First M2 Pro benchmarks prove big improvement over M1 Max

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 19
Geekbench results seemingly for the M2 Pro Mac mini are of course better than for the M1 version, but they also greatly exceed the M1 Max figures.




Apple has not yet shipped the Mac mini with M2 Pro, but Geekbench now includes an entry for device identified as "Mac14,12". It appears to be the new M2 Pro version of the Mac mini, in its 12-core CPU configuration, with 16GB of unified memory.

Its single-core score is 1952, and multi-core score is 15013.

Benchmark test scores may not give a great indication of how a machine will perform in real-world use, but they do give a point of comparison. Previous Geekbench scores for the M1 Mac mini, then, have scores of 1651 single-core and 5181 multi-core.

Note that this is comparing the M1 with the M2 Pro, not the base M2. But it's still a major difference. And more significantly, Geekbench scores for M1 Max were typically 1727 single-core and 12643 multi-core.

It appears that Apple has successfully increased the performance of the M2 range over the already notably fast M1. However, benchmark tests are also not definitive.

In November 2022, for instance, benchmarks for a Mac with the M2 Max leaked online and appeared to show little improvement. Then in December 2022, a separate benchmark leak showed much better performance.

The M2 Pro Mac mini is available for preorder now and will begin shipping by January 24, 2022.

Read on AppleInsider
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 34
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 2,582member
    But what are the scores for the regular M2 Mac Mini?

    EDIT; n/m found them. 1869 sc and 8900 mc.
    edited January 19 d_2watto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 34
    rob53rob53 Posts: 3,090member
    I checked Geekbench and they didn't list any Apple M2 Pro Compute scores for Metal.

    As a comparison, here's my early 2019 iMac19,1 Core i9 8c, 72GB RAM, 2TB SSD, AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 (bought son's fully blown iMac used for animation). 

    Single 1309, 67% of M2 Pro mini
    Multi 8021, 53% of M2 Pro mini
    Compute Metal 53883
    Compute OpenCL 49436
    Cost (can't remember but over $5K)

    M2 Pro mini, 10/16/16 32GB 2TB $2,299
    Studi Display $1,599
    Keyboard and Mouse $298 (keyboard with TouchID)
    Total $4,096 (funny total because it's 2 to the 12th power) <80% of iMac i9

    Wish I could simply plug a Mac mini into my iMac display.
    edited January 19 d_2FileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 34
    keithwkeithw Posts: 104member
    How about the benchmark(s) for the M2 Max MBP.? That may be a more fair comparison against the M1 Max.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 34
    damonfdamonf Posts: 228member
    This is somewhat old news, especially looking at the single-core comparisons.  Geekbench shows a single-core score of 1756 for the 2022 Mac Studio with the M1 Max (10 core: 8 high-performance, 2 high-efficiency), but 1900 for the 13-inch 2022 MacBook Pro with the M2 (8 core: 4 high-performance, 4 high-efficiency).  Because the M1 Max has double the number of performance cores compared to the base M2, it outperforms the M2 on multicore (Mac Studio M1 Max: 12336, MBP M2: 8735), which should be expected. So with the M2 Pro having the potential for the same count of high-performance cores (8) as the M1 Max, it should come as no surprise that the M2 Pro can exceed the M1 Max on a strictly CPU benchmark test.

    The main benefits of the "Max" series are in GPU performance, memory bandwidth (double the Pro series of same generation), and the additional ProRes encoder/decoder.  If you look within the same generation (i.e. M1 Pro vs M1 Max), the CPU performance gains on the Max vs the Pro of the same core count are very subtle: 

    - MBP 16" 2021, M1 Pro (10 core): 1742 single core test, 12141 multi-core test
    - MBP 16" 2021, M1 Max (10 core): 1745 single core test, 12191 multi-core test

    Source: Mac Benchmarks - Geekbench Browser
    cpsroFileMakerFellerwatto_cobrafastasleep
  • Reply 5 of 34
    Apple ain’t stupid. And they didn’t start building their own silicon to suck. 
    edited January 19 docno42lkruppMisterKitRudeBoyRudyFileMakerFellerwatto_cobraradarthekat
  • Reply 6 of 34
    thttht Posts: 4,722member
    rob53 said:
    I checked Geekbench and they didn't list any Apple M2 Pro Compute scores for Metal.

    As a comparison, here's my early 2019 iMac19,1 Core i9 8c, 72GB RAM, 2TB SSD, AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 (bought son's fully blown iMac used for animation). 

    Single 1309, 67% of M2 Pro mini
    Multi 8021, 53% of M2 Pro mini
    Compute Metal 53883
    Compute OpenCL 49436
    Cost (can't remember but over $5K)

    M2 Pro mini, 10/16/16 32GB 2TB $2,299
    Studi Display $1,599
    Keyboard and Mouse $298 (keyboard with TouchID)
    Total $4,096 (funny total because it's 2 to the 12th power) <80% of iMac i9

    Wish I could simply plug a Mac mini into my iMac display.
    Here's a GB5 Metal score: 52.8k

    https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/compute/6253745

    Dollars to donuts, the M2 Pro 8+4+19 config will have about the same GPU performance as the M1 Max 8+2+24 config in the base Mac Studio. They are basically the same GPU performance and therefore will be about the same price for the time being. I don't think you can get a M2 Max Mac Studio until June or later. A little bit better CPU performance though, but the Studio has other things it offers. Geekbench probably has a +/-15% variation in submitted test scores due to processes doing other stuff on the machine while people test. You'll need to wait awhile for hundreds of tests to get a good average.

    A a desktop Skylake i9 had 125W TDP. The Vega 48 is probably somewhere around 150 W. So about 250 W total for that performance in total CPU+GPU loads. Apple just point that performance in a 150 W box, with better CPU performance, but it is probably using 70W aggregate total or so CPU+GPU combined loads, and comes with a bunch of media engines that will take the load off the GPU and CPU for a lot of stuff.
    watto_cobrafastasleep
  • Reply 7 of 34
    AniMillAniMill Posts: 109member
    “Wish I could simply plug a Mac mini into my iMac display.”

    I believe this to be deliberate. If Target Displays Mode still existed, the reason and need for the Studio Display would be greatly diminished. I believe many iMac 5K users would see the Mac Mini M2 Pro as a great alternative to buying a new Apple display.

    williamlondonwatto_cobraappleinsideruser
  • Reply 8 of 34
    jdb8167jdb8167 Posts: 626member
    "Previous Geekbench scores for the M1 Mac mini, then, have scores of 1651 single-core and 5181 multi-core."

    This part makes no sense though it is interesting that MacRumors copied it but then later updated the scores to be correct. The actual scores for the M1 Mac mini are: SC: 1715, MC: 7442.

    Anyone awake at AppleInsider? You need to update the article with the actual GB 5 
    scores.
    williamlondonwatto_cobraanonconformistfastasleep
  • Reply 9 of 34
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,733member
    AniMill said:
    I believe this to be deliberate. If Target Displays Mode still existed

    Target display mode went away with 5K and Apple's custom graphics controller to bring 5K to market well ahead of the rest of industry supporting it.  Yup, target display mode would be nice - but we now have the best solution - separating the computer from a large display with the Studio display.  The larger iMacs were always extremely wasteful, even with target display mode (have to have a whole computer running just to use it as a monitor?!?) and I'm glad to see Apple backing away from them.
    lkruppwatto_cobrafastasleep
  • Reply 10 of 34
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,341member
    AniMill said:
    “Wish I could simply plug a Mac mini into my iMac display.”

    I believe this to be deliberate. If Target Displays Mode still existed, the reason and need for the Studio Display would be greatly diminished. I believe many iMac 5K users would see the Mac Mini M2 Pro as a great alternative to buying a new Apple display.

    Oh horse manure. Enough with the planned obsolescence conspiracy theories. And you wouldn’t buy an Apple monitor anyway.
    edited January 19 docno42williamlondonwatto_cobramichelb76StrangeDays
  • Reply 11 of 34
    danoxdanox Posts: 1,527member
    docno42 said:
    AniMill said:
    I believe this to be deliberate. If Target Displays Mode still existed

    Target display mode went away with 5K and Apple's custom graphics controller to bring 5K to market well ahead of the rest of industry supporting it.  Yup, target display mode would be nice - but we now have the best solution - separating the computer from a large display with the Studio display.  The larger iMacs were always extremely wasteful, even with target display mode (have to have a whole computer running just to use it as a monitor?!?) and I'm glad to see Apple backing away from them.
    docno42 said:
    AniMill said:
    I believe this to be deliberate. If Target Displays Mode still existed

    Target display mode went away with 5K and Apple's custom graphics controller to bring 5K to market well ahead of the rest of industry supporting it.  Yup, target display mode would be nice - but we now have the best solution - separating the computer from a large display with the Studio display.  The larger iMacs were always extremely wasteful, even with target display mode (have to have a whole computer running just to use it as a monitor?!?) and I'm glad to see Apple backing away from them.
    Target display mode like MagSafe will be back it’s just too useful to sit on the sidelines.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 34
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,334member
    AniMill said:
    “Wish I could simply plug a Mac mini into my iMac display.”

    I believe this to be deliberate. If Target Displays Mode still existed, the reason and need for the Studio Display would be greatly diminished. I believe many iMac 5K users would see the Mac Mini M2 Pro as a great alternative to buying a new Apple display.

    No. When Apple came out with the first 27” 5k model, there were no driver chips capable of driving a 5k display. There were kludges, but they didn’t work well. For example, using two driver chips and treating one side of the display as one display, and the other as another display, then syncing the two together. Horrible, but that all there was.

    Apple designed their own driver chip to have one 5k display. But the conventions they had to use weren’t standard, and as a result, target mode had to go away. Sad, but not intentional.

    ah, I didn’t see the other posts explaining this. Just to keep in mind, Apple had displays even when target mode was in effect, so having a monitor now is obviously not why it no longer works.
    edited January 19 docno42tenthousandthingsFileMakerFellerwatto_cobrafastasleepbaconstangmichelb76appleinsideruserStrangeDays
  • Reply 13 of 34
    rob53rob53 Posts: 3,090member
    tht said:
    rob53 said:

    Compute Metal 53883
    Compute OpenCL 49436
    Cost (can't remember but over $5K)

    Here's a GB5 Metal score: 52.8k

    https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/compute/6253745

    Dollars to donuts, the M2 Pro 8+4+19 config will have about the same GPU performance as the M1 Max 8+2+24 config in the base Mac Studio. They are basically the same GPU performance and therefore will be about the same price for the time being. I don't think you can get a M2 Max Mac Studio until June or later. A little bit better CPU performance though, but the Studio has other things it offers. Geekbench probably has a +/-15% variation in submitted test scores due to processes doing other stuff on the machine while people test. You'll need to wait awhile for hundreds of tests to get a good average.

    A a desktop Skylake i9 had 125W TDP. The Vega 48 is probably somewhere around 150 W. So about 250 W total for that performance in total CPU+GPU loads. Apple just point that performance in a 150 W box, with better CPU performance, but it is probably using 70W aggregate total or so CPU+GPU combined loads, and comes with a bunch of media engines that will take the load off the GPU and CPU for a lot of stuff.
    So the M2 Pro matches the Radeon Pro Vega 48 in performance. That's a real good sign since the Pro Vega was an expensive option. That card alone is a heater. Now I just have to figure out how to use of my 5K display (or buy a used iMac) with a Mac mini. Not sure when a Pro or Max version of the iMac will be available. With the power of the M2 Pro mini getting a reasonably priced display comparable to my 27" iMac 5K display might be a better option than waiting for a more powerful iMac. I have to wonder if Apple will stop producing larger iMacs, pushing customers to the Mac Studio or Mac mini with a detached display. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 34
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,733member
    danox said:
    Target display mode like MagSafe will be back it’s just too useful to sit on the sidelines.
    But will the large screen iMac be back?  Seems doubtful.  
    watto_cobrafastasleep
  • Reply 15 of 34
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,733member
    rob53 said:
     I have to wonder if Apple will stop producing larger iMacs, pushing customers to the Mac Studio or Mac mini with a detached display. 
    I'd be shocked if it comes back now that we have the Studio display.   And it appears Samsung and Dell have both introduced 5k (maybe one is a 6k?) at CES so there are two alternatives to the LG.  With larger screens at high resolution, having the monitor separate from the computer just makes a heck of a lot more sense.
    watto_cobrafastasleepmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 16 of 34
    Apple ain’t stupid. And they didn’t start building their own silicon to suck. 

    but the internet keyboard warriors and youtubers need content... so every cycle it's the same thing. you'd think they're engineers and computer scientists LOL



    williamlondonwatto_cobraStrangeDays
  • Reply 17 of 34
    hodarhodar Posts: 351member
    rob53 said:
    Wish I could simply plug a Mac mini into my iMac display.
    That is my single “ding” against the iMac line.  The display is magnificent; but then tech on the motherboard will be obsolete decades before the monitor is done.  The monitor doesn’t have the ability to switch inputs; which is why I went with the Mac Mini

    With a decent monitor; keyboard, mouse and a little extra storage the cost outlay is not that far apart, assuming you start off with a upper level Mini
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 34
    melgross said:
    AniMill said:
    “Wish I could simply plug a Mac mini into my iMac display.”

    I believe this to be deliberate. If Target Displays Mode still existed, the reason and need for the Studio Display would be greatly diminished. I believe many iMac 5K users would see the Mac Mini M2 Pro as a great alternative to buying a new Apple display.

    No. When Apple came out with the first 27” 5k model, there were no driver chips capable of driving a 5k display. There were kludges, but they didn’t work well. For example, using two driver chips and treating one side of the display as one display, and the other as another display, then syncing the two together. Horrible, but that all there was.

    Apple designed their own driver chip to have one 5k display. But the conventions they had to use weren’t standard, and as a result, target mode had to go away. Sad, but not intentional.

    ah, I didn’t see the other posts explaining this. Just to keep in mind, Apple had displays even when target mode was in effect, so having a monitor now is obviously not why it no longer works.
    Maybe the driver of iMac display is not in the display because iMac is AIO?
    watto_cobraStrangeDays
  • Reply 19 of 34
    thttht Posts: 4,722member
    rob53 said:
    tht said:
    rob53 said:

    Compute Metal 53883
    Compute OpenCL 49436
    Cost (can't remember but over $5K)

    Here's a GB5 Metal score: 52.8k

    https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/compute/6253745

    Dollars to donuts, the M2 Pro 8+4+19 config will have about the same GPU performance as the M1 Max 8+2+24 config in the base Mac Studio. They are basically the same GPU performance and therefore will be about the same price for the time being. I don't think you can get a M2 Max Mac Studio until June or later. A little bit better CPU performance though, but the Studio has other things it offers. Geekbench probably has a +/-15% variation in submitted test scores due to processes doing other stuff on the machine while people test. You'll need to wait awhile for hundreds of tests to get a good average.

    A a desktop Skylake i9 had 125W TDP. The Vega 48 is probably somewhere around 150 W. So about 250 W total for that performance in total CPU+GPU loads. Apple just point that performance in a 150 W box, with better CPU performance, but it is probably using 70W aggregate total or so CPU+GPU combined loads, and comes with a bunch of media engines that will take the load off the GPU and CPU for a lot of stuff.
    So the M2 Pro matches the Radeon Pro Vega 48 in performance. That's a real good sign since the Pro Vega was an expensive option. That card alone is a heater. Now I just have to figure out how to use of my 5K display (or buy a used iMac) with a Mac mini. Not sure when a Pro or Max version of the iMac will be available. With the power of the M2 Pro mini getting a reasonably priced display comparable to my 27" iMac 5K display might be a better option than waiting for a more powerful iMac. I have to wonder if Apple will stop producing larger iMacs, pushing customers to the Mac Studio or Mac mini with a detached display. 
    Seems the iMac 27 and iMac Pro are retired products or are taking a very long vacation. The Mac mini and Mac Studio have every price point filled out from $600 to $4000. Maybe an outside chance of an iMac 27 with miniLED 120 Hz if Apple can't get TB5 in the Studio.

    Your best bet might be to sell your iMac 5K, hopefully for >$2k, and get a display of your choice plus other accessories. The OWC miniStack will go on top of a mini nice and neatly, and there are lots of mini shaped port extenders with SSD drives that can be stacked too.

    watto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 34
    hodar said:
    rob53 said:
    Wish I could simply plug a Mac mini into my iMac display.
    That is my single “ding” against the iMac line.  The display is magnificent; but then tech on the motherboard will be obsolete decades before the monitor is done.  The monitor doesn’t have the ability to switch inputs; which is why I went with the Mac Mini

    With a decent monitor; keyboard, mouse and a little extra storage the cost outlay is not that far apart, assuming you start off with a upper level Mini
    It is a risk someone takes whenever they buy an all-in-one product from any company.
    FileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.