Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Portables (Apple) Apple

Apple Announces MacBook Pros With M2 Pro and M2 Max Chips (theverge.com) 129

Apple has announced new 14- and 16-inch MacBook Pros, featuring its latest M2 Pro and Max chips. From a report: The M2 Pro model will launch with a 12-core CPU, up to 19-core GPU, and up to 32GB of unified memory, while the M2 Max includes up to 38 cores of GPU power and support for up to 96GB of unified memory. The new 14-inch MacBook Pro with M2 Pro starts at $1,999, with the 16-inch model starting at $2,499. Both are available to order online today and will start shipping and appearing in Apple stores on January 24th.

Apple says the M2 Pro has double the amount of transistors the M2 shipped with and nearly 20 percent more than the M1 Pro. It also features 200GB/s of unified memory bandwidth, twice what's available on the regular M2. All of this power should result in better performance in apps like Adobe Photoshop and Xcode. Apple claims the MacBook Pro with M2 Pro "is able to process images in Adobe Photoshop up to 40 percent faster than with M1 Pro, and as much as 80 percent faster than MacBook Pro with an Intel Core i9 processor." The M2 Max chip has the same 12-core CPU as the M2 Pro, but much like the M1 Max, it really pushes the GPU power more. Apple claims the M2 Max is up to 30 percent faster than the M1 Max in graphics and can apparently "tackle graphics-intensive projects that competing systems can't even run." Chips aside, the latest MacBook Pro models now include Wi-Fi 6E3 and a "more advanced HDMI" (probably HDMI 2.1) that supports 8K displays up to 60Hz and 4K displays up to 240Hz.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Announces MacBook Pros With M2 Pro and M2 Max Chips

Comments Filter:
  • Photoshop? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Joce640k ( 829181 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2023 @09:50AM (#63216260) Homepage

    How long has it been since anybody said, "I wish Photoshop was faster! It's soooo slow!!"

    Xcode, too.

    • Re:Photoshop? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by slaker ( 53818 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2023 @10:02AM (#63216306)

      Adobe image editing software has a lot of interesting AI functions these days, so someone using Lightroom can say "Make a mask specifically on the hair of this person in this image, then apply that same mask - adapted to each new photo in turn - to the same person,and apply the following edits each time." Do that for 150 50MB raw files and see if you still feel like it was fast, even on a Threadripper or Mac Studio.

      If you're sticking with creative software, try editing 10bit 422 video in 8k. Canon and Sony both have $3000 cameras that can take 8k video now, and while it's not generally practical as an output format, it's almost always better to capture the highest quality input possible. 8k video brings anything that isn't purpose built to deal with it to its knees.

      I use a Thinkpad X1 Extreme as a portable and a Threadripper 3960 at home to do this stuff, and I use Capture One and Resolve Studio rather than Adobe products, but people making content creation software are at this point building around what Apple computers have in them now, so there's a lot of stuff I'm still waiting to see get better on other platforms.

      • "Photoshop's faster!" has been the cry of every PC CPU upgrade for as long as I can remember, since at least . [google.com]

        I think it's just knee-jerk now. Something that's dragged out whenever a middle manager's looking for something to say about a new CPU.

    • Professionals that work with large images in uncompressed formats - think outdoor advertising - have always complained about Photoshop performance. Or people that do batch image processing of the output of several photographers in a studio that take hundreds of pictures that all need the same treatments applied to them.
      And they always will, because they're working with images the size of a billboard or a city bus. Or hundreds of 50+MB RAW images a day. And it's not like Adobe is going to stop add

      • by slaker ( 53818 )

        Because of the processes used in outdoor advertising, the files involved actually tend to be pretty small. Billboards are surprisingly low resolution, for instance.

        But yes, Canon and Sony both have very high resolution full-frame cameras, and there are companies like Fuji, Leica and Hasselblad that get in to medium-format equivalent sensors that can exceed 100MB/raw file.

    • How long has it been since anybody said, "I wish Photoshop was faster! It's soooo slow!!"

      2 days? I had to batch edit a bunch of images recently. The fact that Photoshop still executes that process single threaded is painful and I sure as hell thought it even if I didn't say it out loud.

      I thought it even harder when I noticed I made a mistake and had to start again.

  • Not Pro (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gspeare ( 470147 ) <geoff@sh[ ]tt.com ['alo' in gap]> on Tuesday January 17, 2023 @09:50AM (#63216262) Journal

    Replaceable memory and storage? No? Not Pro then!

    • Replaceable memory and storage? No? Not Pro then!

      Maybe a decade ago. But for actual Pro Users, probably not even back then.

      Hobbyists Upgrade. Pros Buy Appropriately the first time.

      Pros just max out systems at the get-go. No time for upgrades after that.

    • And so cheap! Less than a kidney! /s
  • > 200GB/s of unified memory bandwidth

    Can someone put some perspective on this?

    What is a modern mid-range PC's memory bandwidth? Say something like a mid-range i7 with (whatever standard memory it would have)?

    • Intel markets their i9-13900HX as having 94 GB/s of memory bandwidth.
    • > 200GB/s of unified memory bandwidth
      Can someone put some perspective on this?

      It's about 3-4x the memory bandwidth of a PC processor with some good fast DDR4, but it's less than 1/2 the memory bandwidth of a high-end GPU (like a RTX 2080) and the system memory has to be shared between CPU and GPU. So it's much better than a PC if you're not using the GPU, but it's much worse than a PC if you are.

      • It's propaganda: take it with a little bit o salt...
      • by laird ( 2705 )

        Memory that's shared between CPU and GPU is a feature - it means that you don't need to send copies of data from the CPU to the GPU and back, because they can both reference the same RAM, speeding system performance. As a result, data processing that uses GPUs is much faster on Apple Silicon than on PCs with separate CPU and CPU, if it's optimized for Apple Silicon so its not making unnecessary copies but just working in a unified pipeline.

        • Memory that's shared between CPU and GPU is a feature

          Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. It depends on whether you need to involve both CPU and GPU frequently.

          it means that you don't need to send copies of data from the CPU to the GPU and back, because they can both reference the same RAM, speeding system performance

          PCIE5 x16 has 64GB/sec of memory bandwidth. Unless you're exceeding (or at least approaching) that between CPU and CPU, you're not going to see a benefit. The GPU is also not very powerful, unlike the CPU, which is fairly competitive.

          On the other hand, the amount of memory is inadequate for intensive tasks anyway, so you're more likely to be limited by memory size than memory bandwidth. For example, I

      • it's less than 1/2 the memory bandwidth of a high-end GPU (like a RTX 2080) and the system memory has to be shared between CPU and GPU.

        Worth noting that RTX 2080 would be stuck at 8GB whereas the Mac M-series chips GPU's can have access to most of system memory, so 32Gb or more... that's worth something even if the memory bandwidth is less, plus you don't have to pipe date back and forth from system to GPU.

      • Itâ(TM)s also half the bandwidth of the M1 Max or m2 max, and one quarter of the bandwidth of the m1 ultra.
      • by Bert64 ( 520050 )

        It's worse than a PC with a highend discrete GPU at GPU bound tasks. It has a lot more memory bandwidth than any other integrated GPU, and if you're not making heavy use of the GPU then the CPU has a lot more bandwidth available than competing systems.

        Also the 200GB/s is for the M1 pro, the M1 Max, Ultra and M2 models are higher still.

  • no max chip on the mini and studio still on M1.

    SO right now an laptop with M2 can have more ram then an desktop system on m2.

    • no max chip on the mini and studio still on M1.

      SO right now an laptop with M2 can have more ram then an desktop system on m2.

      Probably a thermal issue for the mini. Or, more likely, a Product Roadmap consideration.

      Afterall, there is (or soon will be) an M2 Mac Studio (and Mac Pro?) for that!

    • by Bert64 ( 520050 )

      Same as last year, the higher end models came out later.

  • AV1 hardware codec, I hope? "Professional" video-editing puts strain on the SSD, that "normal" uses don't.
    • by slaker ( 53818 )

      If you have a desktop, even a $125 Arc A380 gives AV1 and HEVC 422 encoding support in Premiere and Resolve Studio. 12th and 13th-gen Intel CPUs with graphics also have that support. If you have both Arc and an iGPU in a desktop, they can both be used at the same time, even.

      Apple Silicon and recent high end Snapdragon SoCs also support at least HEVC 422 in hardware, which is a big deal for anybody working with big-boy camera output. I actually record the hdmi output from my camera sensor on my phone sometim

    • by dfghjk ( 711126 )

      The SSD is replaceable, just sell the whole machine and get a new one. Then brag online that you sold it for more than you paid for it, the true Apple experience.

    • some mac systems have ssd on cards (that need an 2th mac to swap)
      And apple also locks out some upgrades with the end user tool (now the apple only tool may allow more changes to be done)

  • I'm wondering how long I will be able to upgrade XCode on my six year old macbook. Apple has already cut me off of new OSes, so it can't be far and I'll probably have to get one of these. Well played Apple, well played. $800 a year for a laptop. At least the mini is cheaper. I just hope it supports two HDMI monitors.
  • I keep a Mac Mini around for the rare bit of iOS work I get interested in doing. It's the third one I've had over the years, but probably the last. When I got it I immediately upgraded the memory, which went perfectly. Now if you want to get the 32GB model, the price jump is crazy, and it has to be selected at purchase.

    The draw of the Mini previously was that it was enough to get the job done, but it wasn't too expensive. That's gone. So I'll hold on to that Mini until it fades into obscurity. Thankfully, t

    • by laird ( 2705 )

      Interestingly, for most applications the unified RAM performance plus the SSD storage means that OS and apps perform well with quite a bit less RAM than on other machines, because they do less data copying in RAM, and can swap faster when they need to, and are optimized to run in less RAM, and have many operations optimized in specialized silicon (video transcoding, neural nets, etc.). You might want to try out the base M2 Mini to see how it performs for you!

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

Whoever dies with the most toys wins.

Working...