You’re not a pro unless you have 3 external displays?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MacBook Pro Reviews: Fast Performance, Added Ports, and ProMotion Displays Check All the Boxes
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, they do need the extra thickness, at least today. They don't use 1080p for FaceID on iPhones or iPads. My guess is that Apple will further boost the resolution when they introduce FaceID to the Mac.Yes, I know. That's the comeback every time.
iPad has the WHOLE computer inside and the WHOLE battery and a 4K camera on the backside. So yes, they are thicker because ALL of it is in one case... even keyboard
For this to actually be THE reason, iPad thickness needs to be driven by a 1080p module needing that much depth to function. Let's assume it does. Then how is there a 1080p module in this thin lid of these new MBpro screens? It's not like the MBpro lid gets (iPad) thicker to accommodate an iPad 1080p camera module in that spot. My guess is that it is the SAME camera module, but iFixit may confirm or deny that soon.
So, if Apple can "fit" a 1080p FaceTime camera where it is, why not fit the very same module a few millimeters higher just like they do for iPads? And if so, do they still need the notch? To say yes for the future Face ID stuff, I'll again point to the Apple iPad Pro with FaceID... all fitting in the same thin, notch-less bezel.
in his defense, he was pointing out different options for SOCs and referring to personal use cases.
It fits my needs, but others might need more.
Some of the interesting bits for me were, the high performance cores have varying clock speed, depending on how many are active, and if there isn’t enough workload to fully load the cpu & gpus, M1 pro (probably even the base 8 core) and M1 max can be quite similar. Also, the usual gpu benchmarks might be inadequate for testing M1 max because they don’t run long enough to evaluate how long M1 max can sustain performance.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Straight from "tech specs" page at Apple for iPad Mini 6 https://www.apple.com/ipad-mini/specs/ ...
...so apparently you are arguing that future Face ID parts NOT included in this MBpro drive why there is a notch in this MBpro. And FaceID works in a notch-less iPad Pro because at least one part of Face ID tech needs up to the full depth of an iPad to "fit" that part. If that's right, do you foresee the next MBpro with FaceID needing the lid to be iPad thick to fit this part? Else, if we assume Apple will innovate a thinner version of that part by the time we get there, then I'm back to why not build it all into an iPad Mini/Pro bezel on that assumption... for notch-less now and notch-less with FaceID later?
Best scenario I can imagine if notch HAD to be here due to "no other technical choice" is that something else- something beyond FaceID tech- must be coming to the notch space. Else, if Apple can fit Face ID and 1080p into iPad Pro bezels only a little bit thicker than these, it seems they could have done the same in MBpro.
Last edited:
More a question of comfort. I’m using one centered display for active work, one for having email, calendar, messenger, etc. open, one for documentation or stuff I need need a quick look at every now and then, also conference software, OBS, audio mixer, etc. and a TV for conference presentations, longer videos and so on. Sure I could use only one or two monitors, but I find it much more comfortable to use 3+ monitors. Of course this is for stationary setup office/home office.
That doesn't mean it is using 1080p for Face ID. It might be relying on the higher resolution from the 12MP camera.
This is academic to me since I ordered base 14 with upgraded ram & ssd, but I believe high power mode runs fans at max speed continuously so it will take longer for machine to heat up enough so it has to throttle
Last edited by a moderator:
I have both the 14" and 16" on order as I could not make up my mind as to which size would be best for me. They both have the same specs (top M1 Max, 32GB, 2TB) in Space Gray.
Looking at all these reviews today, I think I am leaning towards the 14". There is a huge difference in display size when looking at the 14" sitting next to the current 13". It's definitely a full step up in size while not looking so gigantic.
The 16" (especially in Silver) just looks way too big, bulky and a bit meh in terms of design and style (to my eyes anyway). I think Space Gray is a bit more forgiving in that respect and hides some of the bulk by being darker, so I will see how the 16" looks and feels in person.
I am just not into the bulky, bulbous, bottom portion of this new design. It's kind of at odds with the upper portion/lid. If they would have just used a slight bevel with the same rounded/flat proportions of the lid (kind of like an updated version of the lower half of the TiBook) with a very slight taper, it would have tied it all in with a nice industrial retro look (without compromising thermals/ports).
And, as I've mentioned in another thread, the omission of the 'MacBook Pro' branding on the display chin now brings attention to that vast area. The branding/logo broke that space up a bit, but now that it's just a slab of blank aluminum, the eyes just go there (especially now that the bezels on the 3 other sides are so thin).
I feel that Apple got a bit caught up with over-correcting after years of pushback from the loudest users.
Looking at all these reviews today, I think I am leaning towards the 14". There is a huge difference in display size when looking at the 14" sitting next to the current 13". It's definitely a full step up in size while not looking so gigantic.
The 16" (especially in Silver) just looks way too big, bulky and a bit meh in terms of design and style (to my eyes anyway). I think Space Gray is a bit more forgiving in that respect and hides some of the bulk by being darker, so I will see how the 16" looks and feels in person.
I am just not into the bulky, bulbous, bottom portion of this new design. It's kind of at odds with the upper portion/lid. If they would have just used a slight bevel with the same rounded/flat proportions of the lid (kind of like an updated version of the lower half of the TiBook) with a very slight taper, it would have tied it all in with a nice industrial retro look (without compromising thermals/ports).
And, as I've mentioned in another thread, the omission of the 'MacBook Pro' branding on the display chin now brings attention to that vast area. The branding/logo broke that space up a bit, but now that it's just a slab of blank aluminum, the eyes just go there (especially now that the bezels on the 3 other sides are so thin).
I feel that Apple got a bit caught up with over-correcting after years of pushback from the loudest users.
Last edited:
The value of the HDMI port is that I can roll in to any conference room or lecture theatre and plug in my laptop to start a presentation. Those rooms often have a presentation system locked in a box with only an HDMI cable hanging out. So a mini port or whatever is not useful here. Remember that this laptop is for professionals who frequently need to present material.
You should be using one of the thunderbolt bolts to hook up your every day display. The HDMI port is not for that purpose, it's to hook up a low priority display which is why the 2.0 vs 2.1 port is not important either.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Correct. iPad Mini doesn't have Face ID. But it is 1080p FaceTime camera in the notch-less bezel of the Mini. Apple says so very clearly in those specs. I'm not aware of anyone claiming they are lying about that and that it is actually less than 1080p... or that they are counting backside camera numbers in an inferior front-side camera as if the front-side has capability beyond what it has.
iPad Pro with FaceID fits FaceID tech in the thin notch-less bezel.
The front-facing camera in the iPad mini is capable of 12 megapixels. 1080p requires only 2 megapixels. Just because it is displaying FaceTime in 1080p doesn’t mean that Face ID (a separate feature) only requires that.
Yes, you are right that the iPad mini doesn’t support Face ID, but I think the camera is similar to the iPad Pro, which does.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
OK, so I'm lost on your point now. There is definitely a 1080p FaceTime camera in both iPad Mini and iPad Pro notch-less bezels only a little bit thicker than what are in these MBpros. You actually made me doubt that so I went and shot some FaceTime video to check to be sure. I'm CERTAIN about that now.
Apple obviously has the ability to position those cameras closer to the upper edge of the screen because we have inarguable proof of them doing that in both iPads. Apple can definitely do it.
Thickness of iPads probably can't drive this positioning because there's a MBpro 1080p FaceTime camera in these MBpros (just positioned a little lower) and the lid doesn't get iPad thick directly behind that camera.
So, it seems like Apple COULD have positioned this camera higher- just like they do in these iPads- made the bezel iPad bezel thick (only a few millimeters thicker), shifted the entire new screen with left & right "extra" down freeing up the extra "extra" behind the notch too (all 16:10 plus an uninterrupted strip of "extra") and delivered the exact same MBpros-sans-notch but with everything else.
Why do I think this? Because Apple offers the proof of their incredible ability with those 1080p camera in those iPads. But doesn't the lid have to be iPad thick to fit a 1080p camera in it? No, because that's what they did in these MBpro lids. They simply positioned the camera FARTHER from the top of the screen which seems like a decision to center it within the extra notch space more so than because that's where it absolutely had to be.
That leads back to the idea that notches are for "the future." If we presume only FaceID, Apple has proven they can fit that hardware into the iPad Pro notchless-bezel. So the only assumption I can come to is that "the future" must be something else... not only FaceID... that needed the notch space and would not fit in iPad Pro-like bezels.
Apple obviously has the ability to position those cameras closer to the upper edge of the screen because we have inarguable proof of them doing that in both iPads. Apple can definitely do it.
Thickness of iPads probably can't drive this positioning because there's a MBpro 1080p FaceTime camera in these MBpros (just positioned a little lower) and the lid doesn't get iPad thick directly behind that camera.
So, it seems like Apple COULD have positioned this camera higher- just like they do in these iPads- made the bezel iPad bezel thick (only a few millimeters thicker), shifted the entire new screen with left & right "extra" down freeing up the extra "extra" behind the notch too (all 16:10 plus an uninterrupted strip of "extra") and delivered the exact same MBpros-sans-notch but with everything else.
Why do I think this? Because Apple offers the proof of their incredible ability with those 1080p camera in those iPads. But doesn't the lid have to be iPad thick to fit a 1080p camera in it? No, because that's what they did in these MBpro lids. They simply positioned the camera FARTHER from the top of the screen which seems like a decision to center it within the extra notch space more so than because that's where it absolutely had to be.
That leads back to the idea that notches are for "the future." If we presume only FaceID, Apple has proven they can fit that hardware into the iPad Pro notchless-bezel. So the only assumption I can come to is that "the future" must be something else... not only FaceID... that needed the notch space and would not fit in iPad Pro-like bezels.
Last edited:
Could they have not done better? M1 13 gets up to 17 hours of wireless browsing vs only 11 in the 14. That’s a huge difference.
To give Occam his due, maybe someone just fat-fingered typing in the result... but the result doesn’t stand out as obvious BS, because it’s a single core CPU benchmark and the individual cores on the M1 Max are substantially the same as on the M1. The Max is not expected to be significantly faster on this measure and the margin by which the Air apparently “won” is tiny and could be explained by minor differences in testing conditions.
Either the screen, or going from 4 efficiency cores to 2 might have something to do with that, but at least you can recharge fast with the 96w adapter.
Google my name and overclocking. I’m a computer guy, not a Mac or pc guy. All processors have some degree of headroom. Manufacturers cap clocks to preserve consistency, reduce heat, prevent failure, and/or create differentiation in sku offerings. Intel and AMD under clock all of their offerings in this space. All of that aside, there’s no evidence of throttling under load. Also, try to play nice without insulting others.
Last edited by a moderator:
Apple has designed these new MBPs to run at a particular speed without problems in heat dissipation. That does not mean that they are under clocking these chips or that the machines are throttling. This is the speed that Apple expects these machines to be able to run for extended periods without problems.
Power mode says that you want to run the chips faster than normal in order to get more performance but at a greater risk of hitting heat dissipation limits. this special mode is only available on the 16" because they have the larger capacity to cool themselves down due to more internal space.
You seem to want to call this out as some kind of failure. Not sure why. Trying to use weird definitions for terms like "undeclocking" and "throttling" to mean normal operations doesn't help the conversation. Neither does calling people names if they disagree.
Last edited:
Yeah, old-school, baby! As soon as mine comes in I'm compiling a fresh version of SPICE!