I'd disagree. At least with 3 you know, simply by looking and without even having to try it, that the cable (well, the connector) is the problem, and not something else. You can rule out (or in) an entire bin of cables by eye.
Yeah, I think its a damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of situation. I see arguments on both sides. Would be nice if they at least got the iconography correct.
Standard, easy-to-spot-and-read icons or (even better) color-coding (or, better still, both), used by (forced on under licensing terms or by law [as in the EU charger laws], more probably, if it's to actually happen) every manufacturer, would mostly solve the problems with USB-C, you're right. I fear it's too late for that now, and we'll have to wait for whatever replaces it to have a shot at that. Guess we can try again some time around 2030 :-/
The part where the article mentions "it's a shame" is specifically for USBC/magsafe fast charging. So the "doesn't work" bit is charging ~30% slower than normal.
Of course theirs a whole other world of USBC where things don't quite work but here I don't think it's the worst, like an escalator breaking down but, hey, you still have stairs.
Finally replacing those dozen terrible USB port variants with a single good design is great, and solves problem (3). You’d finally only need one type of cable.
Routing all kinds of other protocols through that same port creates problem (2), and introduces a completely new kind of cable fragmentation. I think that’s orthogonal.
> At this point, “plug in and hope for the best” is the unofficial USB-C slogan.
If only. Certain USB-C devices can be damaged simply by plugging it into an incompatible charger/cable. The original Nintendo Switch being the most popular example.
I don’t understand all the praise around ditching USB-C. After all these years there is finally a port that works well for all use cases - charging, data transfer, video transfer… And now we have a company reverting back to a proprietary charging port and a legacy video port created to satisfy the entertainment industry.
Monitors have been shipping with usb-c in for years, and passive usb-c to displayport/hdmi cables exist.
Yeah. The USB C ports on my 15" MacBook Pro feel loose and are starting to become flaky. I hope the new ones fare better and also take less abuse with charging going through MagSafe on the new machine.
The "proprietary charging port" is a) optional (you can also charge on the USB-C ports up to 100W), b) extremely handy for those of us used to the old magsafe ports, and b) actually a USB 3.1 port with extended power range in disguise.
The power brick that ships with the Macbook Pro is a USB-C wall adapter. The magsafe cable is USB-C on one end and magsafe on the other. The extended power range spec allows going up to 240W instead of only 100W per the original USB power delivery spec. The 16" Macbook Pro can draw up to 140W.
There aren't currently available any standard USB-C cables that support extended power delivery. The higher current requirements entail more robust cables that will have a compatibility marking on them.
Having dual charging methods is pretty great if you’ve got a Thunderbolt/USB-C hub/monitor that is capable of USB-PD. It means you can leave your brick and MagSafe cable in your bag and let your hub/monitor charge while you’re at your desk.
These new laptops from Apple come with "Three Thunderbolt 4 (USB-C) ports"
So they are clearly not "ditching USB-C." They are just re-adding convenient ports; plug in HDMI in a pinch, throw your DSLR memory card right in the card reader.
Those things work very well without needing to remember an extra cable or adapter.
Compared to USB-C, Magsafe is safer against tripping, easier to plug in, charges faster, and their customers explicitly asked for it. If you want to use USB-C instead though, you can... knock yourself out.
That "legacy video port" supports cable runs of lengths far greater than USB-C, making it way the hell more useful for lots of use-cases. Plus most of the rest of the computing world still ships HDMI, so "I can't plug in to this" is mostly a Mac problem, and only solved well at places that are Mac-only or Mac-mostly—everywhere else, you better tote your stupid, expensive dongles around with you.
Basically, Apple's been pushing USBC-only for over half a decade now, and you can still plug directly in to 99% of video devices in the wild with HDMI, and only 10% (even that much? Probably more like 1-2%, because so many video displays are TVs) with USB-C, without resorting to an adapter or special cable that (again) users of most other brands don't need. It's not "legacy", it's "not that weird crap that only Mac users need".
Contrary to my MacBook, I don’t tend to leave my monitor laying around the house with the charger plugged in.
I’m clumsy, I tend to accidentally stumble of cables that are plugged in. (It doesn’t happen that often, of course, but once every few months is sufficient to kill my laptop.)
MagSafe is wonderful. The fact that it’s a proprietary connector is far less important than the fact that it protects me from my clumsiness.
I blame the designers of USB-C for not coming up with something that can offer the benefits of MagSafe.
(Of course, the battery life of the new laptops makes it less necessary to plug in while you’re sitting on the sofa…)
There were somewhat prominent USB-C power delivery issues with (various types) of PD USB-C hubs bricking M1 macbooks. At least in the beginning. Not sure, if fixed in firmware now, but in any case: The M1 chips may be particularly prone to failure from power irregularities - and apple bad at implementing standards and safeguards for interfacing with third party hardware (which I think is somewhat known). Maybe apple just doesn’t want to deal with buzz-killing details of USB-C PD.
They should have had 2 USB-A sockets. Or at the very least 1.
Many new external devices people use with MBPs still tend to come with USB-A. E.g. quality keyboards and mice. And then there's all of those very random and sometimes very useful devices from the past ~20 years that we all have around.
Strongly agreed, of all the stuff I miss from my 2014 MBP USB-A is still #1 (HDMI is a very close #2, though). The only shit I have that plugs into USB-C are Apple devices and a monitor purchased specifically to work with Apple devices. Everything else is still USB-A, and I'm not exactly rushing to replace it considering all other computing devices[0] in my house use USB-A data ports (the single Pi4 I have does charge over USB-C, but its data ports are, sanely, USB-A)
[0 EDIT] Actually I just remembered the pro controllers for my Switch are USB-C, and of course the unit itself charges over USB-C—but what's the data port on the Switch? USB-A! Because of course it is, because that's what's actually useful.
"Eh", there are other things than the USB-C sockets you can trade with to get volume for USB-A sockets. Also, your "just use a dongle" argument is a nonstarter.
Saw the same argument when they dropped parallel and serial ports on the original iMac. There are adapters that you can leave on the cable, or buy new cables. USB-C is the future and is here now.
A few years back I had to buy a usb serial adapter for, er, something or other. It was translucent blue. Apparently they made WAY too many of these for the iMac launch…
Yeah, I got taken in by the 1000 vs 500 nits thing. I was expecting this display to be brighter (which would be great for use in bright environments), but, no, it's the same as my old mb pro. Way faster tho!
Now I wonder, can the NITS unlocked by HDR content be controlled in some way? Can I write an HDR terminal emulator? I want to be able to use neovim outside without issues.
seems like probably right? i wonder why it's even limited; i'm guessing somehow it can't faithfully represent just "normal" colors at that level of brightness, but can do hightlights per HDR information. which which case something like a terminal emulator seems like that should be fine. (presumably some battery life impact too of course, but hopefully not too bad!)
otoh maybe it's something like only a small portion at once of the screen can be mega-bright, in which case the terminal emulator idea isn't going to work out. (though maybe you could super-bright an area around the current line, which would be better than nothing...)
Besides obvious gripes like price these seems pretty perfect in the Verge's eyes, speed, battery life, good screen and keyboard.One interesting sore spot is gaming.
These have good GPUs but poor gaming performance. They perform as good as the best for work related tasks but closer to midrange AMD/Nvidia products.
I wonder if this is a "if they build it they will come" and more games will be optimized for these chips? Obviously Apple also made some design decisions in focusing on "pro" work rather than gaming too.
Crossover is commercial wine and works decently enough.
The real issue is the combination of lacking native 32-bit support, restricted metal API, translation layer overhead, and Rosetta all taking a piece of the performance pie.
Crossover isn't free and doesn't have DXVK or professional support from Valve, though. The difference is pretty obvious when you compare compatibility lists: I'd consider Proton's 85%+ coverage of the Steam store to be 'decent enough', but the patchwork support Crossover offers is more along the lines of 'barely justifiable' from a price perspective.
I agree about the other issues you bring up though. The lack of 32-bit support is going to be a real stability challenge for anyone who wants to take Mac gaming seriously, and without a decent graphics API like Vulkan it will be exceptionally hard to court developers. Interestingly, it seems like Rosetta's overhead could be the bottleneck for a lot of these games too: if you watch the performance of GPU-light games like CS:GO, people struggle to surpass 90fps even at 720p on the new machines. Since ARM will always be punching up the abstraction layer to emulate x86, I suspect this may always be the case for Apple Silicon.
I am not too up to date technically on this, but since iOS apps can run now on M1 Macs so shouldn’t it be some way possible to hook joysticks to Macs and play those iOS games? Is it possible right now, or has Apple said something about such a scenario?
It's possible right now -- there are a handful of Apple Arcade games that run across iOS/iPadOS/tvOS/macOS and support controllers, touchscreens, and keyboard+mouse.
To name a few I've played and enjoyed:
- The Pathless
- The Last Campfire
- Cozy Grove
- Alba: A Wildlife Adventure
- FANTASIAN
- Mutazione
The games don't _have_ to ship via Apple Arcade to take advantage of the cross-platform tools, but most of the ones that have done the work have come out on AA.
Sure in OS X/macOs, but Macbook Pros have generally been decent gaming machines if you went the Boot Camp route which is no longer an option on Apple silicon.
The gaming should get at least somewhat better. Most games available on Mac today are x86 ports. New ports will start targeting arm instead, and that’ll be a help.
But ultimately the Mac will never be a first-class platform for most game devs.
My biggest takeaway from this is regarding the M1 Pro vs Max battery life impact.
If you’re spending $400 for RAM, then $200 from Pro to Max becomes obvious, but the battery life puts a damper on that since I’m not a creative.
Now, if Tensorflow could be properly supported then it might be definitely worth it. Though I’m surprised in their CPU benchmark the increase in memory bandwidth didn’t yield much better results.
Ah yes, that is the one I am looking to upgrade to, and hence the $200 difference from the M1 Pro.
I don't need 64GB, and $800 to go from 16GB (w/M1 Pro) to 64GB is highway robbery, despite the usual Apple inflated RAM pricing.
So, if 24 Core GPU can give 13-14 hours of battery, that'd be ideal.
Hey, a bit off-topic, but what do you think about only buying a 16GB version? According to a YT video I saw, the 16GB and 32GB Macs are roughly equal in terms of performance. [1]
I'm on the fence between buying a 32GB 24 core GPU Max version, or going for a cheaper 16GB 14 core GPU and using the leftover money to buy a home server with good GPU and RAM.
I'd like the Mac to sustain 95% of my programming, design, and data science needs, but I'd be willing to run the last 5% (gaming, very deep neural networks, or big datasets) remotely. Especially if I could get more bang for my buck buying a home station instead of maxing out the MacBook.
In 2019 Apple switched the MacBook Pro keyboards back to scissor switches from the problematic butterfly switch. That change increased the travel slightly though not quite to the same as the pre-2016 levels. Typing feel of the 2019 models was closer to the pre-2016 models, too.
I would expect these to be generally similar as they seem to use the same switch style. The important thing is that they don’t have the butterfly garbage.
When Alder Lake drops next month, the question goes away. Then answer is yes.
> This was underlined sharply by an After Effects update that arrived in the middle of our testing, which enabled better multi-core acceleration. After Effects is still an Intel app, which runs in the Rosetta emulation mode on these machines, but the update allowed the app to light up all 10 CPU cores and all 32 GPU cores, cutting export times on our test from 4:29 to… 41 seconds. (It also substantially sped up performance on our Intel-based Mac Pro, which is nice.)
From this point forward, all consumer processors have a GPGPU - either discrete or embedded on CPU package (AMD Zen has been this way since the beginning). Adapt or get supplanted by a new piece of software that takes advantage.
You may be better informed than I, but my understanding is that GPGPU would be like the integrated graphics found on AMD's Ryzen APUs based on the Zen architecture. But Zen is used in CPUs that do not have have integrated graphics.
You specify "either discrete or embedded" but how is that different from before, i.e. "from this point forward"?
Alder Lake CPUs also offer chips with our without integrated graphics, just as past Intel chips did. And, just as before, they are either paired with discrete graphics, or they have integrated graphics.
None of that seems to answer the OP question, though.
> Will Apple’s GPU ideas get fully supported by app developers?
Since you're talking about Alder Lake, I'm guessing the change you're really trying to speak on is the pairing of performance and efficiency cores, which has been common in mobile devices for quite a long time, but was brought to laptops with Apple Silicon, and finally reaches desktops with Alder Lake.
What is new is that the "integrated graphics" are programmable, like tiny little GeForce or Radeon chips. No, they aren't as powerful as discrete GPUs, but they can do a lot of work.
If you want your software to stay competitive, you'd better start using it. Notice the quote - a software update to After Effects caused the execution time of some job they were doing to go from 4.5 minutes to 0.75 minutes. Same hardware. Same workload. The only difference was software that took advantage of this new hardware paradigm that is going to start showing up everywhere...
> I'm guessing the change you're really trying to speak on is the pairing of performance and efficiency cores, which has been common in mobile devices for quite a long time, but was brought to laptops with Apple Silicon, and finally reaches desktops with Alder Lake.
It is that, AND guaranteed access to a programmable GPU
My charitable interpretation is that it means that only a narrow set of use cases are being used to judge this laptop. Perhaps the performance profile of this laptop is not so amazing for other types of users, who may still be better off with either an Intel Mac or a windows laptop. For example those that use virtual machines or boot camp to run windows alongside macOS are worse off with the move to Apple silicon. Those who play games are worse off. Those who write machine learning code for nvidia GPUs are worse off. And so on.
Well... Macs are very popular with front-end developers. They are powerful, portable, easy to use Unix machines. And front-end development, with all its crazy JS requirements, really demands a lot of compute power.
For backend developers it's a little different - it is handy to have an x86, considering a lot of your workloads will run on x86 servers (at least for the foreseeable future), and a Linux machine will match the server runtime more closely. You can emulate one, and the M1 is so powerful it can emulate an x86 faster than most x86's can be themselves, but it's more expensive. A better approach I've been using (works with Python) is to treat macOS as a Unix and don't look too closely to the OS running the program. There aren't many surprised down this road.
I've been working as a back-end developer primarily from Macs since 2016 and they are sweet machines - even the Intel ones. I also use a Linux laptop a lot and, quite frankly, if you match specs, your Dell will cost more than your Mac and be a lot uglier.
I was hoping for the review to have some more information about fan noise. The review mentioned:
> Even when running long benchmarks, like this 30-minute Cinebench test, the MacBook Pro’s fans rarely spun up.
But left out how noisy the fans were when they did spin up. Can anyone here that has one of these models comment on the fan noise compared with any of the latest intel models?
In the video version of the review it's touched on more. Their editor/lead video woman stated that after almost half an hour of exporting work the fan never turned off, and when it did she couldn't hear it, only felt the vibration.
At full speed the fan is similar in volume, or perhaps a bit quieter. However, they don’t seem to ever reach full speed during intense workloads, unlike the Intels which do it quickly and stay there. I had to use a utility to force them to max out.
The main reason I'm interested is that my previous 16 inch macbook pro would regularly go up to 90 degrees celsius. So, my hope is that it won't go above 50 degrees celsius... I don't want to burn my legs...
I have both. Whether it be dev work or music production, my old 16" from 2018 immediately gets hot and loud. On the flip side, I haven't heard the fans turn on on the new 16", and it barely gets warm. And its battery life lasts sooo much longer for similar workloads (despite me just having gotten a fresh battery replacement for the old laptop).
I can't wait for some Windows machines to follow suit and gain similar performance if possible. Still have to use Windows to play my 500+ games on Steam and GOG :( Actually the only reason to own a windows laptop.
assuming you mean switching to ARM/SoC style none of your games would be any faster because they would have to be emulated unless someone recompiled them.
Seems like nobody else cares about the inability to run Boot Camp on M1 Macs? There’s enough Windows-only software out there that I wouldn’t want to upgrade my older x86 MacBook Pro.
I haven’t read up much, but virtualization options like Parallels exist. Can’t say how well it works. Personally haven’t needed to use a Windows-only app in years.
I can think of few things other than (1) games, or (2) very old "enterprise" business software, that are 100% Windows-only today.
For the TINY amount of PC gaming that I do, I have an older Lenovo laptop laying around that suits my occasional needs. If I didn't have that, I'd probably buy an Intel NUC to use as my reverse-Mac-mini.
For business software, I assume that if I had a need for that, then my employer would issue me a PC instead of a MBP. I dunno, I've been at Mac shops for a decade now.
So, yeah. I'm sure that Boot Camp is still a thing for some people. But I think it's like an optical drive or a headphone jack. The vast majority today will never notice that it's gone.
Maybe you have some sort of weird proprietary lab software or such. There's a piece of portable sensor hardware I'm currently looking at, which needs to be attached to a computer and AFAIK only talks to Windows software. There's thousands of use cases like this.
It's not that your life stops if you're suddenly unable to run Windows on your daily driver, and "most" people only use the web browser anyway (why do they need a >$1000 machine for that, by the way?), but these things do cause problems or become a dealbreaker for some people.
Sure. Most won't notice or care. But that's sort of true by definition; Apple wouldn't make a product decision where most would notice and care. Most HN users are nerds, we see these things much more often than the majority.
This is just a response to your aside comment (the rest I am on board with).
Even if you just use Web browsers, cheap computers are cheap and not enjoyable to use. A $500 laptop is a steaming pile of crap. Imagine making your well-paid white collar employers use a computer with a bad screen, janky touchpad, and limited performance just because they don't do anything super intense with their machines?
Most work places keep their laptops for several years. Amortizing the cost of that over 2-4 years is not a big deal.
Also, a lot of Web apps and Electron app are ram and performance hogs, so getting a cheap computer doesn't make a ton of sense.
You don't need one of these MacBook Pros for everyone, but a MacBook Air is worth paying for every employee at my work (or an equivalent PC laptop).
But, yes, there is definitely software that is Windows only. Some places ran bootcamp for these needs, but others will get Windows machines just for these special use cases.
For some people who like to use Macs, but need one piece of Windows enterprise software every now and then, they may just go with a Windows machine without bootcamp.
I perfectly agree. It's just that when it comes to these points, I am quite annoyed that in the whole world, only Apple seems to realize that UX is a thing that's too subtle to design by committee.
In principle, we could have a $500 version of the 2009 polycarbonate Crackbook, which minus the short-lived screen hinges was the point where Apple hit a usability threshold that made it a dream to use a laptop. Since only Apple realizes this, they could demand a ridiculous UX premium even if they offered a laptop today with 2009-level hardware.
But hey, I suppose modern JavaScript on the web kills the hope of being able to use it with old hardware anyway, eh :P And those of us who care don't think twice about spending >$1000 on a laptop, it's the most important extension of your mind and that's worth the premium.
I expect lots of people care, though if it's an option for you VMWare does have a public beta of Fusion for the M1s[1] and I have seen people running Windows (11 even) under it.
1 step forward and two steps back. Now it has 2 soon-to-be obsolete ports — HDMI 2.1 and SD Express aren’t supported. All to save a dongle? If you’re carrying around a magsafe cable you can carry a dongle.
The slimmer design of the 2016 generation was really nice and had just as much battery life. A shame they threw out the touch bar entirely, with the hardware ESC it was absolutely fine. And they certainly didn’t take back the price increase it came with.
So I've observed something from many of the tests/reviews posted so far, as well as Apple's specs: Apple claims 200GBps memory bandwidth for the M1 Pro, and 400GBps for the M1 Max. Some tests show the M1 Max saturating the memory bandwidth between 200 - 240 GBps rates.
Maybe someone who understands better than me can explain these observations:
1. DDR5 RAM is supposedly 36-38GBps bandwidth, DDR4 3200 is about 25.6GBps bandwidth. (Supposedly Alder Lake is the first chipset to support DDR5.)
2. Maybe the 200-400 GBps rate advertised is the entire bus bandwidth for the SoC? If this is actual memory bandwidth, then Apple increased that bus speed 5-15x!
3. Maybe Apple divided the RAM into additional banks with more lanes to increase the bandwidth?
I've been very irritated by the pricing, but if Apple figured out how to optimize the memory bandwidth this much then maybe it's worth the extra cost per GB.
Did I catch on to something majorly different here?
Anandtechs article covers this in a lot of detail. But yeah it is supposed that 400GBps is peak bandwidth for the entire SoC. That’s CPU incl pow power cores, GPU, NPU and whatever else firing on all cylinders, in an ideal access pattern.
In the tests I had seen about the bandwidth question, the findings suggest that the CPU can only push the memory at a little over 200GBps but if you also have the GPU active it will use the additional bandwidth.
This is constant with the advantage of the M1 Max being the added GPU cores.
>If this is actual memory bandwidth, then Apple increased that bus speed 5-15x!
Yes because GPU requires lots of bandwidth. Top of the line Nvidia GPU has ~ 1TB/s memory bandwidth.
>I've been very irritated by the pricing, but if Apple figured out how to optimize the memory bandwidth this much then maybe it's worth the extra cost per GB.
You are not only paying for memory aka LPDDR5 chip, you are also paying for the additional memory controller. Which has an implication on yield and die size cost. Whether you think it is worth or still irritated by that pricing is of course subjective.
So then this is part of why it seems so fast, because the CPU is now approaching GPU memory bandwidths? Hmm, I really wonder what it'll look like in a year or so with the M2/M2Pro/M2MAX then.
Thanks for clarifying the extra memory controller, that's helpful too.
>because the CPU is now approaching GPU memory bandwidths?
No. The single core CPU performance has zero relation to memory bandwidth.[0] i.e You do not gain or loss any performance going from M1 Pro 10 Core with ~200GB/s Memory bandwidth to M1 Max 10 Core with ~400GB/s bandwidth. The additional memory bandwidth are there only to support GPU performance.
The reason why CPU performance is fast is slightly complicated. But to over-simplify it to two point, Apple has access to all the common code path on their platform and can optimise of it. e.g NSObject release is 5 times faster than on x86. Second being Apple managed to do something the whole industry thought ( at the time ) was impossible, having a wide decode and kept them well fed. You can read more about it here [1] on HN.
> what it'll look like in a year or so with the M2/M2Pro/M2MAX then.
You can take a look at [2], which is a chart from Nuvia, started by ex-Apple CPU architects. Given the amount of lead time in CPU design ( 3-4 years ), you can pretty much bet Apple will follow the path as shown by Nuvia to reach a Geekbench Score of 2000 within next 2-3 years.
Hope this answer your questions.
[0] CPU Performance is always latency sensitive. Hence the amount of cache matter much more than memory bandwidth. And Apple's SoC has always had large amount of cache compared to rest of the industry, even when it is a Smartphone SoC compared to Desktop part.
I actually like the thinness and the portability. I've never had a problem with butterfly keyboard. Maybe people should just stop eating chips while touching their laptops? Also quite against the proprietary charging and HDMI port. Never ever have I used a memory card slot in my macbooks in 10+ years either to be honest.
Card slot is immensely useful for flashing bootable drives for Raspberry Pis or the like.
Magsafe has always been great IMO, but I believe you can also charge the laptop via USB C. May just need the right specs on whatever brick you're using.
My new maxed out 16 inch just arrived. I'm going to compile my rust project on it and see how different it is once this transfer finishes. I don't think I've been this excited about new hardware since I was a teenager. Back then the difference between a new and old computer didn't require measuring.
Results are in. I did a cargo clean and cargo build with the internet connected, and then I disconnected it and did it again, since there's probably some re-downloading of dependencies if you're connected.
Old MBP16 from 2019: 1m13s
New MBP, M1Max: 46.71s
295 dependencies, including some common ones like hyper, serde and tokio.
I saw "Adobe Premiere Pro" benchmark everywhere for cross-platform. But I wonder if their output video quality is the same (when GPU/hardware encode enabled, they using diff codec)?
And in the above benchmark, is it comparing GPU accelerated M1 Max to non-GPU enabled PC (even they have a RTX)? Look at the chart, 3070 is slower than 3060. It's non-sense.
I watched a youtube video before, their M1 Max is twice faster than RTX 3090 machine on their Premiere test. What makes the diff :s
106 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 156 ms ] threadIt's a real shame.
Of course theirs a whole other world of USBC where things don't quite work but here I don't think it's the worst, like an escalator breaking down but, hey, you still have stairs.
Finally replacing those dozen terrible USB port variants with a single good design is great, and solves problem (3). You’d finally only need one type of cable.
Routing all kinds of other protocols through that same port creates problem (2), and introduces a completely new kind of cable fragmentation. I think that’s orthogonal.
If only. Certain USB-C devices can be damaged simply by plugging it into an incompatible charger/cable. The original Nintendo Switch being the most popular example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmgpcG_1cuI
Monitors have been shipping with usb-c in for years, and passive usb-c to displayport/hdmi cables exist.
The power brick that ships with the Macbook Pro is a USB-C wall adapter. The magsafe cable is USB-C on one end and magsafe on the other. The extended power range spec allows going up to 240W instead of only 100W per the original USB power delivery spec. The 16" Macbook Pro can draw up to 140W.
There aren't currently available any standard USB-C cables that support extended power delivery. The higher current requirements entail more robust cables that will have a compatibility marking on them.
So they are clearly not "ditching USB-C." They are just re-adding convenient ports; plug in HDMI in a pinch, throw your DSLR memory card right in the card reader.
Those things work very well without needing to remember an extra cable or adapter.
Basically, Apple's been pushing USBC-only for over half a decade now, and you can still plug directly in to 99% of video devices in the wild with HDMI, and only 10% (even that much? Probably more like 1-2%, because so many video displays are TVs) with USB-C, without resorting to an adapter or special cable that (again) users of most other brands don't need. It's not "legacy", it's "not that weird crap that only Mac users need".
I’m clumsy, I tend to accidentally stumble of cables that are plugged in. (It doesn’t happen that often, of course, but once every few months is sufficient to kill my laptop.)
MagSafe is wonderful. The fact that it’s a proprietary connector is far less important than the fact that it protects me from my clumsiness.
I blame the designers of USB-C for not coming up with something that can offer the benefits of MagSafe.
(Of course, the battery life of the new laptops makes it less necessary to plug in while you’re sitting on the sofa…)
Many new external devices people use with MBPs still tend to come with USB-A. E.g. quality keyboards and mice. And then there's all of those very random and sometimes very useful devices from the past ~20 years that we all have around.
[0 EDIT] Actually I just remembered the pro controllers for my Switch are USB-C, and of course the unit itself charges over USB-C—but what's the data port on the Switch? USB-A! Because of course it is, because that's what's actually useful.
i wouldn't want to trade usb-a ports for usb-c ports any day on a laptop since the usb-c tb4 ports are so powerful.
Now I wonder, can the NITS unlocked by HDR content be controlled in some way? Can I write an HDR terminal emulator? I want to be able to use neovim outside without issues.
I think it would be a fun hack to try.
otoh maybe it's something like only a small portion at once of the screen can be mega-bright, in which case the terminal emulator idea isn't going to work out. (though maybe you could super-bright an area around the current line, which would be better than nothing...)
(all of the above pure speculation, obviously)
These have good GPUs but poor gaming performance. They perform as good as the best for work related tasks but closer to midrange AMD/Nvidia products.
I wonder if this is a "if they build it they will come" and more games will be optimized for these chips? Obviously Apple also made some design decisions in focusing on "pro" work rather than gaming too.
The real issue is the combination of lacking native 32-bit support, restricted metal API, translation layer overhead, and Rosetta all taking a piece of the performance pie.
I agree about the other issues you bring up though. The lack of 32-bit support is going to be a real stability challenge for anyone who wants to take Mac gaming seriously, and without a decent graphics API like Vulkan it will be exceptionally hard to court developers. Interestingly, it seems like Rosetta's overhead could be the bottleneck for a lot of these games too: if you watch the performance of GPU-light games like CS:GO, people struggle to surpass 90fps even at 720p on the new machines. Since ARM will always be punching up the abstraction layer to emulate x86, I suspect this may always be the case for Apple Silicon.
Future still unclear but there's some GPU horsepower in every mac now.
To name a few I've played and enjoyed:
- The Pathless
- The Last Campfire
- Cozy Grove
- Alba: A Wildlife Adventure
- FANTASIAN
- Mutazione
The games don't _have_ to ship via Apple Arcade to take advantage of the cross-platform tools, but most of the ones that have done the work have come out on AA.
But ultimately the Mac will never be a first-class platform for most game devs.
If you’re spending $400 for RAM, then $200 from Pro to Max becomes obvious, but the battery life puts a damper on that since I’m not a creative.
Now, if Tensorflow could be properly supported then it might be definitely worth it. Though I’m surprised in their CPU benchmark the increase in memory bandwidth didn’t yield much better results.
Battery life, fan noise, and performance are my main reasons for upgrading.
I'm on the fence between buying a 32GB 24 core GPU Max version, or going for a cheaper 16GB 14 core GPU and using the leftover money to buy a home server with good GPU and RAM.
I'd like the Mac to sustain 95% of my programming, design, and data science needs, but I'd be willing to run the last 5% (gaming, very deep neural networks, or big datasets) remotely. Especially if I could get more bang for my buck buying a home station instead of maxing out the MacBook.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqiYSt4nAFs
I would expect these to be generally similar as they seem to use the same switch style. The important thing is that they don’t have the butterfly garbage.
https://macsx.com/which-macbooks-have-the-butterfly-keyboard...
Yep, that's going to be a big question mark for the next several months.
> This was underlined sharply by an After Effects update that arrived in the middle of our testing, which enabled better multi-core acceleration. After Effects is still an Intel app, which runs in the Rosetta emulation mode on these machines, but the update allowed the app to light up all 10 CPU cores and all 32 GPU cores, cutting export times on our test from 4:29 to… 41 seconds. (It also substantially sped up performance on our Intel-based Mac Pro, which is nice.)
From this point forward, all consumer processors have a GPGPU - either discrete or embedded on CPU package (AMD Zen has been this way since the beginning). Adapt or get supplanted by a new piece of software that takes advantage.
You specify "either discrete or embedded" but how is that different from before, i.e. "from this point forward"?
Alder Lake CPUs also offer chips with our without integrated graphics, just as past Intel chips did. And, just as before, they are either paired with discrete graphics, or they have integrated graphics.
None of that seems to answer the OP question, though.
> Will Apple’s GPU ideas get fully supported by app developers?
Since you're talking about Alder Lake, I'm guessing the change you're really trying to speak on is the pairing of performance and efficiency cores, which has been common in mobile devices for quite a long time, but was brought to laptops with Apple Silicon, and finally reaches desktops with Alder Lake.
If you want your software to stay competitive, you'd better start using it. Notice the quote - a software update to After Effects caused the execution time of some job they were doing to go from 4.5 minutes to 0.75 minutes. Same hardware. Same workload. The only difference was software that took advantage of this new hardware paradigm that is going to start showing up everywhere...
> I'm guessing the change you're really trying to speak on is the pairing of performance and efficiency cores, which has been common in mobile devices for quite a long time, but was brought to laptops with Apple Silicon, and finally reaches desktops with Alder Lake.
It is that, AND guaranteed access to a programmable GPU
For backend developers it's a little different - it is handy to have an x86, considering a lot of your workloads will run on x86 servers (at least for the foreseeable future), and a Linux machine will match the server runtime more closely. You can emulate one, and the M1 is so powerful it can emulate an x86 faster than most x86's can be themselves, but it's more expensive. A better approach I've been using (works with Python) is to treat macOS as a Unix and don't look too closely to the OS running the program. There aren't many surprised down this road.
I've been working as a back-end developer primarily from Macs since 2016 and they are sweet machines - even the Intel ones. I also use a Linux laptop a lot and, quite frankly, if you match specs, your Dell will cost more than your Mac and be a lot uglier.
> Even when running long benchmarks, like this 30-minute Cinebench test, the MacBook Pro’s fans rarely spun up.
But left out how noisy the fans were when they did spin up. Can anyone here that has one of these models comment on the fan noise compared with any of the latest intel models?
It sounded promising, like it rarely turns on.
I think you meant never turned on
Performance of what metric, or for what software, is lacking with the hardware you run Windows on?
Or are you talking more about efficiency and portability/battery life?
I think it's likely that Apple will offer Boot Camp for M1 Macs whenever Microsoft gets around to shipping Windows 11 for ARM in a non-beta form.
That was before Windows 11 was released. According to Parallels*, now you can just install normal Windows 11 releases.
* https://www.parallels.com/blogs/windows-11-tpm/
For the TINY amount of PC gaming that I do, I have an older Lenovo laptop laying around that suits my occasional needs. If I didn't have that, I'd probably buy an Intel NUC to use as my reverse-Mac-mini.
For business software, I assume that if I had a need for that, then my employer would issue me a PC instead of a MBP. I dunno, I've been at Mac shops for a decade now.
So, yeah. I'm sure that Boot Camp is still a thing for some people. But I think it's like an optical drive or a headphone jack. The vast majority today will never notice that it's gone.
It's not that your life stops if you're suddenly unable to run Windows on your daily driver, and "most" people only use the web browser anyway (why do they need a >$1000 machine for that, by the way?), but these things do cause problems or become a dealbreaker for some people.
Sure. Most won't notice or care. But that's sort of true by definition; Apple wouldn't make a product decision where most would notice and care. Most HN users are nerds, we see these things much more often than the majority.
Even if you just use Web browsers, cheap computers are cheap and not enjoyable to use. A $500 laptop is a steaming pile of crap. Imagine making your well-paid white collar employers use a computer with a bad screen, janky touchpad, and limited performance just because they don't do anything super intense with their machines?
Most work places keep their laptops for several years. Amortizing the cost of that over 2-4 years is not a big deal.
Also, a lot of Web apps and Electron app are ram and performance hogs, so getting a cheap computer doesn't make a ton of sense.
You don't need one of these MacBook Pros for everyone, but a MacBook Air is worth paying for every employee at my work (or an equivalent PC laptop).
But, yes, there is definitely software that is Windows only. Some places ran bootcamp for these needs, but others will get Windows machines just for these special use cases.
For some people who like to use Macs, but need one piece of Windows enterprise software every now and then, they may just go with a Windows machine without bootcamp.
In principle, we could have a $500 version of the 2009 polycarbonate Crackbook, which minus the short-lived screen hinges was the point where Apple hit a usability threshold that made it a dream to use a laptop. Since only Apple realizes this, they could demand a ridiculous UX premium even if they offered a laptop today with 2009-level hardware.
But hey, I suppose modern JavaScript on the web kills the hope of being able to use it with old hardware anyway, eh :P And those of us who care don't think twice about spending >$1000 on a laptop, it's the most important extension of your mind and that's worth the premium.
1: https://blogs.vmware.com/teamfusion/2021/09/fusion-for-m1-pu...
The slimmer design of the 2016 generation was really nice and had just as much battery life. A shame they threw out the touch bar entirely, with the hardware ESC it was absolutely fine. And they certainly didn’t take back the price increase it came with.
Maybe someone who understands better than me can explain these observations:
1. DDR5 RAM is supposedly 36-38GBps bandwidth, DDR4 3200 is about 25.6GBps bandwidth. (Supposedly Alder Lake is the first chipset to support DDR5.) 2. Maybe the 200-400 GBps rate advertised is the entire bus bandwidth for the SoC? If this is actual memory bandwidth, then Apple increased that bus speed 5-15x! 3. Maybe Apple divided the RAM into additional banks with more lanes to increase the bandwidth?
I've been very irritated by the pricing, but if Apple figured out how to optimize the memory bandwidth this much then maybe it's worth the extra cost per GB.
Did I catch on to something majorly different here?
https://www.anandtech.com/show/17024/apple-m1-max-performanc...
This is constant with the advantage of the M1 Max being the added GPU cores.
>If this is actual memory bandwidth, then Apple increased that bus speed 5-15x!
Yes because GPU requires lots of bandwidth. Top of the line Nvidia GPU has ~ 1TB/s memory bandwidth.
>I've been very irritated by the pricing, but if Apple figured out how to optimize the memory bandwidth this much then maybe it's worth the extra cost per GB.
You are not only paying for memory aka LPDDR5 chip, you are also paying for the additional memory controller. Which has an implication on yield and die size cost. Whether you think it is worth or still irritated by that pricing is of course subjective.
Thanks for clarifying the extra memory controller, that's helpful too.
No. The single core CPU performance has zero relation to memory bandwidth.[0] i.e You do not gain or loss any performance going from M1 Pro 10 Core with ~200GB/s Memory bandwidth to M1 Max 10 Core with ~400GB/s bandwidth. The additional memory bandwidth are there only to support GPU performance.
The reason why CPU performance is fast is slightly complicated. But to over-simplify it to two point, Apple has access to all the common code path on their platform and can optimise of it. e.g NSObject release is 5 times faster than on x86. Second being Apple managed to do something the whole industry thought ( at the time ) was impossible, having a wide decode and kept them well fed. You can read more about it here [1] on HN.
> what it'll look like in a year or so with the M2/M2Pro/M2MAX then.
You can take a look at [2], which is a chart from Nuvia, started by ex-Apple CPU architects. Given the amount of lead time in CPU design ( 3-4 years ), you can pretty much bet Apple will follow the path as shown by Nuvia to reach a Geekbench Score of 2000 within next 2-3 years.
Hope this answer your questions.
[0] CPU Performance is always latency sensitive. Hence the amount of cache matter much more than memory bandwidth. And Apple's SoC has always had large amount of cache compared to rest of the industry, even when it is a Smartphone SoC compared to Desktop part.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25257932
[2] https://www.anandtech.com/show/15967/nuvia-phoenix-targets-5...
The Keyboard reliability problem has nothing to do with that.
Magsafe has always been great IMO, but I believe you can also charge the laptop via USB C. May just need the right specs on whatever brick you're using.
Old MBP16 from 2019: 1m13s
New MBP, M1Max: 46.71s
295 dependencies, including some common ones like hyper, serde and tokio.
I watched a youtube video before, their M1 Max is twice faster than RTX 3090 machine on their Premiere test. What makes the diff :s