16" M1 Max or M2 Max MBP?

[Yebubbleman]

both the M2 pro and M1 pro support up to two displays, or only one of them?

They both support two external displays in addition to the internal one.

Is a M1/M2 Pro MBP going to be slowed down by having its maximum amount of external displays (2) connected?

No.

The M1/M2 Max will not have its external display support maxed out when connected to 2 external displays, if you know what i mean.

I know what you mean, but you are thinking of this like it's an AMD GPU running on an Intel 16-inch MacBook Pro and that's not how this works. You don't get worse performance on the two monitors that you have hooked up to an M2 Pro than you would with those same two monitors hooked up to an M2 Max.

I think having 32gb or more of ram will definitely be good when having multiple displays connected and while multitasking/processing photos. I will generally not have more than 2 external displays connected at a time, so it should be ok.

Again, you are thinking of this like it's an Intel Mac and that the video RAM is going to be strained by adding more monitors. That's not how this works. You can have 32GB of RAM on an M2 Pro, have your two external monitors, and not lose any performance from that same configuration on an M2 Max with the same amount of RAM. Furthermore, going to 64GB or 96GB of RAM on an M2 Max isn't going to make your output on those two monitors any better while you're not doing any workload that significantly appreciates what Max even has to offer (and again, nothing of what you have described of your workloads tells me that 64GB of RAM, 96GB of RAM, or even any kind of Max chip will be anything other than wasted money and battery life for your workloads).

Will i really see no noticeanle difference when multitasking, like editing/stitching 45MP RAW photos in Lightroom while browsing in Firefox with 20-30 tabs open while also having LibreOffice open?

Extremely doubtful, though it would completely depend on which tabs and just how many 45MP RAW photos you had to have open at a time. 64GB of RAM is still an extreme and your use cases don't sound like the kind of thing that would buckle under 32GB of RAM.

In that situation i think having more than 32GB MIGHT show a noticeable improvement, but surely the jump from 16 to 32gb will be the biggest difference in that situation.

If it's what you want to buy, nothing I say will convince you otherwise and you should probably stop asking for advice if you already know what it is you want to do regardless. Yes, you might have SOME improvement for the one or two really extreme days. Is that worth sacrificing battery life? Is that worth spending more money? I'd argue no, but you're really pushing for it, so maybe it's what you want and I ought to stop trying to convince you otherwise. From what I know of these things, it's wasted money. But you do you.

I think a 16" M1/M2 Pro MBP with 32GB could me the sweet spot for me, and leave some money for accessories and be in my budget (3K) but mainly have much much better battery life than a Max chip, which is important to me.

The Max chips are there for situations where every second in rendering time saved really matters or when the workloads truly are high-end (and it's part of why I don't understand it existing in the 14-inch MacBook Pro). It's the Intel 16-inch MacBook Pro equivalent of the 2.4GHz Core i9 with the Radeon 5600M in that most won't need it, but some will. Basically, if you're not sure if you need a Max chip, then you don't need a Max chip.

 

[HawkTheHusky1902]

Thanks for the info,
I am really confused and dont know what to get at this point lol, so thats why i am asking...
"You can have 32GB of RAM on an M2 Pro, have your two external monitors, and not lose any performance from that same configuration on an M2 Max with the same amount of RAM"
But would a M2 Pro MBP with 1/2 external monitors be any slower than if you would just be using the laptop's internal display? If you know what i mean....

 

[HawkTheHusky1902]

They both support two external displays in addition to the internal one.



No.



I know what you mean, but you are thinking of this like it's an AMD GPU running on an Intel 16-inch MacBook Pro and that's not how this works. You don't get worse performance on the two monitors that you have hooked up to an M2 Pro than you would with those same two monitors hooked up to an M2 Max.



Again, you are thinking of this like it's an Intel Mac and that the video RAM is going to be strained by adding more monitors. That's not how this works. You can have 32GB of RAM on an M2 Pro, have your two external monitors, and not lose any performance from that same configuration on an M2 Max with the same amount of RAM. Furthermore, going to 64GB or 96GB of RAM on an M2 Max isn't going to make your output on those two monitors any better while you're not doing any workload that significantly appreciates what Max even has to offer (and again, nothing of what you have described of your workloads tells me that 64GB of RAM, 96GB of RAM, or even any kind of Max chip will be anything other than wasted money and battery life for your workloads).



Extremely doubtful, though it would completely depend on which tabs and just how many 45MP RAW photos you had to have open at a time. 64GB of RAM is still an extreme and your use cases don't sound like the kind of thing that would buckle under 32GB of RAM.



If it's what you want to buy, nothing I say will convince you otherwise and you should probably stop asking for advice if you already know what it is you want to do regardless. Yes, you might have SOME improvement for the one or two really extreme days. Is that worth sacrificing battery life? Is that worth spending more money? I'd argue no, but you're really pushing for it, so maybe it's what you want and I ought to stop trying to convince you otherwise. From what I know of these things, it's wasted money. But you do you.


The Max chips are there for situations where every second in rendering time saved really matters or when the workloads truly are high-end (and it's part of why I don't understand it existing in the 14-inch MacBook Pro). It's the Intel 16-inch MacBook Pro equivalent of the 2.4GHz Core i9 with the Radeon 5600M in that most won't need it, but some will. Basically, if you're not sure if you need a Max chip, then you don't need a Max chip.

I am not hellbent on the Max chips, i just think the RAM bump to 64GB up from the maximum the Pro chips can get, 32GB, would make a big difference in LrC, etc..., even according to herbert7265.

 

[HawkTheHusky1902]

I am not hellbent on the Max chips, i just think the RAM bump to 64GB up from the maximum the Pro chips can get, 32GB, would make a big difference in LrC, etc..., even according to herbert7265

And yes, time does matter to me, especially when processing/exporting a lot of hi res photos/a video.
The Max chips also will help in noise reduction software, especially Lightroom's new AI Noise Reduction feature, where the added GPU cores/RAM will help massively, so i dont have to wait a long time for one photo to process, which is nice.
I havent made my decision yet, i might have to try out one of these chips myself before buying, since i think they are an entirely different universe of perfomance compared to intel macs....

 

[Yebubbleman]

I am not hellbent on the Max chips, i just think the RAM bump to 64GB up from the maximum the Pro chips can get, 32GB, would make a big difference in LrC, etc..., even according to herbert7265.

It depends on how heavy your Lightroom use is. If you're in there non-stop and every ounce of GPU power and every last bit of RAM is crucial to you, then obviously, Max is the way to go. Again, the way you describe your workloads doesn't make it seem like you're going to by the M2 Pro, use it, and then walk away feeling like your machine needs to be more powerful but isn't.

And yes, time does matter to me, especially when processing/exporting a lot of hi res photos/a video.

When I say "every second really matters", I mean in the sense that a difference of 1-2 minutes is substantial money lost. If time doesn't matter in this regard, then it's extra performance you very likely won't ever appreciate.

Thanks for the info,
I am really confused and dont know what to get at this point lol, so thats why i am asking...
"You can have 32GB of RAM on an M2 Pro, have your two external monitors, and not lose any performance from that same configuration on an M2 Max with the same amount of RAM"
But would a M2 Pro MBP with 1/2 external monitors be any slower than if you would just be using the laptop's internal display? If you know what i mean....

Yes, I know what you mean. The difference ought to be negligible. Though, if that's the kind of hair-splitting you're worried about here, then just get a Max machine and be done with it.

The Max chips also will help in noise reduction software, especially Lightroom's new AI Noise Reduction feature, where the added GPU cores/RAM will help massively, so i dont have to wait a long time for one photo to process, which is nice.

Again, if you are so sure of being able to experience that big of a benefit, why are you asking for advice and not just pulling the trigger on the Max already?

If this is your livelihood and every second counts, just get the Max. Based on what you have described of your workloads, it sounds unnecessary to me. But you really do seem sure that that's what you need. So, just get it and be done with it!

I havent made my decision yet, i might have to try out one of these chips myself before buying, since i think they are an entirely different universe of perfomance compared to intel macs....

Honestly, most people are buying these things for the very first time. And Apple's whole subliminal "Pro is baseline" marketing nudge that they pioneered with the 13-inch MacBook Pro and now with the iPhone Pro phones, will have you and everyone else thinking that a Pro chip is baseline and won't serve your needs if you think for even a second that you're needs go beyond that of the average consumer/user. But it's not. The base M1 and M2 are extremely capable relative to the Intel configurations that were in those Macs' Intel-based predecessors and the M1 Pro and M2 Pro are extremely capable relative to the Intel Core i9 that was in pretty much every Intel 16-inch MacBook Pro and Intel iMac. Max is really just slapping on more RAM and a higher-end GPU. If you don't need these things, it's overkill and the vast majority of MacBook Pro customers don't need those things.

 

[HawkTheHusky1902]

Though, if that's the kind of hair-splitting you're worried about here, then just get a Max machine and be done with it.

I know, its funny. Its just that i really dont know what would be fast enough for me. I am not sure that little time difference between Max and Pro is worth, not the price (that is basically the same for me), but sacrificing the battery life which is so nice to have.

 

[HawkTheHusky1902]

Again, if you are so sure of being able to experience that big of a benefit, why are you asking for advice and not just pulling the trigger on the Max already?

I would, if i would not lose a bunch of battery life and get more heat compared to if i would go with a Pro.

 

[HawkTheHusky1902]

It depends on how heavy your Lightroom use is. If you're in there non-stop and every ounce of GPU power and every last bit of RAM is crucial to you, then obviously, Max is the way to go. Again, the way you describe your workloads doesn't make it seem like you're going to by the M2 Pro, use it, and then walk away feeling like your machine needs to be more powerful but isn't.



When I say "every second really matters", I mean in the sense that a difference of 1-2 minutes is substantial money lost. If time doesn't matter in this regard, then it's extra performance you very likely won't ever appreciate.


Yes, I know what you mean. The difference ought to be negligible. Though, if that's the kind of hair-splitting you're worried about here, then just get a Max machine and be done with it.



Again, if you are so sure of being able to experience that big of a benefit, why are you asking for advice and not just pulling the trigger on the Max already?

If this is your livelihood and every second counts, just get the Max. Based on what you have described of your workloads, it sounds unnecessary to me. But you really do seem sure that that's what you need. So, just get it and be done with it!


Honestly, most people are buying these things for the very first time. And Apple's whole subliminal "Pro is baseline" marketing nudge that they pioneered with the 13-inch MacBook Pro and now with the iPhone Pro phones, will have you and everyone else thinking that a Pro chip is baseline and won't serve your needs if you think for even a second that you're needs go beyond that of the average consumer/user. But it's not. The base M1 and M2 are extremely capable relative to the Intel configurations that were in those Macs' Intel-based predecessors and the M1 Pro and M2 Pro are extremely capable relative to the Intel Core i9 that was in pretty much every Intel 16-inch MacBook Pro and Intel iMac. Max is really just slapping on more RAM and a higher-end GPU. If you don't need these things, it's overkill and the vast majority of MacBook Pro customers don't need those things.

I Really hate how Apple has psychologically made me think of the Pro machines as 'baseline' and 'beginner', because they are not and it really doesnt help in the decision process when deciding which model to buy.
I do think the Max MBP would be very nice when hooked up to 2/3 monitors and running Lightroom, etc.
I will not always use the difference between Pro and Max, but it is so nice to have, but unfortunately its a very hard decision because i would give up on precious battery life
I am going in circles, i know....
Also, no, every second doesnt matter, but every 5 minutes when exporting a video/processing a photo DOES matter, so if i get a difference in that regard between the Pro and Max, then i think Max would be the way to go, but i honestly have no idea....and i am splitting hairs😭

 

[Yebubbleman]

I know, its funny. Its just that i really dont know what would be fast enough for me. I am not sure that little time difference between Max and Pro is worth, not the price (that is basically the same for me), but sacrificing the battery life which is so nice to have.

Again, the best rule of thumb is that if you are questioning whether or not you need a Max, you don't need a Max. You're not getting that much bang for the buck.

I would, if i would not lose a bunch of battery life and get more heat compared to if i would go with a Pro.

Just get a Pro. If it doesn't work out, sell it and get a Max. Problem solved. And I'm pretty sure you'll be fine on an M2 Pro until it's time to upgrade to something generationally newer anyway.

I Really hate how Apple has psychologically made me think of the Pro machines as 'baseline' and 'beginner', because they are not and it really doesnt help in the decision process when deciding which model to buy.
I do think the Max MBP would be very nice when hooked up to 2/3 monitors and running Lightroom, etc.
I will not always use the difference between Pro and Max, but it is so nice to have, but unfortunately its a very hard decision because i would give up on precious battery life
I am going in circles, i know....
Also, no, every second doesnt matter, but every 5 minutes when exporting a video/processing a photo DOES matter, so if i get a difference in that regard between the Pro and Max, then i think Max would be the way to go, but i honestly have no idea....and i am splitting hairs😭

I don't think you're going to have a five minute differential (let alone anything close to it) between an M1 Max and an M2 Pro, let alone M2 Pro to M2 Max. I'm pretty sure you're talking strictly about saving a fraction of a minute and only on the heaviest of renders and exports. M2 Pro isn't a slouch.

 

[HawkTheHusky1902]

Again, the best rule of thumb is that if you are questioning whether or not you need a Max, you don't need a Max. You're not getting that much bang for the buck.




Just get a Pro. If it doesn't work out, sell it and get a Max. Problem solved. And I'm pretty sure you'll be fine on an M2 Pro until it's time to upgrade to something generationally newer anyway.

I don't think you're going to have a five minute differential (let alone anything close to it) between an M1 Max and an M2 Pro, let alone M2 Pro to M2 Max. I'm pretty sure you're talking strictly about saving a fraction of a minute and only on the heaviest of renders and exports. M2 Pro isn't a slouch.

I just want to see an example of the M1/M2 Pro in work, to get an idea of how fast Apple's new 'baseline' chips really are.

 

[HawkTheHusky1902]

It depends on how heavy your Lightroom use is. If you're in there non-stop and every ounce of GPU power and every last bit of RAM is crucial to you, then obviously, Max is the way to go. Again, the way you describe your workloads doesn't make it seem like you're going to by the M2 Pro, use it, and then walk away feeling like your machine needs to be more powerful but isn't.



When I say "every second really matters", I mean in the sense that a difference of 1-2 minutes is substantial money lost. If time doesn't matter in this regard, then it's extra performance you very likely won't ever appreciate.


Yes, I know what you mean. The difference ought to be negligible. Though, if that's the kind of hair-splitting you're worried about here, then just get a Max machine and be done with it.



Again, if you are so sure of being able to experience that big of a benefit, why are you asking for advice and not just pulling the trigger on the Max already?

If this is your livelihood and every second counts, just get the Max. Based on what you have described of your workloads, it sounds unnecessary to me. But you really do seem sure that that's what you need. So, just get it and be done with it!


Honestly, most people are buying these things for the very first time. And Apple's whole subliminal "Pro is baseline" marketing nudge that they pioneered with the 13-inch MacBook Pro and now with the iPhone Pro phones, will have you and everyone else thinking that a Pro chip is baseline and won't serve your needs if you think for even a second that you're needs go beyond that of the average consumer/user. But it's not. The base M1 and M2 are extremely capable relative to the Intel configurations that were in those Macs' Intel-based predecessors and the M1 Pro and M2 Pro are extremely capable relative to the Intel Core i9 that was in pretty much every Intel 16-inch MacBook Pro and Intel iMac. Max is really just slapping on more RAM and a higher-end GPU. If you don't need these things, it's overkill and the vast majority of MacBook Pro customers don't need those things.

Basically, you're saying that the Pro chips would be just fine for me, probably, and i could get better battery life!
But will the Pro chips hold up compared to Max chips when stitching a panorama out of several 45MP full-res photos in LrC, etc.

 

[HawkTheHusky1902]

Again, the best rule of thumb is that if you are questioning whether or not you need a Max, you don't need a Max. You're not getting that much bang for the buck.




Just get a Pro. If it doesn't work out, sell it and get a Max. Problem solved. And I'm pretty sure you'll be fine on an M2 Pro until it's time to upgrade to something generationally newer anyway.

I don't think you're going to have a five minute differential (let alone anything close to it) between an M1 Max and an M2 Pro, let alone M2 Pro to M2 Max. I'm pretty sure you're talking strictly about saving a fraction of a minute and only on the heaviest of renders and exports. M2 Pro isn't a slouch.

What is the performance difference between M1 Pro and M2 Pro? Because i am considering them now, because yhey are cheaper, fast enough probably, and have better battery life.
What RAM for Pro? i would feel much better going with 32gb, the maximum for Pro, than 16gb. 32gb it must be, especially for video/panorama. But thats the thing, the Max chips allow for more than 32gb, which is nice.
A

 

[Yebubbleman]

I just want to see an example of the M1/M2 Pro in work, to get an idea of how fast Apple's new 'baseline' chips really are.

Might help to dispel the "baseline" notion if you stop perpetuating it.

Basically, you're saying that the Pro chips would be just fine for me, probably, and i could get better battery life!
But will the Pro chips hold up compared to Max chips when stitching a panorama out of several 45MP full-res photos in LrC, etc.

Is there a difference between Pro and Max? Yes.

Is Max going to be faster for anything that isn't graphics than Pro? No.

How GPU-dependent is your workload?

And are you more concerned with getting the best possible machine or the most optimally configured one for your needs? If the former, you'll never be happy with Pro and you should just get Max. If the latter, I'd be extremely shocked if you weren't satisfied with the M2 Pro.

What is the performance difference between M1 Pro and M2 Pro?

Substantial enough to produce faster benchmarks. But not substantial enough to warrant that anyone with an M1 Pro replace it with an M2 Pro. M2 Pro will have better battery life over M1 Pro due to having more efficiency cores.

Because i am considering them now, because yhey are cheaper, fast enough probably, and have better battery life.
What RAM for Pro? i would feel much better going with 32gb, the maximum for Pro, than 16gb. 32gb it must be, especially for video/panorama. But thats the thing, the Max chips allow for more than 32gb, which is nice.
A

Again, is the goal to get the best computer possible? Or is the goal to get a machine that serves perfectly well for what you're doing?

If you think you need 64GB, than you need Max. I don't know that you need it as much as want it, but you have yet to define the level of priority that all of these Max-enabled "nice-to-haves" actually have for you.

 

[HawkTheHusky1902]

Substantial enough to produce faster benchmarks. But not substantial enough to warrant that anyone with an M1 Pro replace it with an M2 Pro. M2 Pro will have better battery life over M1 Pro due to having more efficiency cores.

Same thing again.
People say "if you have a M1, dont upgrade to m2, but if youre coming from intel, get the m2" and that is annoying because i am coming from intel but i know the performance increase is not a lot between m1 and m2 pro, but if the price difference is not a lot or non-existent, then why get the older model? Now, i donf want to get the 512gb m2 pro, because of its ssd speed issue compared to m1, but i think that is only the 14" model, not the 16", which is the size i want.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Same thing again.
People say "if you have a M1, dont upgrade to m2, but if youre coming from intel, get the m2" and that is annoying because i am coming from intel but i know the performance increase is not a lot between m1 and m2 pro, but if the price difference is not a lot or non-existent, then why get the older model? Now, i donf want to get the 512gb m2 pro, because of its ssd speed issue compared to m1, but i think that is only the 14" model, not the 16", which is the size i want.

It's on the 16-inch models too. Categorically avoid 256GB drives with base M2 Macs and 512GB drives with M2 Pro/Max Macs.

 

[HawkTheHusky1902]

Might help to dispel the "baseline" notion if you stop perpetuating it.



Is there a difference between Pro and Max? Yes.

Is Max going to be faster for anything that isn't graphics than Pro? No.

How GPU-dependent is your workload?

And are you more concerned with getting the best possible machine or the most optimally configured one for your needs? If the former, you'll never be happy with Pro and you should just get Max. If the latter, I'd be extremely shocked if you weren't satisfied with the M2 Pro.



Substantial enough to produce faster benchmarks. But not substantial enough to warrant that anyone with an M1 Pro replace it with an M2 Pro. M2 Pro will have better battery life over M1 Pro due to having more efficiency cores.



Again, is the goal to get the best computer possible? Or is the goal to get a machine that serves perfectly well for what you're doing?

If you think you need 64GB, than you need Max. I don't know that you need it as much as want it, but you have yet to define the level of priority that all of these Max-enabled "nice-to-haves" actually have for you.

Wdym by graphics? I dont think video/photo editing is graphics...
No, i dont do 3d modelling or work in blender type programs, though i will do so occasionally, but not a lot at all.

 

[HawkTheHusky1902]

It's on the 16-inch models too. Categorically avoid 256GB drives with base M2 Macs and 512GB drives with M2 Pro/Max Macs.

ok, good to know.
I guess i will be getting 1tb or more only then.
But what config should my M2 Pro (yes, M2 Pro, i dont want M1 Pro since price difference is not big) be?
32gb ram, 16". I dont know what configuration the gpu or cpu should be for my needs

 

[Yebubbleman]

Wdym by graphics? I dont think video/photo editing is graphics...

Video editing CAN be GPU-intensive; though, it tends to be more CPU intensive, especially on the lower-end. Of course, I'm talking more about Premiere work than After Effects work. Suffice it to say, unless you are doing really serious and/or heavy editing, M2 Pro will be fine. We deployed M1 Pro 14-inch MacBook Pros (and not even with the highest-end GPU core option that was available on an M1 Pro!) to replace 2020 27-inch iMacs for the editorial team at my last job. From the standpoint of capability, the former was superior to the latter in every metric other than screen size. No one complained that we didn't get M1 Max instead.

I do not know what you do in Lightroom. My guess is that it will not tax the GPU to the point where you wish you had the Max's extra GPU cores. Generally, the kinds of workloads that DO require the GPU of a Max are heavy After Effects and really heavy Premiere/Final Cut Pro loads. Again, you'll know you need it if you actually do need it.

ok, good to know.
I guess i will be getting 1tb or more only then.
But what config should my M2 Pro (yes, M2 Pro, i dont want M1 Pro since price difference is not big) be?
32gb ram, 16". I dont know what configuration the gpu or cpu should be for my needs

For the 16-inch MacBook Pro, you only get one choice of M2 Pro configuration, and it's the higher-end one. So, no issues there. You already know you want 32GB of RAM, so that solves that question. You're really only left with your choice of drive capacity. My advice there is to always go one size larger than you think you'll be comfortable with (since you can't change your mind on it later). So, if 512GB was what you were originally thinking, get 1TB. If 1TB was what you were originally thinking, get 2TB.

And yes, I'd get M2 Pro over M1 Pro for the added efficiency cores (and therefore, the better battery life) alone. Otherwise, it wouldn't make much difference.

No, i dont do 3d modelling or work in blender type programs, though i will do so occasionally, but not a lot at all.

If it's only occasionally, then you'll be fine on M2 Pro.

 

[HawkTheHusky1902]

Video editing CAN be GPU-intensive; though, it tends to be more CPU intensive, especially on the lower-end. Of course, I'm talking more about Premiere work than After Effects work. Suffice it to say, unless you are doing really serious and/or heavy editing, M2 Pro will be fine. We deployed M1 Pro 14-inch MacBook Pros to replace 2020 27-inch iMacs for the editorial team at my last job. From the standpoint of capability, the former was superior to the latter in every metric other than screen size. No one complained that we didn't get M1 Max instead.

I do not know what you do in Lightroom. My guess is that it will not tax the GPU to the point where you wish you had the Max's extra GPU cores. Generally, the kinds of workloads that DO require the GPU of a Max are heavy After Effects and really heavy Premiere/Final Cut Pro loads. Again, you'll know you need it if you actually do need it.


For the 16-inch MacBook Pro, you only get one choice of M2 Pro configuration, and it's the higher-end one. So, no issues there. You already know you want 32GB of RAM, so that solves that question. You're really only left with your choice of drive capacity. My advice there is to always go one size larger than you think you'll be comfortable with (since you can't change your mind on it later). So, if 512GB was what you were originally thinking, get 1TB. If 1TB was what you were originally thinking, get 2TB.

And yes, I'd get M2 Pro over M1 Pro for the added efficiency cores (and therefore, the better battery life) alone. Otherwise, it wouldn't make much difference.


If it's only occasionally, then you'll be fine on M2 Pro.

I will not be using Premiere or AE, i will be using FCPX and Davinci Resolve, which is very very well optimized for Apple Silicon, so Davinci will take full advantage of new M chips, so if you have a more powerful chip, like Max comapred to Pro, it will actually make a noticeable difference in Davinci, especially with 4k/6k/8k. i will be editing 4k/6k video usually though, more 4k, and occasionally very occasionally 8K for cropping for wildlife videography from a Canon R5, etc..

 

[HawkTheHusky1902]

For the 16-inch MacBook Pro, you only get one choice of M2 Pro configuration, and it's the higher-end one. So, no issues there. You already know you want 32GB of RAM, so that solves that question. You're really only left with your choice of drive capacity. My advice there is to always go one size larger than you think you'll be comfortable with (since you can't change your mind on it later). So, if 512GB was what you were originally thinking, get 1TB. If 1TB was what you were originally thinking, get 2TB.

I have to still decide whether to get 16gb or 32gb, but i would be much more comfortable with 32gb. I am only getting 16", for the better screen size and heat management. I know drive capacity is important, but i would go with 1tb, because i can save a lot of money by not getting ripped off by Apple's insane SSD prices. So, lowest possible: 1TB. Not 512GB because of its issues. I plan on using external SSDs, even if it is less convenient than internal. Better also, because i will dump my photos/videos on external SSDs from my cameras' memory cards anyway, so it is more convenient anyway.

 

[Yebubbleman]

I will not be using Premiere or AE, i will be using FCPX and Davinci Resolve, which is very very well optimized for Apple Silicon, so Davinci will take full advantage of new M chips, so if you have a more powerful chip, like Max comapred to Pro, it will actually make a noticeable difference in Davinci, especially with 4k/6k/8k. i will be editing 4k/6k video usually though, more 4k, and occasionally very occasionally 8K for cropping for wildlife videography from a Canon R5, etc..

DaVinci and FCPX will both leverage what a Max chip has over what a Pro chip has. That isn't really in question. What IS in question is whether that difference ultimately matters to you in what you do and how you do it. If the goal is to not compromise on speed and performance, whether ultimately necessary or not, then Max. If the goal is to buy a computer that will do what you need it to do acceptably, let alone still phenomenally, then get Pro.

What you're going through here is a common "Do I pay extra for a perceived 'just in case I really need it'?" style dilemma and it's being further clouded by the idea that "Pro" is never going to be enough. Again, I'd say try Pro, and if you hate it, return it and buy Max. Right now, you're going off of theory and the fear that you're not buying enough computer to give you the needed overhead. Based on what you've described your needs as being, they're not Max-worthy. Then again, there are people who will buy a Max just to have their cake without any risk of not being able to eat it too. Most don't need it.

I have to still decide whether to get 16gb or 32gb, but i would be much more comfortable with 32gb.

32GB of RAM, especially while you're flirting with a Max for the ability to go with 64GB, seems like a no-brainer here.

I am only getting 16", for the better screen size and heat management.

That is generally the smart play.

I know drive capacity is important, but i would go with 1tb, because i can save a lot of money by not getting ripped off by Apple's insane SSD prices.

Apple's prices are insane, but carrying around SSDs is inconvenient. Plus, their internal SSDs will almost always be faster than what you get from a Thunderbolt SSD. Find something that at least will fit the apps you want installed and any other local data.

So, lowest possible: 1TB. Not 512GB because of its issues. I plan on using external SSDs, even if it is less convenient than internal. Better also, because i will dump my photos/videos on external SSDs from my cameras' memory cards anyway, so it is more convenient anyway.

There you go.

 

[HawkTheHusky1902]

DaVinci and FCPX will both leverage what a Max chip has over what a Pro chip has. That isn't really in question. What IS in question is whether that difference ultimately matters to you in what you do and how you do it. If the goal is to not compromise on speed and performance, whether ultimately necessary or not, then Max. If the goal is to buy a computer that will do what you need it to do acceptably, let alone still phenomenally, then get Pro.

What you're going through here is a common "Do I pay extra for a perceived 'just in case I really need it'?" style dilemma and it's being further clouded by the idea that "Pro" is never going to be enough. Again, I'd say try Pro, and if you hate it, return it and buy Max. Right now, you're going off of theory and the fear that you're not buying enough computer to give you the needed overhead. Based on what you've described your needs as being, they're not Max-worthy. Then again, there are people who will buy a Max just to have their cake without any risk of not being able to eat it too. Most don't need it.


32GB of RAM, especially while you're flirting with a Max for the ability to go with 64GB, seems like a no-brainer here.



That is generally the smart play.



Apple's prices are insane, but carrying around SSDs is inconvenient. Plus, their internal SSDs will almost always be faster than what you get from a Thunderbolt SSD. Find something that at least will fit the apps you want installed and any other local data.


There you go.

Even 4k 120fps/8k 30fps/6k RAW video the Pro will handle? I like to have the peace of mimd that if will handle it and that is what tne Max does, but Pro should be fine, I am just so sick if stuttering while editing, I HATE it!

 

[HawkTheHusky1902]

DaVinci and FCPX will both leverage what a Max chip has over what a Pro chip has. That isn't really in question. What IS in question is whether that difference ultimately matters to you in what you do and how you do it. If the goal is to not compromise on speed and performance, whether ultimately necessary or not, then Max. If the goal is to buy a computer that will do what you need it to do acceptably, let alone still phenomenally, then get Pro.

What you're going through here is a common "Do I pay extra for a perceived 'just in case I really need it'?" style dilemma and it's being further clouded by the idea that "Pro" is never going to be enough. Again, I'd say try Pro, and if you hate it, return it and buy Max. Right now, you're going off of theory and the fear that you're not buying enough computer to give you the needed overhead. Based on what you've described your needs as being, they're not Max-worthy. Then again, there are people who will buy a Max just to have their cake without any risk of not being able to eat it too. Most don't need it.


32GB of RAM, especially while you're flirting with a Max for the ability to go with 64GB, seems like a no-brainer here.



That is generally the smart play.



Apple's prices are insane, but carrying around SSDs is inconvenient. Plus, their internal SSDs will almost always be faster than what you get from a Thunderbolt SSD. Find something that at least will fit the apps you want installed and any other local data.


There you go.

1TB should be fine, though all of my apps will be about 100gb, so it should leave enough space. The video/photo ediring softwares take a lot of space, like Davinci and Ps/Lr.,etc..

 

[Yebubbleman]

Even 4k 120fps/8k 30fps/6k RAW video the Pro will handle? I like to have the peace of mimd that if will handle it and that is what tne Max does, but Pro should be fine, I am just so sick if stuttering while editing, I HATE it!

Yes. M2 Pro will handle that kind of workload. The Max chips will likely do it better. But is it a difference you'll appreciate or want to sacrifice money or battery life for? Extremely doubtful. But you're going in circles at this point; I've answered this very same question for you at least four times tonight alone. Go look up benchmarks and comparison videos.

1TB should be fine, though all of my apps will be about 100gb, so it should leave enough space. The video/photo ediring softwares take a lot of space, like Davinci and Ps/Lr.,etc..

Then, I say you're pretty much set on your configuration then.

 

[HawkTheHusky1902]

Yes. M2 Pro will handle that kind of workload. The Max chips will likely do it better. But is it a difference you'll appreciate or want to sacrifice money or battery life for? Extremely doubtful. But you're going in circles at this point; I've answered this very same question for you at least four times tonight alone. Go look up benchmarks and comparison videos.


Then, I say you're pretty much set on your configuration then.

ok, thanks for all of the help, much appreciated. Sorry for going in circles.
I didnt finish the sentence, the photo/video apps take up a lot of space, in additiin to the ~100gb of other apps. But even then, 1tb should be enough and especially since i will be keeping the big files and projects on external SSDs.
The thing is, will a 32gb ram M2 Pro MBP with 1tb of storage and maxed out cpu/gpu be a powerful and snappy enough workstation/desktop replacement for years to come? For my purposes? The Max seems to fit that purpose more imo, but now im going in circles again...