Not to mention more power means getting the task done in less time: which means less time spent running at full power; more time at low power: less battery used. It’s a win-win.
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.
'M2 Max' Geekbench Scores Surface Again Online Ahead of Release in 2023
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Anyone that wants the flat out best performance for cross platform applications are already running something Intel and will continue to do so (except in those few cases where Apple provides an unbeatable advantage due to the architecture). Apple’s fully aware of that and, as a result, as long as what’s “next” is faster than “now” in the same form factor, they’ve hit their target.
I don’t think they will. I’m still waiting to see if this is what they REALLY do (it’s only been two years running so far) but my expectation is that, with every generation, they’ll continue to make the most performant lower core count chip they can as a baseline (M1, M2, M3) and anything more performant than that baseline will just be more of the same cores in varying configurations.
Apple Silicon will likely always be behind Intel’s “whatever metric”, but, what’s MORE important, is that they’ll still be ahead of any computer in the same form factor that runs macOS natively.
Maybe true. But does not seem major either unless you still have a 2017/18 MBP and then upgrade to the the 2023 M2 Pro MBP …
I think that's right. The strategy is working for them, as long as they can keep improving IPC about 10-20% a year, and add a few cores now and then (plus, potentially, add more specialized cores, such as the Display Engine or of cores before it the Neural Engine).
thanks for taking the time to prove that .I stopped bothering with such people some time ago, and in fact i shouldn't have responded to his patronizing answerI strongly disagree with the way you criticized this poster, since it's condescending in tone while also being incorrect. There's nothing wrong with the phrase "power consumption". It just means energy consumption per unit time. Indeed, it's commonly used in that way as a term of art. Here are just a few examples:
Televisions Key Product Criteria
www.energystar.gov
View attachment 2125912
View attachment 2125914
View attachment 2125915View attachment 2125916View attachment 2125917
This doesn't account for those customers that aren't going to go cross-platform because they want to stay with MacOS, but do want high performance, which applies to most of Apple's higher-end desktop users.
I recall running simulations on a Power Mac G5 while my friend was runnning similar ones on his (significantly faster) AMD Linux box. I wasn't going to switch to Linux, since I didn't want to give up MacOS's much nicer UI (and MS Office), but I was not pleased that, in exchange for running MacOS, I was stuck with a slower machine.
Apple wants its customers to be happy with its products. And there are many higher-end desktop customers that, being in that category, want a computer that's highly responsive with minimum lag, which typically means a really high SC speed (relative to the software you're using). And while I haven't yet switched to AS (I'm running a 2019 i9 iMac), I gather Apple isn't there yet. That means if they do increase SC performance to a degree sufficient to be noticeable, it will contribute to customer satisfaction.
I'm not saying Apple will cater to such customers by offering higher SC speeds in the Studio and Mac Pro than in the Air. I'm just saying many who would like, and benefit from, maximal SC performance won't switch to PC's, since the tradeoff of not being able to run MacOS is too great for them.
Plus you want to account for switchers in the other direction. To expand its market, Apple needs to convert PC owners. Converting higher-end PC desktop users requires offering them something that isn't a performance downgrade.
Last edited:
this may all be true, but the market you are talking about are not the PC owners Apple will be targeting, and the decisions they have made for AS means they never will [GPU performance for a start].
I run an Ultra mac studio and a decent desktop PC [I9 12th gen 3080ti] in my studio. They complement each other very well and are used to their strengths. In no instances I have wanted or needed faster single core performance from my macs [and I am what is commonly defined as a power user].
Just tell me when the new MBP will release. My 2016 MBP (yes the infamous one with the amazing key board) has a broken key, bad battery, display anomalies and the O key registers random extra keystrokes when pressed.
I normally buy a new Mac every few years but just had a baby boy so money has been tighter so this is the longest I’ve ever gone since upgrading.
I will prove that I am still a loyal Apple customer who cares about Apple because I will purchase AppleCare.
I normally buy a new Mac every few years but just had a baby boy so money has been tighter so this is the longest I’ve ever gone since upgrading.
I will prove that I am still a loyal Apple customer who cares about Apple because I will purchase AppleCare.
Attachments
The #1 reason I'm looking forward to updating from my 2019 intel MBP to a M2 Max MBP is not just the CPU power in general, but the power with low energy usage, therefore less heat, and therefore less fan usage. My Intel MBP can mostly get the audio DSP work done that I throw at it, and I don't usually overload it, but it does keep those fans running FULL BLAST for extended periods of time, and the fan noise is actually a significant problem. Unlike many, I don't care about the video performance at all, I'm sure whatever will be fine to run my control interface and waveform displays. If I can get the power of my current Intel (2.4 GHz 8-core i9 I think?) but without any fan usage at all, I'll be happy. We'll see. I'll def be grabbing whatever the top M2 Max MBP is, with 32 GB RAM and probably 2TB storage.
Sorry, not following exactly how this responds to what I wrote.
I'm a regular user of Mathematica and, like many pieces of scientific software, it's mostly single threaded. I routinely run calculations that take several seconds to several minutes to complete. Since Mathematica is interactive, a reduction in the wait times would be welcome.
Plus when doing common operations on my 2019 i9 iMac within Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and Adobe Acrobat Pro, if the documents are sufficiently large and complex (which mine are), I routinely get delays of 1-3 s, often accompanied by a spinning beachball. Since these operations are common, these delays are repeated, which makes them irritating.
So yes, I definitely can use faster SC performance.
As a rule of thumb, to see a noticeable improvement in reponsiveness, you want a two-fold decrease in these wait times. My iMac's SC GB score is 1375 (measured), which means it's probably not worth spending the several thousand it would cost to switch to AS (I've got 128 GB now, and would probably want at least 96 GB with AS; plus I'd need to replace the iMac's 27" Retina Display) until it can offer GB SC > 2600.
Last edited:
If they’re staying with macOS and wanting the “BEST performing macOS system they can buy”, they will ALWAYS be able to buy that. If they’re only focusing on top raw performance, with money no object… just based on the number of Intel and Nvidia tuned libraries, they’re doing themselves a disservice by sticking with macOS, but that’s wholly their decision to do so. But, by doing so, they’re saying that performance is not their most important requirement.
Yeah, but “being happy with its products” doesn’t mean “benchmarking better than Intel”. For anyone that NEEDS Intel benchmark numbers, they’re always going to need an Intel system as Apple’s not even entering that race anymore. Apple will happily say how they’re getting more performance per watt, but all their comparison charts show that if peak performance is the priority, you’re better off with something else.
Good point, going with Macs mean foregoing a LOT of potential performance. That’s why how they compare against Intel doesn’t even matter anymore.
You seem to be viewing this in black-and-white, where either you care about max performance, in which case you'll abandon Macs for PC's, or you stay with Mac, which (in your view) means you don't. But that's not the real world. I'd say most high-end Mac desktop users are in the gray area, where max performance is very important to them, but they stick with Mac anyways, because it's not the most important thing. But not being the most important doesn't mean it's not still very important.
Let me put it another way: Most high-end Mac desktop users want both MacOS and max performance, but will unhappily choose the former over the latter. It would be better if Apple didn't force them to make this unhappy choice (or, if you prefer, "leave in them in a position where they have to make this unhappy choice").
Last edited:
You jest, but this extra power translates to Procreate handling more layers without any hitch or Sculpt+ supporting high polygon count without fumbling.
Anyone working as a pre-production artist (like concept artist, Keyframe Illustrator, Illustrator, Color key artist, Previs artist) who wants to keep their production mobile, it means a lot to them.
My predictions are that this will be considered a solid upgrade, but a tok rather than a tik, with no reason for existing owners to upgrade.
I also predict that although M2 Max battery life will be shown in specs as being the same as the M1 Max, or marginally worse, the boost in clock speed will mean a higher power draw. This will mean worse real life battery life by maybe an hour or two, and perhaps even worse for those doing intensive tasks. This will be a genuine PITA for some users. But it won't be a big thing. Maybe enough MacRumors and Apple help forum users will flag it for the editorial team to pick it up as a story... And then it'll be forgotten.
Apple will almost certainly be betting on more and more apps switching to native Apple Silicon, so that the battery-draining Rosetta 2 isn't required as much. The two biggies – Microsoft Office and Adobe Creative Cloud – have already made the transition. But there's still a surprising amount of Intel-only apps out there, with their developers showing no urgency for switching.
Third prediction: Apple may keep the M1 Max in the line-up at a lower price, like they've done with the M1 Air (or keep it at the same price, but raise the price of the M2 Max). This M1 Max will remain the better option for most because of the better battery life and VFM. But most people will buy the M2 Max anyway...
I also predict that although M2 Max battery life will be shown in specs as being the same as the M1 Max, or marginally worse, the boost in clock speed will mean a higher power draw. This will mean worse real life battery life by maybe an hour or two, and perhaps even worse for those doing intensive tasks. This will be a genuine PITA for some users. But it won't be a big thing. Maybe enough MacRumors and Apple help forum users will flag it for the editorial team to pick it up as a story... And then it'll be forgotten.
Apple will almost certainly be betting on more and more apps switching to native Apple Silicon, so that the battery-draining Rosetta 2 isn't required as much. The two biggies – Microsoft Office and Adobe Creative Cloud – have already made the transition. But there's still a surprising amount of Intel-only apps out there, with their developers showing no urgency for switching.
Third prediction: Apple may keep the M1 Max in the line-up at a lower price, like they've done with the M1 Air (or keep it at the same price, but raise the price of the M2 Max). This M1 Max will remain the better option for most because of the better battery life and VFM. But most people will buy the M2 Max anyway...
This still happens on Apple Silicon and it's because Microsoft and Adobe just don't care enough to optimise their apps. Microsoft continues to have a slightly antagonistic relationship with Apple hardware. Office on the PC is amazing. On the Mac? Not so much.
I still can't believe that on my M1 Max, with 32GB and an insanely fast SSD, it takes maybe 5-10 seconds for Office apps to open. And Adobe In Design and Premier are just ... something else. 20-30 seconds at best from a cold start. Maybe a minute staring at the splash screen. I try to avoid quitting them for this reason – I'd rather have them sitting there chewing up memory than have to wait each time.
And then many apps will beachball for a few seconds when I open certain files. This also happens on the M1 Pro that my employer provides, by the way.
And don't get me started on Adobe Acrobat. I'm reasonably sure Adobe is trolling us with that app. It should be taught in Computer Science classes as the epitome of bad software. Scroll a little. Wait a second for the app to catch up. Scroll some more. Wait. Open the Find field and it's 100x worse.