Benchmark Results Reveal Graphics Performance of M2 Pro and M2 Max Chips

[name99]

Nothing to do with scaling. From 24 core Max to 32 core Max it doesn't scale by 33% either. It's about GB's flawed results in GPU compute.

I was unaware of this claim but you may be tight.
GFXBench does give much better scaling from M1 Pro to Max (usually almost 2x as expected).

Interestingly GFXBench does show frequent scaling problems from Max to Ultra.

GFXBench - Unified cross-platform 3D graphics benchmark database

The first unified cross-platform 3D graphics benchmark database for comparing Android, iOS, Windows 8, Windows Phone 8 and Windows RT capable devices based on graphics processing power.

gfxbench.com

GFXBench - Unified cross-platform 3D graphics benchmark database

The first unified cross-platform 3D graphics benchmark database for comparing Android, iOS, Windows 8, Windows Phone 8 and Windows RT capable devices based on graphics processing power.

gfxbench.com

GFXBench - Unified cross-platform 3D graphics benchmark database

The first unified cross-platform 3D graphics benchmark database for comparing Android, iOS, Windows 8, Windows Phone 8 and Windows RT capable devices based on graphics processing power.

gfxbench.com

Of course these are not quite comparable in that GFXBench is comparing graphics, whereas GB5 is comparing GPU compute, but for now I'm convinced that there does seem to be a problem with GB5 compute (at least for the particular cases of Max and Ultra).
On the other hand, it does seem fair to conclude that the scaling problems from Max to Ultra are legit, not just a GB5 issue.

 

[atonaldenim]

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.

Haha yes the most common consumer use case for GPU usage on Macs is AI art generation, that makes sense.

Compared to previous / lower end models, one big benefit for average users of the increased GPU power is the ability to connect multiple monitors at very high resolutions, like Apple's 5K / 6K displays or even the 8K ultrawide PC monitors at CES this year.

Also, the main difference between the Pro and the Max is GPU power. People who don't need a lot of GPU power should buy the M2 Pro, that's why it's there. The M2 Max is best for photographers, filmmakers, artists, "creators" of visual media which is actually quite a large number of Mac users. All those YouTube videos aren’t going to make themselves!

 

[eduardshugar]

A

People are making that speculation because the 14" M2 Pro and Max now have a different weights listed in Apple's specs. With M1 the 14" Pro and Max had the same weight but the 16" Pro and Max had different weights.

Anyways, was the 16” m1 max heavier than 16” m1 pro due to better cooling?

 

[0557814]

Shocking that newer chips are faster 🤔

Actually it's pretty damn impressive numbers, not that you would likely bother to read anything beyond something to complain about.

 

[0557814]

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.

Is this a joke? I can't tell if you're asking that as a serious question...

 

[avkills]

I believe (if I remember correctly) Geek Bench GPU testing was proven to be flawed when it comes to Apple's M-series as it cannot push "tests" fast enough to completely flood all the cores, which leaves a certain number cores sitting idle while waiting for more tasks. (Basically the GB tests do not max out Mx GPU cores, especially on the higher end... the cores were finishing the tasks so fast that they went idle before the test could send another task.)

Side note: I believe it was MaxTech (don't hate) that was running some tests on an M1 Ultra and it showed that the GPU was only reaching a little over 70% usage. He couldn't understand why it wasn't being maxed out. But after running some other real world tests, it did finally max out and had the performance that was expected.

Geekbench doesn't even flood the cores of discreet GPUs either. W6800X Duo 1 core gets around 140,000 Metal compute score and I never saw the usage go above 40% on that GPU core while being tested.

Compute apps that can tap multiple GPUs like Octane simply fly on Mac Pros with W6880X Duos.

 

[BuddyRich]

lol, gaming is in a piss poor state on the Mac, arguably worse than it's ever been. However, couple of standouts that are Native ARM: World of Warcraft, Resident Evil, Disco Elysium, there might be a few more, but if you're wanting to game on Mac, try via Parallels + Windows (I've had really good results running anything >3 years old).

BG3 and Diviiny Original Sin 2 are native Arm, as is the Mac Store version of Resident Evil Village (but not the Steam version)... Village is actually very impressive.

That said I was surprised that many games on Steam have an x86 Mac version that run respectably via Rosetta 2...

I use this website with up to date list here:

Mac M1 Games: Native & Rosetta 2 supported games | Mac Gamer HQ

www.macgamerhq.com

 

[NMBob]

We don't want no stinkin' "just works" optimized OS. We much prefer the rolling, "just one software update away" misery.

We must be happier that we realize.

 

[rp2011]

Impressive. Really looking forward to seeing what the 3nm process has to offer. Good job Apple.

 

[Tagbert]

A

Anyways, was the 16” m1 max heavier than 16” m1 pro due to better cooling?

The 16” M1 Max is a little heavier than the 16” M1 Pro because the M1 Max got a copper heat sink instead of the aluminum one for the M1 Pro. The copper, being more thermally conductive than aluminum probably provides better cooling. Copper is also heavier than aluminum and accounts for the increased weight. They had not done this in the 14” M1 Pro but may have done so for the 14” M2 Max.

 

[rp2011]

So... The M2 Max in a laptop form factor is nearly on par with the M1 Ultra in a "desktop form factor". That's a bit of a yikes for Studio buyers.

Imagine how impressive the 3nm M3's are going to be

 

[SpotOnT]

A

Anyways, was the 16” m1 max heavier than 16” m1 pro due to better cooling?

Yes. 4.7 vs 4.8 pounds.

 

[RS52]

As a composer that uses as much ram in Virtual Instruments as possible I was thinking of a M1 Ultra Mac Studio with 128gb of Ram. Now that the M2 Max MacBook Pro can now have 96gb of ram that's very tempting. I definitely use more than 64gb and less than 128gb and I think that could work.

So:

1. Get Mac Studio M1 Ultra with 128gb of Ram now

2. Get MacBook Pro M2 Max with 96gb if Ram now

3. or wait for the Mac Studio with M2 Ultra and 128gb of ram.

Apple is really making some strides as of late in regards to the Mac!

As someone who used to repair iMac's for Apple I how they don't bring back the iMac Pro. Troubleshooting those iMac's with intermittent shutdown issues were a pain. Sometimes it was the power supply, other times a logic board, other times it was the coin battery, or rear housing. I much prefer the Mac Studio and Display being separate and I think that was a good move from Apple.

 

[Tagbert]

As a composer that uses as much ram in Virtual Instruments as possible I was thinking of a M1 Ultra Mac Studio with 128gb of Ram. Now that the M2 Max MacBook Pro can now have 96gb of ram that's very tempting. I definitely use more than 64gb and less than 128gb and I think that could work.

So:

1. Get Mac Studio M1 Ultra with 128gb of Ram now

2. Get MacBook Pro M2 Max with 96gb if Ram now

3. or wait for the Mac Studio with M2 Ultra and 128gb of ram.

Apple is really making some strides as of late in regards to the Mac!

As someone who used to repair iMac's for Apple I how they don't bring back the iMac Pro. Troubleshooting those iMac's with intermittent shutdown issues were a pain. Sometimes it was the power supply, other times a logic board, other times it was the coin battery, or rear housing. I much prefer the Mac Studio and Display being separate and I think that was a good move from Apple.

If they do bring out an "iMac Pro" it will likely be more like a larger 27" version of the iMac 24" with low to medium performance chips (M2 and M2 Pro), not the Xeon Mac Pro chips of the iMac Pro. Even more likely is that they are not investing in iMacs right now and expect people to buy Mac minis and Mac Studios, hopefully with Studio Displays. BTW Keep an eye out for price reveals of the new Samsung s9 27" 5K display that came out at CES this year. We finally have some alternatives for 5K displays on the market.

 

[FriendlyMackle]

Okay so performance and longevity wise, which of the these two same priced systems am I better off with:

• Mac Studio - Apple M1 Max with 10-core CPU, 24-core GPU, 16-core Neural Engine, 32GB, 1TB SSD; or
• Mac Mini - Apple M2 Pro with 12‑core CPU, 19-core GPU, 16‑core Neural Engine, 32GB, 1TB SSD

That’s not a real question, right??? They’re two different classes of desktop, one with a massive heatsink, more ports, more bandwith…a processor revision wouldn’t really outweigh all of those other factors.

 

[mashinhead]

M2 Ultra to hit over 100,000 ?

100,000 what?

 

[greenbreadmmm]

That’s not a real question, right??? They’re two different classes of desktop, one with a massive heatsink, more ports, more bandwith…a processor revision wouldn’t really outweigh all of those other factors.

I would pick the m2pro over a base m1max

 

[SteveW928]

Exciting news. But, can it run Crysis?

This is the thing…. until they somewhat ’feature match’ GPUs from AMD/Nvidia, it is going to be dependent on the particular application. It will probably be faster at some things (like I’ve seen some pretty big scenes being rotated and perform quite well), while at other things, like those requiring ray-tracing, it might be quite poor. (Games, are a whole other set of issues.)

for sure since it seems thanks to the TLB buffer increase

Yes, I’m encouraged by that!

 

[R3k]

Sad face when I watch my Mac Studio Ultra open a Logic session that loads its samples into RAM at about 140 MB/ps from an SSD.
Then exports / bounces it down while only using 25% of the total CPU and 2% of the SSD speed available.
Then I close the session, open again, and it exports using 50% of total CPU.

Cries in threading and ponders how benchmark scores dont tell the whole story.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

Not bad for a refresh. Question is will the M3 big the 3nm switch and if so… when?!

More than likely either really late this year or early next year.

 

[meboy]

If the config upgrades weren't so ludicrously priced I could be excited about them.

I'll just wait for a studio that will pretty clearly skip to m3 now.

Judging by the base m2 in my air it's not enough for a main desktop despite what benchmarks seem to show.

 

[meboy]

Sad face when I watch my Mac Studio Ultra open a Logic session that loads its samples into RAM at about 140 MB/ps from an SSD.
Then exports / bounces it down while only using 25% of the total CPU and 2% of the SSD speed available.
Then I close the session, open again, and it exports using 50% of total CPU.

Cries in threading and ponders how benchmark scores dont tell the whole story.

Yup, real life use is very clearly not all it's hyped to be.
Anyone actually doing anything heavy would see that pretty quickly.

Hopefully by m3 they are closer.
Though what's causing the issues is not even clear. Maybe even Software?

 

[R2DHue]

Is it not true that Apple counts or considers GPU “cores” differently than AMD and Nvidia count/consider GPU cores?

I used to think it was comparable to CPU cores — like getting ±8/16± whole GPUs!

(I do know about ALUs, but, still, I don’t think Apple is comparing apples to apples.)

What’s the true story?

 

[atonaldenim]

1. Get Mac Studio M1 Ultra with 128gb of Ram now

2. Get MacBook Pro M2 Max with 96gb if Ram now

3. or wait for the Mac Studio with M2 Ultra and 128gb of ram.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the Mac Studio doesn’t get an update this year. I’d guess their higher priority is launching the Mac Pro with M2 Ultra at a $5999 starting price. They may want to keep the lower priced Mac Studio with M1 Max / Ultra for a while, so the Mac Pro is the clear top performer.

After the Mac Pro launch, I hope they do keep updating the Mac Studio, that’s a good high-end price / performance tier for most people. Some are speculating the Mac Studio could be a one-off model like the iMac Pro or eMac G4 Cube. That could explain its uncharacteristically utilitarian industrial design. We’ll see…

As someone who used to repair iMac's for Apple I how they don't bring back the iMac Pro. Troubleshooting those iMac's with intermittent shutdown issues were a pain. Sometimes it was the power supply, other times a logic board, other times it was the coin battery, or rear housing. I much prefer the Mac Studio and Display being separate and I think that was a good move from Apple.

This is a good point, I’m happy to tinker with the insides of computers but I have always viewed the iMac design with dread. Having to remove the display to access the internals seems like a pretty bad design, fraught with peril. I wonder if pushing iMac Pro buyers to Mac Mini/Studio plus Studio Display is partly an effort to reduce service costs.

 

[Mikebobo]

OLED Is coming to the macs by 2024/2025. MicroLED is a long way off for the iphone, ipad and mac. Apple watch is getting it first and even that’s likely 2025.

OLED can’t match the brightness and have other issues like burn in. The screens on the MacBook pros are outstanding. OLED wouldn’t be an upgrade to these.