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.
Quick Teardowns Offer First Look Inside 14 and 16-Inch MacBook Pro Models
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Threw together a quick comparison - the 16" magnification is a bit off (should be bigger) but:
14" has much smaller fan and heatsink
14" has smaller speakers
If both the laptops are showing the same Geekbench benchmarks - it seems the M1 Max and Pro are frequency locked despite the 16" having better cooling. Keep in mind that the SoC can still be thermally limited so it will not show in Geekbench but will show up when pushing both GPU and CPU at the same time (so the 16" will probably downclock less often etc)
![compare.jpg]( "compare.jpg")
14" has much smaller fan and heatsink
14" has smaller speakers
If both the laptops are showing the same Geekbench benchmarks - it seems the M1 Max and Pro are frequency locked despite the 16" having better cooling. Keep in mind that the SoC can still be thermally limited so it will not show in Geekbench but will show up when pushing both GPU and CPU at the same time (so the 16" will probably downclock less often etc)
It’s supposed to be more efficient (and probably quieter based on the early reviews). It may be more about how the airflow is routed and managed and the details of the fan “blades”.
my 2010 MacBook air still kick ass, or can work swell in 2021
just trying to understand where the extra size/weight comes from and what design choices were made.
I feel like it's looking at me. And, I'm totally okay with that.
I changed my order from the 14" to the 16" a week ago.
Now I'll have to wait 3 more weeks, however I'm satisfied with my decision; I hope the 16" will actually be considerably better at keeping the CPU cool, as I plan to use it very intensely.
Now I'll have to wait 3 more weeks, however I'm satisfied with my decision; I hope the 16" will actually be considerably better at keeping the CPU cool, as I plan to use it very intensely.
The firs thing that strikes me when I looked at the pics it that there really isn't much else on the board other than the SoC - mostly just regulators and periphery stuff. This is a pretty incredible design, to have eliminated so much circuitry by stuffing it all in the processor slab. Must be saving a lot on board design and manufacturing. Impressive.
They literally said the ports are modular. The other things seem pretty repairable to me. If you’re looking to swap out the SSD or memory, look elsewhere. The reason they’re able to get this kind of raw power and [lack of] power consumption is BECAUSE it’s a system-on-a-chip.
Small thing, but it appears that the bass transducers are identical on each. So I reckon 14" and 16" will have a similar fullness in the bottom end, but 16" will get louder overall with those larger tweeters boosting the mids and highs.
I was surprised/skeptical when they said that the 14" had the same sound system.
So, those chains are pretty awesome, huh... Apple figured out another way to lock down their tech. It kinda sucks worse than before, which sucked quite a bit. I am really resenting that I can't increase the storage on the MBP I'm typing this on. Computers weren't meant to be hammers. A totally locked down 'tool', that is thrown out instead of upgraded. It's kind of depressing if I really think about it. If Apple made the 'SoC' replaceable, or up-gradable, I would feel a little better about it. I would hate to have to pay nearly the same money to upgrade a MBP, but upgrading is saving the rest of the box from being tossed.
Apple's paranoia is wearing on me again. The last time was with my IIcx. I left 'the body' for 6+ years. Not exactly feeling the warm and fuzzes for the 'new normal'...
But Apple is an 'industry leader', and if they succeed in this, others will gleefully follow.
NO NO NO!!!
It's a processor based on a known low power design, and they tricked it out. It's on a scale that makes it run cooler with less power. It's not an Intel Barbie toaster. The SoC will allow for higher memory bandwidth, but the power is in the chip design. Intel can't do this because they are still stuck in the past. They could have done more with Itanium, or some of the other innovative ships they came out with. They could have been a contender.
The SoC protects Apple's profit, and keeps people like you and me from upgrading 'their' hardware.
I scoffed at the idea, but Apple is almost to the point where you could have to pay a 'subscription' for their hardware. You 'rent' essentially, what you want. You want more memory? It'll be $x.xx more. You want more storage? It'll be $x.xx more.
Sorry, but I had a bad day. I'm tired, and crabby. Maybe I should be this way more often. Not sure, too soon to tell...
On one hand I agree with you. You only need to look at all the unnecessarily useless 4gb 2014 Mac Minis littering ebay to prove that Apple's solder-it-down strategy is wasteful.
On the other hand, Apple is certainly right when they say that this is more environmentally friendly. Think for a moment about all the little bits they don't need to manufacture by including everything on the chip.
It's a case of both things can be right.
Next step: design a machine that can't be opened for repair after leaving the factory. No screw holes to be found. Sleek aluminium body (minus fan holes) without compromise. If there is a crack on the screen, full machine replacement and damaged one got recycled thereafter.
Its a $3000+ electronic device on which nothing is repairable or upgradeable and Apple will force you to upgrade in a few years, by artificially blocking upgrades on perfectly capable hardware, or if a $5 part goes bad, and fill landfills with toxic chemical waste.
This was maybe understandable when the devices were ultra thin, with the new design there's no excuse. And they boast about being 'clean/renewable'.
No its not. If I make a car which which has to be trashed and I need to buy a new car if the viper or seatbelt stops working, its not more environment friendly in any way, even if it has far fewer components. Its in fact far far more damaging - just like Apple's devices.
Seems to be using same 512GB NAND modules as ones in iphones 11/12, thus upgrading storage should be possible for as cheap as about $100-$120/1TB.
However, still waiting for an in-depth teardown revealing the ICs (by the looks of empty layout patterns, DC-DC power controller & a FET) & all the small passive surroundings. Should be as easy as for iphones, though.
