Apple M2 MacBook Pro & Mac mini: Part 1

Among the first machines to use the new M2 Pro and Max chips were Apple’s latest MacBook Pro laptops.

We begin an in‑depth, two‑part examination of Apple’s M2 Pro and M2 Max chips, and the new MacBook Pro and Mac mini computers that house them.

It’s been nearly three years since Apple announced the transition of the Mac product line to an architecture based on the company’s own custom silicon. And, of the three such brain transplants in the Mac’s history — the first being the shift from 68k to PowerPC in 1994, followed by the move to Intel’s x86 architecture beginning in 2005 — the transition to Apple Silicon has arguably been the most prosperous.

Having created the A‑series chips used in iPhones and iPads, where an entire system is engineered into a so‑called 'system‑on‑a‑chip' (SoC), Apple extended the approach to the Mac with the M1, unveiled in December 2020 alongside three new Macs retrofitted with this new hardware: the Mac mini, the MacBook Air, and the 13‑inch MacBook Pro. It’s not an understatement to say that the M1 didn’t just meet expectations, it shattered them.

Compatibility with existing applications and plug‑ins was largely seamless, and even endlessly needy audio applications coded for Intel chips were able to meet professional requirements when running under Rosetta 2’s binary translation. But with newly native upgrades to products such as Apple’s own Logic Pro leading the charge, for creative professionals it was clear that Macs based on Apple Silicon really were going to be a step forward, representing more than merely the sum of the many technologies being deployed.

Moreover, performance was only one side of the equation. The M1 was able to do its work with remarkable efficiency, extending battery life and largely eliminating fan noise from the list of complaints troubling the audio user.

Memory Holes

The M1 did, however, have one unavoidable down side for musicians and audio engineers working with large projects and sample libraries: memory. Unlike previous Macs, the M1 employed what Apple refer to as Unified Memory, which was shared between the CPU and GPU cores (and other domain‑specific engines) without redundancy or overheads. However, to fully take advantage of this approach with the minimum amount of latency, the memory was included in the same package as the SoC itself, and the M1 was only available in two configurations, with either 8GB or 16GB of LPDDR4X unified memory, which couldn’t be upgraded after purchase (not that this is anything new for Mac users!).

And so, in October 2021 — less than a year after introducing the M1 — Apple launched two new chips extending the capabilities of that first offering: the M1 Pro and the M1 Max. Four different ‘core’ configurations were disclosed, with the M1 Pro supporting a maximum of 32GB LPDDR5 unified memory with over twice the bandwidth at 200GB/s, and the M1 Max doubling these limits again with 64GB memory and a bandwidth of 400GB/s. However, rather than deploying these new chips in desktop computers, Apple launched them with brand‑new 14‑ and 16‑inch MacBook Pro models, which delivered an unprecedented blend of performance and efficiency.

Apple unveiled the final member of the M1 family, the M1 Ultra, in March 2022, with the introduction of the desktop Mac Studio. Available in two base configurations, featuring either an M1 Max or the new M1 Ultra, the Mac Studio has in many ways proved to be this generation’s iMac Pro: a product to keep demanding creative professionals happy while Apple figure out how to proceed with a new Mac Pro.

The M1 Ultra is particularly interesting, as it comprises two M1 Max chip dies in a single package, which communicate with each other via a new interconnect technology Apple call Ultra Fusion. This previously unannounced feature uses a silicon interposer to act as a kind of glue that makes the M1 Ultra appear to the system as single chip. This means the M1 Ultra has, quite literally, twice the specifications of the M1 Max, supporting a system with a maximum of 128GB unified memory and 800GB/s memory bandwidth — although, in terms of capacity, this still falls short of the 768GB or 1.5TB limits of the still current, Intel‑based Mac Pro models.

Moving On Up

One didn’t need to be a soothsayer to predict that, following the M1, Apple’s next‑generation Mac chip would be named M2 and adopt the same Pro and Max variations. Where the M1 represented a revolution, the M2 is more of an evolution, refining and polishing every jot and tittle of the system. The ‘Firestorm’ performance and ‘Icestorm’ efficiency CPU cores (first seen in the iPhone 12’s A14 Bionic chip) were upgraded to the newer ‘Avalanche’ and ‘Blizzard’ performance and efficiency cores (which debuted in the iPhone 13’s A15 Bionic chip). These newer CPU cores are clocked slightly higher than their predecessors, with a base frequency of 3.42GHz vs 3.2GHz in the M1, and offer several improvements, such as a larger Level 2 cache for the performance cluster. As with the original M1, the M2 is an eight‑core chip featuring four performance and four efficiency cores.

The M2 Pro and M2 Max chips both have four efficiency cores, but the Max (lower) has eight performance cores to the Pro’s six.

Turning as always to Primate Labs’ trusty Geekbench (see box), the M2 chip in the current 13‑inch MacBook Pro scores 2606 and 9860 in the single and multi‑core tests respectively, which showed improvements of 10 and 17 percent over the M1 chip in the previous 13‑inch MacBook Pro, which scored 2356 and 8426 in the same tests.

The M2 addressed many of the M1’s shortcomings, particularly by adopting LPDDR5 memory, raising the memory ceiling to 24GB, and increasing the memory bandwidth by 50 percent from 66.67GB/to 100MHz. Even so, demanding users — like, say, musicians and audio engineers — were eagerly awaiting the expected, more powerful iterations. Apple duly began this year by announcing the M2 Pro and M2 Max, accompanied by revisions to the Mac mini and the 14‑ and 16‑inch MacBook Pro models.

If you followed the development of the M1 to the M1 Pro and M1 Max, Apple have used a similar playbook in creating the M2 Pro and M2 Max. For example, as with the M1 Pro, the M2 Pro is available in two configurations with either six or eight performance cores, while the M2 Max, like the M1 Max before it, has eight performance cores. However, unlike the M1 Pro and Max, which both offered two efficiency cores, the M2 Pro and Max feature four such cores, meaning that, where the M1 Pro and Max were either eight‑ or 10‑core chips, the M2 Pro and Max are 10‑ or 12‑core chips.

If we look at the single‑core results first, the M2, eight‑core M2 Pro, 10‑core M2 Pro, and M2 Max chips score much the same: 2606, 2556, 2667 and 2756 respectively, which is to be expected since the same ‘Avalanche’ and ‘Blizzard’ CPU cores are at the heart of each chip. However, if we instead consider the multi‑core results, the performance differences between the chips become more apparent. The M2 (with four performance cores), the M2 Pro (with six and eight performance cores) and the M2 Max (also with eight performance cores) score 9860, 11830, 14349 and 14390 respectively.

The single‑ and multi‑core results for Apple Silicon‑based Macs. Note that the last Intel‑based 27‑inch iMac only narrowly beats the multi‑core score for the M1‑based Mac mini, falling comfortably into last place in terms of single‑core performance.

As you would expect, the CPU performance between the 12‑core M2 Pro and the M2 Max (which both offer the same configuration of four efficiency and eight performance cores) is equipollent. It’s worth mentioning, though, that the M2 Max in the 16‑inch MacBook Pro allows a high‑performance mode to be engaged in the Energy Saver System Settings, which gives a boost to the base frequency of the chip. This setting isn’t available when the M2 Max is configured with the 14‑inch MacBook Pro. Interestingly, although the M2 Max boasts double the memory bandwidth of the M2 Pro, this doesn’t make much difference to the outcome of Geekbench’s tests.

It Had To Be GPU

Even if you’re going to stick with a 32GB configuration, GPU performance might be a reason to consider the M2 Max over the M2 Pro (see box). Video and graphics applications naturally benefit from hardware acceleration, but the GPU isn’t wasted on music and audio software, since developers are embracing Apple’s Metal API for accelerated graphics in rendering user interfaces, and harnessing its programmable shaders for audio processing. As an example, Steinberg have done a tremendous job in using Metal to reduce the CPU overhead of drawing an application’s user interface, as we shall see, while GPU Audio plan to do just what their name suggests.

Video and graphics applications naturally benefit from hardware acceleration, but the GPU isn’t wasted on music and audio software.

Each member of the M2 family provides higher GPU core counts than its direct predecessor. The M2 has a 10‑core GPU to the M1’s seven or eight cores; the M2 Pro is available with either 16 or 19 cores, compared with 14 or 16 in the M1 Pro; and the two M2 Max options feature either 30 or 38 cores, as opposed to 24 or 32 in the M1 Max. Testing the new M2 and M2 Pro chips with Geekbench 6’s Compute test (with the M2 Max results gleaned from the Geekbench browser), the 19‑core M2 Pro GPU yielded a 17 percent increase over the 16‑core M1 Pro, and the M2 Max’s 38‑core GPU showed a similar increase over the M1 Max’s 32‑core equivalent.

At present, though, GPU performance alone probably doesn’t justify upgrading to a higher‑spec model if music and audio are your main pursuits. The GPU resources in any of the M‑series chips are more than adequate for rendering user interfaces, and even GPU Audio’s offerings are still unproven at scale and are currently in the public beta stage.

Here are the Metal scores for various systems tested with Geekbench 6’s Compute test. While the Mac Studio, with its higher GPU core count, is still the best‑performing system, you can see the bolstered GPU hardware used by the M2 family of chips easily outperform the previous generation. Note that the M2 Pro‑based systems on review easily surpass AMD’s very capable AMD Radeon Pro 5700XT graphics hardware used in the last Intel‑based 27‑inch iMac from 2020.

More Mac Than Mini

The Mac mini is in many ways the dark horse of Apple’s Macintosh range. Since its introduction at Macworld in 2005 as an affordable, entry‑level ‘BYODKM’ (bring your own display, keyboard and mouse) system, the Mac mini became ever more capable during the Intel years, enabling and reaching a broader number of applications and audiences. Between 2009 and 2014, Apple even offered the Mac mini in a server configuration for those not requiring enterprise‑level performance.

The Mac mini has been a stalwart of Apple’s line for many years, and provides the most affordable point of entry into the Mac ecosphere.

Because Intel‑based Macs could run Windows natively thanks to Boot Camp, they’ve been put to all sorts of uses in studios. Anything from running software for touchscreens, other control surface or MIDI processing‑related tasks to file‑sharing, portable Vienna Ensemble Pro servers, or even a basic workstation can be done with a Mac mini running Mac OS or Windows or both. And it’s perhaps because of this that Apple maintained an Intel‑based Mac mini in the product line alongside the M1 model ­‑ until now.

The new M2‑ and M2 Pro‑based Mac minis replace both previous models and look identical, retaining the same silver veneer as the Mac Studio. In fact, the Mac mini can almost be thought of as a junior Mac Studio. There’s likewise no visual clue to any changes in connectivity. You’ll find the same power button and IEC C7 connector, and I feel that Apple’s engineers deserve some credit here for keeping the Mac mini’s power supply internal. Computers with similar form factors, such as HP’s Z2 Mini G5 or G9 models, all require external power bricks, as does Microsoft’s own ARM‑based Windows Developer Kit (previously known as Project Volterra).

Alongside the power connector, there’s Gigabit Ethernet (which is configurable to 10 Gigabit Ethernet, as before, for an extra $100), Thunderbolt and HDMI connectors, not forgetting two USB‑A ports and a 3.5mm headphone jack. As on the Mac Studio, the power button and the headphone jack are on the rear of the machine, which is inconvenient, but perhaps necessitated by the ergonomics of the design.

The M2 Max variants of the Mac mini (above) benefit from double the number of Thunderbolt 4 ports.

Thunder & Lightning

However, just because the ports at the rear of the new Mac mini look the same as before doesn’t mean they are functionally the same. For example, where the preceding Mac mini offered Thunderbolt 3 with support for USB 4, the new model brings Thunderbolt 4 support (see box), as found on other recent Apple Silicon Macs. And, best of all, if you opt for a new Mac mini with an M2 Pro chip, this system is equipped with four such ports rather than two, as on the M2 or previous M1‑based models.

In addition to providing Thunderbolt 4, these USB‑C‑style ports also support DisplayPort, USB 4 (up to 40Gb/s) and USB 3.1 Gen 2 (up to 10Gb/s), as well as Thunderbolt 2, HDMI and VGA via adaptors available from Apple or other third‑party vendors. I had no problem using the Mac mini’s 10Gb Ethernet to connect with a Pro Tools | Carbon interface, even when running a Session at 192kHz, whilst linking to a network via a USB‑C hub that offered an additional, independent Gigabit Ethernet connection.

Like every Mac Apple have introduced since October 2021, the Mac mini’s headphone jack features what Apple refer to as “advanced support” for high‑impedance headphones. This has been a welcome change for those wanting a better out‑of‑the‑box headphone experience without having to connect a separate audio interface, and it sounded fine with a trusted pair of Audeze headphones.

One crucial difference compared with the previous M1 Mac minis concerns support for external displays. The M1‑based Mac mini officially supported one additional 6K display at 60Hz via Thunderbolt and another 4K display at 60Hz using HDMI, but the new M2 model supports one 6K display via Thunderbolt and either a second 5K display via Thunderbolt or a 4K display over HDMI as before, all at 60Hz. This means you can connect two 5K Studio Displays, or a Pro Display XDR and a Studio Display — although these would be more expensive than the Mac mini driving them!

The M2 Pro‑based Mac mini goes further, making it possible to connect two 6K displays at 60Hz via Thunderbolt and one 4K display at 60Hz over HDMI. This would be ideal for media‑oriented musicians and audio engineers, who might desire a two‑display system for managing editing and mixing windows, plus a dedicated 4K display for video/picture content. Alternatively, this Mac mini also supports one 6K display at 60Hz using Thunderbolt and one 4K display at 144Hz over HDMI, or a single 8K display at 60Hz or a 4K display at 240Hz via HDMI.

Support for these higher resolutions and refresh rates would suggest that the M2 Pro model implements HDMI 2.1a with DSC (Data Stream Compression). Apple don’t make mention of this specifically, although the M1‑based predecessor did quote support for HDMI 2.0 regarding the output of multi‑channel audio.

Putting The Pro Into MacBook Pro

Aesthetically speaking, there’s nothing to distinguish the new MacBook Pros from the models first introduced just over a year earlier. This is to be expected, given that the 2022 variants benefitted from a complete redesign, and the craftsmanship deployed remains incredible. The display is outstanding, and while the ‘notch’ caused some minor consternation for some, over a year later I haven’t really thought much about it until writing this sentence. And sonically, the response of the in‑built speakers continues to impress.

The new M2 MacBook Pros have improved options for connecting external screens, with the M2 Max versions supporting up to four 6K displays over Thunderbolt plus an HDMI 4K display.

As with the Mac mini, the complement of connectors offered by the 14‑ and 16‑inch MacBook Pros also remains the same. The reintroduced MagSafe connector still provides safely detachable power, although, as I remarked when reviewing the first iteration of these MacBook Pro models, I still feel it’s a missed opportunity not to incorporate Ethernet in the power adaptor, as Apple did with the M1‑based iMac.

The M2 Pro brings the same improved support for external displays as in the Mac mini. This means you can connect two external 6K displays at 60Hz over Thunderbolt, and another 4K display at 144MHz via HDMI; or, alternatively, you can attach one external 8K display at 60Hz using Thunderbolt or a 4K display at 240Hz over HDMI. Should you have more demanding requirements, opting for a MacBook Pro with an M2 Max affords even more flexibility, making it possible to attach up to four external 6K displays at 60Hz via Thunderbolt, with a further 4K display at 144Hz over HDMI. And again, alternatively, you’re able to connect three external 6K displays at 60Hz using Thunderbolt, and one addition 4K display at 240Hz over HDMI.

Drive Time

The new Mac mini and MacBook Pro models have the same minimum and maximum storage capacities as the previous generation, which are in accordance with the other Macs in Apple’s portfolio. M2‑based systems, such as the new base Mac mini model, start at 256GB and can be configured with either 512GB, 1TB or 2TB SSDs. M2 Pro‑based systems (the Mac mini or MacBook Pro) come with 512GB as standard, with 1TB, 2TB, 4TB or 8TB options available, while the M2 Max‑based MacBook Pro is supplied with 1TB and can similarly be ordered with 2TB, 4TB or 8TB SSDs.

Although Apple are to be admired for keeping the starting price low for the base Mac mini model, 256GB really is a paltry quantity of storage for a modern system, especially when Mac OS itself requires just over 13GB of the available space. And with systems like the Mac mini and MacBook Pro we’re evaluating in this review, the question of how much internal storage you’ll need is complicated by the performance dictated by the SSD configuration. For example, in my own tests using Blackmagic’s Disk Speed Test, the original M1‑based Mac mini with 256GB of storage had read and write time of around 3000MB/s and 2000MB/s respectively, but in tests reported by Macrumors (www.macrumors.com/2023/01/24/m2-mac-mini-256gb-slower-ssd), a new, M2‑based Mac mini with 256GB storage only achieved read and write speeds of around 1500MB/s.

This chart shows read and write speeds for different internal storage capacities on a selection of Macs, using Blackmagic’s Disk Speed Test utility.

The M2 Pro‑based Mac mini model I had available for review, endowed with 1TB storage, achieved read and write rates of 4989MB/s and 6091.5MB/s respectively. And it perhaps goes without saying that this is rather decent. Similarly, the comparably specified 14‑inch MacBook Pro with an M2 and 1TB storage reported read and write rates of 4845.3MB/s and 6440.3MB/s. However, while my own, older 14‑inch MacBook Pro with an M1 Pro chip and 512GB storage reported read and write rates of 4854MB/s and 6440.3MB/s respectively, 9to5mac discovered that a new M2 Pro MacBook Pro with 512GB storage is notably slower, reporting read and write speeds of 2973.4MB/s and 3154.5MB/s (see: 9to5mac.com/2023/01/24/macbook-pro-ssd-performance-drop).

The reason for these discrepancies in performance comes down to the number of NAND modules used to implement the storage capacity. For example, in the case of the M1 Mac mini with 256GB of storage, the 256GB was configured with two 128GB NAND modules, while the M2 Mac mini with 256GB of storage implements this same volume with just a single NAND. And the reason two NANDs are better than one is because, simply put, much like a RAID 0 array where data is striped across multiple disks, you can achieve faster access times by employing the services of multiple disks simultaneously.

In terms of audio streaming performance (for recording and playing back audio tracks, feeding samplers, and so on), these differences in storage speeds probably don’t matter all that much. Even a speed of 1500MB/s still allows for around 2700 channels of 192kHz audio as a theoretical maximum. However, the significance of storage performance also depends on how much unified memory you have in your Mac. With an 8GB system, for example, Mac OS will rely more heavily on virtual memory, paging blocks of memory to and from the internal SSD more often, in order to make the most of the physical memory available. Therefore, the more demanding your workload — which will be determined by the applications you need to run and the size of the sessions or projects or songs that you’re working with, including large sample‑based instruments — the more memory you’ll need to access to keep the system running smoothly.

This essentially means that Macs with SSDs comprising multiple NANDS will perform better under heavier workloads. So, if there’s one specification that’s important to account for, it’s internal storage, especially when using your Mac for creative professional purposes, such as music and audio (and video).

And talking of audio and video, there are many factors that affect how general performance, as measured using tools like Geekbench, translates into the ability to run lots of plug‑ins or bounce huge mixes in seconds.

Next month, in Part 2, I’ll be doing a deep dive into the performance of these M2 Macs with Apple Silicon‑compatible music programs, including Logic Pro X, Pro Tools and Cubase.