Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Denumerable

macrumors member
Jan 25, 2016
70
46
Worldwide
Given everything I have read, I just pulled the trigger on my new Mac. I went with the 16" model. At least that way I know I won't be power or thermally constrained at any point when running multiple heavy workloads, which I sometimes do when working with both Photography and Audio Engineering etc.

16" MBP, 38 Core GPU / 64GB RAM / 2TB SSD + studio display

Wise choice. It's a beast!
 
  • Like
Reactions: scottrichardson

bnumerick

macrumors member
Jan 14, 2010
93
68
Given everything I have read, I just pulled the trigger on my new Mac. I went with the 16" model. At least that way I know I won't be power or thermally constrained at any point when running multiple heavy workloads, which I sometimes do when working with both Photography and Audio Engineering etc.

16" MBP, 38 Core GPU / 64GB RAM / 2TB SSD + studio display
Good call I think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scottrichardson

analog guy

macrumors 6502
Mar 6, 2009
397
50
Got a 14" with 38c, 96gb RAM.

Geekbench just came back @ 2646 & 13836 (battery) and 2669 & 14128 (AC Power/138745 Metal) for whatever that's worth (not the reason why I got this machine).

I know the 16" probably offers better cooling/performance with the M2 Max, yet I also value the smaller size for my workflow and travel. The difference seems trivial until it isn't.

During the purchase process, I actually tried in-home the 32GB (base) and 64GB models (was testing something), and I've owned the M1 Max.

I was noticing swapping with 32GB and less so with 64GB — enough that I wanted it to be a non-issue for me.

I edit large graphics files with many, many layers (base image usually from a 100 MP camera, Fuji GFX 100s) and then have a bunch of other normal apps open. At certain times, my M1 Max (32GB) and even the 64GB M2 was doing so, albeit to a much lesser degree.
Screenshot 2023-02-17 at 11.57.07 AM.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: scottrichardson

scottrichardson

macrumors 6502a
Jul 10, 2007
716
293
Ulladulla, NSW Australia
Got a 14" with 38c, 96gb RAM.

Geekbench just came back @ 2646 & 13836 (battery) and 2669 & 14128 (AC Power/138745 Metal) for whatever that's worth (not the reason why I got this machine).

I know the 16" probably offers better cooling/performance with the M2 Max, yet I also value the smaller size for my workflow and travel. The difference seems trivial until it isn't.

During the purchase process, I actually tried in-home the 32GB (base) and 64GB models (was testing something), and I've owned the M1 Max.

I was noticing swapping with 32GB and less so with 64GB — enough that I wanted it to be a non-issue for me.

I edit large graphics files with many, many layers (base image usually from a 100 MP camera, Fuji GFX 100s) and then have a bunch of other normal apps open. At certain times, my M1 Max (32GB) and even the 64GB M2 was doing so, albeit to a much lesser degree. View attachment 2160284
Fantastic mate. Keen to hear your reports on how the 14” size goes with heating and power. I wanted that model but opted for the larger one, given it will be docked most of the time. I’ll hold on to my midnight m2 air for daily stuff.
 

dmccloud

macrumors 68040
Sep 7, 2009
3,146
1,902
Anchorage, AK
Fantastic mate. Keen to hear your reports on how the 14” size goes with heating and power. I wanted that model but opted for the larger one, given it will be docked most of the time. I’ll hold on to my midnight m2 air for daily stuff.

For me, the 14" was the smart choice. It's more portable, and since I have to fly anytime I leave state (Alaska), that additional level of portability is a most-have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crispe and EzisAA
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.