Apple MacBook Pro with M1 Review(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Apple MacBook Pro with M1 Review
https://www.theverge.com/21570497/apple-macbook-pro-2020-m1-review
100 comments
Not only is most desktop software not well suited to touch interactions, touchscreens on laptops are also an ergonomic nightmare.
Try reaching your hand up to touch your monitor and hold it there for a minute. Now try pretending you’ll do this for an 8 hour workday.
It’s a useless feature in search of a use-case.
Try reaching your hand up to touch your monitor and hold it there for a minute. Now try pretending you’ll do this for an 8 hour workday.
It’s a useless feature in search of a use-case.
>It’s a useless feature in search of a use-case.
This was true until just now. The use case is right at the end of OP's quote. These laptops now run iOS apps that are designed with touch as their primary or only interface. It is weird to include the functionality to run these apps but not the functionality to interact with them properly.
This was true until just now. The use case is right at the end of OP's quote. These laptops now run iOS apps that are designed with touch as their primary or only interface. It is weird to include the functionality to run these apps but not the functionality to interact with them properly.
I think this is more of a nudge to Slack and Discord (and certain others) to make their Mac apps based on their iPad apps instead of Electron. And for some games to add keyboard support.
And once they do, others will follow. Except Google or Facebook, which will remain website-only because their whole businesses is based on ad networks across the web.
I don't think iOS apps that have poor UX on the Mac will be allowed in the Mac App Store long term.
And once they do, others will follow. Except Google or Facebook, which will remain website-only because their whole businesses is based on ad networks across the web.
I don't think iOS apps that have poor UX on the Mac will be allowed in the Mac App Store long term.
> Not only is most desktop software not well suited to touch interactions, touchscreens on laptops are also an ergonomic nightmare.
I think the opposite form factor would make more sense: an iPad Pro that runs macOS. You could have a laptop style dock but allow it to be used in tablet mode too.
I think the opposite form factor would make more sense: an iPad Pro that runs macOS. You could have a laptop style dock but allow it to be used in tablet mode too.
I agree with everything you just said except this conclusion:
“It’s a useless feature in search of a use-case”
Sometimes it’s going to be easier to pinch to zoom, for example, than do the same thing with a keyboard or mouse.
Touch is no longer an expensive feature to add, so it makes sense to add it for certain use cases.
Also imagine a Mac being used in a kiosk situation where an iPad isn’t big enough.
I wouldn’t be surprised if we eventually get a Mac that is essentially a giant iPad in form factor which can operate in both modes. On a stand to act like a desktop, or on the table, to act as a giant iPad. It would make little sense to disable touch when in upright mode.
“It’s a useless feature in search of a use-case”
Sometimes it’s going to be easier to pinch to zoom, for example, than do the same thing with a keyboard or mouse.
Touch is no longer an expensive feature to add, so it makes sense to add it for certain use cases.
Also imagine a Mac being used in a kiosk situation where an iPad isn’t big enough.
I wouldn’t be surprised if we eventually get a Mac that is essentially a giant iPad in form factor which can operate in both modes. On a stand to act like a desktop, or on the table, to act as a giant iPad. It would make little sense to disable touch when in upright mode.
You can pinch to zoom with a trackpad.
I too assume touch based Macs are coming at some point. But I expect them to live alongside conventional laptops for as long as people continue to buy them. Whenever I’ve tried different kind of convertibles they’ve felt like compromises. The tablet and the laptop seem like the best version of each.
I too assume touch based Macs are coming at some point. But I expect them to live alongside conventional laptops for as long as people continue to buy them. Whenever I’ve tried different kind of convertibles they’ve felt like compromises. The tablet and the laptop seem like the best version of each.
Not everyone can use a trackpad.
I’m curious: when would someone be able to use a touchscreen to pinch to zoom, but not be able to use a trackpad to make the same gesture? Is this an accessibility issue or just a question of what hardware is present?
An accessibility issue. Plenty of people with RSI for example can use a vertical mouse or other adapted pointing device, but not use a trackpad.
Orientation matters a lot.
Orientation matters a lot.
My own limited personal experience is that a touchscreen is basically useless in a conventional laptop whose hinge only opens to 135-180 degrees. Once you can open the screen 360 degrees, you have a fighting chance at being able to take handwritten notes and drawings on a somewhat ergonomic convertible tablet. But I've never had to do this much, and have always preferred pen and paper.
You're envisioning using a touchscreen device much like you'd use your smartphone which is flawed to say the least. Having used a touchscreen laptop for the last 6+ years, I assure you there's a place for touch in laptops. The arguments against touch on a laptop are much like arguing against any other peripheral used.
> Try reaching your hand up to touch your monitor and hold it there for a minute. Now try pretending you’ll do this for an 8 hour workday.
This is asinine and you know it. That's akin to arguing that we shouldn't use mice or touchpads by saying "just try typing with an onscreen keyboard all day using point and click."
> Try reaching your hand up to touch your monitor and hold it there for a minute. Now try pretending you’ll do this for an 8 hour workday.
This is asinine and you know it. That's akin to arguing that we shouldn't use mice or touchpads by saying "just try typing with an onscreen keyboard all day using point and click."
>This is asinine and you know it
Why do you think we use mice and keyboards instead of touchscreens for serious work? Gorilla arm syndrome has been known since the Apple 1.
Why do you think we use mice and keyboards instead of touchscreens for serious work? Gorilla arm syndrome has been known since the Apple 1.
We originally just used keyboards, the mouse was introduced as the technology evolved. The mouse didn't display the keyboard. The same thing is happening now and touchscreens will not display the keyboard or mouse, they will compliment them just as the mouse did the keyboard.
"Serious work" is determined by the value it provides, not the way it's produced.
"Serious work" is determined by the value it provides, not the way it's produced.
Input methods are additive to the user experience. No one is proposing that you use touch exclusively on your laptop. It becomes of of multiple input methods, with keyboard, mouse/trackpad, voice, that are appropriate for different use cases and different times. It is about options and flexibility.
I frequently use an iPad on a keyboard stand. I frequently switch controls depending on what I’m doing. Sometimes just to induce variety to help avoid RSI.
I frequently use an iPad on a keyboard stand. I frequently switch controls depending on what I’m doing. Sometimes just to induce variety to help avoid RSI.
Older people love touchscreens on laptops and use the feature very heavily (I think my mother touches her Surface Book's screen in laptop mode more than the trackpad). I see it as a nice to have when I'm recommending laptops for others even if I hardly ever use it myself. It doesn't have to be a revolutionary new input style that apps transform to make use of, and I think that's where Apple gets stuck because that's so alien to their design philosophy.
Lots of options for interaction gives less repetitive movements.
I’ve used windows laptops with touchscreens a lot and never really used the touchscreen. There doesn’t seem to be a point.
The most annoying thing that can happen to a laptop short of breaking is smudges on the screen. I really don't want to ever have to be required to physically touch the screen in order to complete any operation.
I have a Yoga 720 with a touchscreen and honestly the only time I use the touch is inadvertently when I'm wiping a piece of dust or the like off the screen. Every time it is a bit of a shock.
The form just doesn't conduce itself to touch. As someone earlier said, even if Apple does eventually add touch, they need to figure out the collision with iOS to allow functional use without requiring it.
The form just doesn't conduce itself to touch. As someone earlier said, even if Apple does eventually add touch, they need to figure out the collision with iOS to allow functional use without requiring it.
I used to have a Surface, and when I was using it with the keyboard the most common thing I'd do on the touchscreen was scrolling. You can extend your arm out and rest your wrist off to the side, which puts your thumb in a nice spot to reach an inch or two at the bottom of the screen.
I used pinch to zoom on the web as well. It's just nicer than weird key combos like ctrl-wheel, and your average user doesn't even know that exists. But I bet they know about pinch to zoom.
I used pinch to zoom on the web as well. It's just nicer than weird key combos like ctrl-wheel, and your average user doesn't even know that exists. But I bet they know about pinch to zoom.
I've found it has uses with pairing.
Otherwise yea I agree.
Otherwise yea I agree.
I firmly believe that it's downright impossible to give a great experience with the same UI using touch/keyboard+mouse. You're just bound to have ugly tradeoffs in usability xor visuals.
It also seems to me like an ergonomic nightmare. I'm curious to hear if people who use their iPads like laptops (with a keyboard and trackpad) feel like they want to reach for the screen. I'd imagine it's a last resort.
It also seems to me like an ergonomic nightmare. I'm curious to hear if people who use their iPads like laptops (with a keyboard and trackpad) feel like they want to reach for the screen. I'd imagine it's a last resort.
I often use an iPad in a keyboard case and I have a BT mouse. I constantly switch control methods depending on the situation. Sometimes you want precision and use the keyboard or mouse. Other times you want more interaction and will use the touch screen. Scrolling is often easier using touch. If I had a touchpad, the mix might shift a little but not drastically. I also like to switch up controls as a hedge against RSI.
Touch is not an ergonomic nightmare and it is not the last resort. It’s just an option where appropriate.
Touch is not an ergonomic nightmare and it is not the last resort. It’s just an option where appropriate.
I have a laptop with touchscreen, hardly ever use it. In most cases it's a mistake that i touch the screen and then it does something i didn't want it to do.
Touchscreens on laptops only make sense to me if you can wrap the screen around completely, and use it like a tablet, like many of the lenovo yoga models allow you to do.
Touchscreens on laptops only make sense to me if you can wrap the screen around completely, and use it like a tablet, like many of the lenovo yoga models allow you to do.
I used a Windows laptop with touchscreen for a while. While the touchscreen was never the primary input method it was nice to have it for some operations where more interactivity was called for or just to give my hands a break from the mouse or keyboard. It’s nice just to have options.
Most users are not asking for touchscreens on their Mac laptops just like no one wants a touchscreen TV.
I'd settle for turning the trackpad into a second display and supporting Apple Pencil input. I'd keep it turned off most of the time, but it would be amazing to be able to flip it on and have it zoom into part of the main display in order to handwrite or draw something now and then.
You can essentially already do that by using an iPad in sidecar mode.
Which is honestly super cool! However, I don't have an iPad, and given my use cases, I don't need/want one that much. I feel like the Apple trackpad's unparalleled touch input would be perfect if it also served as a second display... I guess the right answer is in fact an iPad, with that extra real estate for drawing.
> compared to the last version of this [Macbook Pro] model we reviewed in 2019, the new one has no concerns with its keyboard, excellent battery life, and even better performance. It’s an upgrade all around.
That's the most important part.
That's the most important part.
> We found one strange Rosetta bug in this test: we set Premiere to export at a 40mb/s bitrate, but in Rosetta across three M1 Macs, it would deliver… 20. When we set it to 80mb/s, it delivered 40. Sure. We told Adobe, and the company gently reminded us that running Creative Cloud apps in Rosetta 2 is unsupported. So... be careful out there.
Rosetta 2 might be a bumpy ride, but nice to see that Creative Cloud tools even work in it.
Rosetta 2 might be a bumpy ride, but nice to see that Creative Cloud tools even work in it.
Rosetta 2 is not installed by default, you are prompted to install it for the first run of an x64 app - but only in the gui.
If you run an x64 app from the command line, directly or prefixed with `arch -arch x86_64`, it will simply fail. You have to double-click an x64 .app bundle in the Finder to trigger the "Would you like to install Rosetta?" popup:
https://s.sneak.berlin/@sneak/105230913279059988
Here's how to trigger it on a blank/fresh install (where presumably 100% of the default apps are ARM native) by forcing an Apple fat binary to launch with Rosetta in x64 mode:
https://www.notion.so/Run-x86-Apps-including-homebrew-in-the...
(tldr: duplicate terminal.app, get info on the copy, tick "open with rosetta", double click it.)
Here's an interesting Big Sur bug I noticed while doing so:
https://s.sneak.berlin/@sneak/105230920548563835
If you run an x64 app from the command line, directly or prefixed with `arch -arch x86_64`, it will simply fail. You have to double-click an x64 .app bundle in the Finder to trigger the "Would you like to install Rosetta?" popup:
https://s.sneak.berlin/@sneak/105230913279059988
Here's how to trigger it on a blank/fresh install (where presumably 100% of the default apps are ARM native) by forcing an Apple fat binary to launch with Rosetta in x64 mode:
https://www.notion.so/Run-x86-Apps-including-homebrew-in-the...
(tldr: duplicate terminal.app, get info on the copy, tick "open with rosetta", double click it.)
Here's an interesting Big Sur bug I noticed while doing so:
https://s.sneak.berlin/@sneak/105230920548563835
The native Apple Silicon version of Photoshop is already available in beta. Most professional apps (the ones that cost real money) will be available natively within a year.
I saw something yesterday where Rosetta 2 ran apps faster than real Intel chips on the M1. Crazy
It was noted years ago (https://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/1999/HPL-1999-78.html) that dynamic runtime optimization could speed up native programs (aka x86 on x86, or in the above case pa-risc on pa-risc).
But in the end, the reason we don't have similar systems everywhere today is that the vast majority of the benifit has been consumed by modern OoO machines and Profile guided optimization. If your seeing significant x86 speedups in rosetta its likely one of two things are happening.
So you could be running very poorly optimized x86 code, or its a system call/graphics/etc heavy benchmark which is spending the majority of its time in the OS. The latter was a big conversation during the early PPC years when apple was claiming their machines were faster than x86's running x86 code because of this one x86 benchmark that ran better on a PPC mac (can't remember the name). But it turned out it was mostly an OS benchmark, and 99% of the time it was just measuring native PPC macos performance vs windows95.
The former (poorly optimized x86) can happen for a number of reasons, one of the most common is people targeting the base x86-64 instruction set and ignoring avx/etc, or just simply unoptimized builds.
But in the end, the reason we don't have similar systems everywhere today is that the vast majority of the benifit has been consumed by modern OoO machines and Profile guided optimization. If your seeing significant x86 speedups in rosetta its likely one of two things are happening.
So you could be running very poorly optimized x86 code, or its a system call/graphics/etc heavy benchmark which is spending the majority of its time in the OS. The latter was a big conversation during the early PPC years when apple was claiming their machines were faster than x86's running x86 code because of this one x86 benchmark that ran better on a PPC mac (can't remember the name). But it turned out it was mostly an OS benchmark, and 99% of the time it was just measuring native PPC macos performance vs windows95.
The former (poorly optimized x86) can happen for a number of reasons, one of the most common is people targeting the base x86-64 instruction set and ignoring avx/etc, or just simply unoptimized builds.
I wonder why the performance for Microsoft's Surface Pro X under performs so much in comparison... Color me surprised, I didn't know ARM could perform so well for desktop applications.
Because Microsoft, much like most of the ecosystems around ARM, didn't build their own CPU. They got an off the shelf mobile chipset, customised it slightly, rebranded it and then chucked the whole shit heap of windows on top.
I have also heard that Microsoft put lower priority on the x86 emulation layer, because they felt like if it was really good, developers would have no incentive to make native compiles.
While this sounds instinctively ridiculous to me, as of late I’ve become very cognizant of general laziness in our industry, so who knows…
While this sounds instinctively ridiculous to me, as of late I’ve become very cognizant of general laziness in our industry, so who knows…
> I have also heard that Microsoft put lower priority on the x86 emulation layer, because they felt like if it was really good, developers would have no incentive to make native compiles.
It's not surprising to me, Microsoft has always prided on having backwards compatibility as much as possible so this is in character for them
It's not surprising to me, Microsoft has always prided on having backwards compatibility as much as possible so this is in character for them
That’s about right. I remember when they switched windows phone 7 from CE to NT with similar arrogance and everyone went pfft and walked away.
Is any web developer planning to get the new Apple Silicon Macs?
How's docker support (for ARM and x86 images)? Do the major IDEs work on Rosetta? What's support looking like for languages like GO, Rust now/in the near future?
How's docker support (for ARM and x86 images)? Do the major IDEs work on Rosetta? What's support looking like for languages like GO, Rust now/in the near future?
I just got one mbp.
Still in box and will only open after dinner. If you want to ping me in a week or so for feedback: brunomtsousa @-that-G company-mail-service.com
Still in box and will only open after dinner. If you want to ping me in a week or so for feedback: brunomtsousa @-that-G company-mail-service.com
Can you share some first impressions? I do front-end web dev mostly, using vim and sometimes VS Code, and usually with a Twitch stream in the background... thinking I might trade in this big 16-inch MBP for the M1 MBP.
Haven't setup the dev toolchain yet as it has been a busy day.
First impressions, battery is amazing. I put a 4k youtube video playing and kept using the macbook, after 30 minutes the % was still the same. I tried some online cpu benchmarks that were supposed to put pressure on the cpu at 100% (activity monitor showed something like that) and running one of them for around 5-6 minutes ate around 3% of battery.
Keyboard is a change from my mbp 15, it will take some time to get used to it.
The most amazing thing, and I was using it side by side with the mbp 15 (i9 16Gb) is the M1 one (8gb) is so much snappier in Safari and opening apps. It really brings the 'joy' of iphone with the snappiness that things just move/show.
I still haven't tried a lot of Rosetta or non-arm stuff so no idea there.
First impressions, battery is amazing. I put a 4k youtube video playing and kept using the macbook, after 30 minutes the % was still the same. I tried some online cpu benchmarks that were supposed to put pressure on the cpu at 100% (activity monitor showed something like that) and running one of them for around 5-6 minutes ate around 3% of battery.
Keyboard is a change from my mbp 15, it will take some time to get used to it.
The most amazing thing, and I was using it side by side with the mbp 15 (i9 16Gb) is the M1 one (8gb) is so much snappier in Safari and opening apps. It really brings the 'joy' of iphone with the snappiness that things just move/show.
I still haven't tried a lot of Rosetta or non-arm stuff so no idea there.
All (-ish?) the core images have arm variants, and no need to change your "FROM" for those.
Docker itself does not currently work on M1 Macs, though.
No docker support at present - will be just ARM images when it is ready.
Docker is a wip: https://www.docker.com/blog/apple-silicon-m1-chips-and-docke...
.
Docker never really worked well on Mac to begin with.
Can’t wait for it to work how it should have worked from day one.
Can’t wait for it to work how it should have worked from day one.
vscode is getting an arm build by end of month apparently. I use vscode's remote development feature so the m1 macs are actually perfect for me.
Rust's Apple Silicon support is tracked here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/73908
Docker images are meant to be built once and run everywhere–tested on your dev server, test environment and production.
If you buy an ARM mac, it would be ideal to run ARM instances in the datacenter, but those are uncommon and expensive.
I discourage people from building ARM images and then rebuilding intel images later in the software lifecycle.
If you buy an ARM mac, it would be ideal to run ARM instances in the datacenter, but those are uncommon and expensive.
I discourage people from building ARM images and then rebuilding intel images later in the software lifecycle.
> If you buy an ARM mac, it would be ideal to run ARM instances in the datacenter, but those are uncommon and expensive.
Graviton2 instances are cheaper to run.
Graviton2 instances are cheaper to run.
For most people CI matching production should be enough. Even if there are issues with dev machines on a different architecture, I don't think that will be enough to stop people from grabbing the latest MBP when their next upgrade cycle appears.
I'm giving it another 6-10 months, and will probably pick up an actual "Pro" MacBook when they release one. All of what you mentioned should be supported by then as well.
Interesting for many games, Blizzard announced native support for World of Warcraft[0] on Apple Silicon. This give hope to other games from Blizzard coming to the platform as well and may encourage other developers to join in.
The M1 has been shown to run Civ6 and Rise to Tomb Raider through Rosetta faster than previous integrated GPU mac hardware[1]
[0]https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/wow/t/mac-support-update-n...
[1]https://www.macworld.com/article/3597198/13-inch-macbook-pro...
The M1 has been shown to run Civ6 and Rise to Tomb Raider through Rosetta faster than previous integrated GPU mac hardware[1]
[0]https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/wow/t/mac-support-update-n...
[1]https://www.macworld.com/article/3597198/13-inch-macbook-pro...
It's worth noting that while there are still quite a few caveats to the M1 MacBook Pro when looking at "pro workflows", this is only intended to replace the "low end" MacBook Pro which was already quite restricted.
Given all the missing parts could require a fair bit more development (eGPU support is not something iPhones have needed so far after all), I expect we'll see these on the next generation of CPUs, along with a range of new higher-end MacBook Pros, the iMac Pro, potentially even the Mac Pro.
Given all the missing parts could require a fair bit more development (eGPU support is not something iPhones have needed so far after all), I expect we'll see these on the next generation of CPUs, along with a range of new higher-end MacBook Pros, the iMac Pro, potentially even the Mac Pro.
I don't think we'll see a Mac Pro for a long time, this will be the most difficult (and interesting) one to see move over to ARM.
I predict it will disappear from the market within 2 years with no replacement leaving people to limp along on an iMac. Not like it hasn't happened before.
I've been wondering about that. I have a suspicion that the sales volumes don't justify the effort Apple needs to put into a device like that.
On the other hand it would be nice to see a slightly more grown up MacMini, something with expansion in mind.
On the other hand it would be nice to see a slightly more grown up MacMini, something with expansion in mind.
I think the Mac Pro exists for reasons independent of directly making a profit. Though Apple would always like to make a profit, of course.
It's a combination of a halo car and a triple whopper.
A halo car is a statement of intent from a car company. It's showing off "here's all our coolest stuff, and the direction we think things should go", while being impractically expensive and bought by almost nobody. By putting out the fancy new Mac Pro, Apple reassured professionals that it cared about them, and presumably that's making people less likely to nervously shift away from the platform even if all they actually need for their own work is a laptop or Mac Mini.
The triple whopper, famously, mostly existed to be a conspicuously more-excessive product that made the double whopper look more reasonable in comparison. If the Mac Pro exists at $6k base, buying a reasonably specced out iMac suddenly looks downright responsible!
Both of these things are good for Apple's bottom line.
It's a combination of a halo car and a triple whopper.
A halo car is a statement of intent from a car company. It's showing off "here's all our coolest stuff, and the direction we think things should go", while being impractically expensive and bought by almost nobody. By putting out the fancy new Mac Pro, Apple reassured professionals that it cared about them, and presumably that's making people less likely to nervously shift away from the platform even if all they actually need for their own work is a laptop or Mac Mini.
The triple whopper, famously, mostly existed to be a conspicuously more-excessive product that made the double whopper look more reasonable in comparison. If the Mac Pro exists at $6k base, buying a reasonably specced out iMac suddenly looks downright responsible!
Both of these things are good for Apple's bottom line.
Those are interesting points although I'm sure I read that Apple expects each product line to stand on its own two feet.
I have long believed the Mac Pro is a marketing tool that they could happily sell at a “loss” — Using quotes because the difference could be considered a marketing expense.
Given the price it likely is sold for more than cost; I’m sure the pricing is marketing driven too. It doesn’t just drag the top end of pricing upwards (the classic cheap/middle/extravagant split that drives buyers to the middle) but sends a message. The $1K monitor stand is a good example,
In this theory, it’s important to Apple that something be almost always available in the “Mac Pro” zone, but it’s not important enough that they need to be diligent about it.
They have this same phenomenon with the super-expensive watches (though I believe the $10K models are gone): basically identical to the cheapest one, and “wear out” (stop getting sw updates, no battery replacements, etc) in the same time too.
Given the price it likely is sold for more than cost; I’m sure the pricing is marketing driven too. It doesn’t just drag the top end of pricing upwards (the classic cheap/middle/extravagant split that drives buyers to the middle) but sends a message. The $1K monitor stand is a good example,
In this theory, it’s important to Apple that something be almost always available in the “Mac Pro” zone, but it’s not important enough that they need to be diligent about it.
They have this same phenomenon with the super-expensive watches (though I believe the $10K models are gone): basically identical to the cheapest one, and “wear out” (stop getting sw updates, no battery replacements, etc) in the same time too.
But wasn’t the monitor+stand cheaper than other professional monitors of similar quality? I remember it being cheaper, if not in a similar price range.
It seems more that they’re aimed at very different customers and use cases, rather than “extravagance”
It seems more that they’re aimed at very different customers and use cases, rather than “extravagance”
The other side is that if the efficiency and performance of these chips scales up to a big workstation, they could use them in their data centers to get much higher performance without a whole lot of extra power, and then sell whatever chips they don't need as Mac Pros.
I don't see that at all, they abandoned Xserve a long time ago.
Wouldn't the surplus of selling relatively few machines that cost a minimum of 5,999 US$ justify continuing its development?
Not a burn, they're clearly great, well built computers, but Apple obviously adds a lot of profit to all their machines, Mac Pro included.
Not a burn, they're clearly great, well built computers, but Apple obviously adds a lot of profit to all their machines, Mac Pro included.
I'm pretty sure I heard an Apple talking head saying that an Apple Silicon Mac Pro "in a smaller form factor" will be making its way here in the next couple years.
Maybe... maybe not, it may not be efficient to make an specific processor for those machines, but with the actual performance of the M1, you just have to put 4, 8, or 16 M1 processors side by side and call it a day. The big beefy intel machines are sometimes dual processor, so it's nothing that it's not already invented.
Why? ARM server CPUs are already a thing for years now.
Discrete GPUs probably, though I don't see a reason Apple couldn't cram more of their own GPU cores onto a die.
Super interesting part for me was - on this legacy apps would run just as fast as they would on Intel Macs.
But the real nut of it is that it has managed to make a chip so powerful that it can take the approximate 26% hit (see the following charts) in raw power to translate apps and still make them run just as fast if not faster than MacBooks with Intel processors.
https://techcrunch.com/2020/11/17/yeah-apples-m1-macbook-pro...
We run a standard Adobe Premiere export test, and the MacBook Air beats the latest Intel laptops with integrated graphics and holds its own with some laptops with proper discrete GPUs... the thing to pay attention to is that Adobe Premiere haven’t been optimized for this chip yet. They’re running through Apple’s Rosetta 2 translation layer.
https://www.theverge.com/21569603/apple-macbook-air-m1-revie...
But the real nut of it is that it has managed to make a chip so powerful that it can take the approximate 26% hit (see the following charts) in raw power to translate apps and still make them run just as fast if not faster than MacBooks with Intel processors.
https://techcrunch.com/2020/11/17/yeah-apples-m1-macbook-pro...
We run a standard Adobe Premiere export test, and the MacBook Air beats the latest Intel laptops with integrated graphics and holds its own with some laptops with proper discrete GPUs... the thing to pay attention to is that Adobe Premiere haven’t been optimized for this chip yet. They’re running through Apple’s Rosetta 2 translation layer.
https://www.theverge.com/21569603/apple-macbook-air-m1-revie...
More than awesome performance. Unfortunately, I'm quite reluctant to upgrading, I'll pass a generation or two. I don't want to spend time baffling around software issues.
Once they remove the touch bar and add back normal function keys I'll switch back from my ThinkPad to a Macbook Pro.
Just install Karabiner-Elements and make your digit keys turn into function keys with a press of a fn button. Easy to touch type and space-efficient
You can get the function keys with the Air, which has the same internals as this Pro.
Yup, this was my main reason for choosing the Air over the Pro. The touch bar is so unfortunate -- Apple could probably do something interesting with it, but ultimately they've basically left it untouched since they released it.
I suspect the only reason for its continued existence is to look cool in marketing photos.
I suspect the only reason for its continued existence is to look cool in marketing photos.
The air is missing the active cooling.
The next upgrade that puts apple chip in the 4 port pro would be the ideal version to purchase without a Touch Bar impacting usability and battery life.
The next upgrade that puts apple chip in the 4 port pro would be the ideal version to purchase without a Touch Bar impacting usability and battery life.
>The air is missing the active cooling.
You say this like it's a negative thing. For me, personally, computer fan noise is uniquely aggravating. I wanted to buy the 2015 Macbook specifically because it was fanless, but decided against it because a x86 CPU trying to run in that fanless form factor essentially made it a $1K netbook. Now that we're seeing the M1 MacBook Air rival the 16-inch MacBook Pro from last year in an extended CineBench test (even through Rosetta!), it's a different story entirely.
I'm not saying active cooling doesn't help, obviously the Air is going to thermal throttle in cases the Pro wouldn't. But I am saying that the new chipset needs active cooling a lot less than the old one did; not just cause it's RISC vs CISC but its also 'cause it's TSMC's 5nm process vs Intel's 14nm one.
Also, I'd give up on the hope that they'd get rid of their stupid meme bar on the Pro. They seem committed to it.
You say this like it's a negative thing. For me, personally, computer fan noise is uniquely aggravating. I wanted to buy the 2015 Macbook specifically because it was fanless, but decided against it because a x86 CPU trying to run in that fanless form factor essentially made it a $1K netbook. Now that we're seeing the M1 MacBook Air rival the 16-inch MacBook Pro from last year in an extended CineBench test (even through Rosetta!), it's a different story entirely.
I'm not saying active cooling doesn't help, obviously the Air is going to thermal throttle in cases the Pro wouldn't. But I am saying that the new chipset needs active cooling a lot less than the old one did; not just cause it's RISC vs CISC but its also 'cause it's TSMC's 5nm process vs Intel's 14nm one.
Also, I'd give up on the hope that they'd get rid of their stupid meme bar on the Pro. They seem committed to it.
>They seem committed to it.
I'm actually not sure about that. Did the MacBook Air ever have a Touch Bar? It seems like this particular MBP has one mostly because they used the exact same case and keyboard and screen and webcam and ports and etc from the previous MBP. Every review I've seen says other than the processor, it's exactly the same.
So there's a chance that this MBP has a Touch Bar merely because the previous one had it and they did not change the case for the M1, which would mean they could still make the change whenever they come out with a new case.
I'm actually not sure about that. Did the MacBook Air ever have a Touch Bar? It seems like this particular MBP has one mostly because they used the exact same case and keyboard and screen and webcam and ports and etc from the previous MBP. Every review I've seen says other than the processor, it's exactly the same.
So there's a chance that this MBP has a Touch Bar merely because the previous one had it and they did not change the case for the M1, which would mean they could still make the change whenever they come out with a new case.
The active cooling might not make as big a difference as you think… in The Verge’s benchmarks, literally the only place they saw a significant difference in speed was a multicore benchmark involving 30 solid minutes under full load. https://www.theverge.com/21569603/apple-macbook-air-m1-revie...
The results are excellent and give me hope they will be able to keep the chips from throttling with active cooling under the most stressful loads.
My current work laptop is a the 16 inch 2019 Macbook Pro with 8-Core Intel Core i9 at 2.3 GHz, and using the Intel Power Gadget, the form factor can not achieve the max frequency of 3.6ghz on a single core. I have the machine elevated on a stand with the maximum air flow, even with no external monitors connected, it still throttles.
My current work laptop is a the 16 inch 2019 Macbook Pro with 8-Core Intel Core i9 at 2.3 GHz, and using the Intel Power Gadget, the form factor can not achieve the max frequency of 3.6ghz on a single core. I have the machine elevated on a stand with the maximum air flow, even with no external monitors connected, it still throttles.
This appears on all threads. I understand some people don't like it, I'm a developer and I have mixed feelings (prefer touchbar for somethings, keys for others), but in general, I feel normal folks prefer the touchbar. I just got the mbp which after a few tests, will be my girlfriend's computer. She asked for the MBP over the Air because of the touchbar that she enjoys alot in her current mbp
[deleted]
Too bad it only supports 1 external display, especially for the macbook pro.
It is the entry level device, hopefully it will be a different picture in a few months.
Ultrawide monitor to the rescue!
In looking for another device to supplement a macbook pro, an ipad with magic keyboard or macbook air?
If you currently have an intel based mbp, choose the m1 mba if you think the m1 might replace the mbp in the future (i.e. same performance in more portable form factor)
Otherwise get the ipad with keyboard & pencil if it's just a 'supplement'. Pencil provides a whole new layer of input possibilities. If you read a lot of PDF documents, ipad is also really nice.
Otherwise get the ipad with keyboard & pencil if it's just a 'supplement'. Pencil provides a whole new layer of input possibilities. If you read a lot of PDF documents, ipad is also really nice.
I'm still cautiously skeptical about the new M1 chips. While for typical users running chrome, facetime, mail, etc it should be fine, I'm still wondering how it will fare under other workloads. I know apple mentioned that it will be able to export video much faster than intel chips, I'm still wondering what performance will look like for various tech stacks.
XCode initial and incremental build times are faster than a 16" MBP on all the M1 macs.
Very interesting. Do you have a reference for that?
Based on the analysis of https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-teste... , M1 is absolutely competitive with the best laptop class CPUs in raw performance, while being dramatically lower in power consumption. This is definitely one of the best out-of-order processor pipelines ever created.
In a way Nilay is right - ultimately it makes no sense not to allow touch interaction.
However Apple is also right in a different way. If apps are designed to work primarily with touch, reaching up all the time will negate the value of keyboard and touch pad and will be needlessly fatiguing.
Apps need to be designed to accommodate both kinds of usage.
Windows gets away with this because most apps are designed as laptop first.
By delaying the introduction of the touch screen, Apple is pressuring developers to make their Apps work in both contexts.
When they introduce a touch screen they’ll say something like “Back in 2020 most touch apps weren’t designed for the kinds of uses laptop and desktop users expect. Since then developers have done an amazing job of giving all our our users a great experience. Thanks in part to their hard work, today we’re proud to introduce the first computer that truly combines what we have learned about how to build great touch apps, with the decades of understanding that has gone into making MacOS into the worlds most advanced desktop operating system.”