Like
- Fast and quiet
- Relatively compact
- HDMI 2.1
Don’t like
- M2 Max model has two less Thunderbolt connections than the M2 Ultra
There isn’t a lot to say about the latest generation of the Mac Studio: From a “put it on your desk and use it” perspective, it feels almost exactly like the model that preceded it, with the expected generation-over-generation tweaks we see routinely in laptops and desktops.
In sum, it delivers up to about 20% better performance over the equivalent last-generation M1 chip because it has more CPU and GPU cores, and because of the updated Wi-Fi (from 6 to 6E) and Bluetooth 5.3, it has more stable and potentially much faster wireless. That, plus upgraded HDMI 2.1 — what Apple refers to as “enhanced” HDMI — are certainly important new features, they just don’t change the experience much.
Many creative apps, notably photo editing, still tend to use CPU resources more than GPU, and the M2 Pro has the same Neural cores as the M2 Max. And, while the Max handles some basic high-res video editing, you can get away with the cheaper model for 4K, but will probably want to bump up for higher resolutions.
Much also depends on what creative applications you’re using as well as how you’re using them. You’ll see a lot more custom MacOS optimization from, say, DaVinci Resolve than Premiere Pro, so throwing money at the Max over the Pro may not help you. And features that might theoretically benefit from more Neural cores (the Ultra has 2x the Max and below), may not perform the processing locally. For instance, the processing for Photoshop’s new Generative Fill takes place remotely, so your system doesn’t really have to do any heavy lifting.
The Pro also has the same encode/decode accelerators as the Max, while the Ultra has twice as many. And the Ultra configuration has two more Thunderbolt ports — its dual Max processor configuration means another Thunderbolt controller — which is important if you plan on using external drives for that.
