Either that or Apple simply didn't have the bandwidth to update the MBP alongside the new M2 MBA this year. Which makes me wonder what their plans for it are. Are we going to see a similar refresh next year (eg: M3 MBP with magsafe) or will Apple simply drop it altogether? Having a fan seems like a very specific selling point, especially when a maxed out MBP is not that far off from the 14" MBP, price-wise.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
13-Inch MacBook Pro With M2 Chip Outperforms Base Model Mac Pro Despite Costing Nearly $5,000 Less
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Photoshop retouching isnt a niche use case. I worked in a retouching studio where they were handling 100GB PSD files with a lot of desktop automation using Apple script and plugins.
Nice post.
I find it interesting that some of the people dissing the 'Meme Pro' actively gloss over constructive input from actual MP users who know WHY they brought the machine, what they can do with it, and what the actual use case is for the machine.
Gotta love MR Forums. 🤷♂️
The MP was always a niche system for a niche subset of users. It was also a 'Halo' system. Something to aspire to.
A Commodore 64 was worth US$595 when it first released in 1982. The Apple IIe released in Jan 1983 was worth US$1395 (figures taken from google searches).
Sure. Then blow us away with 20x the performance of top of the line Mac Pro 2019. M2 Extreme Mac Pro with the ability to add more compute modules, each can be up to 4TB of RAM.
You do realize that all this means is that the M2 MBP is faster than an older, base model Mac Pro in a very narrow set of benchmarks. That any kind of workload like Mac Pros are designed for probably wouldn’t even run on a MBP. What do you do if your application requires 512GB to 1TB of RAM to hold the data? What do you do when your application is running modeling on massive GPUs?
Yes, for lightweight tasks, like most of us do daily, the MBP is a better choice, but don’t pretend that the people who gladly spend the money on a Mac Pro would ever be able to use that MBP to get their actual work done.
Last edited:
One thing I wonder now, is where are the other benchmark numbers? From other more professional software? SPEC? Rendering performance? Machine learning performance? Other stuff? Geekbench can’t even produce workloads that are heavy enough to show the difference and “yeah outperform in short burst”. Since Mac Pro is not for everyday machine, benchmarking it should not be treated as such. How about test rendering something big? 100GB project? Fluid simulation? Otherwise this comparison feels super weak.
They aren't comparable. This article basically says that, for generic CPU-only workloads that can work on an AS Mac, the AS Mac is faster. Buying a Mac Pro without a specific reason is a horrible idea. Theluggage's response, though kinda rude, goes into detail the many reasons why someone with a specialized workload might need it.
That said, the Xeon CPUs suck.
Last edited:
Which is similar to the one I replaced with an M1 mini. I do miss the SATA slots, though. Hard drive enclosures never work 100% the same.
What can be sent to remote compute servers, though? Thinking about Adobe, ProTools, FCP, those sorts of things.
Maybe the 8-socket Xeon servers out there, at least if you're considering RAM. Those can have 12TiB.
I think I'll hold out til they figure out how to run an MBA on an M3, then wait til that's been out a year and hasn't set anyones pants on fire.
I've only ever ran into one and that guy had filthy money. Like **** you money. I even told him how poor of a deal it was and he was like whatever, it's here now and I'm ready to go.
What was so funny was, he wanted his videos edited, didn't really want to edit them himself, and when I presented the idea of just taking that 10k on the mac pro and pro display and using it as a fund to pay video editors, the look on his face was as if I slapped his mother in front of him. Shouldn't really be that wild of an idea. Some people didn't need a drop of intelligence for their money and it shows lol
With the Apple Silicon speaking a different language than literally everything else on Geekbench, can this be a fair comparison? Something feels fishy, could someone maybe explain further? When I first saw the M1 benchmarks I was astonished and remembered a story of an Android developer, I believe Samsung or one of em, where the device recognized a benchmark was being run, and somehow fibbed the scores. Now someone made the point that hey, even if it did some triple overdrive and hit those scores, at least it hit them - but hey, there's no point if it's not usually at that triple overdrive.
The M1 does seem to have a very low floor and high ceiling which allows for great battery life and high performance.
Could someone explain further as to the validity of these scores? Possibly another cpu test that is more accurate / applicable than geekbench 5? For example, the Bruce X test is an excellent test of GPU speed in a real life applicable way which doesnt use benchmarks
thanks
The M1 does seem to have a very low floor and high ceiling which allows for great battery life and high performance.
Could someone explain further as to the validity of these scores? Possibly another cpu test that is more accurate / applicable than geekbench 5? For example, the Bruce X test is an excellent test of GPU speed in a real life applicable way which doesnt use benchmarks
thanks
Yeah, so in other news:
Apple keeps the Mac Pros for far too long on sale IMHO, or keeps the price too high. Mac Pros are worth their investment quickly after their release, but after a couple of years there are faster computers on sale which cost less.
Apple launches these things with a huge bang, they are usually gorgeous to look at, have extraordinary peripherals (eh.. those wheels...), price them very hugely, and then just keep them on sale for years and years without a (significant) price drop expecting "professionals" will buy them anyway, as they want to use macOS.
We're pretty lucky the M2 is only 12% faster (single core) than M1 (due to higher clock?) otherwise we will have a headline as "M2 MacBook Air faster than last year's M1 Max MacBook Pro!"
Imagine just receiving your M1 Ultra Mac Studio and hearing a M2 MacBook Air is faster... lol
iPhones Have 100,000 Times More Processing Power Than Apollo 11 Computer
I get it that both Macs are on sale today, but this is not comparing Apples with Apples.Apple keeps the Mac Pros for far too long on sale IMHO, or keeps the price too high. Mac Pros are worth their investment quickly after their release, but after a couple of years there are faster computers on sale which cost less.
Apple launches these things with a huge bang, they are usually gorgeous to look at, have extraordinary peripherals (eh.. those wheels...), price them very hugely, and then just keep them on sale for years and years without a (significant) price drop expecting "professionals" will buy them anyway, as they want to use macOS.
We're pretty lucky the M2 is only 12% faster (single core) than M1 (due to higher clock?) otherwise we will have a headline as "M2 MacBook Air faster than last year's M1 Max MacBook Pro!"
Imagine just receiving your M1 Ultra Mac Studio and hearing a M2 MacBook Air is faster... lol
Last edited:
Well the key difference being that the other was released only 3 years ago. We are at the forefront of a significant change. I don't remember the previous mac pros circa 2008-2012 being beaten that fast. Definitely not 3 years.
& to your second point, I do believe they limited the m2 precisely because people are just receiving m1 max Mac Studios. Like most companies, I'm sure they have more hidden behind curtains and just release it in doses.
It depends on what performance we are talking about. What application. What workload etc.