4 ms·

Well...when was the last time the entry level smallest MacBook Pro was really pro? If it ever was? Let’s face it, that MacBook Pro is mainly there to make thei

Well...when was the last time the entry level smallest MacBook Pro was really pro? If it ever was? Let’s face it, that MacBook Pro is mainly there to make their buyers feel pro, while not really providing performance benefits over the Air. It’s like you have the stock car (MacBook Air), the “sports” version of that car which just has some stripes sprayed on and a red colored gear shift knob (entry level MacBook Pro), and then the actual race version of that car which has a tuned engine etc. (other MacBook Pro’s).

johncolanduoni 6y ago
I don’t think whether it’s “pro” or not is well defined enough to litigate over, but the reviews have made clear the M1 air throttles after a few minutes of max CPU load while the Pro doesn’t, which seems like a big performance difference to me.
- filmgirlcw 6y ago
  I mean, some tests shows that the throttling takes six or seven minutes of pure CPU hammering to turn on. For some tasks, I agree, that can make a difference — but in the context of these devices with these specs, I just don’t see if. Like, if you need that much sustained CPU usage without throttling, I don’t think the M1 is the right chipset for you. The M1X or M3 or whatever they call the ones that they put in the actual high-end machines and not the entry level stuff seems more apt. The biggest advantage I see between the Pro and the Air, based on everyone I’ve talked to with both, is battery life. That might be worth the $200 or $250 depending on your storage configuration.
thebean11 6y ago
> while not really providing performance benefits over the Air This is true now, but was it true before moving away from Intel?
- derefr 6y ago
  No, but that wasn’t so much Apple’s choice as it was a consequence of Intel making promises they couldn’t keep. For a while, the Air has been the form-factor Apple expected to be getting entry-level-MBP perf from, and requesting chips from Intel to satisfy that; and for a while now, the response from Intel has been a chip that thermal-throttles so hard in that form-factor that the performance has bombed it down to a lower class of computer. The base-model MBP, then, has been Apple’s compromise: it’s the result of them taking those chips that were supposed to be just fine running in an Air, and giving them enough chassis and fans to make them perform the way Intel originally promised they would. In other words, the base MBP is “a MacBook Air” in terms of what performance Apple targeted the Air to achieve each gen; and the Air itself is the pretty design Apple’s IxD dept put out in anticipation of that target, mated to an altogether-worse processor in order to get it out of the gate. Now that Apple has a chip with actual thermal headroom, this duality will go away. You’ll get base-MBP perf in Air chassis, and these overlapping categories will merge into one.
  - vetinari 6y ago
    > and for a while now, the response from Intel has been a chip that thermal-throttles so hard in that form-factor that the performance has bombed it down to a lower class of computer. Are we talking about the same computer, where the fan is not even thermally connected with the CPU heatsink[1]? That's Apple's fsckup, not Intels. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiCBYAP_Sgg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiCBYAP_Sgg
- filmgirlcw 6y ago
  I would argue yes. The two port MacBook Pro, in my opinion, was launched to replace the MacBook Air when it came out in 2016 [1]. It didn’t have a Touch Bar, for example, and based on my conversations with Apple at that time, I feel very strongly it was meant to replace the Air in the lineup (the 12” MacBook was another attempt to replace the Air, that one I think we can blame a lot more of on Intel). Apple never told me this outright, but that was absolutely the impression I got about how it was being positioned against the MacBook Pro with four ports and it was how I reviewed the first release of that model. For a variety of reasons, it didn’t work. Not only was the price higher, the port selection (just two TB3s at a time when the industry hadn’t moved en masse to USB-C, remember, this was four years ago) was really limiting. And of course, the keyboard drama. It is my contention, though I have no proof, that Apple didn’t want to release the redesigned Retina MacBook Air in 2018, but had to based on continued sales of the older model and the lack of love for the Touch Bar free MacBook Pro. (Recall, even after the redesign, Apple was still selling a Broadwell-based MacBook Air, technically into 2019. That was essentially the same MacBook Air that was first released in March 2015.) Once the MacBook Air was redesigned, the two-port MBP never made any sense, even with the re-added Touch Bar. In fact, every single year, when I participate in Jason Snell's Apple Report card [2], I comment on this weirdness in the lineup. I don’t think the two-port MacBook Pro needs to exist. [1]: https://gizmodo.com/the-pricey-touch-bar-free-macbook-pro-wants-to-be-your-178849132 https://gizmodo.com/the-pricey-touch-bar-free-macbook-pro-wa... [2]: https://sixcolors.com/tag/reportcard/ https://sixcolors.com/tag/reportcard/

johncolanduoni 6y ago

I don’t think whether it’s “pro” or not is well defined enough to litigate over, but the reviews have made clear the M1 air throttles after a few minutes of max CPU load while the Pro doesn’t, which seems like a big performance difference to me.

filmgirlcw 6y ago
I mean, some tests shows that the throttling takes six or seven minutes of pure CPU hammering to turn on. For some tasks, I agree, that can make a difference — but in the context of these devices with these specs, I just don’t see if. Like, if you need that much sustained CPU usage without throttling, I don’t think the M1 is the right chipset for you. The M1X or M3 or whatever they call the ones that they put in the actual high-end machines and not the entry level stuff seems more apt. The biggest advantage I see between the Pro and the Air, based on everyone I’ve talked to with both, is battery life. That might be worth the $200 or $250 depending on your storage configuration.

thebean11 6y ago

> while not really providing performance benefits over the Air This is true now, but was it true before moving away from Intel?

derefr 6y ago
No, but that wasn’t so much Apple’s choice as it was a consequence of Intel making promises they couldn’t keep. For a while, the Air has been the form-factor Apple expected to be getting entry-level-MBP perf from, and requesting chips from Intel to satisfy that; and for a while now, the response from Intel has been a chip that thermal-throttles so hard in that form-factor that the performance has bombed it down to a lower class of computer. The base-model MBP, then, has been Apple’s compromise: it’s the result of them taking those chips that were supposed to be just fine running in an Air, and giving them enough chassis and fans to make them perform the way Intel originally promised they would. In other words, the base MBP is “a MacBook Air” in terms of what performance Apple targeted the Air to achieve each gen; and the Air itself is the pretty design Apple’s IxD dept put out in anticipation of that target, mated to an altogether-worse processor in order to get it out of the gate. Now that Apple has a chip with actual thermal headroom, this duality will go away. You’ll get base-MBP perf in Air chassis, and these overlapping categories will merge into one.
- vetinari 6y ago
  > and for a while now, the response from Intel has been a chip that thermal-throttles so hard in that form-factor that the performance has bombed it down to a lower class of computer. Are we talking about the same computer, where the fan is not even thermally connected with the CPU heatsink[1]? That's Apple's fsckup, not Intels. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiCBYAP_Sgg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiCBYAP_Sgg
filmgirlcw 6y ago
I would argue yes. The two port MacBook Pro, in my opinion, was launched to replace the MacBook Air when it came out in 2016 [1]. It didn’t have a Touch Bar, for example, and based on my conversations with Apple at that time, I feel very strongly it was meant to replace the Air in the lineup (the 12” MacBook was another attempt to replace the Air, that one I think we can blame a lot more of on Intel). Apple never told me this outright, but that was absolutely the impression I got about how it was being positioned against the MacBook Pro with four ports and it was how I reviewed the first release of that model. For a variety of reasons, it didn’t work. Not only was the price higher, the port selection (just two TB3s at a time when the industry hadn’t moved en masse to USB-C, remember, this was four years ago) was really limiting. And of course, the keyboard drama. It is my contention, though I have no proof, that Apple didn’t want to release the redesigned Retina MacBook Air in 2018, but had to based on continued sales of the older model and the lack of love for the Touch Bar free MacBook Pro. (Recall, even after the redesign, Apple was still selling a Broadwell-based MacBook Air, technically into 2019. That was essentially the same MacBook Air that was first released in March 2015.) Once the MacBook Air was redesigned, the two-port MBP never made any sense, even with the re-added Touch Bar. In fact, every single year, when I participate in Jason Snell's Apple Report card [2], I comment on this weirdness in the lineup. I don’t think the two-port MacBook Pro needs to exist. [1]: https://gizmodo.com/the-pricey-touch-bar-free-macbook-pro-wants-to-be-your-178849132 https://gizmodo.com/the-pricey-touch-bar-free-macbook-pro-wa... [2]: https://sixcolors.com/tag/reportcard/ https://sixcolors.com/tag/reportcard/