WEBVTT 00:00:01.360 --> 00:00:08.400 is that a mac in your pants or are you just happy to see me we've got a total 00:00:05.759 --> 00:00:11.840 of seven macbooks here and uh some are 00:00:09.599 --> 00:00:15.759 bigger than the others but does a bigger laptop always mean 00:00:14.320 --> 00:00:19.680 more performance apple's m1 pro and m1 max socs have 00:00:18.320 --> 00:00:24.960 already strutted their stuff for us in the 14 inch form factor 00:00:21.680 --> 00:00:27.279 now it's time to see the 16 inch 00:00:24.960 --> 00:00:31.359 you'd be surprised how much difference two inches can make 00:00:29.439 --> 00:00:35.760 just like our sponsor i fix it still haven't bought something for the diy or 00:00:33.200 --> 00:00:40.239 fixer in your life ifixit has a tool kit to help you tackle any job and you can 00:00:38.399 --> 00:00:45.840 still get free shipping and other great discounts for the holiday season learn 00:00:42.160 --> 00:00:45.840 more at the end of the video 00:00:52.800 --> 00:01:00.960 from the outside the 16-inch macbook pro is perhaps disappointingly an enlarged 00:00:58.640 --> 00:01:04.479 version of the 14-inch there's no proportional in beginning of i o which 00:01:03.039 --> 00:01:09.280 is a bummer if you were hoping to be able to ditch the type c hubs and type c 00:01:06.640 --> 00:01:14.880 to a adapters that you have even worse we tried those type-c HDMI 2.1 adapters 00:01:12.400 --> 00:01:18.560 4k 60 with HDR is the best you're going to get out of these for the time being 00:01:16.720 --> 00:01:23.439 so you're effectively limited to HDMI 2.0 on all ports even on the 16-inch 00:01:21.040 --> 00:01:27.439 models it's kind of lame but it's been suggested that it's an internal 00:01:24.799 --> 00:01:31.920 bandwidth limitation from here though it's all positive or neutral starting 00:01:29.520 --> 00:01:35.759 with the notch where because it's no larger than the smaller models the 00:01:34.000 --> 00:01:40.880 16-inch display actually makes it practically disappear when you're focused on content there's also far less 00:01:38.960 --> 00:01:45.200 opportunity for egregiously large menus like davinci resolves to be cut off 00:01:43.119 --> 00:01:49.200 thanks to the larger menu bar which makes this an appealing choice for the 00:01:46.880 --> 00:01:53.119 mac using professional finally the keyboard is no larger which is something 00:01:51.520 --> 00:01:57.840 apple has always done as a matter of preference what we gain by keeping that 00:01:55.439 --> 00:02:04.550 smaller keyboard form factor is a much larger trackpad and bigger speakers 00:02:00.320 --> 00:02:11.680 which do in fact sound a bit better 00:02:11.680 --> 00:02:18.319 there's a little more and tighter bass which is saying something considering 00:02:16.080 --> 00:02:22.400 how good the 14 inch already sounds the obvious reason to buy the 16-inch 00:02:20.239 --> 00:02:26.160 macbook of course is the larger version of the pro display xdr it's got the same 00:02:24.480 --> 00:02:30.879 pixel density and brightness as the smaller model and looking at them side 00:02:28.720 --> 00:02:34.480 by side it looks like apple matched the panels extremely well in other areas 00:02:32.879 --> 00:02:37.840 like color and brightness too that should make anyone looking into the 14 00:02:36.239 --> 00:02:41.519 inch models breathe a sigh of relief considering in the past smaller models 00:02:40.160 --> 00:02:46.129 haven't always been given the same pedigree 00:02:46.720 --> 00:02:51.760 when it comes to the vastness of the screen the 16 inch reminds me of how it 00:02:50.319 --> 00:02:55.840 felt to sit in front of a 17 inch macbook back when they still existed 00:02:54.160 --> 00:03:00.879 i don't have one of those to show you right now but here's my old 15.4 inch 00:02:58.640 --> 00:03:05.200 for comparison the shrunken bezels really do help make it feel that much 00:03:02.959 --> 00:03:07.440 bigger and i don't miss my desktop monitor nearly as much as i did with 00:03:06.640 --> 00:03:12.159 this just like i don't miss my old jacket after getting the new swag it from 00:03:10.480 --> 00:03:16.400 ltdstore.com flexible and thick 00:03:14.159 --> 00:03:20.080 like i one day hope to be but there is one more major difference between the 00:03:17.840 --> 00:03:22.959 new 14 and 16 inch models that we need to talk about 00:03:21.360 --> 00:03:28.879 if you pop the hood wow they look shockingly similar don't they 00:03:26.480 --> 00:03:32.480 almost like they took the 14 inch and just resized it in photoshop 00:03:31.360 --> 00:03:37.280 and that means the cooler is proportionally much 00:03:34.720 --> 00:03:39.920 larger and it sits inside all that extra thermal mass offered by the bigger 00:03:38.720 --> 00:03:44.879 chassis this might just be the killer feature 00:03:42.239 --> 00:03:48.959 for the 16-inch assuming of course we hit thermal bottlenecks on our 14-inch 00:03:46.640 --> 00:03:53.120 testing as usual let's start with cinebench where it's obvious we haven't 00:03:50.879 --> 00:03:57.840 been thermally constrained up until now m1 pro and m1 max in both form factors 00:03:55.519 --> 00:04:01.920 share the same CPU cores after all and we get further confirmation with 00:03:59.120 --> 00:04:07.200 geekbench and same deal with blender too where we've got some minor variation but 00:04:04.480 --> 00:04:11.040 not much else the CPU cores on their own are simply not enough to saturate the 00:04:08.720 --> 00:04:15.120 14-inch cooler so if your workloads are only taxing the CPU you may not see a 00:04:13.519 --> 00:04:19.919 performance advantage with the 16-inch over the 14. it's when we move on to the 00:04:17.199 --> 00:04:24.000 GPU testing that things get interesting final cut pro sees the m1 max picking up 00:04:22.079 --> 00:04:28.160 an extra simultaneous prores stream or two over the 14 inch variants before 00:04:26.240 --> 00:04:31.680 dropping any frames which hints that the extra GPU horsepower is in fact being 00:04:30.400 --> 00:04:36.400 utilized here davinci resolve's render time gives us a 00:04:33.759 --> 00:04:41.759 shocker the high-end 16-inch m1 max wraps up over a minute faster than the 00:04:38.320 --> 00:04:44.000 14 and the low end m1 max is even faster 00:04:41.759 --> 00:04:50.240 than the high end 14. so the max GPU cores are in fact enough to 00:04:47.440 --> 00:04:53.360 saturate the 14 inch chassis strangely the 16 inch m1 pro has the opposite 00:04:52.479 --> 00:04:58.320 result it runs slower than the 14-inch not just 00:04:56.400 --> 00:05:01.840 in the export but in the timeline losing a frame per second 00:04:59.919 --> 00:05:05.360 what appears to be happening here is that because apple's only spinning up 00:05:03.440 --> 00:05:08.160 the fans once the chassis itself reaches a certain temperature 00:05:06.720 --> 00:05:13.360 by the time the larger machine has heated up enough to activate the fans 00:05:10.400 --> 00:05:18.320 the soc temperature is already so high that it has to throttle its performance 00:05:15.600 --> 00:05:22.880 we don't see this on m1 max because they spin up the fans much sooner cinema 4d 00:05:21.039 --> 00:05:25.759 redshift is your best bet for 3d modeling and rendering on apple silicon 00:05:24.400 --> 00:05:30.400 right now thanks to its support for apple's metal API but unfortunately it 00:05:28.560 --> 00:05:35.199 doesn't seem to hit the soc quite as hard as the previous test and so we see 00:05:32.800 --> 00:05:39.520 less difference between the two sizes it seems like redshift simply needs more 00:05:37.280 --> 00:05:43.919 optimization if it were fully utilized in the GPU it should be saturating the 00:05:41.919 --> 00:05:48.160 cooler and throttling on the 14-inch like we saw with resolve geekbench is 00:05:46.400 --> 00:05:52.960 more of the same with a mild increase in opencl but roughly run to run variants 00:05:50.639 --> 00:05:57.520 in metal again if it were fully utilizing the GPU we should see some 00:05:55.520 --> 00:06:01.360 throttling with this fan profile even though this is a short benchmark whoa 00:05:59.120 --> 00:06:06.560 hey future Anthony here capital f capital a remember how i said cinema 4d 00:06:03.759 --> 00:06:10.800 was your best bet for 3d rendering turns out i lied the blender 3.1 alpha just 00:06:09.120 --> 00:06:15.280 got updated with metal rendering support on apple silicon in monterey i couldn't 00:06:13.440 --> 00:06:19.199 let this video go up without testing that out could i 00:06:16.960 --> 00:06:23.520 the m1 is completely destroyed by the m1 pro and m1 max which we might expect 00:06:21.520 --> 00:06:27.600 from doubling the number of GPU cores twice 00:06:24.639 --> 00:06:31.360 but there's an anomaly the 1016 m1 pro consistently runs a little slower than 00:06:29.440 --> 00:06:34.880 the 8 and 14 core model this is probably down to the alpha 00:06:33.120 --> 00:06:38.639 status of the new renderer so take with salt as needed overall this is a great 00:06:37.280 --> 00:06:44.400 showing until we introduced the zephyrus m16 00:06:41.600 --> 00:06:48.960 in the bmw render its cuda result is 16 seconds faster while the optics renderer 00:06:46.880 --> 00:06:54.400 runs twice again as fast that laptop costs less than two thousand 00:06:51.360 --> 00:06:57.280 dollars but with blender we have one 00:06:54.400 --> 00:07:02.000 more trick up our sleeves gooseberry this test requires 12 gigabytes of RAM 00:06:59.440 --> 00:07:05.759 to run and this is where apple silicon shines thanks to its unified memory 00:07:03.520 --> 00:07:10.240 layout the zephyrus in both cuda and optics modes is faster than the m1 pro 00:07:08.160 --> 00:07:15.280 models but only just m1 max trounces it easily with over a 6 00:07:12.960 --> 00:07:20.319 minute lead on the 32 core models finally we found something apple's GPU 00:07:18.080 --> 00:07:24.319 is seriously good at without needing any extra hardware like the 00:07:22.319 --> 00:07:28.240 decoding and encoding blocks let's take these numbers with some salt though the 00:07:26.000 --> 00:07:32.880 implementation is very early and the devs say that performance optimizations 00:07:30.080 --> 00:07:37.199 are forthcoming okay back to the video we get a better look at this when we 00:07:34.400 --> 00:07:43.039 look at gaming where the 16-inch m1 max managed a higher frame rate than the 00:07:38.880 --> 00:07:44.960 zephyrus m16s rtx 3060 a first for apple 00:07:43.039 --> 00:07:48.560 silicon in all of our testing that's a good 15 FPS higher than the 14 00:07:47.039 --> 00:07:52.240 inch model can handle too suggesting that once again 00:07:50.240 --> 00:07:56.400 the max GPU is more than capable of overwhelming the 14's cooler although 00:07:53.840 --> 00:08:01.039 the pro is well within the capabilities of its cooler and sees no improvement 00:07:58.560 --> 00:08:05.039 between the two sizes cs go does see a small but measurable improvement on the 00:08:02.960 --> 00:08:08.720 higher end m1 max as well suggesting that the little bit of extra horsepower 00:08:07.440 --> 00:08:13.919 coupled with the little bit of extra thermal headroom lets it squeeze that little bit of extra 00:08:12.479 --> 00:08:18.560 speed out of an otherwise rosetta bottleneck title as messy as all this is 00:08:17.199 --> 00:08:22.319 mac gaming isn't as crazy as you might think so get 00:08:20.560 --> 00:08:26.960 subscribed because we've got a video on why coming soon but what if we 00:08:24.479 --> 00:08:30.560 sidestepped rosetta and used an apple silicon native app 00:08:28.560 --> 00:08:35.200 the dolphin emulator running super mario sunshine fits the bill but we're still 00:08:33.039 --> 00:08:38.479 not hitting the cooler that hard which suggests that there's another bottleneck 00:08:36.959 --> 00:08:44.000 probably in the translation from the older opengl API to apple's metal API 00:08:41.839 --> 00:08:47.600 we'd expect it to hit both the CPU and GPU hard because we're running the 00:08:45.440 --> 00:08:53.360 emulator without a frame rate cap but they're not so we see little difference 00:08:50.959 --> 00:08:58.240 between the sizes again which brings us to the overarching theme of this testing 00:08:56.160 --> 00:09:02.080 thermals we fired up redshift and blender simultaneously for this one and 00:09:00.160 --> 00:09:05.279 while redshift isn't fully utilizing the GPU it should be more than enough to 00:09:03.600 --> 00:09:10.480 bring it up to temperature sure enough even our low end m1 pro 14 00:09:08.240 --> 00:09:15.600 choked here maintaining the high 90s on the CPU cores and peaking at 100 degrees 00:09:12.480 --> 00:09:17.360 throughout the run apple as always seems 00:09:15.600 --> 00:09:22.320 to favor throttling instead of ramping the fans up even at that 100 degree mark 00:09:19.839 --> 00:09:28.399 the fan speed was merely fifty percent fun fact all of the m1 pro models choked 00:09:26.080 --> 00:09:33.040 hard enough to outright crash the redshift render every time 00:09:30.880 --> 00:09:36.560 and in one case it froze the machine entirely with a black screen 00:09:35.040 --> 00:09:41.120 given the thermal results i don't think that it's overheating necessarily 00:09:39.279 --> 00:09:44.640 perhaps there's a memory bandwidth issue causing contention on the lower end 00:09:42.560 --> 00:09:48.640 chips or maybe there's a power delivery issue none of the m1 max models 00:09:46.720 --> 00:09:52.959 exhibited this behavior so make of that what you will the top end 00:09:50.720 --> 00:09:56.720 14 inch m1 max model CPU cores were routinely allowed to hit 100 degrees 00:09:55.200 --> 00:10:01.760 while the redshift rendering performance suffered greatly the fans are a little 00:09:59.120 --> 00:10:04.640 more aggressive than m1 pro at around 75 at peak but 00:10:02.959 --> 00:10:08.480 that's a small comfort when you're still leaving performance on the table 00:10:06.399 --> 00:10:13.120 the 16 inch models on the other hand all performed admirably the top end soc may 00:10:11.360 --> 00:10:17.519 have hit 100 degrees a lot but the fans barely hit 50 percent and the redshift 00:10:15.040 --> 00:10:20.560 render only took about 10 longer than when we were running it on its own 00:10:18.959 --> 00:10:25.440 suggesting that it's only being mildly throttled less so than the 14 inch m1 00:10:23.040 --> 00:10:28.800 max interestingly the GPU clusters weren't allowed to hit the 90 degree 00:10:26.800 --> 00:10:31.680 mark on any of our macbooks in this test which hints that apple's thermal 00:10:30.399 --> 00:10:35.680 management is aiming for somewhere around 90 degrees is the upper limit for 00:10:33.440 --> 00:10:40.399 the soc itself taken together this suggests that with the fans cranked up 00:10:38.240 --> 00:10:45.279 the 16 inch would actually be totally capable of handling a combined load like 00:10:42.160 --> 00:10:47.839 this without batting an eye sadly this 00:10:45.279 --> 00:10:52.399 isn't the default behavior but you can force it to max speed using a 00:10:49.360 --> 00:10:53.760 third-party program like tg pro surface 00:10:52.399 --> 00:10:56.880 temperatures were also significantly lower on all of our 16-inch models 00:10:55.440 --> 00:11:01.519 although the exhaust temperatures were still in the 50s crucially the hot spot 00:10:59.680 --> 00:11:06.240 is well under 50 degrees on the highest end 16 inch and the underside is just a 00:11:04.320 --> 00:11:09.680 hair over 40 at its hottest which means that even if you're stressing the 00:11:07.839 --> 00:11:13.680 machine you're not going to be burning your pants off if it's in your lap 00:11:11.680 --> 00:11:17.440 apple's done a fantastic job managing skin temperature on this generation of 00:11:15.200 --> 00:11:21.600 macbooks and again if they're a little more aggressive with the fan they can 00:11:19.440 --> 00:11:26.320 have their cake and eat it too the noise isn't even that bad imo at a 200 premium 00:11:24.560 --> 00:11:31.200 over a similarly equipped 14 inch macbook pro the 16 inch models represent 00:11:28.800 --> 00:11:35.600 a reasonable option if you value screen real estate but as we've seen 00:11:33.920 --> 00:11:40.800 the thermal constraints of the 14 inch chassis rarely come into play until you 00:11:38.000 --> 00:11:46.480 upgrade to the m1 max so choosing which size you get for an m1 pro mostly comes 00:11:43.680 --> 00:11:51.200 down to form factor not performance in fact if you're okay trading storage 00:11:48.399 --> 00:11:55.040 for screen size the base model 16 inch is the same price as the 14 for the same 00:11:53.279 --> 00:11:59.360 soc however i don't think i could recommend less than one terabyte of storage for a 00:11:57.680 --> 00:12:03.120 professional class machine even over the course of our benchmarking 00:12:01.040 --> 00:12:06.399 for these videos we ended up running out of storage 00:12:04.160 --> 00:12:11.279 your mileage may of course vary apple's engineers are good at their jobs 00:12:09.040 --> 00:12:14.320 since abandoning the pursuit of ever thinner designs 00:12:12.639 --> 00:12:17.519 they pulled off a solid chassis with good cooling and paired it with next 00:12:16.160 --> 00:12:22.110 level battery life thanks to apple silicon 00:12:25.760 --> 00:12:32.720 while we're still in the transition phase of the rollout it's almost complete and there's reason to be 00:12:30.639 --> 00:12:37.680 optimistic about apple silicon maybe not quite as optimistic as apple is not yet 00:12:35.200 --> 00:12:41.440 anyway but optimistic nonetheless it's expensive for what you're getting that 00:12:39.200 --> 00:12:45.839 much is clear only NVIDIA editing does apple silicon truly shine the way apple 00:12:43.279 --> 00:12:49.519 claims it does and far cheaper pc notebooks currently outperform it in 00:12:47.360 --> 00:12:54.720 other tasks like 3d modeling and gaming but the entire m1 pro and max lineup has 00:12:52.720 --> 00:12:59.200 a unique combination of performance efficiency and endurance rolled into a 00:12:57.040 --> 00:13:03.760 form factor that's pleasing to use with fewer compromises than we're used to 00:13:01.600 --> 00:13:07.680 you're also getting a display that's unmatched in the pc world speakers that 00:13:06.079 --> 00:13:12.000 are legitimately some of the best in the industry and a tightly integrated 00:13:09.600 --> 00:13:16.320 ecosystem that speaks to many it's really a combination that no one 00:13:13.760 --> 00:13:18.399 else is in a position to match right now and 00:13:17.040 --> 00:13:21.839 let's be honest if any of that is a deal maker for you 00:13:20.160 --> 00:13:25.920 as it is for me then you're probably already eyeing one 00:13:24.240 --> 00:13:31.519 of these new macbooks and if anything remotely resembling the 00:13:28.320 --> 00:13:32.800 apple logo makes you recoil and disgust 00:13:31.519 --> 00:13:37.279 you're probably looking for reasons to hate it instead i'm simply not going to 00:13:35.519 --> 00:13:41.200 change your mind but regardless of what your feelings about them are 00:13:39.120 --> 00:13:44.399 apple is moving in the right direction and this is a major step towards what 00:13:42.800 --> 00:13:49.839 could be a brighter future for the industry after all wherever apple goes the pc 00:13:48.480 --> 00:13:55.200 surely follows just like you're already at this segway to our sponsor i fix it thanks to ifixit 00:13:53.360 --> 00:13:58.560 for sponsoring today's video ifixit has the perfect gifts for the tech hobbyist 00:13:56.880 --> 00:14:02.399 or professional in your life their protect toolkit is a great general kit 00:14:00.480 --> 00:14:07.360 to fix almost anything in your house i reach for one all the time it's got 64 00:14:05.120 --> 00:14:11.360 bits and i fix its most popular opening tools all rolled up into one package 00:14:09.440 --> 00:14:15.920 including suction cups spudgers anti-static wrist straps and more all 00:14:13.360 --> 00:14:19.120 covered by ifixit's lifetime warranty it's the gift that keeps on giving 00:14:17.360 --> 00:14:23.680 because you can save time and money by repairing your own electronics using 00:14:20.639 --> 00:14:25.360 ifixit's step-by-step guides ifixit also 00:14:23.680 --> 00:14:29.519 still has great holiday sales for a limited time check out their new toolkit 00:14:27.120 --> 00:14:34.000 bundles and get 20 off all laptop batteries plus you can get free shipping 00:14:31.920 --> 00:14:39.120 on orders over fifty dollars with code for you that is for you at checkout give 00:14:37.360 --> 00:14:44.000 the gift of repair this holiday season at ifixit.com LTT thanks for watching 00:14:42.320 --> 00:14:48.160 guys go check out our initial review of the 14-inch m1 pro macbooks if you 00:14:45.920 --> 00:14:52.320 haven't already so you can get more context for today's 16-inch review