M2 Pro and M2 Max

[Jimmyjames]

(also co-host the MacGameCast so the overlapping interests are telling.

That's you? Nice. I love that podcast.

 

[exoticspice1]

So the PC world have finally gotten fast game loading. Forspoken to be the first game to do so. Uses directstorage 1.1 and uses GPU decompression.
It even works with SATA SSDs.

Games loads in a second on any SSD.

https://twitter.com/Joschi1985/status/1617955211750014977?t=XigYrhcNt3U5QBHfnnFV1w&s=19

Of course Apple introduced this with Metal 3 but does RE: Village make use of fast resource loading.i am not sure as I don't have a AS Mac to try.

 

[casperes1996]

That's you? Nice. I love that podcast.

Thank you! I appreciate it

 

[Colstan]

I gave up on playing on macOS and got a PS5. Way less frustrating (the ports are usually terrible, as you say, and many have a bad habit of hijacking the computer audio, which really annoys me). The situation may change in a few years though, Apple is putting very capable GPUs in every single Apple Silicon Mac out there, so companies may start paying more attention to the Mac in a few years once few Intel Macs remain.

When I got back into gaming a couple of years ago, I started looking for my old favorites, isometric RPGs. I had known that Macs were not the best for gaming, but I admit I was surprised when I found that every game that I want to play has a Mac version. There are so many RPGs, that I don't have enough time to play them all. I realize that I am fortunate, because that isn't the case for the vast majority of titles.

I think it has a lot to do with most of these games being developed with Unity, or by studios that are friendly to the Mac, like Larian. When Baldur's Gate 3 was announced, I was concerned, because they only listed Windows requirements. Sure enough, a Mac version was in the works, it just wasn't mentioned initially. The same thing happened with the latest Pathfinder title. I would note that Owlcat dropped Linux support, but kept Mac, so there must be some profit to be had with Mac games.

The biggest impediment will always be marketshare. That's slowly improving, and unlike the iGPUs of the Intel era, every Mac that ships with Apple Silicon is a capable gaming machine. The other major problem is, I think, mindshare. Game makers aren't just developers, but gamers, as well. I would say that most PC gamers have a low regard for the Mac, no matter what Apple does, so getting over that bias is a challenge.

I've never claimed that the Mac is a gaming powerhouse in the making, just that I am fortunate that the majority of the games I want to play also happen to be available natively for macOS. So, I understand the need for a dedicated gaming PC or console, they just aren't necessary, in my case. I suppose that makes me the mythical "Mac gamer".

 

[Colstan]

MacStadium did a teardown in which we can see all of the M2 Pro Mac mini's naughty bits. The most obvious thing about the specs is that the power supply went from 150w to 185w. Once you actually get to see its gizzard, it's clearly a different beast.

The cooling system is more robust. (M2 Pro on the left, M1 on the right.)

With a much larger logic board.

The M2 Pro fills out the Mac mini's housing nicely, which is a good indicator for why they kept the same form factor. Check out the MacStadium link for the full teardown.

 

[exoticspice1]

MacStadium did a teardown in which we can see all of the M2 Pro Mac mini's naughty bits. The most obvious thing about the specs is that the power supply went from 150w to 185w. Once you actually get to see its gizzard, it's clearly a different beast.

The cooling system is more robust. (M2 Pro on the left, M1 on the right.)

View attachment 21489
View attachment 21490
With a much larger logic board.

View attachment 21491

The M2 Pro fills out the Mac mini's housing nicely, which is a good indicator for why they kept the same form factor. Check out the MacStadium link for the full teardown.

Why would even need to increase the power supply to 185 watts?

150 watts should have been plenty. Maybe Apple is going to the 1200W PSU on the Mac Pro if this is any indication.

 

[Jimmyjames]

Why would even need to increase the power supply to 185 watts?

150 watts should have been plenty. Maybe Apple is going to the 1200W PSU on the Mac Pro if this is any indication.

The current one has a 1400W psu.

 

[exoticspice1]

This will be next AS Mac after my MacBook dies. I may be critical but I love my Macs.

 

[Jimmyjames]

This will be next AS Mac after my MacBook dies. I may be critical but I love my Macs.

It really looks like a great machine.

 

[Colstan]

This will be next AS Mac after my MacBook dies. I may be critical but I love my Macs.

As someone who has a fetish for small computers, the "Pro" version of the Mac mini does look tempting. I'm currently on my fourth Mac mini, I wonder if a future M(x) Pro will be the fifth.

 

[theorist9]

Here's a screenshot showing most of the first page returned by a search for "apple m2 max" in Geekbench's Recent Results (14,5 = 14" M2 Max MBP and 14,6 = 16" M2 Max MBP).

Even with the variation, it can be seen there is a systematic difference in base frequency between the 14" and 16" Max's—they appear to be 3.5 GHz (same as the base M2), and 3.7 GHz, respectively.
14": 3.5 GHz (6 results); 3.4 GHz (1 result)
16": 3.7 GHz (7 results); 3.6 GHz (1 result)

Scanning two more pages showed essentially the same thing, which gives about 20 results for the 16" M2 Max at 3.7 GHz, and 20 for the 14" M2 Max at 3.5 GHz, along with a few that are probably outliers.

I'm going to speculate that the difference isn't because the 16" models had high power mode turned on, since I suspect many who ran these scores didn't bother to do that; if so, the default base frequency for the 16" Max models is higher. That does make me wonder what the effect of high power mode is.

I didn't see this distinction when I searched for M2 Pro results—all models (14,9; 14,10; and 14,12 = 14" M2 Pro MBP, 16" M2 Pro MBP, and M2 Pro Mini) are 3.5 GHz.

 

[Cmaier]

Here's a screenshot showing most of the first page returned by a search for "apple m2 max" in Geekbench's Recent Results (14,5 = 14" M2 Max MBP and 14,6 = 16" M2 Max MBP).

Even with the variation, it can be seen there is a systematic difference in base frequency between the 14" and 16" Max's—they appear to be 3.5 GHz (same as the base M2), and 3.7 GHz, respectively.
14": 3.5 GHz (6 results); 3.4 GHz (1 result)
16": 3.7 GHz (7 results); 3.6 GHz (1 result)

Scanning two more pages showed essentially the same thing, which gives about 20 results for the 16" M2 Max at 3.7 GHz, and 20 for the 14" M2 Max at 3.5 GHz, along with a few that are probably outliers.

I'm going to speculate that the difference isn't because the 16" models had high power mode turned on, since I suspect many who ran these scores didn't bother to do that; if so, the default base frequency for the 16" Max models is higher. That does make me wonder what the effect of high power mode is.

I didn't see this distinction when I searched for M2 Pro results—all models (14,9; 14,10; and 14,12 = 14" M2 MBP, 16" M2 MBP, and M2 Pro Mini) are 3.5 GHz.

View attachment 21500

Glad I always buy the 16”.

I wonder how much higher they can raise the clock in a desktop box.

 

[theorist9]

Glad I always buy the 16”.

I wonder how much higher they can raise the clock in a desktop box.

It will be interesting to see what they do with the M2 Mac Pro. And maybe they'll raise the GPU clocks there as well. [Has anyone confirmed the GPU clocks in the M2 Max MBP are the same as in the base M2?]

"Apple M2 Mac Pro: The world's fastest mobile computer [1]."

[1] When equipped with optional wheels.

 

[exoticspice1]

And maybe they'll raise the GPU clocks there as well. [Has anyone confirmed the GPU clocks in the M2 Max MBP are the same as in the base M2?]

They have to raise clocks very high and also that massive PSU in the Mac Pro otherwise all that cooling/space for what?

 

[exoticspice1]

Here's a screenshot showing most of the first page returned by a search for "apple m2 max" in Geekbench's Recent Results (14,5 = 14" M2 Max MBP and 14,6 = 16" M2 Max MBP).

Even with the variation, it can be seen there is a systematic difference in base frequency between the 14" and 16" Max's—they appear to be 3.5 GHz (same as the base M2), and 3.7 GHz, respectively.
14": 3.5 GHz (6 results); 3.4 GHz (1 result)
16": 3.7 GHz (7 results); 3.6 GHz (1 result)

Scanning two more pages showed essentially the same thing, which gives about 20 results for the 16" M2 Max at 3.7 GHz, and 20 for the 14" M2 Max at 3.5 GHz, along with a few that are probably outliers.

I'm going to speculate that the difference isn't because the 16" models had high power mode turned on, since I suspect many who ran these scores didn't bother to do that; if so, the default base frequency for the 16" Max models is higher. That does make me wonder what the effect of high power mode is.

I didn't see this distinction when I searched for M2 Pro results—all models (14,9; 14,10; and 14,12 = 14" M2 Pro MBP, 16" M2 Pro MBP, and M2 Pro Mini) are 3.5 GHz.

View attachment 21500

From this I can say that the M2 Max is on par with Ryzen 7 7700 (8 Core) Zen 4. The non-X variant uses 90 Watts maximum at stock setting.( You can OC it but demimishing returns and power usage increases) so best to stay at stock.

The 12 Core Ryzen 9 7900 also is very efficient tops out at 90 Watts and has higher MT score in Geekbench.

For budget builds the 6 core Ryzen 7600 tops out at 11000 for MT and 90 Watts maximum here as well.

I can say AMD and Apple use of TSMC 5nm is good. Both efficient parts and these parts are very good to use in micro/mini ATX towers.

Intel though you still need 125watts+ on their 13th gen CPUs...

EDIT: When I mean 90 Watts max, it's like apps like blender. Gaming and normal apps obviously don't use 90 watts its much lower than that.

 

[Andropov]

Out of curiosity, what do you mean games hijack the audio? I don't think I've experienced this

I don't quite remember now if it was the games themselves or Discord (it was many years ago), but something in my Mac gaming setup was equalizing the audio of the entire computer. I first noticed it one day that I happened to be playing musing while opening the game + opening Discord. The speakers stopped for a fraction of a second and after that the audio had significantly less bass and increased mid-range. I presumed the idea was to boost the frequencies where human voice is at to improve audio chat. Closing the app (don't remember which one) returned audio back to normal. It was fully reproducible, and it kept happening for months. Not much later I sopped playing on Mac altogether.

Both the games I remember playing at the time (Dying Light and Borderlands 2) had audio chats IIRC, so I'm not sure if it was triggered by that or by Discord.

 

[casperes1996]

I don't quite remember now if it was the games themselves or Discord (it was many years ago), but something in my Mac gaming setup was equalizing the audio of the entire computer. I first noticed it one day that I happened to be playing musing while opening the game + opening Discord. The speakers stopped for a fraction of a second and after that the audio had significantly less bass and increased mid-range. I presumed the idea was to boost the frequencies where human voice is at to improve audio chat. Closing the app (don't remember which one) returned audio back to normal. It was fully reproducible, and it kept happening for months. Not much later I sopped playing on Mac altogether.

Both the games I remember playing at the time (Dying Light and Borderlands 2) had audio chats IIRC, so I'm not sure if it was triggered by that or by Discord.

Interesting. I almost never have audio running while playing games. Other than civ. So that would explain me never having across many games. I also tend not to play online. Discord when just open and not in a call at least does nothing to audio.

 

[leman]

Why would even need to increase the power supply to 185 watts?

150 watts should have been plenty. Maybe Apple is going to the 1200W PSU on the Mac Pro if this is any indication.

There are also peripherals you have to support etc. plus a safety margin.

Still, imagine an x86 PC with a 185watt power supply. For that performance level.

 

[Andropov]

Interesting. I almost never have audio running while playing games. Other than civ. So that would explain me never having across many games. I also tend not to play online. Discord when just open and not in a call at least does nothing to audio.

Me neither, usually. I found out because I was waiting for some friends to join. But it was another annoying thing to put up with when gaming on macOS. The gaming mouse I used back then had terrible drivers for macOS (despite being marketed with the Made for Mac sticker) and I had permanently on scroll bars for as long as it was plugged in. Neither game used the native fullscreen APIs and instead covered the whole desktop where they were opened. Problems just kept piling on.

There are also peripherals you have to support etc. plus a safety margin.

That's a good point. Doesn't each USB port allow for at least 5W? With 6 USB ports that's at least 30W, and I believe USB-C ports allow for more than 5W charging. I believe the Thunderbolt spec requires at least one port to support 15W charging, and minimum 7.5W for the others. So with 4 USB-C and 2 USB-A that's 15*1 + 7.5*3 + 5*2 = 47.2 W at minimum for peripherals.

 

[casperes1996]

Me neither, usually. I found out because I was waiting for some friends to join. But it was another annoying thing to put up with when gaming on macOS. The gaming mouse I used back then had terrible drivers for macOS (despite being marketed with the Made for Mac sticker) and I had permanently on scroll bars for as long as it was plugged in. Neither game used the native fullscreen APIs and instead covered the whole desktop where they were opened. Problems just kept piling on.


That's a good point. Doesn't each USB port allow for at least 5W? With 6 USB ports that's at least 30W, and I believe USB-C ports allow for more than 5W charging. I believe the Thunderbolt spec requires at least one port to support 15W charging, and minimum 7.5W for the others. So with 4 USB-C and 2 USB-A that's 15*1 + 7.5*3 + 5*2 = 47.2 W at minimum for peripherals.

And PSUs have efficiency curves and equipment can have transient spikes, where even if the sustained, amortised power draw is low, there may be spikes for microseconds that go higher to deal with too. That said I do think the PSU is overkill to some degree given that M2 Pro can also be run off of a 14" MBP, including peripherals too, which has a smaller charger and I've never heard of anyone running it such that it discharges even while plugged in to its MagSafe brick. But part availability and such also make a difference and Apple knows their supply chain way better than us so any reasoning based on that is hard to speculate on.

But yeah, if you plug in everything and max it out you can definitely exceed the M2 Pro's individual power draw by a fair bit