Who actually is the 12" MacBook for?

[Dave245]

For most of my usage 16 GB is overkill. I only occasionally have heavy enough usage to justify using more than 8 GB, and I don't use Final Cut.

However, I bought 16 GB anyways, since this will cover my occasional heavy usage, and because I find that memory usage with OSes and applications increase as time goes on, and I tend to keep my laptops a very long time. My previous laptop was a 2 GB MacBook Pro, which I eventually upgraded to 4 GB and then to 8 GB. Even though 2 GB was very usable with it when I bought it (in 2009), it's basically unusable now with 2 GB. 4 GB is tolerable with light usage, but 8 GB is definitely preferred. Unfortunately, with Apple's current laptops, they are not memory upgradable, so I just spent the extra money to get 16 GB and don't have to worry about it.

I only got 256 GB though, since for my laptops I don't need that much storage. A lot of people might want 512 GB though. (I use alot more space on my desktop, so for my iMac I have 1 TB.)

Since I already have an iMac 2012 that I’m planning on upgrading next year, I’ve been thinking that it would be better to use the iMac as an editing machine rather than buying a MacBook Pro, therefore the MacBook 12” would probably be perfect for what I do as a blogger and writer, also it would probably sit well in between my iPad Pro 12” and iMac. I’m just deciding if I should stick with the 8GB i5 Core or go 16GB and max it out a little.

 

[EugW]

Since I already have an iMac 2012 that I’m planning on upgrading next year, I’ve been thinking that it would be better to use the iMac as an editing machine rather than buying a MacBook Pro, therefore the MacBook 12” would probably be perfect for what I do as a blogger and writer, also it would probably sit well in between my iPad Pro 12” and iMac. I’m just deciding if I should stick with the 8GB i5 Core or go 16GB and max it out a little.

As mentioned I don't do Final Cut, but the 27" screen of the iMac alone makes it a much more viable option for multimedia. Plus it has a wide gamut screen. I do all my Photos stuff on my iMac.

My MacBook 12" is mostly for business apps, but when I am on the road sometimes I need to run a whole bunch of stuff simultaneously and don't have an iMac to fall back on. I don't need a huge amount of raw speed, but it's great having the space in RAM for everything. These days even business apps (MS Office 2016) and web browsers (Safari and Chrome) can be memory hogs. Add a few more things on top of that plus a second user (plus 3 years of OS updates in 2020) and suddenly 8 GB doesn't seem like that much anymore.

BTW, I mention the second user because my wife is someone who logs in but never logs out. So if she's logged in, all of a sudden I effectively have about 2 GB less RAM than usual, effectively making an 8 GB machine into a 6 GB machine.

 

[Dave245]

As mentioned I don't do Final Cut, but the 27" screen of the iMac alone makes it a much more viable option for multimedia. Plus it has a wide gamut screen. I do all my Photos stuff on my iMac.

My MacBook 12" is mostly for business apps, but when I am on the road sometimes I need to run a whole bunch of stuff simultaneously and don't have an iMac to fall back on. I don't need a huge amount of raw speed, but it's great having the space in RAM for everything. These days even business apps (MS Office 2016) and web browsers (Safari and Chrome) can be memory hogs. Add a few more things on top of that plus a second user (plus 3 years of OS updates in 2020) and suddenly 8 GB doesn't seem like that much anymore.

BTW, I mention the second user because my wife is someone who logs in but never logs out. So if she's logged in, all of a sudden I effectively have about 2 GB less RAM than usual, effectively making an 8 GB machine into a 6 GB machine.

That’s kind of my thinking really, I can see much more on my timeline on the iMac than I ever would on a MacBook Pro and the 5K screen will probably be much better that’s why I plan to upgrade next year after Apple have updated the iMac’s. The 12” MacBook sounds like it was built for people who write, surf the internet and maybe play the odd game.

 

[EugW]

That’s kind of my thinking really, I can see much more on my timeline on the iMac than I ever would on a MacBook Pro and the 5K screen will probably be much better that’s why I plan to upgrade next year after Apple have updated the iMac’s. The 12” MacBook sounds like it was built for people who write, surf the internet and maybe play the odd game.

And those of us who work in the public sector who can't take business class everywhere when traveling for work. It's such a PITA using a 15" MBP in economy class, and even the 13" is problematic. The 12" is much more comfortable there.

 

[Dave245]

And those of us who work in the public sector who can't take business class everywhere when traveling for work. It's such a PITA using a 15" MBP in economy class, and even the 13" is problematic. The 12" is much more comfortable there.

Yea especially if you have limited room with those horrible small trays to put the food on. Smaller and thinner is probably better in that situation. Also around the house and out and about as it looks very portable. It also seems that this years Macbook updates have gotten more powerful, the core i5 and i7 vs last years M series.

 

[Mike Boreham]

It also seems that this years Macbook updates have gotten more powerful, the core i5 and i7 vs last years M series.

Yes they are indeed more powerful, but don't fall into the marketing trap of thinking the i5 and i7 processors are the same as the ones in the MBP family. They are still M processors designed to run cool without a fan, which they do amazingly well.

 

[Dave245]

Yes they are indeed more powerful, but don't fall into the marketing trap of thinking the i5 and i7 processors are the same as the ones in the MBP family. They are still M processors designed to run cool without a fan, which they do amazingly well.

I understand that, i don't expect the 12" MacBook to have dual core processors in them, i think the M processors are plenty powerful for daily tasks, i wouldn't expect to photo or video edit in 4K on the MacBook, i think for simple things like writing and blogging it will be plenty fast. I have previously looked at the MacBook Pro with Touch Bar but it may be to much of a waste for me, all the powerful specs sound nice but in reality using them to it's fullest is something i probably won't do when i have an iMac at home that can video edit (even if it is now getting old and is from 2012).

My 2011 MacBook Pro is now getting old, but i suspect that even the 12" MacBook would be better in terms of the screen (2011 is none retina) and the SSD (2011 MacBook Pro is HDD).

 

[Mike Boreham]

.....i wouldn't expect to photo or video edit in 4K on the MacBook, i think for simple things like writing and blogging it will be plenty fast.

The MacBooks are quite capable of photo and video editing. They won't grind to halt, but will take longer of course. Just wouldn't make sense to use a MacBook for regular heavy use, but for less frequent use where speed is not paramount they do fine.

 

[EugW]

I understand that, i don't expect the 12" MacBook to have dual core processors in them, i think the M processors are plenty powerful for daily tasks, i wouldn't expect to photo or video edit in 4K on the MacBook, i think for simple things like writing and blogging it will be plenty fast. I have previously looked at the MacBook Pro with Touch Bar but it may be to much of a waste for me, all the powerful specs sound nice but in reality using them to it's fullest is something i probably won't do when i have an iMac at home that can video edit (even if it is now getting old and is from 2012).

My 2011 MacBook Pro is now getting old, but i suspect that even the 12" MacBook would be better in terms of the screen (2011 is none retina) and the SSD (2011 MacBook Pro is HDD).

Huh? The MacBooks’ CPUs are dual core.

Furthermore, according to benches, my 2017 m3 is about as fast as a 2016 m7, and both are way faster than a 2016 m3 which is in turn faster than the 2015 entry level.

Put it this way: The 2015 Core M entry level felt a bit lethargic to me but the 2017 m3 doesn’t at all.

Furthermore, the 2017 has hardware 10-bit 4K HEVC decode. This means it can decode files cleanly with 25% CPU usage that a 2016 Core i7 MacBook Pro can’t play cleanly with 100% CPU usage. In fact, this is one reason I waited for the 2017. I didn’t want to buy a machine that was crippled with regards to video playback, and pretty much any pre-2017 MacBook or MacBook Pro is crippled or partially crippled when it comes to 4K HEVC playback. Some of the 2016 MacBook Pro owners have posted threads about this after unfortunately learning about this the hard way.

 

[Dave245]

Huh? The MacBooks’ CPUs are dual core.

Furthermore, according to benches, my 2017 m3 is about as fast as a 2016 m7, and both are way faster than a 2016 m3 which is in turn faster than the 2015 entry level.

Put it this way: The 2015 Core M entry level felt a bit lethargic to me but the 2017 m3 doesn’t at all.

Furthermore, the 2017 has hardware 10-bit 4K HEVC decode. This means it can decode files cleanly with 25% CPU usage that a 2016 Core i7 MacBook Pro can’t play cleanly with 100% CPU usage. In fact, this is one reason I waited for the 2017. I didn’t want to buy a machine that was crippled with regards to video playback, and pretty much any pre-2017 MacBook or MacBook Pro is crippled or partially crippled when it comes to 4K HEVC playback. Some of the 2016 MacBook Pro owners have posted threads about this after unfortunately learning about this the hard way.

What i should of said was they are not the dual core processors that are in the 13" MacBook Pro (unless I'm mistaken). Performance has certainly got better since the first one was introduced, now there is a 16GB Ram option which wasn't available before. I'm undecided whether to wait until 2018's version and see what the 4th generation will bring or to just buy one when i go to the Apple store on Saturday (i don't think they have 16GB versions in store tho).

 

[EugW]

What i should of said was they are not the dual core processors that are in the 13" MacBook Pro (unless I'm mistaken). Performance has certainly got better since the first one was introduced, now there is a 16GB Ram option which wasn't available before. I'm undecided whether to wait until 2018's version and see what the 4th generation will bring or to just buy one when i go to the Apple store on Saturday (i don't think they have 16GB versions in store tho).

Interestingly, they are the same cores, but configured for a different power envelope. In any case, the Core i5-7360U 2.3 GHz in the non-TouchBar 13" MacBook Pro scores 362 in Cinebench R15 multi-core 64-bit. Here are the scores of the 2017 Core m3/i5/i7 in the 2017 MacBook:

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...uns-of-cinebench.2073415/page-2#post-25271927

So, the MacBook scores about 25% or so slower than the 362 score of the MacBook Pro. The difference is that with the MacBook Pro, it should be able to maintain that performance over time, because of its fan. The MacBook gradually drops mildly over time, due to throttling. The drop is around 5-7% over about 25 minutes.

Furthermore, the 2017 has hardware 10-bit 4K HEVC decode. This means it can decode files cleanly with 25% CPU usage that a 2016 Core i7 MacBook Pro can’t play cleanly with 100% CPU usage. In fact, this is one reason I waited for the 2017. I didn’t want to buy a machine that was crippled with regards to video playback, and pretty much any pre-2017 MacBook or MacBook Pro is crippled or partially crippled when it comes to 4K HEVC playback. Some of the 2016 MacBook Pro owners have posted threads about this after unfortunately learning about this the hard way.

Here is the thread I have on that. Check out the only ~25% CPU usage:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/4k-hevc-10-bit-on-the-2017-core-m3-macbook-is-gorgeous.2054232/

Remember, this is a video that even a 2016 Core i7 MacBook Pro can't play cleanly, despite having its CPU maxed out.

 

[Dave245]

Interestingly, they are the same cores, but configured for a different power envelope. In any case, the Core i5-7360U 2.3 GHz in the non-TouchBar 13" MacBook Pro scores 362 in Cinebench R15 multi-core 64-bit. Here are the scores of the 2017 Core m3/i5/i7 in the 2017 MacBook:

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...uns-of-cinebench.2073415/page-2#post-25271927

View attachment 735565

So, the MacBook scores about 25% or so slower than the 362 score of the MacBook Pro. The difference is that with the MacBook Pro, it should be able to maintain that performance over time, because of its fan. The MacBook gradually drops mildly over time, due to throttling. The drop is around 5-7% over about 25 minutes.


Here is the thread I have on that. Check out the only ~25% CPU usage:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/4k-hevc-10-bit-on-the-2017-core-m3-macbook-is-gorgeous.2054232/

View attachment 735573

Remember, this is a video that even a 2016 Core i7 MacBook Pro can't play cleanly, despite having its CPU maxed out.

That's interesting that it can play that video, i wonder how it would run with Final Cut Pro X tho considering it can be a memory and processor hog. I also if how Apple will update the MacBook later this year (2018) the MacBook Pro 13" is able to handle Final Cut Pro X with a breeze and the 15" can more than handle 4K footage with effects being rendered. It will probably be that i have to purchase a 13" or 15" Pro in order to do my video editing, i just think the 12" MacBook would compliment my 12.9" iPad Pro really well.

OR i upgrade from my 2012 iMac to a 2018 iMac have that as my sole editing machine with Final Cut Pro X. It will all depend on how Apple upgrade the Mac's later this year.

 

[DNichter]

Anyone who needs a computer, but doesn't necessarily require the most computing power. Is this really tough to understand?

 

[Clix Pix]

Anyone who needs a computer, but doesn't necessarily require the most computing power. Is this really tough to understand?

Exactly! It is ideal for travel, for daily toting to a workplace, for use anywhere around one's home inside or outside, and it does things that an iPad simply cannot because it uses MacOS as opposed to iOS. I would probably hesitate to recommend it as someone's ONLY computer, but as a secondary machine in the household it is ideal.

 

[TC_GoldRush]

For people with lots of money.

 

[DNichter]

Exactly! It is ideal for travel, for daily toting to a workplace, for use anywhere around one's home inside or outside, and it does things that an iPad simply cannot because it uses MacOS as opposed to iOS. I would probably hesitate to recommend it as someone's ONLY computer, but as a secondary machine in the household it is ideal.

Definitely. It really just depends on the individual and the tasks they need to do/manage. I had a MacBook last year and I loved it, but macOS grew very stale to me and I decided to move onto an iPad Pro as my only computer (besides my iPhone).

 

[TC_GoldRush]

Definitely. It really just depends on the individual and the tasks they need to do/manage. I had a MacBook last year and I loved it, but macOS grew very stale to me and I decided to move onto an iPad Pro as my only computer (besides my iPhone).

MacOS has been stale and unchanged for many years... I love it.

 

[DNichter]

MacOS has been stale and unchanged for many years... I love it.

Yea I didn't see the value myself as I prefer iOS, but it's an OS that works for a good amount of people. That consistency you mention is probably a big reason why.

 

[Clix Pix]

I have the best of both worlds, since I have Macs and iPhones and iPads.....Wherever I am, whatever it is that I want to do, there's the right device waiting for me to use it....

 

[Dave245]

Anyone who needs a computer, but doesn't necessarily require the most computing power. Is this really tough to understand?

No but people use computers for different things for example i edit in Final Cut Pro X, I write and search the web but I also have an iMac (2012 that’s now getting older and i’ll Probably buy a more up to date model) And my iPad Pro is great for watching content, drawing and so on. I would love to find a place for the 12” MacBook but I’m leaning more towards the MacBook Pro with Touch Bar in order to get things done.

 

[DNichter]

No but people use computers for different things for example i edit in Final Cut Pro X, I write and search the web but I also have an iMac (2012 that’s now getting older and i’ll Probably buy a more up to date model) And my iPad Pro is great for watching content, drawing and so on. I would love to find a place for the 12” MacBook but I’m leaning more towards the MacBook Pro with Touch Bar in order to get things done.

Let me start off. I read your post after I had just answered the title and wasn't trying to come off as rude at all. I guess for you, it probably doesn't make much sense, unless you get the top end MacBook. I found the MacBook to be the perfect ultra portable and for a while, I brought it everywhere. Now my iPad Pro has taken it's place. Ultimately it comes down to getting the tool that works best for you.

 

[Legionnaire]

Exactly! It is ideal for travel, for daily toting to a workplace, for use anywhere around one's home inside or outside, and it does things that an iPad simply cannot because it uses MacOS as opposed to iOS. I would probably hesitate to recommend it as someone's ONLY computer, but as a secondary machine in the household it is ideal.

after owning the 2017 12 inch MacBook, I can never go to a larger laptop. Its pretty perfect for my life. I dont even know how to check cpu usage lol. All I know is im toting it to college, all my peers have MacBook pros, and here I am with the mini. had a girl next to me say she wishes her pro was smaller.

I use mine at home, on bed, carry around, all day at school and I came home with 80% battery life from taking notes and doing power point crap

 

[TC_GoldRush]

Yea I didn't see the value myself as I prefer iOS, but it's an OS that works for a good amount of people. That consistency you mention is probably a big reason why.

Don't get me wrong! I don't like change... That's why my iMac is still running OSX 10.9.5! All the versions after that are basically the same.

 

[lowkey]

Just travelled to Europe for three weeks over Christmas with my 2013 15" rMBP because I wanted to make a bit of music on Cubase and Logic while I was traveling. But the size and weight really sucks. And I ended up hardly using it.

Travelled to Sydney and back this week and got loads of work done on the plane on my 2015 rMB (word and XL).

I'd love a 12" rMB with a quad core lower power chip when they're available!

 

[DNichter]

Don't get me wrong! I don't like change... That's why my iMac is still running OSX 10.9.5! All the versions after that are basically the same.

Stick with what works!