Apple | Macbook Pro M2 Pro in the practical test: Significantly faster and more powerful battery | macbook

As a follow-up to ours Benchmark tests of the new Macbook Pro M2 Pro we do some practical tests on our test device with 12 CPU and 19 GPU cores, 32 GB of shared RAM and a 2 TB SSD.

Because we don’t have direct comparisons to the previous model for most of the tests we ran, we instead put a Macbook Air M1 with 8 CPU and 8 GPU cores, 16 GB of shared memory and a 512 GB SSD through the same tests. This also gives a rough idea of ​​what to expect from the new Macbook Pro M2 in practice. We carry out all tests in battery mode.

Long runtime in cinema mode

To measure battery life, we loaded an HD quality movie from Apple’s Movie Store onto the Mac and looped it in Quicktime Player. The Macbook goes to sleep after almost exactly 24 hours. That’s two hours more than Apple claims for movie playback. Our Macbook Air M1 tested in 2020 had a playing time of almost 20 hours. However, we did not repeat this test with the Macbook Air, since its battery is now two years old and has therefore completed many charging cycles.

Of course, the Air has a much smaller battery than the Macbook Pro, but it also has to supply content to a less complex screen. After we reconnected the Macbook Pro M2 to the power supply after the battery was totally discharged, it took around 28 minutes to charge the battery to 50 percent.

Thomas Armbrüster

In return for this simple task, we gave the Macbook Pro a battery stress test with the program “Endurance” subjected. The app can be found in the App Store and fully utilizes all CPUs of a computer until the battery is empty. According to the program Coconut Battery the battery of the Macbook Pro is emptied with around 55 watts. We noticed in this test that the Macbook Pro switches to half-operation after 1 hour and 38 minutes and sends six of the performance cores to sleep. Apparently, the power supply is no longer sufficient for all cores with only 3 percent battery capacity. It then continued to work for a good 30 minutes with 50 percent of the CPU cores, albeit more slowly.

The fans were audible in this test as well as in the tests with Cinebench and 3D Mark Widlife Extreme in our benchmark tests, but only up close. The Macbook Air M1 tested for comparison runs for three hours, but does not turn off any cores. Since the power consumption tracked with Coconut Battery decreases over the course of the test, it can be assumed that the Macbook Air reduces the clock rate because it would get too hot due to the lack of a fan. The Macbook Pro is better equipped for such tasks that permanently load all cores, since it works without throttling as long as it has enough energy available. And usually you connect it to the power grid.

Thomas Armbrüster

Significantly faster for videos

In the video department we also convert handbrake a 4K video with a running time of just over 12 minutes and a file size of 6.7 GB, once with the video setting “H265 (x265)” and once with the setting “265 (VideoToolbox)”. For the first test, Handbrake relies on the CPUs, while the VideoToolbox uses the multimedia hardware integrated in the Apple chip. With this setting, the conversion is significantly faster on both computers. When converting via the CPUs, the Macbook Pro also turns on the fans again, since all cores are busy. Thanks to the ventilation, however, it does not have to reduce the clock rate of the performance cores and the work is done with the same CPU speed. In both cases, the Macbook Pro M2 is more than twice as fast as the Macbook Air M1.

In iMovie we import a five-minute 4K video recorded with the iPhone 14, stabilize it and edit the rolling shutter effect. For both tasks, the Macbook Pro takes only half as long as the Macbook Air. However, there was an unexpected result when exporting. Because with the setting “4K” and “Quality: high” as well as the better compression, iMovie on the Macbook Air hardly takes longer than on the Macbook Pro. With the setting “4k” and “Quality: Best (ProRes)” the expectations are met again. Here, the Macbook Pro handles the export more than three times as fast as the Macbook Air. This is due to the better media engine of the M2 chip, because unlike the normal M1 chip, it also supports ProRes. The M1 Pro and M1 Max also have the better media engine with ProRes, so owners of a Macbook Pro M1 can also enjoy faster processing here.

Thomas Armbrüster

Manageable gains in image processing

With the Raw Power program we test handling large images in RAW format. The program can apply some settings to several images in a batch process, which we will use for the test. We first open a folder with 760 images in RAW format, ranging in size from 7 to 10 MB. So no top sizes. On the one hand, we apply automatic image enhancement and, on the other hand, automatic lens correction to these images. The program also creates new preview images in JPEG format.

Finally, we export the images as JPEG files. In all three tests, the program is around 20 percent faster on the Macbook Pro M2 than on a Macbook Air M1. We do another test with 23 RAW images that are between 70 MB and 110 MB in size. The MacBook Pro can set itself apart a little further here and is around 24 percent faster when applying the image enhancement. In addition to the program itself, according to the developer Nik Bhatt, whom we wrote to via email, this test also involved Core Image, the RAW decoder, the GPU driver and of course the SSD on which the preview images and JPEGs are stored be secured. So a quite complex interaction of many components.

We also open the folder with the 760 RAW files in Graphics Converter and export all images in JPEG format. A compression of 75 percent, a resolution of 300 dpi and the Adobe RGB color space are set for this. The program completes the task around 40 percent faster on the Macbook Pro than on the Macbook Air. We achieve less speed gain when we convert the 23 large RAW files into TIFF. Graphic Converter on the MacBook Pro is only about 10 percent faster here.

As a final test, we set up a batch process in AffinityPhoto which applies three automatic image enhancements to 23 large TIFF files using a macro and then saves each image in JPEG format. Here, the Macbook Pro prevails over the Macbook Air with a time gain of almost 20 percent.

Thomas Armbrüster

Compile faster

We carry out another test with Xcode. To do this, we are compiling a small app for the iPhone. Here, the Macbook Pro M2 Pro surpasses the Macbook Pro M1 Max, for which we have comparative values, by a good 10 percent, compared to the Macbook Air M1, the Macbook Pro M2 has increased by 15 percent. For larger and more complex projects, however, the time savings on the Pro Macbooks should be higher than on the Macbook Air.

Thomas Armbrüster

Finally, we take on Safari and use the three tests from Browserbench.org a. In Jetstream 2, Motion Mark and Speedometer, Safari on the Macbook Pro M2 achieves an average speed increase of a good 15 percent compared to the Macbook Air. Another comparison number: GFXBench Metal has an endurance test that lasts 30 runs and records the lowest frame rate per second (fps) achieved by the test Mac during that time. With a good 118 fps, the Macbook Pro M2 is clearly superior to the Macbook Air with just under 60 fps.

Thomas Armbrüster

Conclusion

More and faster cores cannot be converted 1 to 1 into faster applications. Because the programs usually use many different components that the system and its programming interfaces offer, and it is only the interaction of all elements that makes the actual performance. Therefore, in our tests, the new Macbook Pro M2 is not always as far removed from a Macbook Air M1 as one would actually assume based on the technical data. In addition, our projects were not as large as they are in many demanding work environments.

However, our comparison should not lead to viewing the Macbook Pro M2 as a lame duck. It’s not, even if the distance to the M1 sometimes seems small. Because the M1 is already a powerful and fast chip that is not so easy to top.