Apple going beyond 14nm - new 13in macbook pro found.

[Donut417]

3 hours ago, scuff gang said:

operating system

Some of us just dont like WIndows 10. And Linux is not as main stream as Windows and MacOS. 

[Brooksie359]

2 hours ago, Zando Bob said:

Personal preference is massive too. It's the reason I use macOS for work and run iPhones. A friend was nonplussed at first because I genuinely don't care if an Android phone outperforms whatever the current iPhone is, those were never a consideration in the first place. It would only matter if the performance deficit were so massive that the iPhone was not a good user experience. 

It's the same with computers. Sure you can get a much more powerful PC for the price of a Mac, but if my experience with many, many personal Windows PCs in many different configs - and many Windows PCs here at work as well - is any indication, for how I like to do things I will have a much worse user experience on Windows. So again, it's not even a consideration, and the performance difference would only matter if it heavily impacts the usability of the Mac (it does not, even the base model 2019 13" is insanely powerful for what I do). 

 

Also a Mac just works with my iPhone and Apple Watch. That's another thing people fail to take into account, Apple's ecosystem works together very very well. If you like how it works, there's very little reason to leave it. Especially if you already invested the money to get into it. There isn't a good alternative from other OEMs AFAIK, seems hit or miss, aand I'd need to invest in that side as well if I wanted at least similar functionality to what I have now. 
 

I covered the logo with a dbrand skin

While I will likely never understand why people like the mac operating system I can understand why people would pay extra if that is what they wanted. As a gamer MacOS makes no sense so windows is kinda a must but I also don't see anything that could be improved for what I do. I game and surf the web and that is basically it. Gaming is much better on windows simply because of compatibility issues with MacOS while I doubt watching YouTube and going on forums like this would be any better on MacOS. I think if the roles where reversed and windows systems cost more then I would have to pay more for the windows system because I game. iPhones I totally get as they are much easier to use for most people while and have always been pretty performance competitive if not dominant at times. I have been tempted to switch a couple times but still can't justify the cost of the high end iPhones and can't stomach the spec of the lower end models for how expensive they are. 

[Commodus]

23 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

While I will likely never understand why people like the mac operating system I can understand why people would pay extra if that is what they wanted. As a gamer MacOS makes no sense so windows is kinda a must but I also don't see anything that could be improved for what I do. I game and surf the web and that is basically it. Gaming is much better on windows simply because of compatibility issues with MacOS while I doubt watching YouTube and going on forums like this would be any better on MacOS. I think if the roles where reversed and windows systems cost more then I would have to pay more for the windows system because I game. iPhones I totally get as they are much easier to use for most people while and have always been pretty performance competitive if not dominant at times. I have been tempted to switch a couple times but still can't justify the cost of the high end iPhones and can't stomach the spec of the lower end models for how expensive they are. 

A few reasons:

 

It's much less intrusive.  It's funny to see Windows 10 users grouse about Start menu promos, forced telemetry, being booted out of games by update alerts, taskbar notifications... and none of those are problems on the Mac.  It's a return to an era where your computer is something to get things done, not a billboard.

 

If you do have an iPhone or otherwise live in the Apple ecosystem, it's so much smoother.  It was amusing to see Windows 10 users cheer over Your Phone when calling and texting from a Mac has been available for years.  If you have AirPods or newer Beats headphones, switching them between your iOS devices and a Mac is seamless.  AirDrop (and Safari sync) makes it easy to get photos, web links and other content on to the bigger screen.  You can use your Apple Watch to sign into your Mac.  There's AirPlay for audio and video, and... you get the idea.

 

Media editors also thrive on the Mac.  Macs have had very low audio latency (vital for music editing) for decades.  Windows has been catching up, but if you're a music producer and don't want to dabble in Linux, it's still your best bet.  Video editing isn't as clear, but Final Cut Pro is so much faster at rendering videos than many other apps (regardless of platform) that it makes a lot of sense for certain workflows.

 

And yes, to some extent the hardware and software are better-harmonized than you usually see with Windows.  The display technology, for example.  It was the first place you saw Thunderbolt, and it still offers the most elegant approach to 5K and 6K displays.  Even basic things like sleeping your laptop by closing the lid appeared first on the Mac, and frequently still work better there.  Apple can push a new technology or implement a new hardware feature because it doesn't have to worry about hundreds of thousands of possible hardware combinations; it knows exactly how far it can go.

 

Having said all that, I wouldn't say you should switch to a Mac.  If you prefer to play games on a PC instead of a console, and you don't really need more than the basics, Windows is probably what you should be running.  Just know that many of us do have good reasons to use and stick to the Mac.

[Bombastinator]

I think it becomes a question of end goals.

 

How much of the goal is tinkering with the computer itself, and how much of the goal is using a computer as just another tool to do other things.

 

There seems to be 3 levels from most tinkering to least tinkering and each have their advantages and disadvantages.  Linux is most tinkering, for which one recieves more power from less money at the cost of tinkering, whereas with Mac one gets least power for most money, but there is the least tinkering.  For people who like to tinker, or for whom there isn’t enough money to fit performance needs Linux makes the most sense.  For people who want to do the smallest amount of tinkering OSX makes the most sense.  For those in the middle there is WIN10.  Win10 is needing a lot more tinkering than it used to lately.  Things tend to inexplicably break.  May drive me to one or the other of the OSes.

[Commodus]

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

I think it becomes a question of end goals.

 

How much of the goal is tinkering with the computer itself, and how much of the goal is using a computer as just another tool to do other things.

 

There seems to be 3 levels from most tinkering to least tinkering and each have their advantages and disadvantages.  Linux is most tinkering, for which one recieves more power from less money at the cost of tinkering, whereas with Mac one gets least power for most money, but there is the least tinkering.  For people who like to tinker, or for whom there isn’t enough money to fit performance needs Linux makes the most sense.  For people who want to do the smallest amount of tinkering OSX makes the most sense.  For those in the middle there is WIN10.  Win10 is needing a lot more tinkering than it used to lately.  Things tend to inexplicably break.  May drive me to one or the other of the OSes.

I'm not sure I'd say macOS has the "least power."  It depends on what you're trying to do.  Yeah, there isn't much choice of hardware and it's really not great for gaming (unless you're all about indies or Apple Arcade), but there's also a Unix command line terminal and lots of good creative tools.

 

With that said, I agree with the core premise.  It's a total cliche to quote Steve Jobs, but it kinda holds up: he called computers a "bicycle for the mind."  Apple sees its devices as springboards for your ideas that are supposed to get out of the way, and that means streamlining and automating things so that you're doing more things with your computer than you are to your computer.  How well it accomplishes that is open to some debate, but in my experience I'm not fighting with my Mac much at all.

[Bombastinator]

3 minutes ago, Commodus said:

I'm not sure I'd say macOS has the "least power."  It depends on what you're trying to do.  Yeah, there isn't much choice of hardware and it's really not great for gaming (unless you're all about indies or Apple Arcade), but there's also a Unix command line terminal and lots of good creative tools.

 

With that said, I agree with the core premise.  It's a total cliche to quote Steve Jobs, but it kinda holds up: he called computers a "bicycle for the mind."  Apple sees its devices as springboards for your ideas that are supposed to get out of the way, and that means streamlining and automating things so that you're doing more things with your computer than you are to your computer.

I was speaking of power per dollar cost only.  I agree that power requirements are variable by user.  It is arguable that in many cases the power per dollar cost of Apple is the same as that of windows.  It sort of depends on individual need.

[Kisai]

On 2/15/2020 at 8:27 PM, TempestCatto said:

What "pro" wants/needs a tiny 13" display? Can you even pack a Quadro in it?

No laptop below 15" has a decent GPU. No exceptions. Even most 15" laptops just squeek by with barely capable FHD 60fps performance while sounding like a jet engine the entire time, and those have quadro P1000/Geforce 1050Ti/1060's in them.

 

The issue with synthetic benchmarks is that they're only run for like an hour, so while it may score well in a synthetic benchmark, it will utterly perform poorly under any real-world software after some time. "Ultrabook" designs have extremely poor cooling designs and are intended to run silently, but rarely do so.

 

Most 12-14" laptops perform poorer than an iPad, and thus if you want a silent device, go with the iPad. If you need a real computer then don't consider anything smaller than a 15" machine. And yes occasionally you do see a weak GPU in a 12-14" system, and it utterly does nothing to improve the performance of the device. Like if you go look at the requirements for most CAD software, they don't even consider iGPU's. They typically have this:

Quote

Basic: 1 GB GPU with 29 GB/s Bandwidth and DirectX 11 compliant
Recommended: 4 GB GPU with 106 GB/s Bandwidth and DirectX 11 compliant

Now go look at nVidia's offerings and see what fits the Recommended profile.

https://www.nvidia.com/en-in/drivers/quadro-desktop-gpu-specs/

 

The Geforce 1050Ti just barely squeaks above the Recommended.

The Quadro P1000 (which is what 15" CAD laptops typically have) does not. In fact the Entry level 15" laptops typically have the P600. Neither are suitable for working on CAD stuff, but you can at least open the documents and do minor work/print them. 

 

For Adobe software, the requirements are more about capability:

https://helpx.adobe.com/ca/premiere-pro/system-requirements.html#gpu-acceleration

Geforce 1060, Quadro P1000 again. But also note Intel® HD Graphics 6000 , and Intel® Iris Graphics 540/550 are listed. The HD Graphics 6000 is what you would find in a 2015 MacBook Air. The HD Graphics has a memory bandwidth of 25GB/sec. In fact, no Intel iGPU has memory bandwidth higher than 43GB/sec other than two Celeron/Atom SKU's.

 

Having some knowledge about how software uses the GPU is beneficial for making decisions, and since Apple generally gave the "Professional" market the middle finger for the last 10 years before coming out with a new Mac Pro, I wouldn't put it past Adobe actually lowering the listed requirements just so they wouldn't be embarassed by being unable to run on any Mac that only has the iGPU, since Mac Users are still where a lot of Video, Photography and Publishing is done. That cloud software has the downside of not only self-updating, but making your system obsolete under your nose.

[DrMacintosh]

2 hours ago, Kisai said:

No laptop below 15" has a decent GPU. No exceptions. Even most 15" laptops just squeek by with barely capable FHD 60fps performance while sounding like a jet engine the entire time, and those have quadro P1000/Geforce 1050Ti/1060's in them.

Music professionals don’t need a dGPU, Video processionals just need some H.264/5 hardware acceleration (which Iris Graphics provide for 13” MacBook Pro alongside the T2 chip) and good software (see FinalCut), and finally programmers generally don’t need dGPUs either. These are the target demographics for 13” MacBook Pro. 
 

On top of that, the upcoming Ice Lake parts will reduce heat output, increase CPU performance, and will offer Iris graphics that are almost 50% faster than the previous versions. 
 

So while yes, there aren’t any small laptops with a good dGPU, but there are also hardly any people that need a dGPU to do their work. A powerful iGPU is enough for most 13” users.  The ones that need a dGPU buy the bigger 15” machines that can cool and provide the power needed to run them. If not they can always use a TB3 eGPU to have the portability of a 13” machine with the performance of a 15” machine. 

2 hours ago, Kisai said:

If you need a real computer then don't consider anything smaller than a 15" machine.

And thus, I have destroyed your absurd claim that if you need a “real computer”, you should only buy a 15” Machine. 

[Bombastinator]

For what it is worth I have heard of people using smaller macs like Mac mini’s along with an egpu containing a vega56 to do some rather hardcore work.  The vega56 is really faster than an egpu can properly handle but a vega56 has capacities a 580 doesnt, and even with the lag and bandwidth limitations inherent in egpu it is sometimes still worthwhile.  One thing to remember though is that if the egpu is needed it is not a portable computer for that period.

[Kisai]

8 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

Music professionals don’t need a dGPU, Video processionals just need some H.264/5 hardware acceleration (which Iris Graphics provide for 13” MacBook Pro alongside the T2 chip) and good software (see FinalCut),

Go read the requirements on the software. I quoted above, straight from Adobe Premiere's requirements. It requires an OpenCL capable GPU. Take a close look at what those iGPU parts actually contain. HD Graphics 6000 and Skylake can not do 4K or HEVC. That's only available in HD Graphics 620, which isn't listed, which means you need the Intel® Iris Pro Graphics 580  . There is no version of Intel HD Graphics/Iris Pro that supports VC1 encoding, and you need Kaby Lake (the 6xx part numbers) to do VP9.

 

If you have no clue what you are doing, you should not be buying a laptop, especially not for video work. And good grief if someone is seriously doing their video work on a 13" laptop, they likely can't even tell how poor their video output is.