Like the 16" Macbook Pro, the idea of a 14" screen sounds cool, but just try to notice a third of an inch increase on each side - I can't notice it on the 16" vs 15". I think a 14" would just be mental icing to feel like more of an upgrade.
Who needs sustained load across all cores on a laptop?
Nobody. People need good battery life, they need a good screen, they need a good keyboard, they need good speakers.
Nobody purchases a laptop to run sustained workloads across all cores. If someone needs sustained workloads across a bunch of cores, go use Google Compute Engine or Amazon EC2 to run your workloads, it's way cheaper and more performant than a MacBook.
Same generation, but lower wattage. Now the higher end model has the next-generation chips. However, Apple has done this before, as recently as 2018 when they updated the 4tb model but not the 2tb model.
This is a stop-gap update to hold over the line as the only real hardware change was to finally get the butterfly keyboard totally off the reservation. Sure, the high end configuration received the new CPU but other than that, it's just bumping the minimums on the SSD. Updates like this are relatively short-lived (in Apple terms, that is) until the bigger update comes around.
In other words, you were too lazy to go look it up like I did and are basing your reply on the facts I stated because you don't want to admit you are wrong.
It'd be cool if they did it the same way they did the first Intel Macs - do the whole presentation on a supposedly normal Macbook, then at the end, reveal it actually had an ARM processor, and no one noticed any difference.
Again we’re trying to split hairs but they were far better than Intel integrated graphics. That’s a fact. Just like dedicated GPUs are far better than Intel integrated graphics today. You can keep on trying to walk around the subject but it doesn't change the facts
