Is it just me or the numbers for Single and Multi-core performance are missing for M2 Ultra in the article?
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.
Apple Silicon Buyer's Guide: Which Chip Should You Choose?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is a solid guide. Well done, Hartley!
I will say that there are several folks buying the Mx Pro Macs thinking that they need that level of performance when it's overkil and where the standard Mx is more than plenty. Similarly, it's helpful to remember that unless you need better graphics (or "High Performance Mode" on 16-inch MacBook Pros), you do not need an Mx Max. Also, unless your applications are specifically optimized for them, you're not going to get twice the performance of an Mx Max in an Mx Ultra.
Edit: I left out two key other reasons for needing to go with a higher-end SoC; maximum RAM capacity and memory bandwidth is higher. Those needing more than 24GB (16GB on M1) need a Max SoC, while those needing more than 96GB (64GB on M1 Max) need an Ultra SoC. And, we now know that 192GB is the highest amount of RAM that Apple will allow us to configure on an Apple Silicon Mac...at least until we get more SoCs...
I will say that there are several folks buying the Mx Pro Macs thinking that they need that level of performance when it's overkil and where the standard Mx is more than plenty. Similarly, it's helpful to remember that unless you need better graphics (or "High Performance Mode" on 16-inch MacBook Pros), you do not need an Mx Max. Also, unless your applications are specifically optimized for them, you're not going to get twice the performance of an Mx Max in an Mx Ultra.
Edit: I left out two key other reasons for needing to go with a higher-end SoC; maximum RAM capacity and memory bandwidth is higher. Those needing more than 24GB (16GB on M1) need a Max SoC, while those needing more than 96GB (64GB on M1 Max) need an Ultra SoC. And, we now know that 192GB is the highest amount of RAM that Apple will allow us to configure on an Apple Silicon Mac...at least until we get more SoCs...
Last edited:
It is like when the space shuttles would increase thrust to 109%. (Yeah, I know why, but it always made me smile when they throttled up over 100%). 😂
I love the breakdown. It's helpful to see how the technology's being used & leveraged.
However...
However...
Why, oh WHY do computing companies & journalist sites only ever seem to offer specifics related to video production performance? I do music production, so VSTs & plugins & low-latency monitoring & the ability to handle lots & lots of tracks... that's the kind of info that always seems to be missing. I understand that video & image design workflows are super intensive workflows, but audio workflows are also intensive. Just because a machine will do great with video doesn't guarantee it's going to provide the proper performance specs for audio because I've been going down that rabbit hole for years. It would be refreshing to see performance specs include audio production platform performance for once.
Hey you’re right! I’ve complained about this before and didn’t even notice. Much better now.
If it weren’t for the axe coming down on the software side that would be a great deal. Still not bad if you need / want to dual boot Windows.
Like to concur with you regarding your comments on the article. It is a solid guide for people in the market about to purchase Apple products.
I have just ordered an MBA 15 and feel like I'm so late to the Apple Silicon party, can't wait to enjoy what everyone else has been experiencing and to finally leave Intel in the dust.
M1 series is the best. It runs cooler and all the base models have a fast SSD too.
Last edited:
I was just going to say the same thing. People typically haven't had to think about this until Apple Silicon came along. I know some have found out the hard way that their M1/M2 Mac only supported one external display (or two displays for the Mac mini).
I don't need a super powerful Mac as most of my work is done through a VDI or online. I want a MacBook with a large screen, so the 15" MBA seems perfect for me in terms of power...but it's not. I need to run two external displays in addition to the built-in one, which the MBA (M2) isn't capable of. The 13" MBP (M1/M2) isn't capable either. Weird they call that one a MacBook Pro.
Luckily I know I need a MacBook with at least a Pro chip; but other than that, I would not be able to tell you how many displays each of the chips support without doing more research.
Is this an actual hardware limitation, or an artificial limitation? I know there are "hacks" to get around it, so it seems artificial. I wonder if the same limitations will also apply to the upcoming M3, or if the standard M3 might be able to support more displays.
Last edited:
The MacBook Air runs an iPad chip, what do you expect?
In any case, you can also buy a super cheap Intel MacBook Pro if you don't need alot of power. They support multiple external monitors.
The M3 just address that next year. Otherwise, get a deal on a an Intel based Mac (last revision).
Your opinion is wrong. M2 is a derivative of A15 and uses the same cores. Same goes for the rest of the M2 family. All Avalanche and Blizzard.
Resale values of both Intel AND Apple Silicon Macs are falling. Butterfly keyboard Macs naturally start off with a hit to resale value. But it's only somewhat recently that the Intel 2019 16-inch MacBook Pro and other Apple Silicon Macs have also taken hits. Luke Miani posted an interesting video on this not too long ago.
Why not just make it go to 100% and make 100% faster?
I realize that, and that's exactly the point. Previously, we really didn't have to take multi-monitor support into consideration when choosing a Mac. Now we do with Apple Silicon, and this guide doesn't mention that.
Just another example... An MBP with an M2 Pro chip is limited to two external displays. Someone coming from an older Intel MBP may not realize this when their old MBP could do more than two. The M2 Pro is going to be much more powerful than an older Intel Mac, but the external display support is a bit lacking compared to what we're used to.
Last edited:
Too many choices. Getting like the days of the performa series or ppc clones. 
And yet the base single core performance of the M2 matches the A16 instead of the A15.
Because Apple can clock the single core performance much higher due to the bigger battery/amperage in laptops.
M2 is indeed based on the architecture of A15.
The curiosity lays on the fact that every version of M1 - including the A14 - has the same single core structure. This is also valid for the M2 series, except for the A15; although the A16 has it.
The same single core speed from M base to M ultra is a big characteristic of Apple Silicon.
I am so thrilled with getting this article!
I have wanted to see something like this for a while now. Particularly as I am ready to study which new MacBook to purchase. In Q1 2024, I will pull the trigger and move from my Intel MBP-15 to a MacBook with an Apple chip.
At present, I am studying the features / benefits of a loaded MBA-15 or a loaded MBP-16. I don't buy based on my use-case needs. I simply buy maxed-out machines to ensure that they will last me 5 to 8 years without issues... as my current Intel-MBP has done.
So thanks MacRumors for this review.
Actually, what I would like to have (for iPhones and for MacBooks) is a review of charging cycles for the batteries in these products. How many charging cycles per month and per year are suggested for avg battery wear? How many charging cycles beyond the avg in a month or year will begin speeded and abnormal battery degradation? And does Apple M-chip tech extend or reduce or in any other way impact battery charge cycles?
I have wanted to see something like this for a while now. Particularly as I am ready to study which new MacBook to purchase. In Q1 2024, I will pull the trigger and move from my Intel MBP-15 to a MacBook with an Apple chip.
At present, I am studying the features / benefits of a loaded MBA-15 or a loaded MBP-16. I don't buy based on my use-case needs. I simply buy maxed-out machines to ensure that they will last me 5 to 8 years without issues... as my current Intel-MBP has done.
So thanks MacRumors for this review.
Actually, what I would like to have (for iPhones and for MacBooks) is a review of charging cycles for the batteries in these products. How many charging cycles per month and per year are suggested for avg battery wear? How many charging cycles beyond the avg in a month or year will begin speeded and abnormal battery degradation? And does Apple M-chip tech extend or reduce or in any other way impact battery charge cycles?
One other important reason folks might need a Max, even if they don't benefit from the additional GPU cores, is if they need more than the Pro's maximum 32 GB RAM.
Indeed, even if you're doing single-threaded scientific computing, you'd need to upgrade further still, to the Ultra, if you need more than the 96 GB the Max provides.
Unfortunately, the variation in RAM constraints wasn't mentioned in the article.
I'm also wondering if those who use high-bandwidth external storage would benefit from a Max over a Pro--does the Max have more TB controllers?
Last edited:
Check out the tech experts at Max Tech as they have such audio comparisons.