Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

New MacBook Pro Reviews: Hands-On Look at Performance and Upgraded Specs

HDMI 2.1 is why I am going through with upgrading my 16" m1 Max Pro to an m2. This has been a thorn in my side ever since I upgraded my monitor that only has the 2.1 option. Yes, my monitor works, but it is constantly flaking out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: harshar and james2538
TedJustAdmitit said:
HDMI 2.1 is why I am going through with upgrading my 16" m1 Max Pro to an m2. This has been a thorn in my side ever since I upgraded my monitor that only has the 2.1 option. Yes, my monitor works, but it is constantly flaking out.
Click to expand...
Has anyone confirmed if it does HDMI vrr on the 2.1 yet?
 
iMacDragon said:
Has anyone confirmed if it does HDMI vrr on the 2.1 yet?
Click to expand...
CNET says it does or at least that is how I am reading it. "Apple's 2023 update to its flagship MacBook Pro 16-inch line follows the company's usual MO. It offers a modest refresh from the more significantly redesigned 2021 model; notably, upgrades to the latest generation of M2-class processors, Wi-Fi 6E and HDMI 2.1, which means support for displays up to 8K/60Hz and 4K/240Hz as well as variable refresh rates."
 
TedJustAdmitit said:
CNET says it does or at least that is how I am reading it. "Apple's 2023 update to its flagship MacBook Pro 16-inch line follows the company's usual MO. It offers a modest refresh from the more significantly redesigned 2021 model; notably, upgrades to the latest generation of M2-class processors, Wi-Fi 6E and HDMI 2.1, which means support for displays up to 8K/60Hz and 4K/240Hz as well as variable refresh rates."
Click to expand...
That does sound relatively confirming, I mean I would certainly hope it does as it does over DP, and that was one of the key additions to 2.1, but as the pre release specs made no mention it was a grey area still.
 
Is it me or does this seem a little 'recurring'?

Back with the M1, all the reviewers said the M1 Max had absolutely no lag during FCP editing etc. Completely flawless.
Now, from a snippet of these biased reviews on the first page, she said the exact same thing - apparently the M1 Max lagged a little, but the M2 Max doesn't any more?!

Other then a few reviewers, like MKBHD, the rest are biased reviews who want to keep getting free items for review from Apple. Do not trust them, and won't bother watching them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shirasaki, Mr_Risin_Mojo and ralph_sws
This is what stood to me the most in the Verge review.

"One other thing: the MacBook Pro 16 with M2 Max is hotter and louder than the M1 Max machine was. While it was running PugetBench, the M2 Max machine’s fans were so loud that people across the office were coming over to see what was going on. I would not have wanted to be typing at that time — the top of the keyboard was toasty. I only saw this during PugetBench — it was not at all loud or hot during everyday Chrome usage — but the M1 Max machine, by contrast, was astonishingly silent and cool all throughout my testing period. "
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Shirasaki
Student of Life said:
This is what stood to me the most in the Verge review.

"One other thing: the MacBook Pro 16 with M2 Max is hotter and louder than the M1 Max machine was. While it was running PugetBench, the M2 Max machine’s fans were so loud that people across the office were coming over to see what was going on. I would not have wanted to be typing at that time — the top of the keyboard was toasty. I only saw this during PugetBench — it was not at all loud or hot during everyday Chrome usage — but the M1 Max machine, by contrast, was astonishingly silent and cool all throughout my testing period. "
Click to expand...
Ditto, I'm very interested to see where fans/temps/throttling sit between 19/30/38 core.

I suspected the 38 would run too hot, opted for the 30 as a compromise.. hoping this works out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Burnincoco, Shirasaki, sleven and 1 other person
Some of the YouTube thumbnail previews are scary to look at. Anyways, what we were expecting? Apple Silicon has pretty much settled in after 3 years its gonna be iterative and optimizations going forward. My M1 MBP Pro is super solid for what I need but its rarely used. I am on a Windows desktop at work for 8 hours. I might do some light browsing when I get home, but then I'm in bed with my iPad Pro for the rest of the evening. Its almost like the technology is too much.

That said, I will be upgrading to the MacBook Pro 16 or 18 inch M5 Max with 68 cores and 96 GBs RAM in 2025.
 
  • Like
Reactions: amartinez1660
McTaste said:
Seeing all the tech youtubers listed together really makes it clear how much of youtube is purely promotional / sponsored content. Quite a coup for Google to get people used to watching 10 minute long form ads, with additional ads in / around them.
Click to expand...
if only they were 100% transparent about it. but yeah their job (or part of it at least) is being payed by brands to do reviews. It doesn't have to be apologetic (that would be suspect) but just talking about it (and not completely trash it) is enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ralph_sws and sleven
The post lists one GB5 SC score for the M2 Max, but it's possible there should be two, one for the 14" and one for the 16".

1674493937502.png


Based on previous leaked scores, the 16" M2 may have a high power mode with a higher base frequency of 3.68 GHz (the 16" M1 also had a high power mode, but it didn't increase the base frequency and, consequently, didn't make much difference). Monica Chin, who reviewed the 16" in her Verge article, does get a higher SC score (2037):


www.theverge.com

Apple MacBook Pro 16 (2023) review: the core count grows

Just how far have Apple’s chips come since 2021?
www.theverge.com www.theverge.com
1674493880006.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: chucker23n1
theorist9 said:
The post lists one GB5 SC score for the M2 Max, but it's possible there should be two, one for the 14" and one for the 16". It looks like what they did was list the SC score for the 14" only (the article didn't specify the size):
Click to expand...

Jason's tests are on a 16-inch.

"I’ve been able to spend nearly a week with a 16-inch MacBook Pro with an M2 Max processor"

theorist9 said:
View attachment 2146870

Based on previous leaked scores, the 16" M2 has a high power mode with a higher base frequency (the 16" M1 also had a high power mode, but it didn't increase the base frequency and, consequently, didn't make much difference). Monica Chin, who reviewed the 16" in her Verge article, does get a higher SC score (2037):
Click to expand...

The higher base frequency would surprise me. That's possible, but for now, I assume the entire M2 line-up runs at 3.5 GHz.

As for the higher score: that's a 2.8% difference, which with Geekbench is unfortunately well within the margin of error. For example, take these scores for the 13-inch Pro with M2. The first page has scores ranging from 1769 to 1951, a whopping 10% difference. So I wouldn't read too much into that.


 
  • Like
Reactions: theorist9
dmylrea said:
Not only can you see into the future (since the new MacBook's aren't released yet), but you're an expert on what "the vast majority" of people will do with them! You should work with a circus -- you could be your own sideshow! "The Amazing SocialWill!" 😉

So many posts from people that seemingly know what "99.8%" or "everyone" or some other exact percentage of people will do with their computer. Arm-chair experts...
Click to expand...
Dont be so hurt when someones make a light joke about how powerful and efficient Mac's are and how many people use them.
 
chucker23n1 said:
Jason's tests are on a 16-inch.

"I’ve been able to spend nearly a week with a 16-inch MacBook Pro with an M2 Max processor"



The higher base frequency would surprise me. That's possible, but for now, I assume the entire M2 line-up runs at 3.5 GHz.

As for the higher score: that's a 2.8% difference, which with Geekbench is unfortunately well within the margin of error. For example, take these scores for the 13-inch Pro with M2. The first page has scores ranging from 1769 to 1951, a whopping 10% difference. So I wouldn't read too much into that.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the correction. Unfortunately I searched Jason's ariticle for 16" instead of 16, and thus didn't get a hit 😀. I'll edit my post.

Yes, you're right about the margin of error. But I was recalling this leaked score from Jan 19 with a 3.68 GHz frequency. I guess we'll have to wait and see.


1674495367647.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: chucker23n1
theorist9 said:
Yes, you're right about the margin of error. But I was recalling this leaked score from Jan 19 with a 3.68 GHz frequency.
Click to expand...

Ah. Not sure how things are going on macOS, but I know Geekbench had to move to guessing the clock on iOS long ago, because iOS won't reveal it any more.

Looks like on my M1 Pro Mac, sysctl hw.cpufrequency is no longer set (I think it was on x86 Macs), so maybe Geekbench has the same problem as on iOS that the API just doesn't exist. Instead, you can have powermetrics sample the CPU for a while and give you an average. I guess Apple feels that frequency varies too wildly for it to be meaningful. (There's also a bit of a Schrödinger thing going on. Measuring the frequency affects — ever so slightly — the frequency. Not to mention that the e-cores run on a different frequency than the p-cores…)

TL;DR: I wouldn't rely too much on that number either. And I hope Geekbench 6 allows for showing heterogenous cores.
 
I’m thinking of getting rid of my 2018 15” MB Pro for a 16” 2023 model. Just don’t want lose access to Windows. I use it from time to time when the Mac equivalent program doesn’t have the same features. What to do…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back