Step into a world where the focus is keenly set on Apple M1 Max Chips. Within the confines of this article, a tapestry of references to Apple M1 Max Chips awaits your exploration. If your pursuit involves unraveling the depths of Apple M1 Max Chips, you've arrived at the perfect destination.
Our narrative unfolds with a wealth of insights surrounding Apple M1 Max Chips. This is not just a standard article; it's a curated journey into the facets and intricacies of Apple M1 Max Chips. Whether you're thirsting for comprehensive knowledge or just a glimpse into the universe of Apple M1 Max Chips, this promises to be an enriching experience.
The spotlight is firmly on Apple M1 Max Chips, and as you navigate through the text on these digital pages, you'll discover an extensive array of information centered around Apple M1 Max Chips. This is more than mere information; it's an invitation to immerse yourself in the enthralling world of Apple M1 Max Chips.
So, if you're eager to satisfy your curiosity about Apple M1 Max Chips, your journey commences here. Let's embark together on a captivating odyssey through the myriad dimensions of Apple M1 Max Chips.
Apple's M1 Pro and M1 Max chips mean new trouble for Intel
Apple's M1 Pro and M1 Max chips mean new trouble for Intel
A year ago, Apple announced it was taking on Intel's most efficient chips by introducing lightweight MacBook laptops powered by the M1, a homegrown processor. On Monday, the consumer electronics giant expanded its challenge, launching MacBook Pro laptops built around the new M1 Pro and M1 Max that take on Intel's beefier chips.
The new MacBook Pros bode well for Apple's attempt to take firmer control over its products. And they're bad news for Intel, whose chips Apple is ejecting from its Macs after a 15-year partnership. It's a loss of revenue, prestige and orders to keep its factories running at full capacity.
"Intel has completely lost the Mac and is unlikely to regain it any time soon," New Street Research analyst Pierre Ferragu said in a research note Tuesday.
Intel didn't lose this big customer overnight. The company that was once synonymous with consumer computers -- remember Intel Inside? -- fell on hard times because of difficulties upgrading its manufacturing. New CEO Pat Gelsinger has started an Intel recovery plan, including an effort to revitalize manufacturing progress. But turning around a behemoth requires patience.
Meet the Mac's new chips
Intel's troubles encouraged Apple to develop its own chip expertise and technology for computers. (It already designed its own A-series chips for the iPhone and iPad, and indeed the M-series chips capitalize on that investment.) The company's M1 processors, which came in last year's MacBook Air and low-end 13-inch MacBook Pro, were evidence it wanted to take control of its own future.
The M1 Pro and M1 Max demonstrate the company's increasing power as a chip designer. Both are designed for more capable models, the 14-inch and 16-inch Pros, geared for video editors, programmers and others with intense computing needs. The heft of the chips -- each of which sports eight performance and two efficiency cores, compared with the M1's four-by-four design -- is intended to sustain heavy work. They also come with much more powerful graphics processing power and memory, up to 16GB for the M1 Pro and 64GB for the M1 Max.
Miniaturization is what lets chip manufacturers economically squeeze in more transistors, a chip's electronic circuitry elements. The new M1 models are doozies of miniaturization, with 34 billion transistors in the M1 Pro and 57 billion in the M1 Max. That's how it could add special chip modules for graphics, video, AI, communications and security into its high-end MacBook Pros.
Intel's troubles
Intel, which for decades has led the world in chip technology, suffered for the last half decade as an upgrade to its manufacturing technology dragged on longer than the usual two years. The company's problem came as it tried to move from a 14-nanometer manufacturing process to 10nm, the next "node" of progress. (A nanometer is a billionth of a meter.)
Intel didn't respond to a request for comment. Apple didn't comment for this story.
Apple's chip foundry, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., took advantage of Intel's lag to the benefit of Apple, Nvidia, AMD and other Intel rivals. It now leads in electronics miniaturization and the all-important measurement of performance per watt of power consumed.
The result is the M1 Pro and M1 Max, which according to Apple's measurements are 1.7 times faster than Intel's current eight-core Tiger Lake chips, formally called 11th generation Core. Compared differently, the M1 Pro and Max consume 70% less power than the Tiger Lake chips at the same performance level.
Apple doesn't reveal which speed tests it uses, so the results are hard to validate at this stage. The consensus, however, is that the performance claims are valid in broad terms.
"I am overall impressed at what Apple has been able to do on the latest process from TSMC," said Patrick Moorhead, analyst at Moor Insights and Strategy. He estimates that Apple saves a few hundred dollars per laptop because it doesn't have to buy Intel processors, although it spends a lot of that money designing its chips.
Don't count Intel out yet
To be sure, Intel won't be hurt badly by the loss of Apple's business. The company has plenty of other business. The vast majority of Windows PCs still use x86 processors from Intel and AMD. And customers only rarely change from Windows to MacOS or vice versa.
It also doesn't have a lot of competition. Apple doesn't license its chips to others, and Qualcomm's efforts to sell processors to PC makers has been a limited success at best.
Intel mostly has to worry about AMD, which makes increasingly capable chips but still trails in market share.
Intel also has its Alder Lake processor, scheduled for later this year, and Meteor Lake processor, coming in 2023, to generate excitement. The chips will bring speed boosts in part by adopting a combination of performance and efficiency cores, just like the M1 does, and by adopting the new Intel 7 and Intel 4 manufacturing processes.
Still, Apple has taken wind out of Intel's sails. Intel may narrow the gap as its new chips hit the market. But in the meantime, Apple's M series could help it steal market share from Windows computers, Intel's stronghold.
Apple Mac Studio and Studio Display Review: A Desktop Combo for Creators Looking to Step Up
Apple Mac Studio and Studio Display Review: A Desktop Combo for Creators Looking to Step Up
It's rare that Apple launches an entirely new product line, but that's what we have in the Mac Studio, a new desktop positioned somewhere in the huge gulf between the Mac Mini and Mac Pro.
The Mac Studio that I tested impressed me but didn't surprise me. Internally, it's very similar to the 16-inch MacBook Pro I tested and reviewed in late 2021. Both systems feature Apple's M1 Max chip, a CPU/GPU combo that's in all new Macs and some iPads. Both systems target creators of all kinds, but especially filmmakers, video editors, audio producers and coders. The biggest difference is that the MacBook Pro is a high-end laptop meant for travel and as an all-in-one solution, while the Mac Studio is a compact desktop and more likely to remain tethered to one place, connected to a display, keyboard and mouse.
Mere months ago, the M1 Max chip was the reach-for-the-stars, top-end Apple chip, outperforming the original M1 and the in-between M1 Pro. It was part of Apple's nearly complete evolution from Intel chips to its own designs, sometimes called Apple Silicon. Now, the M1 Max has moved down to become the middle-of-the-road version, because you can now get the even more powerful M1 Ultra chip in the Mac Studio.
My first inclination was to write off the $2,000 M1 Max version of the Studio as not ambitious enough, and the $4,000 M1 Ultra version as too expensive for a non-upgradable desktop. That audience is probably waiting for a new Mac Pro desktop for upgradability and future-proofing.
But speaking to other creatives, I heard the opposite -- that the M1 Max Mac Studio (try saying that five times fast) is exactly what a developing filmmaker or music producer might want. My colleague Patrick Holland told me that back in his filmmaking days, "The Mac Studio would have been ideal for me. It's $1,500 less than the 16-inch MacBook Pro. It's small enough that I could travel with it and plug it into a ton of displays, TVs and even cameras. But most importantly, the Mac Studio would have meant that I didn't need to 'design a computer' for my workflows."
The Mac Studio is paired with another brand-new product, Apple's new 27-inch Studio Display. It has a chip inside, too -- in this case the A13, as seen in the iPhone 11. That enables on-board features like Center Stage and spatial audio. Its only comparison within the Appleverse right now is the professional-level Pro Display XDR, a 32-inch display that starts at $5K, plus an extra $1,000 if you want its sold-separately stand. At $1,599, the Studio Display feels like a reasonable ask for a pro-level display, even if stand and screen options can drive up the price.
The Mac Mini (left) next to the Mac Studio.
We've only tested the M1 Max version of the Mac Studio so far, not the M1 Ultra version. That version has a bigger, heavier heat sink (that weighs about two pounds more), because the M1 Ultra is essentially two M1 Max chips joined together. Even in the M1 Max version, the case is practically half-filled with fans and cooling gear.
Besides the look -- a gently rounded square with an Apple logo on top -- there's not much common ground between the Mac Studio and the Mac Mini. In fact, I've described the Studio as two Mac Minis stacked up, but it's actually taller than that, at 3.7 inches, vs. 1.4 inches for the Mini. If anything, the price difference should tell you this is a different category: $700 for the entry level M1 Mac Mini vs. $2,000 and $4,000 for the two Studio base models. I'd like to see an M1 Pro chip version of the Mac Studio -- that might be an even better in-between level for budget-conscious creatives looking to step up.
An underside view of the Mac Studio.
Dan Ackerman/CNET
Upgrades add up
The configuration we tested is a few steps up from the base model. It adds 64GB of RAM, 2TB storage and the version of the M1 Max chip with 32 GPU cores (vs. 24 GPU cores for the base model). That all adds up to $3,199. Choose your options carefully, as the Mac Studio isn't internally upgradable after the fact.
That's probably the biggest sticking point for a certain brand of creative professional. The appeal of the Mac Pro desktop, or really any tower desktop PC, is its upgradability. In some cases that just means being able to swap out a graphics card. In other cases, everything from the power supply to the CPU to the fans.
Once you get over that hurdle, if you do, a comparably configured 16-inch MacBook Pro is $4,300. The price difference accounts for the screen, keyboard and touchpad that you don't get with the Mac Studio.
The new accessories look great, but are sold separately.
Dan Ackerman/CNET
Note that the keyboard and mouse or touchpad are not included in the box. If you don't already have a set, there are new gray-and-silver versions of Apple's input accessories to go along with the Studio. The Magic Keyboard, with a number pad and Touch ID, is $200. The Magic Mouse is $100 and the Magic Touchpad (which looks great in dark gray) is $150. As a long-time Apple user (and even longer-time PC user), the Magic Touchpad is one of my all-time favorite computer input devices. The Magic Mouse is one of my least favorite. Then again, I predicted the imminent death of the computer mouse back in 2010, so what do I know?
Front loaded
The biggest innovation of the Mac Studio may be one of its simplest. Take some of the connections and put 'em on the front face. The Mini, for example, has USB-C/Thunderbolt, Ethernet, audio and other ports on the back. The Mac Studio has a similar setup, with four USB-C/Thunderbolt ports, a 10GB ethernet port, two USB-A ports, HDMI and an audio jack on the back. But there are also two USB-C ports and an SD card slot on the front, a move sure to appeal to photographers, videographers and others who hate digging around the back of a system to plug anything in. On the M1 Ultra version of the system, those front ports are Thunderbolt as well.
From its nadir, when some MacBooks included only a single USB-C for power, accessories, output, everything, we're almost in a golden age of Mac ports now. The latest MacBook Pro laptops have HDMI and SD card ports (again), for example.
Plenty of ports on the back of the Mac Studio.
Dan Ackerman/CNET
Familiar but fast
I wasn't expecting anything radically different in our basic benchmark testing when compared to the 16-inch MacBook Pro we tested last year. Both systems have M1 Max chips with 10 CPU cores and 32 GPU cores. Both include 64GB of RAM.
I'm not a full-time high-end creative pro, but especially during the Covid era I've been shooting and occasionally editing my own videos, usually in 4K. I also do some design and layout work in Illustrator and Photoshop and a little recording and mixing in Logic Pro. I sometimes design 3D printed objects in a CAD program, too.
As expected, the M1 Max Mac Studio performed similarly in our testing to the M1 Max MacBook Pro. That review includes a deeper dive into the differences between the M1 Pro and M1 Max chips, as does this M1 family performance comparison. The Mac Studio version was marginally faster in many tests, perhaps because if its better cooling.
Asus Zephyrus GX701 (Core i7-8750H, Nvidia RTX 2080 Max-Q)
16628
MacBook Pro, 14-inch, M1 Pro
10383
MacBook Pro, 13-inch, M1 (2020)
4918
iPhone 13 Pro Max (A15 Bionic)
2660
Center of attention
The Mac Studio is being pitched hand-in-hand with the Apple Studio Display, the first new Apple display since the Pro Display XDR. It's a lower-cost alternative for the XDR in some ways, but doesn't cover all of the same ground. I asked our display guru Lori Grunin to weigh in on the Studio Display as well.
At $1,600, the Studio Display is certainly more attainable than the $5,000-and-up XDR. But it's also missing some key features you might want. Specifically, it's a typical standard-definition IPS monitor with an undisclosed backlight tech, not HDR like the 1,600-nit XDR display, which uses a Mini LED backlight. The Studio Display doesn't even support HDR content, despite its 600-nit peak brightness.
The Studio Display.
Dan Ackerman/CNET
Both Apple displays top out at 60Hz refresh rates, although other Apple products, like the iPad Pro and some MacBook Pro models, have ProMotion, Apple's variable refresh rate technology that goes up to 120Hz.The XDR is two years old, so that's understandable; it's a big disappointment in the Studio. Like the XDR, the Studio Display's controls are all in software, so, for instance, if you want to disable it or power it down you have to unplug it, and it's basically unusable with anything other than a Mac, unless you want a non-smart display with no controls.
We haven't finished our formal testing yet, but eyeballing the Studio Display and XDR side by side shows excellent consistency between the colors in the reference modes. There seemed to be slightly better detail in the darkest shadows in photos on the XDR, understandable given the wider tonal range. We'll offer a full benchmarked separate review of the Studio Display soon.
The new Studio Display still has a few unique tricks courtesy of the built-in A13 chip. The speakers support spatial audio and the built-in webcam supports Center Stage, which lets the camera zoom and pan (not physically, all within the original 12MP camera image) to keep faces centered and visible.
The ports on the back of the Studio Display.
Dan Ackerman/CNET
I played around with Center Stage in FaceTime, but it works Zoom and a few other apps as well. Before now, it's been limited to iPads, but I liked it on the Studio Display. With three people ducking in and out of frame, Center Stage did a reasonable job of keeping up with us, widening the image when all three of us were in-frame and zooming in when it was just me. The real trick here is the 122-degree field of view from the camera, which gives it extra space to work in. You can see the distortion of that lens if you force the Center Stage view to its widest, where the perfectly straight pillar next to me appears bowed.
Center Stage auto-adjusting the frame. Note that while there are webcam image quality issues, the softness of this image is mostly from the gif compression.
Dan Ackerman/CNET
Other Macs and even iPads can connect to the Studio Display, but will need an OS update to iPadOS 15.4. or MacOS 12.3 to use the Center Stage and other A13 features. Apple says it works with MacBook Pro laptops from 2016 and later, and MacBook Air and Mac Mini systems from 2018 and later.
Some early owners and reviewers have had issues with the webcam quality on the Studio Display. So much so that Apple is said to be readying a software fix. I found images soft, and the color not as good as an on the 16-inch MacBook Pro. Look for more on the Studio Display camera in our upcoming deep dive review.
MacBook Pro (FHD) webcam vs. Studio Display webcam.
Dan Ackerman/CNET
The in-betweeners
It's clear that Apple would like you to think of the Mac Studio and Studio Display as a perfectly matched pair of devices. If you're building a mid/high-end video production or other creative workspace, that's an appealing combination that solves a lot of problems in a single package. Together, it's a minimum investment of $3,500, and probably more. The height-adjustable stand for the Studio Display feels like a must-have, especially if you use multiple monitors and want them positioned at similar heights, which adds another $400 to the total. The Studio also has a $300 Nano-texture glass option that cuts down on screen reflection. Reflections on the standard screen weren't overpowering, and glossy screens do make everything look better -- but they can be distracting for some types of work.
The setup will cost a minimum of $3,500.
Dan Ackerman/CNET
Through a certain lens, the financial side works out. A comparable MacBook Pro can cost $1,000 more, making the M1 Max version of the Mac Studio seem more reasonably priced. The Studio Display doesn't have every high-end feature you might want, but it's right around where some comparable prosumer displays sit, although they also can come cheaper because they don't toss in the speakers and webcam. For instance, HP's new Z27xs G3 Dreamcolor monitor, a 4K color-accurate display with similar specs plus HDR support, is less than half the price. Remember that the $5,000 XDR may seem expensive next to even high-end consumer displays, but it's considered very reasonable compared to true professional models.
I'm reserving judgment on the M1 Ultra version of the Mac Studio until we can test one. I'm also leaving room in my creative pro thinking for the long-promised Mac Pro update. That system seems to change radically with each new generation, from the original tower to the black tube version to the current massive cheese grater design. Will the next Mac Pro, teased at the very end of the Mac Studio introductory webcast, follow in the Studio's footsteps and look like an elongated Mac Mini? And how will it address the issue of discrete graphics cards and upgradable components, both must-have features for many of those highest-end buyers? The GPU issue is especially important, as M1 systems don't currently support any AMD/Nvidia GPUs (so for example, you can't hook up a Black Magic eGPU to an Apple Silicon MacBook or Mac Studio).
That leaves us back here, with the Mac Studio and Studio Display. It's somewhere in-between the future Mac Pro and standard M1 Macs, and it'll probably appeal to people who find their work or their budget are similarly in-between those two extremes.
Macbook pro m1 max teardown m1 max macbook pro availability apple macbook pro m1 max review problems on the m1 today accidents on the m1 what happened when myers first sent his poems what happened when tony schiavone podcast
What happened when my M1 Max MacBook Pro met a $60,000 camera
What happened when my M1 Max MacBook Pro met a $60,000 camera
When Apple launched its latest line of MacBook Pros with the new M1 Max chips, I was excited, as a professional photographer, by the upgrades and what that could mean for working creatives. The 16-inch model with an M1 Max CPU impressed CNET's Dan Ackerman so much it earned a coveted Editors' Choice award.
So when I got one in my hands, I wanted to see how well it copes with a demanding professional photoshoot workload.
I put the top-end 16-inch Pro with the M1 Max chip with 64GB of RAM to the test in a studio photoshoot with probably the world's best -- and most demanding -- camera. It's the Phase One XFIQ4, a commercial-standard medium format camera that churns out whopping 150-megapixel images and costs somewhere north of $60,000. This beast is in the hands of elite professional commercial photographers the world over, and its stunning, detailed images would be a great test for the M1 Max chip.
The finished image I created was eventually made up of 28 individual full-resolution images composited together into what you see here.
Andrew Hoyle/CNET
I put together an ambitious product photoshoot of a "technology stir fry" showing a variety of tech products being tossed in oil in a wok above roaring flames. It involved shooting all the different elements individually, then piecing together numerous images from the camera into the single, finished shot seen above. This kind of compositing work can be demanding on a system, especially when working with multiple high-resolution layers.
The finished image was made of 28 full-resolution images, loaded into a single document in Photoshop, each one with its own masking, adjustments and other effects. In short, it's a behemoth of a Photoshop document, clocking in at almost 11GB in size.
Anecdotally, working on the MacBook Pro felt swift. The camera was tethered over USB-C and the images were taken, imported and initially adjusted in Phase One's own Capture One Pro software, which has been optimized for Apple's M1 chips. It was zippy, with no noticeable lag when making adjustments to the images or when flicking between the shots I'd taken, despite their size. This alone was a relief, as some of my product photoshoots can involve taking hundreds upon hundreds of images and any slowdown from the machine can be frustrating.
Shooting the Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra in the wok. These complex composites take time and are demanding on both photographer and computer, but they're common in the industry and any way to increase the speed of the workflow is welcome.
Andrew Hoyle/CNET
I initially exported 45 full-resolution images (in Phase One's .IIQ format), which I loaded into an image stack in Photoshop. On the M1 Max MacBook it took 2 minutes, 44 seconds to load the images into the document. I did the same thing using the older 13-inch M1 MacBook Pro (a 2020 model with 16GB of RAM) and it struggled, crashing multiple times before eventually taking almost exactly 5 minutes to load the stack.
Time taken to load 45-image stack in Photoshop
16-inch MacBook Pro M1 Max (2021)
13-inch MacBook Pro M1 (2020)
16-inch MacBook Pro (Intel Core i9, 2019)
Note:
Shorter bars equals better performance
I then tried the same import test with a 2019 16-inch, Intel Core i9 MacBook Pro with 64GB of RAM, which took 4 minutes, 43 seconds. It should be noted that this MacBook is my work-provided one, and as such has a variety of security applications running in the background that could affect its performance.
Time taken to auto-align 45 images in Photoshop
16-inch MacBook Pro M1 Max (2021)
13-inch MacBook Pro M1 (2020)
16-inch MacBook Pro (Intel Core i9, 2019)
Note:
Shorter bars equals better performance
Once loaded, I selected the layers and used the Auto-Align tool to ensure all the images lined up with each other. It's a demanding process but one that I use regularly for product photography, so efficient performance here is essential for my workflow. The M1 Max model took 6 minutes, 24 seconds to align the layers, the 16-inch Intel model took 7 minutes, 15 seconds while the 13-inch M1 model took a whopping 18 minutes, 20 seconds to complete the same task.
Forty-five full-resolution layers might not sound like a lot, but keep in mind that these are from a 150-megapixel medium format camera, so each individual image is huge and packed with detail.
Andrew Hoyle/CNET
The M1 Max MacBook handled the rest of the edit without any issue, allowing me to zoom in and out without lag or showing any real signs of slowing down. I ended up deleting some layers to get down to the 28 that made up the final image, yet even with every layer having its own masks and effects, the machine coped admirably with the edit process.
My next test involved a focus stack of an image of an iPhone I shot with the Phase One camera. Focus stacking involves taking separate images of an object at different focus points before merging those shots to achieve pin-sharp focus from front to back. As with layer aligning, it's a demanding task for the processor. You can see the full breakdown below of times it took each MacBook to load the 12 individual 303MB DNG (Adobe Digital Negative raw) files into an image stack, align the images and then focus stack in Photoshop, but the M1 Max was way ahead of the others on every single test, with the focus stacking tool in particular seeming to benefit from the M1 optimizations in Photoshop.
MacBook Pro performance comparisons
16-inch MacBook Pro M1 Max (2021)
13-inch MacBook Pro M1 (2020)
16-inch MacBook Pro (Intel Core i9, 2019)
Legend:
Time taken to load 12 DNG files into Photoshop stack
Time taken to align 12 DNG files in Photoshop
Time taken to focus stack 12 DNG files
Note:
Shorter bars equals better performance
Arguably that should come as no surprise, given that it's the latest model and it's running Apple's top-performing processor with the highest amount of RAM you can get it with. But pro photographers are a demanding bunch and time is money in a busy studio, so it's good to know the extra investment for the M1 Max will indeed result in faster and more efficient work.
Macbook pro 2021 vs macbook air 2020 new m1 carbine macbook pro 2021 vs macbook air 2020 new m1 chip macbook pro 2021 vs macbook air 2020 new sinhala macbook pro 2021 vs macbook air 2020 for sale macbook pro 2021 vs macbook air 2020 13 macbook pro 2021 vs macbook air 2020 model macbook pro 2021 vs ipad new macbook pro 2021 macbook pro 2021 release date macbook pro 2021 review macbook pro 2021 16 inch macbook pro 2021 best buy
MacBook Pro 2021 vs. MacBook Air 2020: New M1 chips complicate your laptop choice
MacBook Pro 2021 vs. MacBook Air 2020: New M1 chips complicate your laptop choice
With the two new MacBook Pro laptops, a 16-inch and a 14-inch model, introduced by Apple this month, the entire MacBook laptop line has shifted to Apple's own M-series chips, and away from Intel. This shift means more options for new MacBook buyers to consider, as well as additional considerations about ports, screens, webcams and power -- especially graphics power.
The MacBook Pro started life in 2006, as a successor to Apple's PowerBook line of laptops, and part of the first wave of Intel-powered Macs. The Intel/Apple partnership lasted 15 years, and now we're down to the last couple of available Intel Macs, an older Mac Mini and the 21.5- and 27-inch iMacs. I doubt we'll see any more, as the Mac line continues to go all-in on Apple's own chips, allowing the company to control the design of the hardware, the OS and the CPU.
The new models are available to buy now, although some configurations already show long wait times before shipping.
Apple
Last year's initial wave of M1 Macs made for some confusing buying choices. The less expensive MacBook Air and more expensive 13-inch MacBook Pro used almost identical M1 chips (with a single extra GPU core in the Pro), despite a $300 difference in their starting prices. The $699 Mac Mini? Same chip! The upshot at the time was that the MacBook Air remained the most universally useful choice for most people.
The new 14- and 16-inch MacBook Pro laptops represent a much wider gap between the Air and Pro models. It's also a way Apple can lure in higher-end creative pros who need the graphics power -- previously only available in select Intel Macs -- for video editing, content creation and 3D work. Before now, the M1 Macs were not always powerful enough for more complex workloads.
Read more: M1 Max vs. M1 Pro vs. M1: Apple's MacBook Pro chips compared
By adding the M1 Pro and M1 Max system-on-chip parts (sometimes called an SOC, or more casually referred to as the MacBook's "chip"), these really become pro-level machines, and will do a better job of attracting professional buyers, who are used to spending many, many thousands on their mission-critical work rigs.
Let's look at the current lineup and see how the new announcements have changed the buying calculations:
Current MacBooks compared
14-inch MacBook Pro
16-inch MacBook Pro
MacBook Air (13-inch, M1)
13-inch MacBook Pro (M1)
CPU
M1 Pro or M1 Max
M1 Pro or M1 Max
M1
M1
No. of GPU cores
14 (up to 32)
16 (up to 32)
7
8
Screen size
14.2 inches
16.2 inches
13.3 inches
13.3 inches
Screen resolution
3,024x1,964 pixels
3,456x2,234 pixels
2,560x1,600 pixels
2,560x1,600 pixels
Starting storage
512GB
512GB
256GB
256GB
Starting RAM
16GB
16GB
8GB
8GB
Webcam
1080p
1080p
720p
720p
Networking
802.11ax Wi-Fi 6, Bluetooth 5.0
802.11ax Wi-Fi 6, Bluetooth 5.0
802.11ax Wi-Fi 6, Bluetooth 5.0
802.11ax Wi-Fi 6, Bluetooth 5.0
Connections
Thunderbolt USB-C x3, HDMI, SDXC card, MagSafe 3
Thunderbolt USB-C x3, HDMI, SDXC card, MagSafe 3
Thunderbolt USB-C x2
Thunderbolt USB-C x2
Weight
3.5 lbs
4.7 lbs
2.8 lbs
3.0 lbs
US starting price
$1,999
$2,499
$999
$1,299
The new models
This is the first brand-new screen size for a MacBook since the 15-inch Pro went to 16 inches in 2019 (the iMac added a 24-inch version this past summer). Along with that, it actually gets both thicker and heavier. The trade-off is that the thicker body allows for all those extras, like the resurrected HDMI and SD card ports.
The bigger screen covers even more of the top panel, with thinner bezels. So thin, in fact, that the webcam has been reduced to a notch, cutting into the display itself, much like on an iPhone. So far, I've heard mixed reactions to that, but I think the better 1080p-resolution webcam more than makes up for it. I've used the 1080p webcams in the 27-inch iMac and newer 24-inch iMac, and it makes a huge difference in video meetings.
Keep in mind these shopping notes are based on the on-paper specs for the new MacBooks, plus my long experience testing and reviewing MacBooks, which goes back to the very first MacBook Pro in 2006 and the first MacBook Air in 2008. For more in-depth notes, make sure to check out my review of the 14-inch MacBook Pro.
If you're more about portability than the big screen, especially if you output to a larger display, the 14-inch feels (on paper) like the sweet spot for portability and power.
Read our 14-inch Apple MacBook Pro review.
Apple
Just about everything I said about the 14-inch MacBook Pro applies here as well. The two devices are remarkably similar, and you get both with either the M1 Pro or the M1 Max. Both also share the same heat pipe cooling system. New ports? The same. Notch-based 1080 camera? Same. No more Touch Bar? Same. The main difference, spec-wise, is that the 14-inch starts with some less powerful M1 options, with a base of eight CPU and 14 GPU cores. The 16-inch starts with 10 CPU and 16 GPU cores in its version of the M1 Pro. Both support up to the 10 CPU and 32 GPU cores version of the M1 Max chip.
To spec out a 14- and 16-inch MacBook Pro with the closest matching specs, you end up with that M1 Pro 10 CPU/16 GPU chip, plus 16GB RAM and 512GB storage. On the 14-inch version, that will cost $2,299. In the 16-inch, it's $2,499. So you basically pay a $200 premium for a 2-inch-larger screen. (The 16-inch maxes out at over $6,000.)
And it could certainly be worth that. The previous 16-inch MacBook Pro was pretty impressive to look at. As opposed to the power-plus-portability pitch of the 14-inch Pro, the 16-inch feels like it's for people who want a bit of the feel of a big-screen desktop, without actually having a desktop.
Read our 16-inch Apple MacBook Pro review.
The existing models
At first, I was somewhat wary of jumping into an M1 MacBook Air. I was worried about compatibility issues with things like Adobe software and about overall performance compared to the trusted old Intel MacBook Air.
But after nearly a year, I can say the Intel-to-M1 transition has been relatively smooth. The best thing I can say about the M1 chip is that it's largely transparent to the everyday MacBook Air user, which is exactly what you want from a big under-the-hood change like this.
Apple's Rosetta emulation, for software not yet optimized for the M1, still runs most programs just as well as it did under Intel chips. Key Adobe software and other creative apps were updated for native M1 support, with more on the way. I've run into occasional problems with gaming apps or some drivers, and support apps for things like a label printer and some 3D-printing software.
Read our Apple MacBook Air M1 (Late 2020) review.
The first M1 MacBook Pro was a tougher sell than the Air. There was nothing wrong with it, but the line between the Pro and Air wasn't as distinct as it might have been. The main things that stood out about the 13-inch M1 Pro versus the M1 MacBook Air are the Touch Bar, a slightly brighter screen and better cooling (it had a fan).
With the new Pro models, the 13-inch feels even further out to sea, unlikely to be updated ever again. The good news is, if you were going to buy a 13-inch Pro, the MacBook Air is pretty much just as good and can be configured with more RAM and storage to suit your needs. The bad news is, if you want to shift from 13-inch Pro to 14-inch Pro, the starting price jumps up by $600.
My default advice remains the same, at least for now. Most mainstream laptop shoppers should start with the MacBook Air and see if that's enough laptop for them. If the ports, better camera or graphics power of the M1 Pro and M1 Max laptops feels like something you need, the decision comes down to portability versus screen size. And if you're the one Touch Bar die-hard out there, you'd better pick up the 13-inch MacBook Pro while you still can.
