What about performance in different chassis? But alas, all we have is World of Warcraft and one or two others. If there were any triple-A games that were well-optimized for the Mac (there basically aren't), the new MacBook Pro could be a great gaming laptop. The M1 Max does it at 90 fps-and that's with several major graphical improvements that the game's developers have made since launch. The only Mac I've reviewed previously that was playable at these settings was a maxed-out iMac Pro, which just barely eked out 30 frames per second. For years, I have tested new Mac GPUs by maxing out World of Warcraft's settings on a 5K screen with the latest expansion (it's native on Apple Silicon now and uses Metal, so it might be the best test of the Mac's gaming power in ideal circumstances) and seeing what kind of performance I get. The numbers we see here map pretty neatly to what they suggested about that original chart.Īs we all know, gaming on the new MacBook Pro models will be a mixed bag. power chart they shared publicly when announcing the chip would scale directly upward with future machines. When we interviewed Apple SVP of Software Engineering Craig Federighi, SVP of Worldwide Marketing Greg Joswiak, and SVP of Hardware Technologies Johny Srouji about the M1 last November, they made a bold claim that the skyrocketing performance line on a M1 CPU performance vs. Even the M1 Pro provides about double what the M1 does (just as Apple promised), and the M1 Max 1 manages well over three times the M1's performance in almost all cases-and sometimes even more.įurther Reading “We are giddy”-interviewing Apple about its Mac silicon revolutionGiven that the M1 blew us away last year, all the above results are even more impressive. The M1 Pro and M1 Max deliver close to the same single-core CPU performance as the M1, and a bit over 50 percent better multi-core performance.īut it's the GPU that really leaves the M1 in the dust. Modelīelow, you'll find charts representing our results in benchmarks that test burst CPU and GPU performance. To start, here's a list of all the machines that will appear in our benchmark charts below. I haven't run on the battery for long enough to test that, but clearly it'll be fine.Apple has made some big performance claims about the M1 Pro and M1 Max, and it's time to see if those claims check out. In Cinebench R23 the multi-core core score exceeds that of a 14-C iMac Pro. Running Cinebench R23, which repeatedly renders a photo image over about 10 minutes did cause the fans to wake up, but even so they're not loud, just present. Migrating 400+GB of content from the old MBP over TB never caused the fans on the new one to kick in, at least not that I could tell. The new speakers won't make you throw your studio monitors to the curb, but they're pretty good for a laptop - another benefit of the extra space around the case edges. Keyboard is great, although it'd be better with a case-colored grid between the keys rather than black. Notch, who cares? You're getting an extra 74 pixels of screen height over a regular 16:10 anyway. Wish Apple would get with the times and supply a compact GaN power supply. The new MagSafe is terrific, although I don't use it on a daily basis because I have a single TB cable link to a 27" 5K LG monitor, which also provides charging power, wired network, etc. Nonetheless, the old one is better looking. So there's logic behind the new MBP's slightly chunky appearance. However eliminating the taper also opens up a lot of space inside, and makes the HDMI port and card slot possible. It's the lack of taper in the new MBP's top and bottom surfaces that no longer fools the eye. It's noticeably heavier and bulkier than my outgoing 2016 13" MBP, but while it looks thicker, it isn't. I've had my 14" MBP (10-C/16-C 32GB/1TB) for about a week now. Six-speaker system with force-canceling woofers,
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |