This is a nice upgrade on the existing form factor, and fulfills the lifespan of the chassis. Apple takes things to the end of the roadmap. I’m holding for the 14”. Truth is I’m no longer a Power User. I’ll choose the larger screen and similar dimensions. These machines serve so long. My 2013 13” MBP has supported a successful business and still serves. The new keyboard was critical for me. I need reliability and durability above all.
A maxed out MacBook Air (with 16 GB RAM and 1 TB of storage) comes in a couple hundred bucks less than the "best" default option at the Apple store. The main difference between the two appear to be: 1. Form factor 2. "1.2GHz quad-core 10th-generation Intel Core i7 processor, Turbo Boost up to 3.8GHz" for the Air and "2.0GHz quad-core 10th-generation Intel Core i5 processor, Turbo Boost up to 3.8GHz" for the 13-inch. 3. 2 versus 4 thunderbolt ports. 4. (edit) "16GB 2133MHz LPDDR3" for the Air and "16GB 3733MHz LPDDR4X" for the Pro.
Any guesses as to whether the Air with a slower i7 or the Pro with the faster i5 (but both Turbo Boosting to 3.8) would be faster on day-to-day work? They have the same video card and same number of cores, same amount (but different speed) RAM. There are likely to perform about the same, right? So it's just a matter of deciding which form factor you like?
"Keep in mind, however, that the MacBook Air has lower-wattage Y-series chips, which are optimized for productivity tasks and energy efficiency. The low-end MacBook Pros are equipped with faster U-series Intel processors."
So the MBP would have better performance and likely able to stay in turbo boost longer, at higher frequencies...plus the significantly faster RAM. Not sure if the chip cache differs as well.
A GPU in the 13” MBP would bring a lot of compromises including size and weight. Absolute power is only one part of the equation for a Pro notebook. Apple is also thinking of thermal management. In a Pro machine, you want it to run as quietly as possible, especially if you’re editing videos or working with audio. All the power in the world is useless if your computer sounds like a jet taking off.
Battery life is another factor. In a smaller form factor, battery life becomes more susceptible to processor demands so you would have to increase the size of the case if you wanted to maintain Apple’s standards for battery life. This affects portability, which is also required to assist with airflow and convective cooling. These changes would demand a higher wattage charging brick.
All these things have a cascading effect that destroys the mission of the 13” MBP.
The 13” is for the pro user who values portability over absolute processing power. The 16” is for those who value processing power over portability.
A GPU in the 13” MBP would bring a lot of compromises including size and weight. Absolute power is only one part of the equation for a Pro notebook. Apple is also thinking of thermal management. In a Pro machine, you want it to run as quietly as possible, especially if you’re editing videos or working with audio. All the power in the world is useless if your computer sounds like a jet taking off.
Battery life is another factor. In a smaller form factor, battery life becomes more susceptible to processor demands so you would have to increase the size of the case if you wanted to maintain Apple’s standards for battery life. This affects portability, which is also required to assist with airflow and convective cooling. These changes would demand a higher wattage charging brick.
All these things have a cascading effect that destroys the mission of the 13” MBP.
The 13” is for the pro user who values portability over absolute processing power. The 16” is for those who value processing power over portability.
Completely agree - if I wanted graphics processing power, I generally wouldn't be going for a 13" notebook. Notebooks invariably involve compromises due to their size. For a smaller size like 13", the battery life is more important that a GPU.
A GPU in the 13” MBP would bring a lot of compromises including size and weight. Absolute power is only one part of the equation for a Pro notebook. Apple is also thinking of thermal management. In a Pro machine, you want it to run as quietly as possible, especially if you’re editing videos or working with audio. All the power in the world is useless if your computer sounds like a jet taking off.
Battery life is another factor. In a smaller form factor, battery life becomes more susceptible to processor demands so you would have to increase the size of the case if you wanted to maintain Apple’s standards for battery life. This affects portability, which is also required to assist with airflow and convective cooling. These changes would demand a higher wattage charging brick.
All these things have a cascading effect that destroys the mission of the 13” MBP.
The 13” is for the pro user who values portability over absolute processing power. The 16” is for those who value processing power over portability.
I posted this for another user - for context, last year's Razer Blade Stealth is a 13" ~3 lbs laptop and is being compared to last year's MBP 13:
Comparing the last generation 2019 Razer (GTX 1650 Max-Q) and the 2019 MBP.
Peak surface temperature under load:
MBP - 113 F Razer - 116 F
Peak power consumption under load:
MBP - 63 W Razer - 71 W
"One definite positive is the fact that the Razer Blade Stealth can hold its GPU performance without any throttling in our TheWitcher 3 loop. After an hour, there is only a very small drop in GPU performance."
So clearly it's possible to create a thin and light laptop with a dGPU. A lower power dGPU like the MX250 or MX350 could also be used.
Customers of some gaming laptops should bear in mind that performance while plugged in and unplugged are different. It's not uncommon for a high performance dGPU in laptop to be restricted to 1/3rd its performance while unplugged. There's always a cost.
What a Horrible, Terrible, No good for nothing, disappointing, mess of a Laptop. Not even worthy of the title MacBook Pro. More like uh, MacBook-NO!! Pass on this one if you are any ounce of smart. If you call yourself any-bit of truly a Mac/Apple fan, you will demand more from this company. You are in a way being played by them, holding back the tech they know they can deliver. Do the right thing, you deserve it, demand MORE!!!
Configurations start at $1299 with an eighth-generation i5 1.4GHz quad-core processor with Turbo Boost speed up to 3.9GHz, 8GB of RAM, and 256GB of storage, and an eighth-generation i7 model is available as well. A 2.0Ghz quad-core tenth-generation i7 model with turbo speeds up to 3.8GHz, 16GB of RAM, and 512GB of storage retails for $1799.
According to the Apple website, the $1799 model is a 10th-gen i5, not an i7.
*Cough* Have much experience with looking at Apple online Store "Buy" pages? Click the blue "Select" button on the rightmost config (the model with the 2.0 GHz, quad-core 10th-gen i5 standard) and lo and behold, there's an option for a 2.3 GHz, quad-core 10th-gen i7 for (depending on your version of the Store) $200 or a bit less.
So clearly it's possible to create a thin and light laptop with a dGPU. A lower power dGPU like the MX250 or MX350 could also be used.
Customers of some gaming laptops should bear in mind that performance while plugged in and unplugged are different. It's not uncommon for a high performance dGPU in laptop to be restricted to 1/3rd its performance while unplugged. There's always a cost.
That's not the case with the Razer's dGPU at all.
Some benchmarks:
Battlefield V (ultra)
Plugged in - 40 fps Battery - 38 fps
Overwatch (epic)
Plugged in - 68 fps Battery - 65 fps
Shadow of the Tomb Raider (highest)
Plugged in - 33 fps Battery - 31 fps
Again, a dGPU in a 13" laptop can be done without completely ruining the form factor.
What a Horrible, Terrible, No good for nothing, disappointing, mess of a Laptop. Not even worthy of the title MacBook Pro. More like uh, MacBook-NO!! Pass on this one if you are any ounce of smart. If you call yourself any-bit of truly a Mac/Apple fan, you will demand more from this company. You are in a way being played by them, holding back the tech they know they can deliver. Do the right thing, you deserve it, demand MORE!!!
So clearly it's possible to create a thin and light laptop with a dGPU. A lower power dGPU like the MX250 or MX350 could also be used.
Customers of some gaming laptops should bear in mind that performance while plugged in and unplugged are different. It's not uncommon for a high performance dGPU in laptop to be restricted to 1/3rd its performance while unplugged. There's always a cost.
That's not the case with the Razer's dGPU at all.
Some benchmarks:
Battlefield V (ultra)
Plugged in - 40 fps Battery - 38 fps
Overwatch (epic)
Plugged in - 68 fps Battery - 65 fps
Shadow of the Tomb Raider (highest)
Plugged in - 33 fps Battery - 31 fps
Again, a dGPU in a 13" laptop can be done without completely ruining the form factor.
Are these with the MX150 or the GTX1650? The MX150 isn't much better, if at all, than Ice Lake G7 graphics, and MX GPUs typically aren't down-clocked while unplugged. Don't know the power usage of the GTX1650. If it is running at 50 to 100 W there will be a consequence to that. If it is running at 25 to 50 W, it's going to squeak by.
Quick question. I need a Macbook Pro without Touch Bar. Is any model available now?
"Need"?
No, other than maybe old stock in the retail chain, or possibly a refurb — either of which would mean settling for the old keyboard. Not a good idea.
Other than price, there's no obvious reason to prefer the non-TB version of the MBP. If you don't like the TB, just ignore it. It's not in the way. And with the TB you get the fingerprint reader, which is well worthwhile, and with this new MBP the physical ESC key has now been restored, which matters to some people.
Maybe he spends all his time emulating a VT-220 terminal and is addicted to those physical F-keys. I'm sure there are 2 or 3 users out there with that use case. Yes, Apple has "abandoned" those (niche) users. Oh well.
As someone else mentioned, it's common for production software to make extensive use of the function keys. My bread-winner app, Pro Tools, uses them for switching editing modes, something I do almost as often as hitting "play." Not having them would significantly impact my workflow and productivity.
Have you actually tested this hypothesis? Have you tried working with one for a few days and seeing if your muscle memory doesn't solve the (potential) problem?
Personally, I like the touch bar and prefer it for things like changing volume and brightness. The only things I used the physical keys for were for those actions (which are better done with a slider than key presses). But I suppose I'm not "pro" enough.
If you didn't use the old F keys constantly for a primary function of your software, it's not surprising that you wouldn't miss them. I suspect spending an afternoon editing in Pro Tools would give you a different perspective. You'll be hitting an F key every few seconds.
To answer your question, yes, for a while I tried to work with just the laptop's keys, Touch Bar, and the mouse. It's certainly possible, but it's comparatively cumbersome and much slower. I TOTALLY understand your point about muscle memory, but in this case there really is a difference in efficiency. I now just carry a full-size keyboard with me. I'd prefer not to, though.
Isn't it possible to make the function keys display permanently in Touch Bar when using Protools?
I don't have a Touch Bar Mac yet, and I use a few F keys regularly in AutoCAD. I looked up how AutoCAD uses Touch Bar and they simply replace the F# button labels with icon labels when using their app, so the button layout is the same, just the button graphics are different (but consistent with the on screen UI).
But it's easier to complain than to do some research like you just did.
So...they just swapped out the keyboard, LED screen and the CPU and memory! It probably took Apple engineer in charge about 1/2 hour to do and have it go to quality control. Will Apple give us a gold MacBook Pro color?
You obviously have no idea how much engineering goes into even "minor" changes.
In this case the updated MBP does not use the same keyboard and screen as the 16". They had to be designed from scratch for the smaller chassis. Then they were tested and then redesigned and retested to make sure they worked properly. As far as the CPU, that likely at least required fresh firmware, if not board level changes, either of which would have had to be designed, tested, adjusted to fix any unexpected problems, adjusted again, and so on. Even minor changes are a hell of a lot of work by a team that put in a lot of hours to make it work right. In some ways it's harder to update an existing product than it is to blue sky design a new product without any legacy constraints.
Oh please. The biggest company in the world and this is the best they could do because you think it take a lot of engineering? Any other company and you would be calling them out but Apple gets a free ride? 🥱
So clearly it's possible to create a thin and light laptop with a dGPU. A lower power dGPU like the MX250 or MX350 could also be used.
Customers of some gaming laptops should bear in mind that performance while plugged in and unplugged are different. It's not uncommon for a high performance dGPU in laptop to be restricted to 1/3rd its performance while unplugged. There's always a cost.
That's not the case with the Razer's dGPU at all.
Some benchmarks:
Battlefield V (ultra)
Plugged in - 40 fps Battery - 38 fps
Overwatch (epic)
Plugged in - 68 fps Battery - 65 fps
Shadow of the Tomb Raider (highest)
Plugged in - 33 fps Battery - 31 fps
Again, a dGPU in a 13" laptop can be done without completely ruining the form factor.
Are these with the MX150 or the GTX1650? The MX150 isn't much better, if at all, than Ice Lake G7 graphics, and MX GPUs typically aren't down-clocked while unplugged. Don't know the power usage of the GTX1650. If it is running at 50 to 100 W there will be a consequence to that. If it is running at 25 to 50 W, it's going to squeak by.
So clearly it's possible to create a thin and light laptop with a dGPU. A lower power dGPU like the MX250 or MX350 could also be used.
Customers of some gaming laptops should bear in mind that performance while plugged in and unplugged are different. It's not uncommon for a high performance dGPU in laptop to be restricted to 1/3rd its performance while unplugged. There's always a cost.
That's not the case with the Razer's dGPU at all.
Some benchmarks:
Battlefield V (ultra)
Plugged in - 40 fps Battery - 38 fps
Overwatch (epic)
Plugged in - 68 fps Battery - 65 fps
Shadow of the Tomb Raider (highest)
Plugged in - 33 fps Battery - 31 fps
Again, a dGPU in a 13" laptop can be done without completely ruining the form factor.
Are these with the MX150 or the GTX1650? The MX150 isn't much better, if at all, than Ice Lake G7 graphics, and MX GPUs typically aren't down-clocked while unplugged. Don't know the power usage of the GTX1650. If it is running at 50 to 100 W there will be a consequence to that. If it is running at 25 to 50 W, it's going to squeak by.
So clearly it's possible to create a thin and light laptop with a dGPU. A lower power dGPU like the MX250 or MX350 could also be used.
Customers of some gaming laptops should bear in mind that performance while plugged in and unplugged are different. It's not uncommon for a high performance dGPU in laptop to be restricted to 1/3rd its performance while unplugged. There's always a cost.
That's not the case with the Razer's dGPU at all.
Some benchmarks:
Battlefield V (ultra)
Plugged in - 40 fps Battery - 38 fps
Overwatch (epic)
Plugged in - 68 fps Battery - 65 fps
Shadow of the Tomb Raider (highest)
Plugged in - 33 fps Battery - 31 fps
Again, a dGPU in a 13" laptop can be done without completely ruining the form factor.
Are these with the MX150 or the GTX1650? The MX150 isn't much better, if at all, than Ice Lake G7 graphics, and MX GPUs typically aren't down-clocked while unplugged. Don't know the power usage of the GTX1650. If it is running at 50 to 100 W there will be a consequence to that. If it is running at 25 to 50 W, it's going to squeak by.
What a Horrible, Terrible, No good for nothing, disappointing, mess of a Laptop. Not even worthy of the title MacBook Pro. More like uh, MacBook-NO!! Pass on this one if you are any ounce of smart. If you call yourself any-bit of truly a Mac/Apple fan, you will demand more from this company. You are in a way being played by them, holding back the tech they know they can deliver. Do the right thing, you deserve it, demand MORE!!!
This sounds like a great update. I bought a 13” MBP last fall and would have loved to have made it 32GB RAM with 4TB SSD, along with an updated keyboard. I also like having my Blackmagic eGPU to drive Photoshop liquify, etc.
Comments
"Keep in mind, however, that the MacBook Air has lower-wattage Y-series chips, which are optimized for productivity tasks and energy efficiency. The low-end MacBook Pros are equipped with faster U-series Intel processors."
So the MBP would have better performance and likely able to stay in turbo boost longer, at higher frequencies...plus the significantly faster RAM. Not sure if the chip cache differs as well.
Battery life is another factor. In a smaller form factor, battery life becomes more susceptible to processor demands so you would have to increase the size of the case if you wanted to maintain Apple’s standards for battery life. This affects portability, which is also required to assist with airflow and convective cooling. These changes would demand a higher wattage charging brick.
All these things have a cascading effect that destroys the mission of the 13” MBP.
The 13” is for the pro user who values portability over absolute processing power. The 16” is for those who value processing power over portability.
So I'll add one more thing to that.
Noise level:
MBP - 29 dB(A) idle / 33 dB(A) load mid / 41.8 dB(A) load max
Razer - 30 dB(A) idle / 33.9 dB(A) load mid / 38.1 dB(A) load max
So clearly it's possible to create a thin and light laptop with a dGPU. A lower power dGPU like the MX250 or MX350 could also be used.
Some benchmarks:
Battlefield V (ultra)
Plugged in - 40 fps
Battery - 38 fps
Overwatch (epic)
Plugged in - 68 fps
Battery - 65 fps
Shadow of the Tomb Raider (highest)
Plugged in - 33 fps
Battery - 31 fps
Again, a dGPU in a 13" laptop can be done without completely ruining the form factor.
A 2020 Macbook Air with quad-core Ice Look is probably the best option. It may be better than the 2-port TB3 2020 MBP13 models.
Are these with the MX150 or the GTX1650? The MX150 isn't much better, if at all, than Ice Lake G7 graphics, and MX GPUs typically aren't down-clocked while unplugged. Don't know the power usage of the GTX1650. If it is running at 50 to 100 W there will be a consequence to that. If it is running at 25 to 50 W, it's going to squeak by.
But it's easier to complain than to do some research like you just did.