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.
The Ethics of Buying Both to Test
- Thread starter iRun26.2
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I fully support you buying both the test. I highly recommend testing with external monitors for heat / fans issues, especially with the 16".
If it isn't unethical for Apple to ignore 16" MBP owners regarding heat / fans issues with external monitors, then how could it be unethical for potential buyers to do what's necessary to determine which machine meets their needs??
Go for it!
If I were you, I'd buy the 13" i7 10th gen cpu machine. Add an external eGPU if you need more graphics performance.
[automerge]1592775809[/automerge]
If you don't absolutely need a new machine...WAIT.
I have been a believer that Apple could not just make a machine that replaces a MacBook Pro so quickly. It makes me think they may have overcome the x86 / ARM impass. I am prepared to be impressed tomorrow.
So, finally I now have both machines...
I logged some test data that documents the improvement in speed I would gain from using the 16" version with my FPGA development tools (for Microsemi's "Libero") when the computer is plugged into my 4K display:
Comments on timing tests: While the 16" MacBook Pro clearly gets the tasks associated with my project done faster, it is not by an overwhelmingly faster time. My software is clearly not efficiently coded for multi-threading (but it is what it is and that is what mostly what matters to me). Additionally, there is more noise and heat generated by the 16" MacBook Pro when running the 'Generate Bitstream' code. And, having really nice speakers is great, but, if you have to turn up the volume to overcome the sound of the fans, the advantage of the excellent sounding speakers is kind of nullified.
Size / Weight: I do love the 16" screen but there is a price to be paid for this in terms of size and weight. Actually, the biggest tradeoff is not really the weight but the bulkiness. I often like to lie down in bed with the computer on my chest (my head is tilted up by leaning on a pillow). My hands get to the keyboard from the sides and the width of the 16" makes this very difficult/uncomfortable.
I have pretty much already reached my conclusions...much faster than I expected. I think I am going to keep the 2020 13" and return the 2019 16" version. I will save a little money and have a more portable device. It may be a tad slower but it is not slower by much for the tasks that I will want it to be quick at. The 16" MacBook Pro is by no means faster by the 8-core to 4-core ratio that the computers posses. I thought that my 13" version would get 'walked on' by the 16" version but, for my use case, the 13" will be more than acceptable.
I logged some test data that documents the improvement in speed I would gain from using the 16" version with my FPGA development tools (for Microsemi's "Libero") when the computer is plugged into my 4K display:
| Task: (Windows via Parallels) | 2020 13" MacBook Pro (2.3GHz i7) | 2019 16" MacBook Pro (2.4GHz, i9) |
| Load Design: | 14 seconds | 12 seconds |
| Build Component: | 60 seconds | 55 seconds |
| Generate Bitstream: | 184 seconds | 162 seconds |
| Max Fan Speed: | 3300 rpm | 5000 rpm |
| Max Temperature: | 91 C | 95 C |
Comments on timing tests: While the 16" MacBook Pro clearly gets the tasks associated with my project done faster, it is not by an overwhelmingly faster time. My software is clearly not efficiently coded for multi-threading (but it is what it is and that is what mostly what matters to me). Additionally, there is more noise and heat generated by the 16" MacBook Pro when running the 'Generate Bitstream' code. And, having really nice speakers is great, but, if you have to turn up the volume to overcome the sound of the fans, the advantage of the excellent sounding speakers is kind of nullified.
Size / Weight: I do love the 16" screen but there is a price to be paid for this in terms of size and weight. Actually, the biggest tradeoff is not really the weight but the bulkiness. I often like to lie down in bed with the computer on my chest (my head is tilted up by leaning on a pillow). My hands get to the keyboard from the sides and the width of the 16" makes this very difficult/uncomfortable.
I have pretty much already reached my conclusions...much faster than I expected. I think I am going to keep the 2020 13" and return the 2019 16" version. I will save a little money and have a more portable device. It may be a tad slower but it is not slower by much for the tasks that I will want it to be quick at. The 16" MacBook Pro is by no means faster by the 8-core to 4-core ratio that the computers posses. I thought that my 13" version would get 'walked on' by the 16" version but, for my use case, the 13" will be more than acceptable.
Well, you're talking 9th gen vs 10th gen and clock speeds are similar and you know your workload. We're seeing fewer IPC gains and more gains from more cores these days and I guess that this isn't great for single-threaded workloads. This may lend credence to Apple's desire to go to ARM. They can implement custom improved-IPC for their most often used applications.
I don't understand why you would think like that.
Apple is a trillion dollar company that takes advantage of everything it can in the name of increasing profits.
It's done things like reducing user repairability of modern Macs while charging huge premiums for memory and storage upgrades. Introducing the first $1K phone that has now pushed up the prices of all flagship phones. Etc, etc. On top of that it's setup tax heavens in Ireland to keep even more of their revenue.
If a company has taken advantage of everything it possibly can, then as a customer you should be allowed to do the same. If their return policy allows ordering two and returning one, then do it. At the end of the day it's not hurting anyone personally, it's not a mom and pop store.
Apple is a trillion dollar company that takes advantage of everything it can in the name of increasing profits.
It's done things like reducing user repairability of modern Macs while charging huge premiums for memory and storage upgrades. Introducing the first $1K phone that has now pushed up the prices of all flagship phones. Etc, etc. On top of that it's setup tax heavens in Ireland to keep even more of their revenue.
If a company has taken advantage of everything it possibly can, then as a customer you should be allowed to do the same. If their return policy allows ordering two and returning one, then do it. At the end of the day it's not hurting anyone personally, it's not a mom and pop store.
I wonder if the faster RAM in 2020 MacBook Pro (3733MHz) quad-core i7 helps it 'keep up' with the slower memory (2666MHz) in the 2019's 8-core i9.
The 10th gen (Ice Lake) CPU in the 13" is actually a newer designed CPU with higher IPC (and smaller geometry) than the 9th gen H series (Coffee Lake) CPU in the 16" MBP. The higher IPC combined with the higher bandwidth RAM would certainly explain why the slower clocked 13" MBP CPU does fairly well against higher clocked 16" MBP. Single core benchmarks bare this out.
OK, lets take it one step further...
I purchased my MacBook Pro from Apple (rather than another reseller) because I wanted to have the option of returning it I didn't like it (or if something better was introduced at WWDC). Adorama sells my 'maxed out' 13" MacBook Pro at a $200 lower price than what I paid at Apple (and you can't return an 'open box' computer through Adorama). I could actually now return both of my 13" and 16" MacBook Pro test units to Apple and purchase a 13" unit from Adorama, saving an additional $200 on my purchase. That would really be taking advantage of everything I possibly could to optimize my cash. But is that ethical?