Exactly. The benchmark I want to see is Windows games under virtualization. Maybe I’m the only one but I don’t think so.
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.
Benchmark Results Reveal Graphics Performance of M2 Pro and M2 Max Chips
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Exactly. The benchmark I want to see is Windows games under virtualization. Maybe I’m the only one but I don’t think so.
At least we can rest assured that future versions of Mac OS will taketh away what M chips giveth. It’s the way things work.
I made a comment about this when the "expected roadmap" was shared earlier in Jan. Their roadmap makes zero sense, right now, studio as a product, is dead in the water.
Not because the studio is bad. Great machine for people that already bought it, but there is very little rationale for buying it right now.
Oled are coming for the "consumer" macs/ipad..ipad air, macbook air
90% of MacBook Pro users aren't video editors and the Mac is no gaming studio targets the Mac as a gaming platform. The question is, what the heck can we do with all these graphics power on a Mac? The only thing I can think of is something like Stable Diffusion.
Mac Studio with 32gb Ram and 512 ssd with M1 Max is the same price as the Mac mini with M1 Pro with 32 gb ram and 512. both at $2000..so ? I think you meant the M2 Pro mac mini has very little rationale to be bought with 32gb ram and 512 SSD or more
If you dont need the extra ports, i'd honestly go the mini.
It takes up less space on your desk (vertically at least), and will draw less Electricity.
I was waiting so long for this.... I bought a Mac Studio.
Not sorry. The similarly spec'd Mini is $2399 I paid a referb price of $1979 for my Studio. And no bluetooth or sleep issues.
Not sorry. The similarly spec'd Mini is $2399 I paid a referb price of $1979 for my Studio. And no bluetooth or sleep issues.
Last edited:
I'm really interested in the graphic performance on M2 mini (not pro or max) for the only game I play: Civilization VI.
Unfortunately the game runs on Rosetta and on M1, as far as I know, it is not so good on 4K or 1440p, especially on large maps or late game.
(I don't have a Apple Silicon machine, still on 15" 2017 MBP)
Unfortunately the game runs on Rosetta and on M1, as far as I know, it is not so good on 4K or 1440p, especially on large maps or late game.
(I don't have a Apple Silicon machine, still on 15" 2017 MBP)
Reality check. The GPU performance is better than Intel integrated graphics, but not significantly better.
In the world of performance graphics, games, etc, 60 fps at 1080p sucks badly. Gaming consoles blow this out of the water. The M2 is stellar for what it does. But speedy high-resolution graphics ain’t it.
In the world of performance graphics, games, etc, 60 fps at 1080p sucks badly. Gaming consoles blow this out of the water. The M2 is stellar for what it does. But speedy high-resolution graphics ain’t it.
Last edited:
There’s been some discussion about this on the Mac Mini forum, and the conclusion I came to is:
Once a Mac Mini configuration enters Mac Studio pricing, the best choice is a Mac Studio — unless you need the smaller size of the mini
To put it in perspective the AMD Radeon Pro W6900X that's available in the 2019 Intel Mac Pro gets a Metal score of 166,946.
The W6900X is a ridiculously expensive GPU, mind you, costing almost as much per module as a higher-end Mac Studio Ultra setup, and the M1 Ultra's accelerators provide boosts for certain operations that can in some instances outperform the W6900X. Still, it's useful to consider the performance you can equip the highest end Mac with for the most extreme use-cases, even if those use cases are complete overkill for all but the most demanding professionals.
"
Don't Believe the Hype: Apple's M2 GPU is No Game Changer"
When Apple did even mention that the M2 is a game changer ? People should stop lying
Eh not quite. Yes, in graphics performance it's getting there. But CPU performance on the Ultra M1 is 23,000 which is still more than a 50% increase from the Max M2.
Which means the Ultra M2 should approach 30,000 CPU and 120,000 GPU
(Geekbench scores)
I'd be curious to see if it can play Starcraft II.
I used to play nearly at maximum with my 2013 iMac, but with my 2021 M1 iMac, if I remember well I had to choose the lowest settings. Of course I know its emulated, but it's still a real bummer that I buy a piece of tech 8 years later and it's too slow to play the game.
I used to play nearly at maximum with my 2013 iMac, but with my 2021 M1 iMac, if I remember well I had to choose the lowest settings. Of course I know its emulated, but it's still a real bummer that I buy a piece of tech 8 years later and it's too slow to play the game.
What do your workflow needs look like? The M2 Pro will best the M1 Max on CPU and Neural Engine performance, but the M1 Max still has a lead in terms of GPU performance, although not by nearly as much as against the M1 Pro. If you want to use more than 3 external monitors or if you do ProRes video work where the extra encoder on the M1 Max would come in handy then those are also factors to consider.
Apps that use the Neural Engine for certain tasks like Photoshop see an even more pronounced boost than the CPU alone - Ps advertises a 40% boost on the M2 Pro vs the M1 Pro or Max, so if you spend a lot of time in Photoshop the M2 Pro might be worth it.
Or just wait for the M2 Max Studio to come out. I'd imagine it will be released alongside the Mac Pro sometime this spring.
If you need a desktop with more than 32 GB of RAM and you want it to run macOS, the studio is still your only answer.
All of Apple’s other desktops are on either M1 (which maxes out at 2 TB of storage and 16 GB of RAM), M2 (which also maxes out at 2 TB of storage, but 24 GB of RAM) and the M2pro.
Unless you’re willing to buy the almost 4 years old Mac Pro, the studio is your only option.
So it very much is not dead in the water.
And even when Apple does introduce a Mac Pro, it more than likely will start at $5000 plus. The studio is still only $1999.
So I believe it has a perfect spot in the lineup for years to come.
But I get it, doom and gloom is a lot more fun
Apple has always updated systems in this order... Those that sell in larger volumes get updated first. That just good business sense as it helps bring costs down.
If someone needs a powerful desktop (not a laptop) right now, there's no reason not buy the Ultra Studio. You can always resell it later, if you need something with more power.
2013 27" imac with the GTX 780M dgpu i suppose
To combat the higher end dGpu from 7-8 years ago you have to go with at least M2 Pro or M2 Max
Not sure I get this. The Studio costs as much for an Ultra as a MacBook does for a Pro. Plus there are other reasons someone might prefer a desktop.
will see, if they coming for the ipad pros I would have thought to come for the macbook pros but maybe it will stick with mini led going forward.
issues with scaling factor, from Pro to Max is not as big as you go from Max to Ultra
Because scaling doesn’t actually work that way, there’s a loss every time you scale.
That’s why the rumored “M1extreme” or whatever that was going to have four M1maxes stuck together fell through, the more chips you duplicate, the more scaling issues there is.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
There's a lot of assumptions in such thinking. For example, will this new Pro Mac Mini be LOUD because it's using an enclosure designed for an entirely different type of tech guts?
OR, is very flattering, pre-launch information solely from Apple and friends of Apple going to be different when the real world has them? Perhaps we are seeing peak results in these geekbench results but not what may become throttled as too much heat slows down the PRO chip processing. No way to know that right now because all information is from Apple Marketing and Friends of Apple Marketing.
Studio's relative "fatness" is apparently fat mostly to deal with Silicon heat dissipation. The Mac Mini case appears to have no changes from when it was all Intel in there. Presumably something has to give in throttling or fan noise. Else, if all very positive assumptions stick- that Mini will be as quiet as Studio and able to run PRO at full speed all of the time, a case for "Why Studio?" starts gaining more steam... at least until there's a Studio with M2 or M3.
If I was on the fence between Pro Mini and Studio right now, I might at least wait on some objective third party reviews before burying the latter. If I had to buy right now and my configuration of Mini Pro was in Studio territory, I'd prob buy Studio, as we already have very rich, objective information about what it can do. If I need rationale for other people, I can simply toss MAX vs. PRO.
A little patience will otherwise go a long way in making the right buying decision for anyone wanting a new Mac desktop ASAP.
Last edited: