MacBook Pro (13-inch, 2020, Two Thunderbolt Ports) for x86 Virtualization (How is it?)

[Yebubbleman]

My Mac platform needs are not at all what they were. Windows handles my gaming needs and will likely be my go-to for Adobe needs as well. Windows is pretty much my heavy-lifting platform.

My need for a Mac (that go beyond what could easily be done on a MacBook Air or a low-end Mac mini) are that I would like to run x86 virtualization programs (primarily to virtualize Linux and older macOS releases). There is a slight chance that I might, solely for fun, try to take an online Final Cut Pro X class (but my needs there aren't likely to be fancy in any way as, again, it'd solely be for fun).

I've been eying the MacBook Pro (13-inch, 2020, Four Thunderbolt Ports) models thus far as that seems like it provides me a good mix of what I need and portability. But I'm wondering if the MacBook Pro (13-inch, 2020, Two Thunderbolt Ports) models work just as well for my needs.

I definitely understand what's different under-the-hood as well as what 10th Gen offers over not just the 8th Gen predecessors on the equivalent 2019 model, but also over what's still in the Two-Port 2020 model today.

The one factor I see as definitely being limiting is RAM. I think for having the maximum number of simultaneously running VMs (as well as a smooth potential FCPX experience), I'll probably want the faster RAM and 32GB of it as opposed to 16GB. Otherwise, will it make enough of a difference?

The only other thing that might influence me here is whether there's likely to be a difference in cut-off date in terms of major macOS release support between the two models. But, I can't imagine Apple will find themselves only supporting 9th and 10th Gen Intel Macs leading into a future macOS release.

Any thoughts on this?

 

[ctjack]

There is a slight chance that I might, solely for fun, try to take an online Final Cut Pro X class (but my needs there aren't likely to be fancy in any way as, again, it'd solely be for fun).

Lets consider it this way. Back then, when Mac was fancy, only Final Cut was existent for normal video editing. Windows counterparts were far behind of Final Cut. iMovie is for starters only. But now we have DaVinci Resolve 16(for Mac and Win). They opened Davinci video editor to the public recently. I personally like Davinci better in terms of ergonomics and intuity and hate in-app purchases of FCPX. I mean any decent editing button needs to be purchased separately(wow we are paying for FCPX alone huge money and more money again for plugins?!).

The one factor I see as definitely being limiting is RAM. I think for having the maximum number of simultaneously running VMs (as well as a smooth potential FCPX experience), I'll probably want the faster RAM and 32GB of it as opposed to 16GB. Otherwise, will it make enough of a difference?

If you are about to pay for 32GB of Ram, you could also buy MBP 16 inch, given the fact that you didn't mention priority of portability.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Lets consider it this way. Back then, when Mac was fancy, only Final Cut was existent for normal video editing. Windows counterparts were far behind of Final Cut. iMovie is for starters only. But now we have DaVinci Resolve 16(for Mac and Win). They opened Davinci video editor to the public recently. I personally like Davinci better in terms of ergonomics and intuity and hate in-app purchases of FCPX. I mean any decent editing button needs to be purchased separately(wow we are paying for FCPX alone huge money and more money again for plugins?!).

Right. I only bring up FCPX is that I own it and having long since loved FCP7 and Adobe Premiere, I'm curious to try out FCPX because, again, I already own it. Installing it on any Mac is a zero cost charge. I'm not looking to become an expert in it or use it for a living. I just own it and am curious to play with it and maybe take lessons on it on whatever Mac I end up getting. My uses of it would definitely be classified as casual and if that means I sacrifice 0.5-10 minutes on a render, then that's totally fine by me. I know that any (Intel-based) 13" MacBook Pro won't be the kind of 4K editing champ that people who do that sort of thing professionally would want to use. But, again, I'm NOT looking to do that professionally. If I was, I'd either let whatever company I'm doing it for give me the kind of Mac to work on OR I'd buy a high-end iMac or iMac Pro and just do it at a desk.

If you are about to pay for 32GB of Ram, you could also buy MBP 16 inch, given the fact that you didn't mention priority of portability.

A (2020 Intel) 4-port 13" MacBook Pro with a 10th Gen Quad-Core i7 and 32GB of RAM is still substantially less than the next thing up, which would be a 16" MacBook Pro with a 9th Gen Hexa-Core i7 and 32GB of RAM. If they were similarly priced, that'd be one thing. Portability is preferable as the last 15" MacBook Pro I owned never left the apartment because it was annoying to be on the move with. But portability isn't as essential to me as not splurging on stuff I don't have a need for. Otherwise, I can't justify the extra cores, or the discrete GPU (not that I couldn't find a use for them; just that I have no need for them on a Mac like I do for them on a Windows PC these days). Certainly, if money grew on trees, I'd care much less about gravitating toward the larger machine, but it doesn't. Especially nowadays.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Right. I only bring up FCPX is that I own it and having long since loved FCP7 and Adobe Premiere, I'm curious to try out FCPX because, again, I already own it. Installing it on any Mac is a zero cost charge. I'm not looking to become an expert in it or use it for a living. I just own it and am curious to play with it and maybe take lessons on it on whatever Mac I end up getting. My uses of it would definitely be classified as casual and if that means I sacrifice 0.5-10 minutes on a render, then that's totally fine by me. I know that any (Intel-based) 13" MacBook Pro won't be the kind of 4K editing champ that people who do that sort of thing professionally would want to use. But, again, I'm NOT looking to do that professionally. If I was, I'd either let whatever company I'm doing it for give me the kind of Mac to work on OR I'd buy a high-end iMac or iMac Pro and just do it at a desk.



A (2020 Intel) 4-port 13" MacBook Pro with a 10th Gen Quad-Core i7 and 32GB of RAM is still substantially less than the next thing up, which would be a 16" MacBook Pro with a 9th Gen Hexa-Core i7 and 32GB of RAM. If they were similarly priced, that'd be one thing. Portability is preferable as the last 15" MacBook Pro I owned never left the apartment because it was annoying to be on the move with. But portability isn't as essential to me as not splurging on stuff I don't have a need for. Otherwise, I can't justify the extra cores, or the discrete GPU (not that I couldn't find a use for them; just that I have no need for them on a Mac like I do for them on a Windows PC these days). Certainly, if money grew on trees, I'd care much less about gravitating toward the larger machine, but it doesn't. Especially nowadays.

That all having been said, I've since realized something odd about the two flavors of 2020 Intel 13" MacBook Pro:

If you spec out both models with their respective Core i7 (be it the 1.7GHz 8th Gen of the 2-port model or the 2.3GHz 10th Gen of the 4-port model), 16GB of RAM, and 2TB of storage, they come out to be the exact same cost.

On the Apple Online Store for Education, there is a $30 difference between these two configurations.

Even a $30 difference seems unusually small.

The only thing that I could tell was that the upgrade to a 2TB SSD cost $400 upgrade from the higher-end base model 4-port 13" MacBook Pro, whereas it cost $600 on the higher-end base model 2-port 13" MacBook Pro.

Seeing as I'm at least doing 16GB of RAM and 2TB of SSD, this might have solved whatever dilemma I have as it seems that maxing out a 2-port 13" MacBook Pro does not seem worth it. These Macs might be better to hunt for on the Apple Certified Refurbished Mac section of the Apple Online Store than to customize new...

 

[ctjack]

A (2020 Intel) 4-port 13" MacBook Pro with a 10th Gen Quad-Core i7 and 32GB of RAM is still substantially less than the next thing up, which would be a 16" MacBook Pro with a 9th Gen Hexa-Core i7 and 32GB of RAM.

I think you could find in Apple refurbished MBP 16 for around $2200, which will be only $200 more than MBP 13 4tb ports. Those $200 are well justified by the power of MBP 16.

if money grew on trees, I'd care much less about gravitating toward the larger machine, but it doesn't. Especially nowadays.

In my opinion, 32GB Ram MBP 13 will always be a luxury item, since you can buy iMac, mac mini and equip them with 32GB/64GB aftermarket RAM.
MBP 13 with those upgrades are luxury, portable, ultimate machine. Why luxury? Because almost everything else has more power or lesser price, while this one has so-so power and huge price.

 

[0128672]

Seeing as I'm at least doing 16GB of RAM and 2TB of SSD, this might have solved whatever dilemma I have as it seems that maxing out a 2-port 13" MacBook Pro does not seem worth it. These Macs might be better to hunt for on the Apple Certified Refurbished Mac section of the Apple Online Store than to customize new...

We haven't seen any 10th gens yet for the 2020 MBP 13" in the refurb store, but I imagine they'll be stocked at some point.

 

[Yebubbleman]

I think you could find in Apple refurbished MBP 16 for around $2200, which will be only $200 more than MBP 13 4tb ports. Those $200 are well justified by the power of MBP 16.

Nope. I cannot get 16GB of RAM and 2TB in a 16" MacBook Pro for that amount on a refurb. I just checked.

In my opinion, 32GB Ram MBP 13 will always be a luxury item, since you can buy iMac, mac mini and equip them with 32GB/64GB aftermarket RAM.
MBP 13 with those upgrades are luxury, portable, ultimate machine. Why luxury? Because almost everything else has more power or lesser price, while this one has so-so power and huge price.

Luxury is buying crap you don't need. For virtualization I NEED 32GB of RAM to run more than a handful of VMs at once while also being able to do anything else on my host machine. I DON'T NEED the Radeon Pro 5300M. I DON'T NEED the larger screen. There was a time when having those things on a Mac mattered to me, but I needed those to do things that I can do better and for cheaper in Windows now. Portability is an important factor; but it's not like I can't just get a bigger laptop bag. I just don't need to spend $400+ to jump to a 16" MacBook Pro because everything else that I'd be paying for that doesn't do much to help me for my use cases.