rob53
About
- Username
- rob53
- Joined
- Visits
- 273
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 9,125
- Badges
- 2
- Posts
- 3,383
Reactions
-
Apple hit with third class-action lawsuit over data collection practices
I bet lawyers release more personal information about clients than Apple does.
-
First M2 Pro benchmarks prove big improvement over M1 Max
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.tht said:
Here's a GB5 Metal score: 52.8krob53 said:
Compute Metal 53883
Compute OpenCL 49436
Cost (can't remember but over $5K)
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. -
First M2 Pro benchmarks prove big improvement over M1 Max
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.
-
Apple upgrades 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro with M2 Pro, M2 Max
You’re right. What other features would you want on a laptop (and please don’t say touchscreen). We’ll see what the speed bump is once testers are allowed to publish them.Appleish said:So just a speed bump with no physical changes or new features? My 16-inch MBP M1 Max is still near the top.Faster CPU, GPU and Neural Engine plus 2x faster memory bandwidth with support for 32GB. I guess that’s not enough of a speed bump??
-
Apple upgrades 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro with M2 Pro, M2 Max
Who cares about Intel chips. Other than the old Mac Pro nothing Apple sells new runs on Intel. Try putting an old Intel MBP on your lap for an hour. Your legs will be on fire.DuhSesame said:In Steam's own hardware survey, 92% of people are using CPUs with 8 or fewer cores, meaning most people are using Ryzen 7s. We can safely say that M2 Max will be more powerful than 92% of personal computers.
However, 8-core is only considered as mid-tiers.
Meanwhile, the best-selling chip from Intel is the Core i5, which is at least 10-core.
