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.
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.
New MacBook Pro Reviews: Hands-On Look at Performance and Upgraded Specs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
3 extra hours of battery life is bonkers. Tiny differences in max power from other vendors is nothing compared to that extra battery life. I am a light user but being able to go days without worrying about my MacBook Air charging has been huge. Its amazing.
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."
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.
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.
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. "
"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. "
"The M2 macbook pro represents the M1 Macbook Pro price drop you've been waiting for."
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.
Exactly. I'll take $400-500 off versus small gains in performance and battery life that I don't even need.
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.
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.
I'm always curious how these things are going to appear in a decade or so
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.
I know within a week someone will post this, but I honestly want to know what kind of FPS these new Pros put out on World of Warcraft.
edit: Queue the "WoW can run on a toaster" comments... 🤪
edit: Queue the "WoW can run on a toaster" comments... 🤪
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.
Damn bro, MKBHD is good at making ads for Apple
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".
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
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):
Apple MacBook Pro 16 (2023) review: the core count grows
Just how far have Apple’s chips come since 2021?
www.theverge.com
Last edited:
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.
Dont be so hurt when someones make a light joke about how powerful and efficient Mac's are and how many people use them.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...
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.
Last edited:
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…
A different perspective for a review of the M2 Max comes from Ben Bajarin in his newsletter. He compares the efficiency of the M2 Max over M1 Max (and previous generations) and shows how this improves batter life in the 16” MacBook Pro. Definitely worth a read. https://creativestrategies.com/m2-max-under-the-hood-with-the-latest-apple-silicon/