Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I am willing to wager that the value proposition for owning a Mac remains the same today as it did many years ago, when I chose to go all-in on the Apple ecosystem. While you pay more upfront, my experience is that it more than pays for itself in the form of fewer problems and great productivity overall.

For one, there's macOS, and it seems that people continue to expect that the underlying software ought to ship for free. You are getting a ton of functionality right out of the box, such as screenshot (why does windows continue to make this a separate app?), iMovie, QuickTime, FaceTime, preview, the iWork's apps, plus Apple's own stock apps (calendar, notes, safari, maps, mail, photos). There's also the Mac-only apps such as Final Cut Pro.

Then if you have an iPhone, there's additional synergy between the two, such as airdrop, continuity and iCloud.

Lastly, how many windows laptops do you know even ship with more than 1 or 2 USB-C ports?

Sure, these are more intangible benefits and it's hard to assign a numerical value or score to them the same way I can with hardware specs such as ram or processor speeds, but that doesn't mean they don't matter to the end user. That's the problem with all these comparisons. There is too much focus on specs and not enough on the user experience.

The problem is that we used to have both - performance and "fit & finish". Now we just have overpriced, thin computers that may be pretty, but can't actually do very much. Apple has been dumbing down OSX since 10.7. The less said about thermally throttled systems, the better.

Apple's flagship desktop computer was obsolete on the day it was released. $1200 worth of parts in a $4700 enclosure, and a consumer grade computer at 1/3 the price will out perform it.

The people that focus on specs are people that need performance - they actually do stuff with their computers. The people that don't, well they are perfectly happy to pay top dollar for potato performance.

As far as the "apps" you list are fine for folks that don't actually do anything with their computers - their major feature is that they are native to OSX - and that is about it.

The price performance ratio has gone out the window. Entire fields have abandoned the Mac, and they certainly won't be coming to ARM.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scoobydoo99
The problem is that we used to have both - performance and "fit & finish". Now we just have overpriced, thin computers that may be pretty, but can't actually do very much. Apple has been dumbing down OSX since 10.7. The less said about thermally throttled systems, the better.

Apple's flagship desktop computer was obsolete on the day it was released. $1200 worth of parts in a $4700 enclosure, and a consumer grade computer at 1/3 the price will out perform it.

The people that focus on specs are people that need performance - they actually do stuff with their computers. The people that don't, well they are perfectly happy to pay top dollar for potato performance.

As far as the "apps" you list are fine for folks that don't actually do anything with their computers - their major feature is that they are native to OSX - and that is about it.

The price performance ratio has gone out the window. Entire fields have abandoned the Mac, and they certainly won't be coming to ARM.

Are you referring to the iMac? My 2017 iMac is preforming flawlessly with the entire Adobe creative suite. Pretty much every designer I know uses and prefers Mac...hmmm.... 🤔
 
People have been saying for years that "this year is just a stop gap" and "next year they'll release super duper new macs!"

It won't happen because this is how they operate with macs, you get crap unless you pay over the top prices for average specs and idiots lap it up.

They do it with iPhones using 750p LCD screens and they do it with macs.

That is why Apple will be having a hard time to come up with any breakthrough product and the ARM-Based Macs won't likely be less expensive.

Tim Cook is a whole lot more greedy and less creative than Steve Jobs at the company. As a result, the product innovation and price value are no longer miles ahead of its competitors.
 
It’s so funny how the Apple bashing trolls are always the first comments in any article. They truly are trolling constantly and once anything comes up they do their thing and bash it immediately. Then gradually as you scroll down the trolls are replaced with the intelligent educated and super informed posts which everyone appreciates. So funny.
I know what you mean but to be fair I think a lot of them are right this is disappointing if you've been waiting. Apple cutting so many corners now, I wanted 14" and what gives with the huge bezels still, the design feels dated, & with Intel now on the back foot I'm unsure if this a good upgrade choice.
[automerge]1589111597[/automerge]
You were expecting 6 or 8 cores from a 13" MacBook Pro?
If you look at a lot of Laptops now being released with large multicore AMD chips and half the heat I can see why people are put off buying this now, if Apple dump Intel as it looks like they will alongside so many others, this is going to be redundant pretty quickly.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ssgbryan
If you look at a lot of Laptops now being released with large multicore AMD chips and half the heat I can see why people are put off buying this now, if Apple dump Intel as it looks like they will alongside so many others, this is going to be redundant pretty quickly.
Redundant? People buy laptops for 4+ years, and professionals (unless they are tech enthusiasts who provide their own gear) typically go 2+ years. How does releasing a new one wipe out the functionality of machines that are already purchased?

Don’t confuse trying decipher Apple’s transition strategy from Intel (thank god) with the functionality of products people buy today.
 
Until AMD gets Thunderbolt 3 on the chip, I can't see Apple going for it. Thunderbolt 3 is critical to the Apple workflow. Maybe USB4 will save us all. AMD's 600-series chipset will have USB4, but reportedly AMD will not be implementing Thunderbolt 3 compatibility in its USB4 solution.

Only the Ice Lake CPU has Thunderbolt on-chip, and that isn't even used in the MBP 15/16 or the lower end MBP 13. So Apple was and IS doing just fine using an external chip. So why do you demand that AMD integrates it?

I've never heard about any rumor that AMD won't be implementing "Thunderbolt 3" support. Whatever that means anyway, since USB 4.0 is now the relevant standard, and if AMD integrates all its features you have exactly the same. U got a link for us?
 
Well. Yes it would. AMD Ryzen 4000U has 6 or 8 cores and 15W.
Intel is really that far behind now.

The gap isn't as big as it sounds.

I couldn't find many results for the 4800U (and those I did find were quite poor), so let's take the 4700U instead. As an added bonus, both the 4700U and the 1068NG7 in the Pro are 2 GHz.

The Ryzen's single-core score averages 1071; its multi 5113, or 4.8x (at eight cores).

In contrast, the 1068NG7 in the Air gets 1150 single and 4283 multi, or 3.7x (at four cores).

So Ice Lake-U actually does 7% better at single-core. Ryzen 4000-U does do 19% better at multi-core.

19% is nice, but it's hardly twice-the-amount-of-cores nice. AMD is clearly running against thermal limits there, just like Ice Lake-Y at the i5 can do quad-core, but isn't actually anywhere near as much as twice as fast as the dual-core Ice Lake-Y in the i3.

It'll be interesting to see how Tiger Lake-U will do later in the year.
 
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.
The mini-LED screen would make a noticeable difference even if you can’t see the physical size differences
 
That is why Apple will be having a hard time to come up with any breakthrough product and the ARM-Based Macs won't likely be less expensive.

Tim Cook is a whole lot more greedy and less creative than Steve Jobs at the company. As a result, the product innovation and price value are no longer miles ahead of its competitors.

True. We are reaping the unhappy results of Apple without a visionary at the helm. When you plug in a generic rich old businessman at the top, you get junk. When the "designers" say "Look, Tim, we made it thinner and lighter and added this techno-cool Touchbar", Cook doesn't have the insight or instinct to say "Wait, no, that's worse. You compromised on performance, battery life, and user experience to save .5 mm and add a useless feature. I'm rejecting that design" Of course, Steve would have had a more aggressive and profane response, but the sad truth is, there is no one around at Apple to stop the insanity. Stockholders are happy. As are many new customers who don't know how much better things could be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ssgbryan and Stella
True. We are reaping the unhappy results of Apple without a visionary at the helm. When you plug in a generic rich old businessman at the top, you get junk. When the "designers" say "Look, Tim, we made it thinner and lighter and added this techno-cool Touchbar", Cook doesn't have the insight or instinct to say "Wait, no, that's worse. You compromised on performance, battery life, and user experience to save .5 mm and add a useless feature. I'm rejecting that design" Of course, Steve would have had a more aggressive and profane response, but the sad truth is, there is no one around at Apple to stop the insanity. Stockholders are happy. As are many new customers who don't know how much better things could be.

Your points would make a lot of sense around 2015/16, but recent MacBooks Air and Pro don't save .5mm. They actually add some thickness to fit a better keyboard in again. In other words, the feedback loop actually worked — perhaps too slowly, but nonetheless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zdigital2015
The gap isn't as big as it sounds.

I couldn't find many results for the 4800U (and those I did find were quite poor), so let's take the 4700U instead. As an added bonus, both the 4700U and the 1068NG7 in the Pro are 2 GHz.

The Ryzen's single-core score averages 1071; its multi 5113, or 4.8x (at eight cores).

In contrast, the 1068NG7 in the Air gets 1150 single and 4283 multi, or 3.7x (at four cores).

So Ice Lake-U actually does 7% better at single-core. Ryzen 4000-U does do 19% better at multi-core.

19% is nice, but it's hardly twice-the-amount-of-cores nice. AMD is clearly running against thermal limits there, just like Ice Lake-Y at the i5 can do quad-core, but isn't actually anywhere near as much as twice as fast as the dual-core Ice Lake-Y in the i3.

Oh yes the gap is as big as it sounds.
I seem to be arguing with a fanatic, so facts won't convince u, but let me just put out some real numbers.

Several points:
First, you seem to overlook that the i7-1068NG7 is a 28W CPU, which you're comparing with a 15W CPU (Ryzan 4700U). And yet that AMD CPU is beating the Intel CPU. I think that speaks for itself.

The numbers for the 4800U (that can very easily be found everywhere on the web) are quite the opposite of poor.
Let me google just a few:

And here's a comprehensive 4700U review

In all these reviews, the corresponding 15W Intel CPU lagged 20-40% behind in multicore benchmarks. In single core there's a slight advantage for Intel, but that lost its relevance years ago, especially since the gap became even smaller now.

Your point about the thermal limit is moot. You will easily reach that limit with one core, so that issue has been around since there were thermal limits. The point is: what are u doing with the limit, and AMD is clearly doing better.

Something tells me you'd celebrate a 19% increase in performance and of course the much better GPU, which you kinda forgot to mention, with great joy, if it were an Intel CPU.
But the truth is, the performance increase is way more than that, so I don't really know what your point is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ssgbryan
True. We are reaping the unhappy results of Apple without a visionary at the helm. When you plug in a generic rich old businessman at the top, you get junk. When the "designers" say "Look, Tim, we made it thinner and lighter and added this techno-cool Touchbar", Cook doesn't have the insight or instinct to say "Wait, no, that's worse. You compromised on performance, battery life, and user experience to save .5 mm and add a useless feature. I'm rejecting that design" Of course, Steve would have had a more aggressive and profane response, but the sad truth is, there is no one around at Apple to stop the insanity. Stockholders are happy. As are many new customers who don't know how much better things could be.

You are, of course, assuming that Steve jobs would have done the same thing. The same man who made a huge deal every year of how thin Apple’s products were.

If you ask me, the more plausible explanation is that Apple is a company still very much focused on the user experience, just that their interpretation of what makes for a great user experience may well be different from that of some of their users.

For example, they solder the ram in their laptops because in their eyes, a thinner and lighter laptop is a more portable, and consequently, more usable device.

The only thing different is that Steve Jobs would have better sold it to the public, and you would all have loved it, simply because it was Steve Jobs.
 
I am willing to wager that the value proposition for owning a Mac remains the same today as it did many years ago, when I chose to go all-in on the Apple ecosystem. While you pay more upfront, my experience is that it more than pays for itself in the form of fewer problems and great productivity overall.

For one, there's macOS, and it seems that people continue to expect that the underlying software ought to ship for free. You are getting a ton of functionality right out of the box, such as screenshot (why does windows continue to make this a separate app?), iMovie, QuickTime, FaceTime, preview, the iWork's apps, plus Apple's own stock apps (calendar, notes, safari, maps, mail, photos). There's also the Mac-only apps such as Final Cut Pro.

Then if you have an iPhone, there's additional synergy between the two, such as airdrop, continuity and iCloud.

Lastly, how many windows laptops do you know even ship with more than 1 or 2 USB-C ports?

Sure, these are more intangible benefits and it's hard to assign a numerical value or score to them the same way I can with hardware specs such as ram or processor speeds, but that doesn't mean they don't matter to the end user. That's the problem with all these comparisons. There is too much focus on specs and not enough on the user experience.

Please note: MacOS does NOT include: iWork apps Or iMovie as part of the OS. Those are manually downloaded. GarageBand also manually downloaded by the user.

Microsoft makes and includes 2 apps for screenshots, sniping tool will be deprecated soon enough in 2020. Usi this is a weak argument to even begin with. Doesn’t matter if they create a separate app or include it within the OS


these two operating systems are VERY different from one another and are created ideally for two different market segments.
 
Oh yes the gap is as big as it sounds.

Seriously?

Here's the original post:

Well ****. Quad cores in 2020... when we could have six, or eight... great... so it’s like... slightly faster than my 2018.

So, the criticism was that the 13-inch MBP only goes up to four cores, and that six or eight would've been nice.

You then correctly point out that eight cores is indeed an option with AMD.

But here's the thing: when people want to go from four to eight cores, they expect a performance boost of close to double. Something like 80-90%.

That's not what's happening here.

I seem to be arguing with a fanatic, so facts won't convince u

OK honey.

Several points:
First, you seem to overlook that the i7-1068NG7 is a 28W CPU, which you're comparing with a 15W CPU (Ryzan 4700U). And yet that AMD CPU is beating the Intel CPU. I think that speaks for itself.

I picked the most powerful CPU that 1) fits in Apple's chassis and 2) has available benchmark results. The 4700U is a 10-25W part.

The next one would have been the 4800HS (neither the 4750U nor the 4800U seem to have a lot of benchmark results, and the ones I did find were worse than the 4700U), but that's 35W and probably too much for the 13-inch. It's very clearly meant to compete with Intel's H CPUs; hence the naming.

So yes, the 4700U is the one I chose to compare. Which one would you suggest?

The numbers for the 4800U (that can very easily be found everywhere on the web) are quite the opposite of poor.
Let me google just a few:

Not sure why someone would still use Geekbench 4 scores in 2020, but sure.

But also, the scores compare against a H CPU?


So, this one is more interesting.

In Cinebench, AMD does 36% better. In Blender, it does 26% better. In WinRAR, it does 18% worse. In PCMark, it does 18% better.

So, pretty good! Just like I said. Not sure how you get "20-40%" from that. And also, given that it has 33% more cores, I stand by my assertion that it's not quite the jump one would expect from the core count.

And here's a comprehensive 4700U review

In all these reviews, the corresponding 15W Intel CPU lagged 20-40% behind in multicore benchmarks.

Yeah, but again — these pit the AMD against a CPU with half the cores. Don't you think it should be closer to 60-80% in multicore benchmarks? (And in single-core benchmarks, it does poorer than the Ice Lake part.)

In single core there's a slight advantage for Intel, but that lost its relevance years ago,

Hardly. Single-core matters a ton for all kinds of things, including, oh, I dunno, displaying this very website.

Your point about the thermal limit is moot. You will easily reach that limit with one core, so that issue has been around since there were thermal limits. The point is: what are u doing with the limit, and AMD is clearly doing better.

I'm not denying that AMD is doing better.

Something tells me you'd celebrate a 19% increase in performance and of course the much better GPU, which you kinda forgot to mention, with great joy, if it were an Intel CPU.

Of course I celebrate a 19% increase in performance.

What does the GPU have to do with anything? I can also bring up that the Intel part includes Thunderbolt and the AMD part doesn't?

The only thing we were discussing is that, right now, AMD has 10-25W parts that offer eight cores, whereas Intel's only offer either six cores (with a very weak GPU) or only four (with a slightly better GPU). But those eight cores don't bring quite the boost one might expect.

But the truth is, the performance increase is way more than that, so I don't really know what your point is.

Someone complains that the 13-inch MacBook Pro only goes up to four ports, and wants six or eight. Someone else says that's not possible. You correctly point out that, in fact it is, with AMD. I mention that, yes indeed, AMD does offer more cores, and it does help with multi-threaded performance. But it doesn't double the performance; it doesn't even offer 50% more performance. In the best mult-threaded scenarios, which are rare, it edges out at about 40% more performance.
 
Your points would make a lot of sense around 2015/16, but recent MacBooks Air and Pro don't save .5mm. They actually add some thickness to fit a better keyboard in again. In other words, the feedback loop actually worked — perhaps too slowly, but nonetheless.

I suppose fixing a really awful design (butterfly keyboard) constitutes progress. Altho it did take 5 years for Apple to reverse course. I think my argument still holds in so many cases tho. I doubt that the person who insisted that the inside of the headphone jack match the exterior phone color would have liked the camera protuberance on current iphones - which exists not because the camera is too thick, but because the phone is too thin. That kind of inelegant compromise is the epitome of what Steve prevented. If Cook were around at the dawn of the iPod, do you think he would have told the designers that they were wrong when they insisted that they couldn't make the device with just one button? I doubt it. Steve's uncompromising vision is not something that can be duplicated easily. I still think Apple makes some decent stuff...just not sublime (and definitely not magical).
 
I suppose fixing a really awful design (butterfly keyboard) constitutes progress. Altho it did take 5 years for Apple to reverse course.

Three years, but sure.

Their hardware pipeline is long, which allows them to plan ahead but also makes them slow to course-correct.

I doubt that the person who insisted that the inside of the headphone jack match the exterior phone color would have liked the camera protuberance on current iphones - which exists not because the camera is too thick, but because the phone is too thin.

Yes, that's possible, but now you're getting really into the weeds. This thread is about the MBP?

I got to briefly use my old iPhone 8 yesterday instead of my 11, and I did appreciate how it was actually easily possible to use on the table. The 11 not only has Face ID, meaning you can only unlock it at a weird angle, but also has a much deeper bump, meaning it'll wobble like crazy if you try to use it that way.

That kind of inelegant compromise is the epitome of what Steve prevented.

It's also the kind of compromise much of the market seems to want, though. In a world where almost all competitors have a thinner phone with a bump, Apple would run risk of being seen as the company with the uncool fat phones.

If Cook were around at the dawn of the iPod, do you think he would have told the designers that they were wrong when they insisted that they couldn't make the device with just one button?

That's a simplistic anecdote. I doubt there was actually a meeting where the entire design team wanted multiple buttons, then Steve came in and asked for just one, and now the entire team realized, "oh, right, we can just do one".

It sounds stereotypically like Steve Jobs, but what actually did happen is probably a lot more complicated than that.

Steve's uncompromising vision is not something that can be duplicated easily.

Everything is a compromise. Steve made compromise all the time; he just wanted products to be really nice (at the cost of added, well, cost, engineering effort, etc.), and he was pretty good at that. But it's not like they were perfect.
 
I think the reason Apple went with only offering 10th gen chips on top end 13-inch MBP configurations is because of supply issues.

I think Intel told Apple - we can't make these chips in sufficient quantities to match the demand for the entry level MacBook Pro.

Keep in mind that most of the Intel chips that Apple uses are custom made for Apple. So there is that going against Apple too, in regards to supply.

I think that was the case. Too little supply for a greater demand than Intel couldn't meet.
[automerge]1588618092[/automerge]
I think in the future (maybe another 6 months from now), Apple will quietly refresh the 13-inch MacBook Pro, only this time, offering 10th gen chips across the board, when more SKUs of the 10th gen chips are released and are available in sufficient quantities. Maybe, they will also offer 10th gen chips to the 16-inch as well when they do the refresh. Who knows?

See, I was right!

 
I've never heard about any rumor that AMD won't be implementing "Thunderbolt 3" support. Whatever that means anyway, since USB 4.0 is now the relevant standard, and if AMD integrates all its features you have exactly the same. U got a link for us?

Which commercially-available Thunderbolt chipset do you recommend for use with AMD processors? Why hasn't this chipset been implemented in any AMD motherboards until now?

Also, which AMD mobile processors support USB4?
 
Which commercially-available Thunderbolt chipset do you recommend for use with AMD processors? Why hasn't this chipset been implemented in any AMD motherboards until now?

Also, which AMD mobile processors support USB4?

Asrock offers certified mainboards, and there are several more vendors that are not officially certified by Intel, but which will also work.
See also https://www.windowscentral.com/can-you-use-thunderbolt-3-amd-ryzen-pc
Also you can always buy a Thunderbolt PCIe card for your desktop.

Therefore there's nothing stopping Apple to offer a Mac with AMD CPU and Thunderbolt 3 right now.

USB4, which is basically Thunderbolt 3 with some extra features, is due at the end of 2020, probably rather 2021, and both Intel and AMD will support it of course since it's the new big standard for everything.
It remains to be seen, if all the parts of standard will be implemented initially and in which form. We know nothing for sure about that yet.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.