MacBook Pro nTB 13" maxed-out vs MacBook 12" maxed-out

[sakabaro]

I've just bought a 2017 MacBook Pro nTB 13" maxed-out, but I kind of considering returning it for MacBook 12" maxed-out.

It's basically trading a bit of power and screen real-estate for extreme portability, and I think I kind of like the tradeoff.

Basically, my usages are lot of browsing, lot of web development (elixir, rails, mongodb), light iOS development, light photoshop edit.

What are you guys opinion?

PS: I am cross-posting with the MacBook forum to have a fairer poll.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Screen is much better on the 13"s (have had both 12 & 13 2016 models).
KB seems to have a touch better feel on the 2017's of both models (tried both yesterday)
Better internals on the 13's and an extra USB-C port and actual TB3.

13's are better machines (all of them) if you don't mind the slight size bump

 

[sakabaro]

Screen is much better on the 13"s (have had both 12 & 13 2016 models).
KB seems to have a touch better feel on the 2017's of both models (tried both yesterday)
Better internals on the 13's and an extra USB-C port and actual TB3.

13's are better machines (all of them) if you don't mind the slight size bump

Yeah on papers, 13" nTB seems to rule every benchmarks even against 13" TB versions and of course 12" ones. However, in term of size and sexiness (if that a word), I think 12" is a really strong option.

 

[wiffle]

Eh - no comparison. 13" by far. The portability differences should be minimal.... unless every ounce is noticeable. I strongly believe you'll get better bang for your buck by opting for a 13" MBP compared to the 12" especially considering the Photoshop usage and light coding you may or may not expand later on.

 

[turbineseaplane]

in term of size and sexiness

Well, you didn't indicate that "size and sexiness" is your primary criteria.

You said you wanted portability, which both offer plenty of, and then mentioned some iOS dev, PS work, among other things.

If you care at all about value for performance dollar, the 13's are the way to go.
Literally the only reason to choose the 12's is, to your point, "extreme portability" and "size and sexiness".

Honestly, it sounds like you've made up your mind and you are hoping we can add some data points to reaffirm to you that switching is a good idea.

...but we'd be lying..

If you care about value and the quality of the screen and internals and performance...
The 13's are simply better machines save for a touch of size difference.

 

[nepalisherpa]

For $650 more, you are getting:

1. 2.5GHz i7/TB to 4.0GHz (vs. 1.4GHz i7/TB to 3.6GHz)
2. 2133MHz RAM (vs. 1866MHz)
3. 1TB SSD (vs. 512GB SSD)
4. Intel Iris Plus Graphics 640 (vs. Intel HD Graphics 615)
5. 2560x1600 screen (vs. 2304x1440)

They both are very portable. Only you can decide what to get. If you strictly going to extreme portability and "sexiness" then go for 12" Macbook.

 

[hectorvs]

Well, you didn't indicate that "size and sexiness" is your primary criteria.

You said you wanted portability, which both offer plenty of, and then mentioned some iOS dev, PS work, among other things.

If you care at all about value for performance dollar, the 13's are the way to go.
Literally the only reason to choose the 12's is, to your point, "extreme portability" and "size and sexiness".

Honestly, it sounds like you've made up your mind and you are hoping we can add some data points to reaffirm to you that switching is a good idea.

...but we'd be lying..

If you care about value and the quality of the screen and internals and performance...
The 13's are simply better machines save for a touch of size difference.

you would be surprised how much almost a full pound and the thinner frame makes in terms of usabilty.

Currently own the 13, but given the weird keyboard issues when heating up and my actual usage, might downgrade to the cheaper base 12.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Guys - If all you care about the size/weight, there's no point in even discussing this or having a thread about it.

If, however, you care about literally any other specs, the 13 is simply a better machine.

I've had both and used them extensively, including side by side (where the 12's screen really shows the "meh" in comparison)

The poll is titled: "Battle for web dev and light iOS and light Photoshop"

(not titled "über sexy lickable portable pocket macOS machine with no other considerations in mind")

There's a reason it's currently 7-0 in favor of the 13"

 

[hectorvs]

Guys - If all you care about the size/weight, there's no point in even discussing this or having a thread about it.

If, however, you care about literally any other specs, the 13 is simply a better machine.

I've had both and used them extensively, including side by side (where the 12's screen really shows the "meh" in comparison)

The poll is titled: "Battle for web dev and light iOS and light Photoshop"

(not titled "über sexy lickable portable pocket macOS machine with no other considerations in mind")

There's a reason it's currently 7-0 in favor of the 13"

I get where you're coming from.

One IS better than the other in terms of capabilities, no doubt. The dilimma is that the "slim and sexy" is more than good enough to handle those tasks as well. So, would you give up a bit of capability (would be interesting to see how much % exactly) in order to have a nicer to use machine?

 

[turbineseaplane]

One IS better than the other in terms of capabilities, no doubt. The dilimma is that the "slim and sexy" is more than good enough to handle those tasks as well.

There's no point in a thread or poll here.
This user, alone, has to decide the priorities and if he/she is buying primarily a tool or the looks/dimensions/max portability are the most important.

(also the poll is inaccurately titled/described)

The best tool to do what was described is the 13". Other tools can do it too (the 12"), but they aren't as adept at it nor will they have the longevity in doing it.

[doublepost=1498074583][/doublepost]

you would be surprised how much almost a full pound and the thinner frame makes in terms of usabilty.

Not at all..I've had and used both extensively.

 

[sakabaro]

There's no point in a thread or poll here.
This user, alone, has to decide the priorities and if he/she is buying primarily a tool or the looks/dimensions/max portability are the most important.

(also the poll is inaccurately titled/described)

The best tool to do what was described is the 13". Other tools can do it too (the 12"), but they aren't as adept at it nor will they have the longevity in doing it.

[doublepost=1498074583][/doublepost]

Not at all..I've had and used both extensively.

I don't see your point. For now, I am actually working on a 2017 nTB Macbook maxed-out. I had a 2015 MacBook and kind of miss the sizing. I was wondering if you can do actual work on the 2017 MacBook - you can't on the 2015 - as benchmarks were suggesting. I still on the fence keeping or returning my 2017 nTB Macbook. You assumed a lot based on a post where I was playing devil advocate.

 

[turbineseaplane]

You posed a thought out loud about your possible change and there's plenty of data here in the thread for you to work with.

You just need to decide what to do with it.

My closing thought is basically that if this is really your only computer I would err in the direction of the better actual computer in terms of specs and away from "thinness/sexiness".

I can pretty much guarantee you the hardware in the 13 inch models will age better also.

 

[justinf77]

My big problem with the MacBook for web development is that it's really tough to set up with a 4K monitor running at 60Hz while charging at the same time. I'd have to spend money on a dock that supports 60Hz DisplayPort output with the sacrifice of having slower USB speeds. When I'm connected to my external monitor, I normally have the monitor plugged in along with power and an external drive. Can't figure out how to replicate this setup on the MacBook without a drawback of some kind.

 

[turbineseaplane]

My big problem with the MacBook for web development is that it's really tough to set up with a 4K monitor running at 60Hz while charging at the same time. I'd have to spend money on a dock that supports 60Hz DisplayPort output with the sacrifice of having slower USB speeds. When I'm connected to my external monitor, I normally have the monitor plugged in along with power and an external drive. Can't figure out how to replicate this setup on the MacBook without a drawback of some kind.

I can't comment on 2017 model changes, but we had a maxed out 2016 rMB (BTO maxed out) here around the house for a while hooked up to 4k and it was a very "meh" experience.

There were frequent animation issues and slight stutters or slowdowns, especially with multiple things open/going on.

The rMB felt like it could do 4k externals, but barely... (the type of usage really would matter here)

Not a great situation to buy into from the get-go when it's new if you're planning on using an external monitor a lot and or in taxing workloads. The performance will likely just get worse over time with OS updates and more taxing usages, etc.

 

[HiRez]

If you're doing any kind of development, I would avoid the MacBook. Sure, you can do it, it will run all the same stuff, but in a few years it will be problematic. I had the same idea in 2011. Bought a MacBook Air thinking I would use it for development and other light tasks (Safari, etc.). It was a fantastic machine and the process worked well for a while. But over time the development process (compile, link, run cycle) became brutally slow in Xcode, to the point where it became essentially unusable. Also, more lines of code visible is a good thing.

Obviously a 15" would be the best machine for developers, but I think the new 13" MacBook Pros are a pretty good compromise of portability and speed. They're actually smaller than my old MacBook Air (when open, the top of the screen is considerable shorter) and the weight is reasonable. Just wish they offered a quad-core 13", that would be an outstanding portable dev machine.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Just wish they offered a quad-core 13"

You and me both..
That and a 15" Non-TouchBar option

 

[sakabaro]

You and me both..
That and a 15" Non-TouchBar option

Can we dream of quad-core 14" fan-less in the same design as the MacBook?

 

[HiRez]

Can we dream of quad-core 14" fan-less in the same design as the MacBook?

What I'm hoping for is for them to eventually take the screen bezels down to almost nothing (same direction the iPhones and iPads are going), then move from a 12-13-15 lineup to a 12-14-16 lineup, with the 14 and 16 cases basically being the same size as the current 13 and 15. Now fanless for a quad-core seems a way off, but the screen can grow a bit.

 

[SteveJUAE]

I don't see your point. For now, I am actually working on a 2017 nTB Macbook maxed-out. I had a 2015 MacBook and kind of miss the sizing. I was wondering if you can do actual work on the 2017 MacBook - you can't on the 2015 - as benchmarks were suggesting. I still on the fence keeping or returning my 2017 nTB Macbook. You assumed a lot based on a post where I was playing devil advocate.

If the rMB can do everything that you require then why over spec and pay more for the MBP, plus the savings ($650) will mean you can afford to replace/upgrade sooner and eg stay on AC for greater cover etc

 

[turbineseaplane]

Can we dream of quad-core 14" fan-less in the same design as the MacBook?

I would absolute be a MacBook owner again if they made one with a larger screen but the same design ideals in mind as with the 12".