Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Yeah. I thought Apple launched about the perfect laptop with the 16" so I got one refurb as soon as it became available. Then went through support hell as it was one of those that did nothing but crash. I ended up getting a brand new one, so that saved me 15% on the purchase of a new one. Not sure I'd like to go through it again, though. It was a stressful period at work and not having a reliable laptop + having to log my every move to build a convincing case Apple support couldn't talk themselves around wasn't something I needed on top of it.
Did your new replacement end up not having an issue?

These sorts of things are exactly why I recommend people wait on new redesigns. That being said, from everything I can gather, the issues with the 16" MacBook Pros (and the 2020 27" iMacs for that matter) are rooted in poor drivers for the AMD graphics rather than anything hardware related. But I could be wrong (and in your case, it sounds like I am!).
 
Well you can upgrade the M1 MBP to 16GB as well and it should still cost less than the intel MBP.

Anyway, I upgraded from a 2020 13” intel MBP (i5/16GB/1TB) to the 2020 13” M1 MBP (M1/16GB/1TB) and I have been super happy with my purchase.
The M1 run circles around the 10th gen i5. On applications that would make the i5 get hot, cause the fans to start blasting away and run down the battery, the M1 stays silent and the battery lasts much longer.

I hadn’t planned on getting the M1 MBP, but after being impressed with performance of my M1 Mac Mini (16GB/512GB), I decided to switch over and I wasn’t disappointed.

If you need bootcamp then the intel option will be your only choice. Otherwise, go for the M1 (or wait for the next AS model.)
 
Did your new replacement end up not having an issue?

These sorts of things are exactly why I recommend people wait on new redesigns. That being said, from everything I can gather, the issues with the 16" MacBook Pros (and the 2020 27" iMacs for that matter) are rooted in poor drivers for the AMD graphics rather than anything hardware related. But I could be wrong (and in your case, it sounds like I am!).
The replacement 'only' has the overheating issue. It kicks in every time I do anything together with either a Teams call single screen, or anything more than idling with a second screen. And every single time I launch a VM. As you rightly say, AMD is to blame.

So yeah, I'm very much looking forward to the new chip and the 14/16" macbook pros rumoured to get it, but with some trepidation to get it from day one. But then again, I got the mac mini M1 16/512 day one-ish and it's been brilliant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: badsimian
The replacement 'only' has the overheating issue. It kicks in every time I do anything together with either a Teams call single screen, or anything more than idling with a second screen. And every single time I launch a VM. As you rightly say, AMD is to blame.

So yeah, I'm very much looking forward to the new chip and the 14/16" macbook pros rumoured to get it, but with some trepidation to get it from day one. But then again, I got the mac mini M1 16/512 day one-ish and it's been brilliant.
MacBook Pros and iPhones carry the highest risk of Rev A sickness of all Apple products by far. Mac minis, especially given that we're still on the same body style introduced in 2010, are pretty safe. The Apple Silicon 16" MacBook Pro is sure to be beastly, but hell if I want to be an early adopter on that one. Let those who can afford to be down take the first plunge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Falhófnir
In my (or my daughter’s) use case, Intel was a must, because she’s entering college in the fall, and her school requires that she be able to run Windows. Kind of closed the options box. If that’s your case, it makes the decision easy.
 
In my (or my daughter’s) use case, Intel was a must, because she’s entering college in the fall, and her school requires that she be able to run Windows. Kind of closed the options box. If that’s your case, it makes the decision easy.
It's interesting that your daughter's college requires running Windows. I have three kids that recently graduated or are currently attending college, and hands-down the MBA is the most common laptop with student on their campuses.....including with my kids, who never ran Windows on their Macs while at college. I suspect your daughter's college Windows requirement is unique.

I agree that if you need to run Windows as your primary operating system, it's kind of silly to buy a Mac, since running MacOS is one of the benefits of owning a Mac.
 
  • Like
Reactions: me55 and BigMcGuire
It's interesting that your daughter's college requires running Windows. I have three kids that recently graduated or are currently attending college, and hands-down the MBA is the most common laptop with student on their campuses.....including with my kids, who never ran Windows on their Macs while at college. I suspect your daughter's college Windows requirement is unique.

I agree that if you need to run Windows as your primary operating system, it's kind of silly to buy a Mac, since running MacOS is one of the benefits of owning a Mac.
She can use the MacOS side most of the time, but there’s one app that is Windows-only, and is a requirement, so she has to have a Windows partition, to be able to run that app at will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: me55
I just a couple days ago turned in my 2020 Intel MacBook Air (i5) to trade in for the M1 version of the same machine. It's night and day. Battery life seems to be at least double if not more. Heat is non-existent.

I ran one of the Maps 3D flyover tours side by side and the Intel machine dropped frames left and right and ended up with the fan gasping audibly after a couple minutes. The M1 ran silky smooth and the machine never even got warm. Power consumption according to coconutBattery was around one-third what the Intel Mac was drawing.

Unless you really have to run Boot Camp for some reason, I find it pretty hard to imagine why you'd choose the Intel machine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ascender and vagos
When Apple announce the redesigned MacBooks, I know that I’ll be selling my Intel 2020 13” MBP. The Apple Silicon models are clearly the superior choice.
 
If the Intel MBPs can't BootCamp Windows 11 that'll change the equation in favour of getting M1 Macs considerably. One of the reasons I'm considering getting a newer Intel Mac is for running Bootcamp and if I can't do that with Windows 11 then I may as well make the switch to Apple Silicon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: duervo
If the Intel MBPs can't BootCamp Windows 11 that'll change the equation in favour of getting M1 Macs considerably. One of the reasons I'm considering getting a newer Intel Mac is for running Bootcamp and if I can't do that with Windows 11 then I may as well make the switch to Apple Silicon.
Just put up for sale my 16" i9. Seeing that windows 11 might not be supported on intel macs (although that might not be completely true, i've seen videos running windows 11), I thought this 16" might lose even more value. If I can sell it now at a 20% loss i'll definitely hop on the M1X 16". Personally, I didn't require using windows while I had this machine, but I know a lot of users still consider the Intel Macs especially because of the ability to run windows.
 
This the very definition of shortsightedness. I own a 2014 device. It works fine. Would I buy one today? Of course not. A 2014-15 machine is not anywhere near as good as an M1 based device -- nor will it be as long lasting. Is an Intel based 2014 machine sufficient for certain use cases today -- of course. That does not make it objectively as good though. If you want to save a few bucks, go ahead and buy the cheaper machine. But it is unwise to advise people to do so all things being equal.
I have the mid-2015 and am fully expecting it to be dropped by MacOS 13, Monterey has already jettisoned the mid-2014, and everything between late-2016 and mid-2019 isn’t really worth having. It’s a pretty terrible time to be looking for a used full size MBP, your only real option is the still quite new/expensive 16”, and even that’s probably going to seem a bad investment in maybe 3 years time when developers have wholesale switched their attention to Apple silicon, so any continuing macOS support is of little consolation anyway.
 
If the Intel MBPs can't BootCamp Windows 11 that'll change the equation in favour of getting M1 Macs considerably. One of the reasons I'm considering getting a newer Intel Mac is for running Bootcamp and if I can't do that with Windows 11 then I may as well make the switch to Apple Silicon.
Intel Macs won't run Windows 11 because of the TPM 2 requirement. Apple wants to get rid of Intel sooner than later so it's 99% unlikely they will update the firmware in those machines to run Windows 11 in bootcamp. Bootcamp is going to be phased out by Apple when Intel support is cut in a few years.
 
It’s because reviewers on YouTube are paid, given free product and they basically sign NDA’s to not say anything too bad and be positive.

the review industry from pc gamer (they make all their money recommending garbage they get paid when you buy) to YouTube is corrupt.forums are the best resource, critical opinions so when you get the device you can test it yourself in true return window.

just keep in mind Mac rumours has a lot of fan boys that support anything Apple makes, and defend it like a family member being attacked.

the best info to take off any forum is the most critical and apply this when / if you decide to try it.
 
Last edited:
Unless you really have to run Boot Camp for some reason, I find it pretty hard to imagine why you'd choose the Intel machine.

I think that advice should be made in to a sticky post. Unless you absolutely need an Intel-based Mac, which some people do, buying one now just seems like madness. Even then, I'd be buying second hand, refurb at a push.

I know computers aren't an investment and will only depreciate, but a brand new Intel Mac is going to lose a lot of money very quickly and like others have said, the difference in price, performance, efficiency, heat on the new base-level Air compared to the Intel range is incredible.

I know there's the first-gen nervousness, but these M1s aren't really a first-gen given Apple's experience with their own silicon over the last however many years.

As for the advice about older MBPs, unless you're buying something cheap as a stopgap, I think a lot of the fondness for them is just nostalgia. Which is also natural, but again, unless you absolutely need something those old machines have (like built-in ports), a used current-gen MBP is an objectively much better machine.
 
Last edited:
Current M1 machines are too under specd for video.
But based on how you asked your question I think the m1 will be better for you.
 
If you buy second hand, you can still get decent Intel machines for a good price.

If you buy new, there is almost no reason to get the Intel. It doesn’t make sense to spend more money for a computer that is slower, noisier and less energy efficient than the M1.

That being said, the Intel version still has some benefits, most importantly four Thunderbolt ports and a 32GB RAM option. Though if this is really important to you, you probably better wait for the new 14" MacBook Pro later this year (and if getting a new laptop is urgent, get an M1 MacBook Air now and sell it later when you get the 14" MacBook Pro).

If you have important apps that are non-native on the M1, don’t worry, Rosetta is super-fast. If they don’t run under Rosetta either, then of course that is something to keep in mind. If you don’t have an alternative, you’ll have to stick with Intel until those apps are updated.

The only really huge benefit of Intel Macs is Boot Camp. If running Windows is important to you and you don’t want to get two laptops, the Intel Macs are still great. However, Boot Camp is mostly useful for gaming, and the 13" MBP isn’t a gaming laptop (it has integrated graphics). Also not that it still isn’t clear whether or not Intel Macs will be able to run Windows 11, or at least whether or not it will be officially supported.
 
  • Like
Reactions: smirking
If you buy second hand, you can still get decent Intel machines for a good price.

If you buy new, there is almost no reason to get the Intel. It doesn’t make sense to spend more money for a computer that is slower, noisier and less energy efficient than the M1.

That being said, the Intel version still has some benefits, most importantly four Thunderbolt ports and a 32GB RAM option. Though if this is really important to you, you probably better wait for the new 14" MacBook Pro later this year (and if getting a new laptop is urgent, get an M1 MacBook Air now and sell it later when you get the 14" MacBook Pro).

If you have important apps that are non-native on the M1, don’t worry, Rosetta is super-fast. If they don’t run under Rosetta either, then of course that is something to keep in mind. If you don’t have an alternative, you’ll have to stick with Intel until those apps are updated.

The only really huge benefit of Intel Macs is Boot Camp. If running Windows is important to you and you don’t want to get two laptops, the Intel Macs are still great. However, Boot Camp is mostly useful for gaming, and the 13" MBP isn’t a gaming laptop (it has integrated graphics). Also not that it still isn’t clear whether or not Intel Macs will be able to run Windows 11, or at least whether or not it will be officially supported.
Honestly at this point, the only Intel Macs I'd even consider at any price would be the 16" MacBook Pro, or the 2020 27" iMac (Mac Pro being a special case that's irrelevant for most consumers or even businesses outside of specific studio use).

I just don't think any saving makes the 2020 Intel Air or 2-port Pro worth it over their M1 counterparts, and the 4-port was always quite a hard sell over the 2 port machine anyway. I simply wouldn't touch butterfly Macs at this point. 32GB RAM is still a niche requirement, and especially on the 13" which is quite an underpowered machine in other ways too.

With the 15" machines, again, the 2016-17 just aren't worth having between pretty lacklustre performance, the worst iterations of the keyboard, and flexgate. 2018s and 2019s seem marginally better reliability wise (anecdotally) but their poor graphics and low base storage make a used 16" an obvious choice over them, particularly as pricing is starting to compress in the used market, making the difference smaller.

With the iMacs, the 24" is still quite new, which makes it more expensive even used, but again, the benefits over the 21.5" or older 27" machines make a strong argument in its favour, from it's performance and cool/quiet operation to the better webcam, and TouchID.

As always for any significant amount of Windows work, I'd advise getting a Windows computer to do it on. Bootcamp has never really been an economic option with Macs' premium on storage and performance, meh bootcamp drivers, and now, as you say, uncertain future.
 
If the Intel MBPs can't BootCamp Windows 11 that'll change the equation in favour of getting M1 Macs considerably. One of the reasons I'm considering getting a newer Intel Mac is for running Bootcamp and if I can't do that with Windows 11 then I may as well make the switch to Apple Silicon.
What about Parallels, I ran that for quite a while and never ran into any widows program I had trouble with. If you're going to be using windows most of the time then no point in getting a Mac, but if it's only one or two programs once in a while I'd try it on the Mac.
 
Hi Folks,
I’ve been holding off buying a MacBook Pro because of the potentially updated versions on the horizon. My window for this is narrowing and I may have to just buy one of the current models. My initial skepticism is based on the max of 16gb of Ram. I do a lot of audio work, and on my intel machines, 16gb would not get it done.

When I run the benchmark software on my iMac (Late 2015, 3.2 GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i5, 32gb, 1T SSD), and compare it to the M1 MacBook Pro w/ 16gb, the M1 MacBook Pro scores 2x what the iMac does.

Is it fair to assume that the M1 will literally not only be faster than the iMac, but significantly so ?.

I"ve read a lot of about how fast these machines are, but in the real world crunching through large audio files in Logic, will the 16gb keep up ?

Thanks in advance
Jeremy
 
I’ve been holding off buying a MacBook Pro because of the potentially updated versions on the horizon. My window for this is narrowing and I may have to just buy one of the current models. My initial skepticism is based on the max of 16gb of Ram. I do a lot of audio work, and on my intel machines, 16gb would not get it done.

When I run the benchmark software on my iMac (Late 2015, 3.2 GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i5, 32gb, 1T SSD), and compare it to the M1 MacBook Pro w/ 16gb, the M1 MacBook Pro scores 2x what the iMac does.

Is it fair to assume that the M1 will literally not only be faster than the iMac, but significantly so ?.

I"ve read a lot of about how fast these machines are, but in the real world crunching through large audio files in Logic, will the 16gb keep up ?
What sort of audio do you work on that requires more than 16GB of RAM? Even if you count a couple of GB for system and Logic itself, every gigabyte gets you an hour or more of uncompressed audio. Except if you insist on using 24/192KHz, which takes about 2,5GB per hour. But that still gives you several hours of audio in 16GB of RAM.
Aside from that, it looks like the M1 indeed beats all of the latest Intel processors in the MBP when using Logic. You get more tracks at the same time with the M1. Some plugins perform slightly worse than Intel if they're not native yet, but that's a matter of time.
I think the M1 with 16GB should be fine for audio. But to be honest, I am waiting for the M1X (10 core) with 32GB RAM myself as well. I don't expect any audio application to need that in the future, as the storage demands of audio won't change anymore, but I like the feeling of having more headroom for the future anyway.
 
If you need x86, especially for virtualization, then you don't have a choice. If you run x86 macOS programs, then Rosetta 2 may be good enough but you'd have to test your particular programs to see what the performance is like. Apple could discontinue Rosetta 2 in the future to coerce software developers to make native ports and that could be a problem if your software developer decides not to port.

The M1 MacBooks offer long battery life, excellent CPU horsepower and great thermals. If you can find native programs for all that you need to do, then it's an excellent choice.
 
What sort of audio do you work on that requires more than 16GB of RAM? Even if you count a couple of GB for system and Logic itself, every gigabyte gets you an hour or more of uncompressed audio. Except if you insist on using 24/192KHz, which takes about 2,5GB per hour. But that still gives you several hours of audio in 16GB of RAM.
Aside from that, it looks like the M1 indeed beats all of the latest Intel processors in the MBP when using Logic. You get more tracks at the same time with the M1. Some plugins perform slightly worse than Intel if they're not native yet, but that's a matter of time.
I think the M1 with 16GB should be fine for audio. But to be honest, I am waiting for the M1X (10 core) with 32GB RAM myself as well. I don't expect any audio application to need that in the future, as the storage demands of audio won't change anymore, but I like the feeling of having more headroom for the future anyway.

I do a fair amount of editing on large files (usually 1.8-2.5gb). Some of the plugins are ready and some are not. I also then wonder if when an M2 type chip comes out, is that going to cause yet another delay in plugins being released. The reality is that if these companies wanted to prioritize re-coding these plugins, it would not take them 7 months to do it.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.