M2 Pro & Max GPUs are fast -- but not faster than M1 Ultra
Metal benchmarks for the M2 Pro and M2 Max show a 30% improvement over the previous generation, aligning with Apple's claims about speed boosts.
Geekbench Metal scores for M-series processors
Reviewers have their hands on Apple's upcoming MacBook Pros, so public benchmark scores are inevitably showing up in Geekbench. The GPU scores show that Apple's claim of a 30% increase in both chips is accurate.
The M2 Pro scored 52691, while the M2 Max scored 86805. That's compared to the M1 Pro scoring 38238 and the M1 Max scoring 58856.
Scores can vary slightly based on environment, battery level, and other active processes.
These scores follow the initial M2 Pro Geekbench scores that show a big improvement over the M1 Pro, and even exceed the M1 Max. The M2 Pro scored 1952 single-core and 15013 multi-core, while the M1 Max scores 1727 single-core and 12643 multi-core.
The M2 Pro can be configured with up to a 19-core GPU, and the M2 Max can have up to a 38-core GPU. The score for the M2 Pro are for the 19-core GPU and 32GB of RAM configuration. The M2 Max test had 64GB of RAM and didn't list how many GPU cores were available.
Read on AppleInsider
Geekbench Metal scores for M-series processors
Reviewers have their hands on Apple's upcoming MacBook Pros, so public benchmark scores are inevitably showing up in Geekbench. The GPU scores show that Apple's claim of a 30% increase in both chips is accurate.
The M2 Pro scored 52691, while the M2 Max scored 86805. That's compared to the M1 Pro scoring 38238 and the M1 Max scoring 58856.
Scores can vary slightly based on environment, battery level, and other active processes.
These scores follow the initial M2 Pro Geekbench scores that show a big improvement over the M1 Pro, and even exceed the M1 Max. The M2 Pro scored 1952 single-core and 15013 multi-core, while the M1 Max scores 1727 single-core and 12643 multi-core.
The M2 Pro can be configured with up to a 19-core GPU, and the M2 Max can have up to a 38-core GPU. The score for the M2 Pro are for the 19-core GPU and 32GB of RAM configuration. The M2 Max test had 64GB of RAM and didn't list how many GPU cores were available.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
We only have info for the M2 Pro.
And since the CPUs are exactly the same for the "full" M2 Pro compared to M2 Mac (and similarly for M1 Pro/Mac), it is no surprise that GeekBench CPU scores for M2 Pro/Max are better than those of M1 Pro/Max.
4 TB ports at 15 W. 2 USBA ports at 10 W. That's 80 W, with 105 W for everything else. 40 W for the CPU cluster and 60 W for the GPU cluster, give or take. I do wonder if it can actually deliver 15 W out of every TB port and 10 W out of the USBA ports, simultaneously.
Unfortunately the sad state of CAD software on the Mac means I have to get a thinkpad. Sigh.
I will get my long wished for Mac mini M2 Pro for personal use later when the dollars in the bankrecover.
Now, I'd like to see a Mac Pro built around a cluster of M2 Max SoCs with appropriate software. The M2 Max might be a more reasonable SoC to build a cluster around than the Ultra version. I would think the Max would have a lower rejection rate than the Ultra.
Yes, the M2 Pro's 1952 single core Geekbench score is faster than the i7-1255U's 1739 ... but not by a whole lot. (By the way .... the i7-1255U is for thin and light notebooks, which is why it ised used in mini-PCs. Their performance Core i7 chip, the i7-12800HX, used for workbooks and lower end workstation laptops, is a wash in single core and actually beats the M2 Pro in multicore. And this does not get into the Core i7 chips that actually are for desktops instead of laptops like the i7-12700K.)
The M2 Pro has 2 more cores - both performance - as well as way more GPU cores than the i7-1255U, but it is also on a TSMC 5nm process optimized for efficiency - 5NP - so it should definitely be able to fit into that Chromebox case. So even though the Mac Mini "could" be as small as an Apple TV 4K, designing a new exterior for it would have driven up the price. But this means that throttling and overheating definitely won't be a problem.
But down the line, Apple does need to make the Mac Mini smaller. If the 10nm Intel Core i7 CPU mini-PCs are that small, you can only imagine how small they will be in 1Q2025 when the 5nm (Intel calls it 20A) chips will be in mini PCs. When that happens, tiny mini-PCs that offer the same CPU and graphics performance as these massive Mac "Minis" will be an embarrassment. (Yes, the graphics performance thing will happen. Starting with 13th gen, Intel is going to have their discrete GPUs, which are already being manufactured by TSMC, manufactured as "tiles" that will become integrated GPUs.) So a redesign will need to happen, even if Apple can't meet the $599 price point.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT213100
M1 Max doing just GPU tests was 70W here, CPU was 50W:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/17024/apple-m1-max-performance-review/3
If it had been on 3nm it would have but these gains are close and it shows that 3nm will put more than M1 Ultra performance in a Macbook Pro next year. The Ultra can rival the 2019 Mac Pro in a lot of tasks, it's really nice to have that performance in a quiet portable.
I really wish they’d just add eGPU w/AMD, but I’m probably going to have to wait for the M3 at this point. This is encouraging, though, as they must have gotten past some of the M1-scaling bottlenecks. I guess I’ll keep my hopes up for the M2 Studio and that it would be adequate. I really want one.
I hope you’re right, as that would mean maybe an eGPU could be added at some point as well. GPU aside, the Studios look great, or even the mini.
I suppose, but for me, it is less about what is doable, and what is going to perform as I’d like. Most PCs (including my Intel i7 mini) can’t adequately cool themselves, even though they are sold like that. And, they especially can’t do so in a quiet manner.
The M2 Pro will be able to operate at its designed maximum frequencies in perpetuity in typical room environments. If you run it in the sun outside in 125 °F temperatures in Death Valley, and if its chip temperatures get too high - it will - it will downclock and use less power to protect itself. It may not even power on! If you bring it along up to 15,000 ft altitude on top of some mountain, it will probably downclock to protect itself.
I don't get your response though. You go on about how there are such small SFF PCs, yet you link to a Chromebox CXI5, which looks to be about the same size as a Mac mini. Why not link to an actually small SFF that is 30% the volume of a Mac mini?
There appears to be no published dimensions, but my eyeballs are definitely seeing something the same size as a Mac mini for this Chromebox CXI5. While surely it has fans and heat sinks inside, what it doesn't have inside is a power supply. A lot of these super small SFF PCs do not have internal PSUs. The Mac mini does. So it packs in more performance and more components inside while operating at lower power consumption. That's Apple's current design ethos. Yes, I was disappointed to see an external PSU for the iMac 24.
You should probably wait on knowing what processor will be inside the Chromebox CXI5. All the information so far is that it will be a 12th gen Core i7 or lessor processor. And I will bet it won't have an i7-12800HX as an option. They will need to put in 150 W just for that, and would need a 250 W external power supply.
If there other SFF PCs you want to discuss, I would love to.
No, Apple won't need to make it smaller. They could, but they don't need to. What they need to do is to continuously update it.
You should probably be skeptical of Intel meeting its fab schedule. Then, no, x86 SFF PCs will all get bigger. The only way around it is to use 10 to 20 W TDP systems, and keep the turbo power down. This isn't going to happen if they have multiple chip tiles in an SoC. Intel isn't going to drive down their TDPs either. They are all only going up.
This has already been happening in the prior 5 years of SFF PCs. They have been getting bigger. Just look at the Chromebox CXI1 to CXI5 series. Every successive box has been getting bigger. Intel NUCs have been getting bigger every generation it seems. The Intel NUC with the Xe eGPU is basically the size of a small ATX PC. An SoC package with CPU tile, GPU tile, IO tile? It will require more power. The performant SoCs will be 150 to 300 W TDPs.
I think I might be lowballing those numbers. The i7-12800HX can draw 180 W by itself. Add a GPU tile? 400 W for the SoC?