Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

M5 MacBook Pro

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 579 posts

Re: M5 MacBook Pro

#31

Post by thefz »

czbond wrote: post #12
Printerisreal wrote: post #2

Lowest tier comes with 16 gb of memory, same memory size with lowest M. air, why Apple?

The Pro sales page says their RAM is unified, which is more efficient than traditional. Anyone have a concept by how much more efficient unified RAM performs vs RAM? Their sales copy for reference: "M-series chips include unified memory, which is more efficient than traditional RAM. This single pool of high-performance memory allows apps to efficiently share data between the CPU, GPU, and Neural Engine.... This means…

It just means it's shared between GPU and CPU. Has its advantages in specific workloads, but dedicated super fast GPU RAM usually is better. Everything else in this statement in marketing bullshit and Apple trying to look like they invented the wheel and discovered fire.

Re: M5 MacBook Pro

#32

Post by [deleted] »

yohannparis wrote: post #23
letmetweakit wrote: post #19

Apparently, in Europe, the box will not contain a charger [1]. This is absolutely mind-blowing to me. edit: suggested retail price also dropped with EUR 100. Mind is less blown now. It seems like a good thing in fact. edit2: in Belgium, the combined price of the 70W adapter and 2m USB-C to MagSafe is EUR 120. [1] https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/new-macbook-pro-does-no...

I think it's awesome. I have way to many chargers, specially USB-C, 5, 10, 20, 35, 70, and 95W all over the house and office. If you need one, just shell the extra $100 that corresponds to your needs.

[deleted]

Re: M5 MacBook Pro

#33

Post by anthonyskipper »

superzamp wrote: post #11
fnordpiglet wrote: post #7

Sad to release without refreshing the high end line on 16” MBP. I worry they nerfed the 14” MBP to ensure the M4 16” retained better specs to not make the discontinuity worse. Otherwise the 14” outperforming the more expensive 16” would be uncomfortable.

Isn't the screen size difference basically enough between these two? I can't see why the 16" would need more performance, some ppl just want / can carry large computers with them while some other prefer to have something as small as possible.

I can see why that sounds sensible, but my personal obsevations are that heavy duty power users almost universally prefer the bigger screens, and those people also want the highest level settings. Most people I know who want smaller screens are not serious power users.

I can see an overlap with people who want smaller computers who also want max power, but I just would not believe that is a significant group. (again, all personal observations)

Re: M5 MacBook Pro

#35

Post by fnordpiglet »

superzamp wrote: post #11
fnordpiglet wrote: post #7

Sad to release without refreshing the high end line on 16” MBP. I worry they nerfed the 14” MBP to ensure the M4 16” retained better specs to not make the discontinuity worse. Otherwise the 14” outperforming the more expensive 16” would be uncomfortable.

Isn't the screen size difference basically enough between these two? I can't see why the 16" would need more performance, some ppl just want / can carry large computers with them while some other prefer to have something as small as possible.

It’s more a statement on price and the assumption the more expensive one with the “more capable” chip like the MAX would be expected to not be less performant than any in the lineup. It would be a disappointment, especially for me as I’m about to buy a 16” in November regardless, to be a generation behind while paying more, and it would be not unusual for product reasons to nerf the lower prices chip to ensure it didn’t canabalize the more expensive models sales.

I have to say if I had any choice I would delay my purchase until the 16” catches up rather than buying a generation behind. If I see specs saying M5 14” is more performant for my workloads than my more expensive 16” I’m even more motivated to delay. Most product managers would be aware of these things.

Re: M5 MacBook Pro

#37

Post by justonceokay »

Printerisreal wrote: post #2

Lowest tier comes with 16 gb of memory, same memory size with lowest M. air, why Apple?

For perspective I have a 12 year old MacBook with 8 gigs of ram and it’s still perfectly usable for all the things I do on it. If you need more RAM because you are video encoding, compiling, or gaming (why!?) then you aren’t a basic consumer.

I’m not trying into be a fanboy and maybe it’s a little bit “cope”, but apple has always put as much RAM as is necessary for the computer to work—and not a lot more—in their base models.

Re: M5 MacBook Pro

#38

Post by daft_pink »

Apple’s chip release schedule is so borked. It should be High end Pro and Studio first and then iPad, Air, Mini and downgraded Pro. Why they release the iPad and Low End Pro is beyond me.

Everyone buying their high end gear is buying something waiting to be refreshed now.

Re: M5 MacBook Pro

#39

Post by bananapub »

asadm wrote: post #13

wait I can’t have M5 with 64GB ram? highest is just 32GB which is ridiculous!

they have historically had three tiers of cpus:

- normal - pro - max

pro and max had way more cores and gpus and supported way more ram. today's release is the basic version of the new cpu; if you want more ram you can get the m4pro or m4max based MacBook Pros, or wait for the M5pro/max to come out.

Re: M5 MacBook Pro

#40

Post by scosman »

letmetweakit wrote: post #19

Apparently, in Europe, the box will not contain a charger [1]. This is absolutely mind-blowing to me. edit: suggested retail price also dropped with EUR 100. Mind is less blown now. It seems like a good thing in fact. edit2: in Belgium, the combined price of the 70W adapter and 2m USB-C to MagSafe is EUR 120. [1] https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/new-macbook-pro-does-no...

Don't forget the environmental impact of a smaller box. The box will probably be less than half as thick, doubling shipping efficiency. These are air freight, so the CO2 impact is not negligible.

I'll take the discount and use one of my 12 existing USB-C chargers.

Post reply on HN