If it's able to run dual monitors, I'm sold. I want to get something that's light and has has better graphics performance than the Intel integrated garbage.
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.
Report: Super-Lightweight 12-inch MacBook Powered By Apple Silicon to Launch This Year
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why not all of 12, 14, and 16 sizes for both Air and Pro lines? This idea that only high power users want a bigger screen, and only low power users want a small screen is nonsensical. You just said yourself you'd never go back to 12, but do you need Pro power or is Air fine for you? Why not have the choice?
This is how the 2017 MacBook Core m3, i5, i7 behave during sustained CPU load: 10+ runs of Cinebench
I have been very happy with my 2017 MacBook with 16 GB RAM and i7; I don't put any unduly heavy loads on the cpu, since I have another machine for the "heavy lifting," so to speak. The 16 GB makes a noticeable difference and I am glad that I decided to update from my 2016 MacBook. I use my...
forums.macrumors.com
These are the scores of 10 consecutive runs of Cinebench R15 CPU render:
Performance loss at the 10th run is 7.1% for my Core m3 on a wood table (which acts as an insulator).
Performance loss at the 10th run is 4.5% for my Core m3 on a granite counter (which conducts heat a bit better).
BTW, this whole process takes about half an hour, since each run is a few minutes.
With Catalina breaking compatibility with nearly everything I use except for web browsers and Mail, this could be a possible purchase as a casual browsing and email device for around the house. I really liked the formfactor of my 12" Macbook except for the artificial lack of ports. Ditched it prematurely due to it's shockingly quick rate of decay on the battery that the Apple store called "normal".
It's infinitely more useful than an iPad at least.
I do *NOT* want to see a touchscreen.
It's infinitely more useful than an iPad at least.
I do *NOT* want to see a touchscreen.
Last edited:
People are saying elsewhere that this result is not unexpected, since the x265 encoder has specifically been hand optimized for x86, sometimes even to the point of optimizing in assembly.
Same boat. Needed a laptop for travel, and the 13” I had was not powerful enough. By the time our 16” feels old, Apple Silicon Macs are gonna be crazy good. ?
The old 12” wont dock with a 4K monitor? I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. I was just going to buy one for an old 12” I’ve got in the shop for a new battery. The new ARM whatever can’t come soon enough!?
How much performance do they want to get out of it is I guess the main variable. They surely won't put down a watered down Mac out there and the heat points on a laptop are a lot different than a iPad.
I too miss the 12:00 a.m. online ordering as well as the Apple Store lines to pick up the purchase. It was great to speak with other fans. Don’t even get me started on MacWorld conventions!
Works fine with a 4Kp60 monitor if you have the right dongle. I have confirmed this with the 2017 model, but IIRC the 2015 model is reported now to work too.
Note that the Apple dongle does NOT support this. Why? Because you can't have USB 3 + 4Kp60 at the same time. It's either USB 2 + 4Kp60 or else USB 3 + 4Kp30. Most companies go with USB 3 + 4Kp30. This includes Apple.
I have purchased a USB-C dongle with USB 3 + 4Kp30 + power + other ports, and a separate USB-C dongle with just 4Kp60 + power. Works fine with my 4K LG OLED at 60 Hz.
Last edited:
Imo I'm sure vertical integration is part of the reason.
And yes, there is physics. The traditional "improvement" for a chip to get the same/better battery life as the old one is that the newer chip goes to lower power mode more aggressively.
Luckily, most of the things that people do on the computer (looking at web pages, typing a document, etc) does enable the CPU to go to idle most of the time. Although the Macbook line obviously won't have a fan, I'm sure the Macbook Pro and desktop line will still have a proper cooling system. There's an argument that the current Macbook Pros chassis are actually designed for a cooler CPU, not the current intel chips. Thus we see Macbooks/Macbook Pros overheatingall over the internet.
When your IT department sends emails around about "MAC support" for your machine, you know you're in for some fun.
Why does "weighs less than one kilogram" sound so much better than "weighs less than 2.2 pounds"?
I didn't realize we didn't have a MacBook (nothing) anymore, but that was 2.03 pounds (0.92 kg), so the weight of a new one isn't a shocker, but I'm going to guess the new Apple Silicone MacBook will be more.
I didn't realize we didn't have a MacBook (nothing) anymore, but that was 2.03 pounds (0.92 kg), so the weight of a new one isn't a shocker, but I'm going to guess the new Apple Silicone MacBook will be more.
I was hoping we'd get one more refresh on the MBP 16" (as the higher end on the new MBP 13" is very nice) and I'd have to consider that. Then I could wait for a few generations for the Apple Silicone versions to get perfected and software to be adapted.
The current 13" MacBook "Air" at 1.29 kg is 40% (!!) heavier than the 0.92 kg 12" MacBook. "Air" is not actually that light it seems. 
This 40% weight difference is substantial and very noticeable. Especially if you carry it around all day long.
But if Apple aims for a "less than 1 kg" or "less than 2 1/2 pounds" marketing slogan, this would still leave some room compared to the 12" MacBook. If they make it a bit less than 10% heavier they should still remain below 1 kg, or at 20% heavier still be below 2.5 pounds. In both cases it is still lighter than the "Air" and yet the slight weight increase could be used for a beefier battery and the slightly thicker (and heavier) "magic keyboard".
That way they would not have to go with a butterfly keyboard and also increase the battery life comfortably to the reported 20 hours.
So my guess is that the new ARM 12" MacBook (if it happens) is actually slightly heavier than the current one.
This 40% weight difference is substantial and very noticeable. Especially if you carry it around all day long.
But if Apple aims for a "less than 1 kg" or "less than 2 1/2 pounds" marketing slogan, this would still leave some room compared to the 12" MacBook. If they make it a bit less than 10% heavier they should still remain below 1 kg, or at 20% heavier still be below 2.5 pounds. In both cases it is still lighter than the "Air" and yet the slight weight increase could be used for a beefier battery and the slightly thicker (and heavier) "magic keyboard".
That way they would not have to go with a butterfly keyboard and also increase the battery life comfortably to the reported 20 hours.
So my guess is that the new ARM 12" MacBook (if it happens) is actually slightly heavier than the current one.
Much of the weight is due to the battery. Considering that Arm will likely be more power efficient, it's quite possible it won't increase in weight.The current 13" MacBook "Air" at 1.29 kg is 40% (!!) heavier than the 0.92 kg 12" MacBook. "Air" is not actually that light it seems.
This 40% weight difference is substantial and very noticeable. Especially if you carry it around all day long.
But if Apple aims for a "less than 1 kg" or "less than 2 1/2 pounds" marketing slogan, this would still leave some room compared to the 12" MacBook. If they make it a bit less than 10% heavier they should still remain below 1 kg, or at 20% heavier still be below 2.5 pounds. In both cases it is still lighter than the "Air" and yet the slight weight increase could be used for a beefier battery and the slightly thicker (and heavier) "magic keyboard".
That way they would not have to go with a butterfly keyboard and also increase the battery life comfortably to the reported 20 hours.
So my guess is that the new ARM 12" MacBook (if it happens) is actually slightly heavier than the current one.
My guess is that the reported A14X is a great CPU but not nearly as power efficient when clocked at higher frequencies for a laptop.
So to get to 20 hours they probably will have to do both, increase the battery and use an A14X to get there.
I presume the Mac-specific desktop ARM CPU variant they will develop in future will be more energy efficient for Mac computing as it is not merely a chip focussed on low-power (iPhone/iPad) clocked at higher frequencies.
But even if they don't change the battery at all, the magic keyboard is bigger and heavier than the butterfly keyboard.
So unless they keep using the butterfly keyboard (unlikely) or make the battery smaller, they cannot really keep the 0.92 kg weight, I feel.
So to get to 20 hours they probably will have to do both, increase the battery and use an A14X to get there.
I presume the Mac-specific desktop ARM CPU variant they will develop in future will be more energy efficient for Mac computing as it is not merely a chip focussed on low-power (iPhone/iPad) clocked at higher frequencies.
But even if they don't change the battery at all, the magic keyboard is bigger and heavier than the butterfly keyboard.
So unless they keep using the butterfly keyboard (unlikely) or make the battery smaller, they cannot really keep the 0.92 kg weight, I feel.
For a MacBook there is no need to clock it higher than an iPad Pro. In fact, I think they'd be fine to clock it lower in terms of raw performance. Even the A14 non-X would already be much faster than the fastest 12" Intel MacBook for general purpose usage.
Wouldn't be surprised but not sure what's available to upgrade to right now. Maybe a processor bump? But I thought the newer Intel chips were running hotter since they use more power on the same process node. This thing actually runs fairly cool (around body temperature or a little less) during normal use and under a decent load it doesn't seem to get as hot as MBPs I had in the past. Though I probably wouldn't want to keep it on my lap for a long render. 1080p FaceTime and WiFi 6 would be nice upgrades. I read that RAM and SSD prices are going to be falling quite a bit this autumn so maybe a slightly lower price for upgrades. But right now you can save a chunk on refurbs. I saved about $600 on my config which is in my signature.
The higher-end model got a much faster bus/RAM speed. They had better speakers and a dual-fan too (these weren't listed on the specs).
