Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I was talking about the comparison to the iMac Pro.
Well, Apple never made a iMac Pro with laptop chips. You have to go to Lenovo or Dell and run the benchmarks again.
Making a chip for a cell phone good enough to be used in a laptop, let alone be beastly in a laptop is a monumental feat. No one but Apple is doing that.
Of course no one is doing it, as there's no point doing it unless you want a locked down eco-system, which is exactly what Apple wants. They don't sell their hardware to anyone else and they don't want their software to run on any other system.

Intel, AMD and Nvidia are not in this business, they have a chip for each target market and they're resellers. They do still scale chips within their segments. Some of their chips are performing worse than M-series SoCs, some are on par and some run circles around them. It's a completely different market, not single all-in-one products. They don't control the software market like Apple, maybe Nvidia is closer in that area. When DriveSim came out and I wanted to buy it, I was looking at two $500k systems bundled to the software to get it running. Apple is doing precisely this, but on a lower end consumer level and more locked down. Nvidia has a history of scaling systems (look at Jetson platform), but for Grace they came up with a new approach as requirements were different. If anything, looking at phone chips scaled to laptops, you'd be better off looking at Samsung rather than Intel/AMD, but then again, Samsung has no serious interest outside of the phone/tablet market.
 
iJustine got the base model and they do some 8k video editing on it.

@ 11.30ish

Yes it's painful to watch her.
I did not find it so bad. At least she shows the new laptops a lot, which is quite useful. I have seen some video reviews which focus on the reviewer and show only a little of the products. Why do a video if not to show how the real thing looks like?
 
Interesting. So the multicore score for the Max is pretty much the same as my 2019 12 core Mac Pro. Nice.

Unless I see testing to the contrary though; educated guess that it won't handle consistent heavy loads as well- especially thermally.

If it could however, and handle all the I/O I have- 4 SSD drives (currently connected via PCIe cards), audio interface, monitor, wired ethernet, license dongles, etc, and be able to grind through the constant abuse a 10 hour working day brings....then I will switch and save a ******** of money.

The Portability would be great.

GG Apple.
 
Both the 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro can be configured with either the M1 Pro or M1 Max, with both chips featuring a 10-core CPU. The difference between the chips comes down to graphics, with the M1 Pro available with up to a 16-core GPU and the M1 Max available with up to a 32-core GPU.
And to the M1 Max having twice the memory bandwidth of the M1 Pro.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yitwail and Tagbert
Anyone else notice that NONE of these early review(er)s got a base 14" model with the M1 Pro 8c/14gpu????

I'm suspicious...

In the spirit of your earlier post:

It's literally a CPU with less cores. EVERY CPU manufacturer does this between their smaller and bigger models (apple included).

What makes you think the 8 core and 10 core have the same performance?

No review needed. Just pure common sense and logic.

?

Jokes apart - of course the early reviewers will have been told by Apple to not compare the 8C with the 10C. Or the 14" vs the 16". Just wait for the detailed comparisons in two weeks time. If you cannot wait then have a look at https://www.anandtech.com/show/17024/apple-m1-max-performance-review/5. Andrei tested using SPEC and found the M1 Max on SPEC2017-Rate did 53.8/81.07 in a 8P+2E config and 48.57/75.67 in the 8P+0E config. Keeping things linear, the 6C+2E model should get ~ 41 for SPECInt which means a 22% difference in performance terms when it comes to multi-threaded tasks. For single threaded tasks, the graphs on https://www.anandtech.com/show/17024/apple-m1-max-performance-review/4 show that there won't be much difference between the 8C and the 10C CPU. All this assumes the 8C CPU is actually 6P and 2E cores
 
I'm glad they allow charging off both the MagSafe and USB-C. Docks are a wonderful things for me and USB-C made them super simple. MagSafe was great when on the go. Now I have the best of both. A single plug to dock and a single plug to charge when I'm mobile. Nice.
 
Designed for Geekbench enthusiasts. You can't play recent AAA games on it though!
Can still play using Geforce Now especially on a RTX 3080 node. Really it's just the matter of choice.
I used to think like you but the moment I stop playing video games, video export time, and productivity tests matter more to me.
 
In the spirit of your earlier post:

It's literally a CPU with less cores. EVERY CPU manufacturer does this between their smaller and bigger models (apple included).

What makes you think the 8 core and 10 core have the same performance?

No review needed. Just pure common sense and logic.

?

Jokes apart - of course the early reviewers will have been told by Apple to not compare the 8C with the 10C. Or the 14" vs the 16". Just wait for the detailed comparisons in two weeks time. If you cannot wait then have a look at https://www.anandtech.com/show/17024/apple-m1-max-performance-review/5. Andrei tested using SPEC and found the M1 Max on SPEC2017-Rate did 53.8/81.07 in a 8P+2E config and 48.57/75.67 in the 8P+0E config. Keeping things linear, the 6C+2E model should get ~ 41 for SPECInt which means a 22% difference in performance terms when it comes to multi-threaded tasks. For single threaded tasks, the graphs on https://www.anandtech.com/show/17024/apple-m1-max-performance-review/4 show that there won't be much difference between the 8C and the 10C CPU. All this assumes the 8C CPU is actually 6P and 2E cores
You can use logic to come to assumptions.

But assumptions are not facts.

I never said the 8c VS 10c were the same....

iJustine just compared the base 8c Pro to the Max..... ?
 
Last edited:
I enjoyed it because I could set specific 'buttons' on it for specific apps, beginning with Finder, and that would save me trackpad clicks. After a short while, everything became muscle memory. I would have New File/Folder, Delete, Duplicate buttons for Finder and for Transmit, especially. I would have some settings for Pages and Word, too, I think. Ulysses as well, if memory serves. I used it in other apps as well, but do not remember particulars of my use now. It was a great addition to my workflow, because I was not a developer needing the tactile feedback of function keys. Also, I just tend to adapt quickly and well.

It was great for what it was - a dynamic panel that could be customised for your requirements. And I did just that.

In fact, I started using the top bar (Touch Bar) more than I ever did the top bar (function bar) on my older MacBook Pro due to customisations available to me. I can see how a lot of people went bonkers about it, but for a lot of others, it was a nice addition.

Problem is that the ones who hated it tend to look down upon the ones who liked it, and do that contemptuously as if they are lesser humans to appreciate that Touch Bar for their uses. That is a problem. It points to the basic, banal human tendency that we just can't seem to culture ourselves out of.
IMO, the bigger issue is that it wasn't implemented optimally.
What Apple should have done is put a display strip above a row of physical F keys. Then you could let apps add "custom labels" for each of those keys as needed, but still let people type physical keys to use them. (I know some people would like to see the keys themselves have the custom display right inside each keycap.... There was a keyboard or two for Windows that attempted that before. But I don't think it ever really went anywhere. Suspect the smaller size of the F keys would make that a non-starter of an idea anyway.)
 
People are contorting themselves into acceptance. It can be "ignored". It's not "that bad". I heard similar for the butterfly keyboard and touch bar.

The notch aesthetics are undeniably bad and for all the talk of extra screen space, it is essentially a dead area in what most people consider the display. It changes software behavior and it looks goofy, even if you can eventually learn to ignore it.

If Apple had stuck with a slightly thicker bezel and no notch, the view of the new MBP would be almost universally positive. They are addicted to throwing some controversial oddity into every design.
I’m really not doing that. I’m not some Apple fanboy forgiving Apple for anything they do. Would I rather there be no notch? Oh, goodness, yes! However, in the big scheme of things, it seems like a relatively small thing in practice.
 
Still waiting for native GNU Fortran for these, 1-year later, nothing but an experimental version of gfortran. I would love to see some real world numerical benchmarks (couldn't care less for how fast a web-page shows up). Give me some SPEC benchmarks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Exponent
The Verge annoys me more than any other “tech” site. If they aren’t all up into politics, they are writing (badly) about movies and pop culture. However, when they do cover tech, they usually do a great job. Dieter Bohn has become my go-to reviewer for a lot of Apple stuff. But this “review” was annoying. There is no reason they couldn’t give us something more. It just seems like they were busy last week and decided, “eh, we’ll get to it eventually”.
The stuff the Verge covers today is mind boggling. I use to like them when they were a tech site.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.