need more space either; Only machine code binaries

I don't know how you have come up with that or have Fincal Cut pro. But I don't believe 3.7MB is correct. Every binary executable library etc. needs to be there in both arhcitectures, not just launcher stub binary (don't know the correct term). That said apps differs. Because non executable or non binary content varies. That it is the same on Intel (now), doesn't change the fact that apps and macOS itself will be more bloated for the forseeable future due two architectures. If you want use Xcode you now need 70GB just to be able to install and update it. Connect an iPhone and it will drop a backup during sync. So 256GB can easily become limited, depending on usecase.

 

[Peet_B]

I don't know how you have come up with that or have Fincal Cut pro. But I don't believe 3.7MB is correct. Every binary executable library etc. needs to be there in both arhcitectures, not just launcher stub binary (don't know the correct term). That said apps differs. Because non executable or non binary content varies. That it is the same on Intel (now), doesn't change the fact that apps and macOS itself will be more bloated for the forseeable future due two architectures. If you want use Xcode you now need 70GB just to be able to install and update it. Connect an iPhone and it will drop a backup during sync. So 256GB can easily become limited, depending on usecase.

256GB would be no issue for me! The screenshot I attached is from my iMac, and has so much stuff on it that I could throw away or store on my NAS. I have the 1TB iCloud Drive subscription which is great for not only temporarily removing stuff I don't use on my device, but also for syncing it to my other devices.

As I said, I think my iMac storage usage could be reduced by more than 50GB if I decide to finally clean it up, which would result in only 130GB of used storage, so 256GB is plenty. If I needed more, I have a 2TB thunderbolt NVMe drive just in case

 

[4sallypat]

I use those programs with 8GB RAM. Have no issues yet.

I agree - the base 8GB M1 Mini and base 8GB M1 iMac I use daily are performing so much better than the Intel Macs it replaced.

For the M1 iMac, I purchased the EDU Pro Apps bundle and Final Cut Pro runs like it has gobs of memory! Super snappy, no fan spinning, and chassis remains very cool.

Can't say that for the Intel Macs that have double or triple the RAM and still thermally throttles, fans spin up, and chassis gets hot!
I really hate my 2019 16" MBP - that's a huge waste of money - had I known an M1 16" MBP would be replacing it, I would have waited...

OP you may want to wait for the rumored 16" M1 MBP soon to be announced - it might be a better fit coming from a 15" using it for graphics and since the M1 MBA does not have a fan, you may need the extra thermal control in the M1 MBP.

For graphics, look at the new M1 iMac - that stunning 4.5K Retina is just so amazing - especially watching 4K video.

 

[casperes1996]

It's practically unusable for anything other than basic web browsing and light workloads. Since Big Sur it idles at 60C with even watching YouTube videos making the temps go to 90C+ with the fans taking off into the distance. The battery life is terrible. Even with a brand new battery it only manages about 4 hours while doing basically nothing, and when I'm doing "intensive" work it's completely dead within an hour... And with that comes the performance, or either lack thereof. I know I'm spoiled with my 8-core i7 and Radeon 5700 graphics in my iMac, but stepping back to my MBP is like going back to the gym after 8 months of being at home in lockdown... (believe me I know how it feels and it sucks lol)

As for the screen also, yes a 15" (or bigger) display has my preference, but comparing my old MBP display with my iMac is like using an iPhone 4s in direct sunlight when you're used to a 12 Pro.

I'd love to get a 16" M1X or M2 or Mwhatever MBP when it comes out, but I just don't have the money after I spent nearly €3200,- on my iMac 6 months ago (and I haven't regretted it a bit though). My solution with selling my MBP and buying a M1 MBA would only set me back about €300,- which I can actually handle, but given the 16" models will cost upwards of €2500,- here in the Netherlands I'd be spending over €1700,- for a machine that is my 2nd option.

The screen size is something I'd be willing to compromise in, especially since I still have my "old" Dell 4K monitor hanging around which I could leave in the office.

p.s. thanks for all the amazing feedback and suggestions guys! I really appreciate it!

Huh, funny. I have almost the same setup as you actually. A mid 2014 MacBook Pro (though mine is the entry base model) and a top spec 2020 iMac (Radeon Pro 5700XT but same CPU). My laptop is doing fine on thermals and alright on battery though. Graphics performance is absolutely horrendous butt CPU is alright enough, really. Though mine also doesn't have the dedicated GPU of yours.

Well, I was thinking used 16" for the pricing reason, but if you feel fine with a smaller screen as a secondary computer, you'll probably be fine

I don't know how you have come up with that or have Fincal Cut pro. But I don't believe 3.7MB is correct. Every binary executable library etc. needs to be there in both arhcitectures, not just launcher stub binary (don't know the correct term). That said apps differs. Because non executable or non binary content varies. That it is the same on Intel (now), doesn't change the fact that apps and macOS itself will be more bloated for the forseeable future due two architectures. If you want use Xcode you now need 70GB just to be able to install and update it. Connect an iPhone and it will drop a backup during sync. So 256GB can easily become limited, depending on usecase.

So the number was a naïve measurement of the main executable in the Contents/MacOS folder of the app bundle, so it is an underestimate. But I don't think it's fair either to consider everything, like AVFoundation, since that's a shared system framework and while Final Cut uses it, so does loads of other programs on the computer and you won't need its size doubled for every program. In the vast majority of cases the bulk of a program's size will be resource files like images, generators, videos, etc. that don't need extra size. Binary files generally don't take up that much space, really. With standard compiler settings and default compile options an x86-64 Linux kernel image takes up "just" 70MB and that's a pretty big bit of software. I have a 1 minute video file that takes up more space than that.

Xcode has always been huge and heavily compressed when you download the xip. And it includes the frameworks for tvOS, watchOS, iOS, etc. not just macOS. The Xcode xip also includes Instruments, Simulator, CoreML Create, etc. not just Xcode itself.

 

[Peet_B]

Though mine also doesn't have the dedicated GPU of yours.

I think that's actually a benefit right now. That old GT750M operates at 100% almost all of the time and therefore produces "better" graphic performance, but at the cost of lots of extra heat and power consumption. The heatsink in your MBP is exactly the same size as mine, but my GPU is also connected to the same heatsink. The heatsink is adequate for just the CPU that has a 47 watt TDP, but add the GT750M that has a 50 watt TDP, and the amount of heat that the heatsink has to dissipate has more than doubled. Also with that 50 watt GPU the power usage also doubles, so the battery only lasts half as long...

7 years ago applications (and macOS itself) were not at all as demanding as they are now, since they're built for newer hardware that has way more power. That in turn causes my MBP to give have to give 100% of its capabilities almost all of the time, which produces lots of heat and consumes lots of power...

 

[SirAnthonyHopkins]

Is there a reason you're not considering the M1 MBP?

 

[Peet_B]

Is there a reason you're not considering the M1 MBP?

Just due to the fact that it's €300,- more expensive and only has the 1 extra GPU core, a fan and a bigger battery. And when I compare the GPU performance, thermals and battery life of the base M1 MBA to my current MBP it's already a million times better. Yes a fan would be nice to have, but it doesn't justify the €300,- extra I would pay for it, that would double my actual costs from €300 to €600 when I sell my current MBP

 

[casperes1996]

I think that's actually a benefit right now. That old GT750M operates at 100% almost all of the time and therefore produces "better" graphic performance, but at the cost of lots of extra heat and power consumption. The heatsink in your MBP is exactly the same size as mine, but my GPU is also connected to the same heatsink. The heatsink is adequate for just the CPU that has a 47 watt TDP, but add the GT750M that has a 50 watt TDP, and the amount of heat that the heatsink has to dissipate has more than doubled. Also with that 50 watt GPU the power usage also doubles, so the battery only lasts half as long...

7 years ago applications (and macOS itself) were not at all as demanding as they are now, since they're built for newer hardware that has way more power. That in turn causes my MBP to give have to give 100% of its capabilities almost all of the time, which produces lots of heat and consumes lots of power...

Yeah; I'd agree. But your GT 750M is being used at on the desktop? That sounds like a problem, honestly.
Well, if you want an experience closer to mine you could always try gfxCardStatus to force the machine to only use the Iris Pro and see how you like that experience. Can always toggle on the Nvidia GPU when you need a bit extra

 

[Peet_B]

Yeah; I'd agree. But your GT 750M is being used at on the desktop? That sounds like a problem, honestly.
Well, if you want an experience closer to mine you could always try gfxCardStatus to force the machine to only use the Iris Pro and see how you like that experience. Can always toggle on the Nvidia GPU when you need a bit extra

I'm definitely going to try that. Didn't know such thing existed! In the macOS power consumption settings I can choose if the dGPU is always active when on power, but not that it only uses the iGPU. Thanks for the tip!

edit: I really think that the thermal issue makes my MBP perform worse than yours due to all the throttling it does...

 

[GSWForever8]

Since I've been studying from home for the last year my 2020 iMac has served me more than well. But now that the world is slowly turning back to normal, it means than starting September I'll be working in the office 3/4 days a week, to which I obviously can't bring my iMac.

My "portable Mac" is a mid-2014 15" MacBook Pro which is the second highest spec model you could buy back then, and served me well over the last almost 8 years. It's beginning to struggle now, especially since my workflow will get intenser with 3D graphic work etc.

Since I'm a student I don't really want to spend any money unless I absolutely have to, but I don't think it's possible to keep working on my old MBP. That's why I'm considering the M1 MacBook Air as a replacement. Would the base model be better (except for storage but 256GB is just fine for me) than my current MBP? And is the M1 chip with 8GB more RAM efficient than a regular Intel system? I could technically sell my MBP for around €800-€850, and the base model M1 MBA costs €1050, and that is about as much as I'm able to spend without having to resort to dry bread and water

If any of you guys have different solutions please let me know!

MBA is kind of the same as the MBP, so don't consider the pro.

Now, if you use any pro apps, get the 16gb RAM.

Get the same amount of storage your MBP have. You should also consider getting extra storage or buying an external SSD.

 

[blueflower]

MBA is kind of the same as the MBP, so don't consider the pro.

Now, if you use any pro apps, get the 16gb RAM.

Get the same amount of storage your MBP have. You should also consider getting extra storage or buying an external SSD.

/thread

 

[PeterJP]

7 years ago applications (and macOS itself) were not at all as demanding as they are now, since they're built for newer hardware that has way more power. That in turn causes my MBP to give have to give 100% of its capabilities almost all of the time, which produces lots of heat and consumes lots of power...

That's not really true. There was a time when a spreadsheet program could take seconds or minutes to recalculate but those days are long gone. In actual use, spreadsheets and the like hardly use the cpu at all. But Microsoft excel and other programs (Microsoft Teams, most notably) sometimes still use lots of power. Why? Inefficient programming. Excel is dragging along 3 decades of legacy code and coding frameworks. I'm pretty sure Microsoft has a bunch of frameworks to convert ancient code to newer frameworks, then another bunch to convert that bloat into stuff that works with the macos frameworks. 90% or more of the cpu time is completely wasted on administrative stuff without any benefit for the user.
Yes, there are some programs that use a lot of resources (games, video) but most of the slowdown is because of lazy programming, usually caused by the mentality of 'ship anything, as long as it works'.

 

[Peet_B]

That's not really true. There was a time when a spreadsheet program could take seconds or minutes to recalculate but those days are long gone. In actual use, spreadsheets and the like hardly use the cpu at all. But Microsoft excel and other programs (Microsoft Teams, most notably) sometimes still use lots of power. Why? Inefficient programming. Excel is dragging along 3 decades of legacy code and coding frameworks. I'm pretty sure Microsoft has a bunch of frameworks to convert ancient code to newer frameworks, then another bunch to convert that bloat into stuff that works with the macos frameworks. 90% or more of the cpu time is completely wasted on administrative stuff without any benefit for the user.
Yes, there are some programs that use a lot of resources (games, video) but most of the slowdown is because of lazy programming, usually caused by the mentality of 'ship anything, as long as it works'.

But that doesn't explain why OSX Mavericks runs cooler and feels way snappier than Big Sur, which gives me idle temps that are almost 20C higher than Mavericks...