1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:08,220 I really did try this time guys I even went as far as to ask my team if there 2 00:00:05,759 --> 00:00:13,440 was some positive spin that we could put on our review of the M2 ultramax Studio 3 00:00:10,679 --> 00:00:17,580 I kind of wanted a a glass half full angle before I had to dunk on the 4 00:00:15,599 --> 00:00:23,279 outrageously priced Mac Pro that's going to be arriving in our lab shortly but we 5 00:00:19,800 --> 00:00:25,500 failed and the blame Falls squarely on 6 00:00:23,279 --> 00:00:29,880 Apple not on the engineers they're amazing and apple silicon is a miracle 7 00:00:27,720 --> 00:00:35,160 of Modern Hardware engineering but on the marketers 8 00:00:31,140 --> 00:00:37,620 all they had to do was say M2 Ultra it's 9 00:00:35,160 --> 00:00:44,520 M1 Ultra but more betterer and we could have said yup sounds good but no instead 10 00:00:42,600 --> 00:00:47,820 they're back to their old tricks with performance claims that would get any 11 00:00:46,020 --> 00:00:53,940 other company sued Weiss in this paragraph Apple compares 12 00:00:50,700 --> 00:00:55,680 the M2 Ultra to the M2 Max then they've 13 00:00:53,940 --> 00:01:00,120 got these eye-catching performance claims that are floating down beneath it 14 00:00:57,360 --> 00:01:04,739 then we scroll down more down further and this is where those numbers come 15 00:01:02,820 --> 00:01:09,720 from they're doing it again with the unlabeled graphs and frankly comical 16 00:01:07,320 --> 00:01:14,880 comparison points for their claims this is really misleading they weren't 17 00:01:11,640 --> 00:01:17,760 comparing to M2 Max or even M1 Apple 18 00:01:14,880 --> 00:01:21,540 silicon does Apple really think we're gullible enough to believe a 19 00:01:19,140 --> 00:01:26,520 three-year-old iMac is a sensible performance reference for a professional 20 00:01:23,520 --> 00:01:29,759 machine also where did this number even 21 00:01:26,520 --> 00:01:32,220 come from click on any other heading and 22 00:01:29,759 --> 00:01:36,600 even directly from Apple the M2 ultra's performance leadership looks a lot more 23 00:01:34,500 --> 00:01:41,460 narrow so I think it's time to roll up our lab coats cut through the marketing 24 00:01:38,640 --> 00:01:47,159 read the fine print and figure out what apple is trying to hide from me 25 00:01:44,040 --> 00:01:50,399 and hide from our sponsor eugreen do you 26 00:01:47,159 --> 00:01:53,000 need some on-the-go juice the ugreen 145 27 00:01:50,399 --> 00:01:58,799 watt power bank is equipped with PD 3.0 QC 3.0 and a massive 25 28 00:01:57,119 --> 00:02:03,540 000 milliamp hour battery check it out at the link below externally the new Mac 29 00:02:01,259 --> 00:02:07,259 Studio is identical to its predecessor right down to its total weight and that 30 00:02:05,579 --> 00:02:11,340 means that everything I have to say about it concerns what's under the hood 31 00:02:09,179 --> 00:02:14,640 you've got substantially more bandwidth for displays than the previous 32 00:02:12,360 --> 00:02:19,739 generation to the point where it greatly exceeds what a single GPU PC can handle 33 00:02:16,980 --> 00:02:24,599 plus you get Apple's upgraded Wi-Fi 6E module with support for Bluetooth 5.3 34 00:02:21,720 --> 00:02:28,500 and the 6 gigahertz Wi-Fi band since it's the same Wi-Fi e module that's 35 00:02:26,220 --> 00:02:32,220 found in M2 MacBooks that makes for a maximum transfer rate that is double 36 00:02:30,239 --> 00:02:37,020 that of last gen should your wireless router supported of course the stars of 37 00:02:34,860 --> 00:02:43,920 the show however are the upgraded M2 based socs M2 Max is the same SOC that's 38 00:02:41,099 --> 00:02:49,739 found on the MacBook Pro 14 and 16 while M2 Ultra is only available on the 39 00:02:46,680 --> 00:02:51,540 desktop Mac Studio and the Mac Pro it's 40 00:02:49,739 --> 00:02:58,080 the most powerful silicon that Apple can build and ours is the most powerful 41 00:02:54,239 --> 00:03:01,560 version of it with 24 CPU cores and 76 42 00:02:58,080 --> 00:03:03,599 GPU cores which is not a massive 43 00:03:01,560 --> 00:03:08,640 Improvement on paper next to our M1 Ultra Studio especially since the memory 44 00:03:06,239 --> 00:03:12,300 bandwidth and Ultra Fusion fabric that connects the two dies together is the 45 00:03:10,739 --> 00:03:18,120 same as last gen but with the extra course also comes 46 00:03:15,360 --> 00:03:22,560 higher clock speeds both for the CPU and the GPU which according to Apple gives 47 00:03:20,400 --> 00:03:26,580 the M2 Ultra over double the 3D rendering performance compared to last 48 00:03:24,120 --> 00:03:31,379 gen this is achieved in large part by the move to tsmc's enhanced n5p 49 00:03:29,280 --> 00:03:36,120 manufacturing process which makes the die denser and more energy efficient so 50 00:03:33,959 --> 00:03:40,200 far so good then but as soon as we tried to replicate Apple's performance claims 51 00:03:38,040 --> 00:03:43,799 things went South faster than a Gamepad controlled submersible headed for the oh 52 00:03:42,840 --> 00:03:48,360 sorry things went bad let's start with their 53 00:03:46,140 --> 00:03:52,739 deeply suspicious octane X render performance the x-axis on their graph 54 00:03:50,700 --> 00:03:57,000 isn't labeled but we can infer from the numbers that are listed that the M2 55 00:03:54,599 --> 00:04:03,599 Ultra should be about three times faster than the M1 Ultra that is not what we 56 00:04:01,019 --> 00:04:09,239 found nor is it what this user from the otoi forums observed we had some ideas 57 00:04:07,019 --> 00:04:13,739 um like maybe our test was too short and a longer higher resolution render would 58 00:04:11,220 --> 00:04:19,260 give the new Ultra more time to spool up and flex its muscle but that didn't pan 59 00:04:16,500 --> 00:04:22,620 out either and come to think of it why would it Apple doesn't even claim to 60 00:04:21,060 --> 00:04:27,960 have done a complete architectural overhaul here the new GPU got some more 61 00:04:25,680 --> 00:04:33,960 cores and a faster clock speed and when we click on 3D interaction another GPU 62 00:04:31,020 --> 00:04:39,479 bound test we see a much more realistic generational bump so what is going on 63 00:04:36,840 --> 00:04:44,220 here truthfully we're still not sure what we know is that it almost certainly 64 00:04:42,360 --> 00:04:48,840 has to do with the unspecial specified project that Apple used to generate 65 00:04:46,259 --> 00:04:52,860 their numbers what we don't know is exactly how they managed to create a 66 00:04:51,180 --> 00:04:56,820 perfect storm of conditions to support these numbers 67 00:04:54,180 --> 00:05:01,919 one idea we had was it could be that the project is larger than 128 gigs which is 68 00:05:00,060 --> 00:05:05,400 the maximum amount of unified memory that's supported by the previous 69 00:05:03,060 --> 00:05:10,080 generation Apple silicon if they pushed the project out of RAM that would have 70 00:05:07,919 --> 00:05:14,820 severely hampered M1 ultra's ability to keep up and that would have hampered our 71 00:05:12,479 --> 00:05:20,280 test machine too since we didn't spring for the full 192 Gigabyte config 72 00:05:18,060 --> 00:05:25,199 but then that still doesn't explain their M2 Max numbers since that machine 73 00:05:22,860 --> 00:05:29,520 was configured with 96 gigabytes of memory all we can say for sure right now 74 00:05:27,300 --> 00:05:35,340 then is that the improved GPU performance is clearly very dependent on 75 00:05:32,759 --> 00:05:40,380 what exactly the GPU is crunching away at and even in this case it doesn't hold 76 00:05:37,919 --> 00:05:44,820 a candle to an RTX 4090 which completes the render at the maximum resolution 77 00:05:41,940 --> 00:05:49,560 available in just three seconds ouch okay well what about other 3D 78 00:05:46,979 --> 00:05:53,340 rendering Suites like redshift then here the M2 Ultra looks like it's doing about 79 00:05:51,600 --> 00:05:57,960 how you'd expect against both its predecessor and its little brother M2 80 00:05:55,320 --> 00:06:02,759 Max but again when we add the PC into the equation we can see why Apple didn't 81 00:06:00,419 --> 00:06:06,479 want to invite these comparisons that's about the same degree of demolition as 82 00:06:04,560 --> 00:06:12,300 we saw in octane with the M2 Ultra managing just under 30 percent of the 83 00:06:09,479 --> 00:06:19,860 4090s performance potential but Linus you might say that's unfair the RTX 4090 84 00:06:16,080 --> 00:06:23,280 is overpriced it costs 6 600 US Dollars 85 00:06:19,860 --> 00:06:26,280 and that's true but the GPU and the M2 86 00:06:23,280 --> 00:06:28,259 Ultra costs more than that it costs 87 00:06:26,280 --> 00:06:33,360 whatever Apple included in the base config pricing plus a thousand dollars 88 00:06:31,080 --> 00:06:38,220 to upgrade it to the best config the one that we're using okay how about blender 89 00:06:35,220 --> 00:06:40,500 then version 3.5 added an official metal 90 00:06:38,220 --> 00:06:46,380 renderer that promises a major speed up and yeah it's fast like this data from 91 00:06:44,400 --> 00:06:52,139 our M1 Ultra review is a little old now but if we slot our new numbers in we're 92 00:06:48,900 --> 00:06:55,020 seeing nearly RTX 30 90 levels of raw 93 00:06:52,139 --> 00:07:00,360 GPU compute power here though again depending on the scene M2 ultra's best 94 00:06:57,960 --> 00:07:05,759 showing is still trumped by the ray tracing cores on the RTX 4090 and even 95 00:07:03,539 --> 00:07:12,539 gets beat by the card's slower Cuda renderer so then maybe applement CPU 96 00:07:09,840 --> 00:07:17,220 based 3D rendering in their claims sure why they would focus on that but 97 00:07:14,580 --> 00:07:21,060 sure let's talk about it compared to the M1 Ultra it's about as fast as you'd 98 00:07:19,500 --> 00:07:27,300 expect from an extra four efficiency course and a bit more clock speed then 99 00:07:23,639 --> 00:07:30,780 compared to a core I9 13900k PC well 100 00:07:27,300 --> 00:07:32,039 it's about that much slower still I mean 101 00:07:30,780 --> 00:07:35,400 it's a pretty impressive showing considering that it's fairly Apples to 102 00:07:33,960 --> 00:07:39,120 Apples in terms of core count against that Intel chip and that's a pattern 103 00:07:37,860 --> 00:07:43,979 that continues when we hit it with synthetics like geekbench 6 where single 104 00:07:41,759 --> 00:07:49,139 threaded performance is about 90 percent of what the I9 can do but multi-threaded 105 00:07:46,680 --> 00:07:54,599 performance is more or less on par if not faster and we see a bit more of that 106 00:07:52,139 --> 00:08:00,419 it depends performance with geekbench's GPU test where opencl is above where our 107 00:07:58,080 --> 00:08:04,259 previous results were but metal is actually higher than what the RTX 4090 108 00:08:03,060 --> 00:08:10,020 is capable of this highlights two very important 109 00:08:06,780 --> 00:08:13,380 things first that optimization is King 110 00:08:10,020 --> 00:08:15,120 and second that you cannot rely on a 111 00:08:13,380 --> 00:08:19,080 single Benchmark to determine what your real world performance will be even if 112 00:08:17,460 --> 00:08:23,819 that Benchmark happens to be derived from a real world workload you've got to 113 00:08:21,599 --> 00:08:29,160 have a full suite for an example in the other direction then cinebench while it 114 00:08:26,699 --> 00:08:33,839 is an apple silicon native app cinebench is a notoriously Intel optimized 115 00:08:31,800 --> 00:08:39,240 Benchmark that hasn't yet been updated with Cinema 4d's Apple silicon 116 00:08:36,180 --> 00:08:41,459 optimizations so while we are seeing 117 00:08:39,240 --> 00:08:47,160 okay scaling between our apple chips Intel absolutely dominates here again 118 00:08:44,880 --> 00:08:51,060 this isn't something that we saw in real world workloads and shows you how 119 00:08:49,260 --> 00:08:55,140 important Benchmark selection can be whether you're trying to paint a 120 00:08:52,620 --> 00:08:58,920 narrative about your own product or a narrative about a competitors let's look 121 00:08:57,060 --> 00:09:03,420 at another of Apple's chosen benchmarks then color grading Apple's using DaVinci 122 00:09:01,680 --> 00:09:09,540 Resolve Studio here and the test sequence is a 28 second prores project 123 00:09:06,660 --> 00:09:14,040 with noise reduction last time I checked that's not really what color grading 124 00:09:11,220 --> 00:09:19,860 means so our project then is four minutes of mixed 4K and 8K Blackmagic 125 00:09:16,860 --> 00:09:23,100 raw and red raw Clips with actual HDR 126 00:09:19,860 --> 00:09:24,240 color grading and denoising and I'm 127 00:09:23,100 --> 00:09:31,920 starting to feel a bit like a broken record here but the PC is faster and for 128 00:09:28,680 --> 00:09:34,500 whatever reason our M2 Ultra machine far 129 00:09:31,920 --> 00:09:40,740 from being 50 faster like apple claims ended up running slower than our M1 130 00:09:37,560 --> 00:09:43,019 Ultra machine this has to be some kind 131 00:09:40,740 --> 00:09:46,980 of bug maybe something kind of like what we saw with the game porting toolkit 132 00:09:44,580 --> 00:09:50,519 video where we used M1 Ultra silicon because it was what we happen to have 133 00:09:48,360 --> 00:09:54,720 and it turns out it's totally bugged and performance was way lower than it's 134 00:09:52,140 --> 00:10:00,180 supposed to be but then in this case we went out of our way to test with resolve 135 00:09:56,640 --> 00:10:02,339 Studio 18.5 beta just like apple did we 136 00:10:00,180 --> 00:10:07,080 tried changing the export parameters and we just got the same results every time 137 00:10:04,560 --> 00:10:10,260 all I can guess is that because this is beta software maybe something thing 138 00:10:08,820 --> 00:10:14,640 broke in between apple doing their testing and me doing mine so Apple I 139 00:10:13,019 --> 00:10:18,420 know you've got my digits if you want to help us look into this hit me up and 140 00:10:16,680 --> 00:10:22,320 guys we'll pin a comment if we hear back from them and get this resolved pun 141 00:10:20,220 --> 00:10:27,500 intended uh what's left then oh how about code compiling Apple used an open 142 00:10:25,080 --> 00:10:32,880 source project built with xcode thanks very reproducible Apple so we used 143 00:10:30,720 --> 00:10:37,560 chromium and whatever Apple was compiling we are just not seeing the M2 144 00:10:35,459 --> 00:10:42,899 Ultra getting double the performance of the M2 Max though the M1 Ultra number 145 00:10:40,860 --> 00:10:47,459 does look like it's in the ballpark just by eyeballing the bar graph links Apple 146 00:10:45,660 --> 00:10:51,959 does manage to outperform Intel here though but that could be partly down to 147 00:10:49,920 --> 00:10:57,120 the build Target Apple didn't specify whether they were targeting Apple 148 00:10:53,220 --> 00:10:58,980 silicon or x86 on the Intel Mac so we 149 00:10:57,120 --> 00:11:03,660 just built native for each platform just like we built our screwdriver available 150 00:11:00,660 --> 00:11:06,959 at lttstore.com so far all of this 151 00:11:03,660 --> 00:11:08,100 sounds pretty bad for Apple then and as 152 00:11:06,959 --> 00:11:12,180 far as their Shady marketing is concerned turned it very much is but 153 00:11:10,620 --> 00:11:17,040 there's an elephant in the room that we haven't talked about yet and that's 154 00:11:13,920 --> 00:11:19,320 power in our M1 Ultra Max studio review 155 00:11:17,040 --> 00:11:24,600 We observed power consumption that never pushed Beyond 227 Watts for the entire 156 00:11:23,279 --> 00:11:29,579 box however while we had a pretty good CPU 157 00:11:27,600 --> 00:11:34,380 stressor at the time we didn't have a great way of stress testing the GPU but 158 00:11:32,160 --> 00:11:38,100 now that blender has a metal renderer we can give it a bit more of a workout do 159 00:11:36,540 --> 00:11:41,640 bear in mind of course that this is a worst case scenario 160 00:11:39,839 --> 00:11:46,200 and uh it's pretty impressive it looks like the 161 00:11:44,100 --> 00:11:54,240 total power from the wall Peaks at around 331 Watts at room temperature 162 00:11:48,959 --> 00:11:57,680 which Real Talk guys either a core I9 or 163 00:11:54,240 --> 00:12:01,079 an RTX 4090 could draw on its own 164 00:11:57,680 --> 00:12:03,060 sometimes even more and the idle power 165 00:12:01,079 --> 00:12:09,180 consumption is maybe even more impressive at just 18 and a half Watts 166 00:12:05,880 --> 00:12:11,579 my phone charges with more juice than 167 00:12:09,180 --> 00:12:16,980 that given that we're looking at CPU performance that's roughly 90 of the way 168 00:12:14,220 --> 00:12:22,440 to a core I9 and a GPU that's anywhere from about 30 to all the way as fast as 169 00:12:20,579 --> 00:12:26,459 an RTX 4090 this efficiency is nothing short of 170 00:12:24,660 --> 00:12:30,899 unbelievable this is what Apple should have been 171 00:12:28,560 --> 00:12:35,459 shouting from the rooftops about not cherry-picked benchmarks compared 172 00:12:32,940 --> 00:12:38,760 against older Hardware uh speaking of which there is one more claim that we 173 00:12:37,079 --> 00:12:42,660 need to verify though operating temperature to do so we popped the Mac 174 00:12:41,100 --> 00:12:47,700 Studio into our handy dandy environmental chamber and let our 175 00:12:44,339 --> 00:12:50,040 combined CPU and GPU load rip and 176 00:12:47,700 --> 00:12:55,139 fortunately the Mac Studio's thermal design is quite capable of handling the 177 00:12:52,200 --> 00:12:59,519 load at room temperature however it's worth noting that the system does 178 00:12:56,940 --> 00:13:04,560 throttle its performance rather than increase the fan speed Beyond 1900 RPM 179 00:13:02,459 --> 00:13:09,540 that means that you could end up sacrificing some performance for lower 180 00:13:06,899 --> 00:13:13,860 noise unless you use a utility like TG Pro to Auto Max your fans 181 00:13:11,820 --> 00:13:19,320 to simulate a warmer environment we cranked our ambient heat to 35 degrees 182 00:13:15,800 --> 00:13:21,660 and unfortunately it chokes pretty hard 183 00:13:19,320 --> 00:13:26,639 here that's disappointing compared to the perfect performance we saw from an 184 00:13:23,459 --> 00:13:29,760 RTX 4090 at these temperatures at least 185 00:13:26,639 --> 00:13:31,980 the fans do finally push past 2000 RPM 186 00:13:29,760 --> 00:13:36,600 and they do creep a little higher over time but even after 20 minutes they 187 00:13:34,920 --> 00:13:40,980 never managed to Max themselves out despite the fact that the CPU is 188 00:13:38,760 --> 00:13:46,740 obviously throttling we saw power consumption that was rapidly fluctuating 189 00:13:42,899 --> 00:13:48,180 between 215 and 280 Watts so if you're 190 00:13:46,740 --> 00:13:51,660 living in a hotter climate and you don't have air conditioning don't settle for 191 00:13:50,100 --> 00:13:55,620 Apple's Auto settings you're going to want to set an aggressive fan curve cap 192 00:13:53,880 --> 00:13:58,920 off our thermal chamber testing we wanted to see if dropping the 193 00:13:57,000 --> 00:14:03,600 temperature unlocked a little bit more performance so we set it to 10 degrees 194 00:14:01,160 --> 00:14:08,459 roughly fall or spring temperatures around these parts and the answer is no 195 00:14:06,060 --> 00:14:12,779 apple will simply maintain the fan at a lower RPM meaning that you could get 196 00:14:10,380 --> 00:14:16,740 quieter operation but you won't see any more performance and this is confirmed 197 00:14:14,700 --> 00:14:19,860 by the roughly similar Peak wattage that we observed compared to our room 198 00:14:18,180 --> 00:14:23,519 temperature test expansion is an interesting conversation 199 00:14:22,079 --> 00:14:29,040 that we haven't touched on yet though almost all of the criticism for the M1 200 00:14:26,220 --> 00:14:33,660 Ultra SOC aside from our assertion that M1 Max made it a pretty tough sell oh 201 00:14:31,500 --> 00:14:38,040 and Apple's disproven claims of GPU performance kingship was centered around 202 00:14:35,579 --> 00:14:45,300 the lack of 48 gigabit per second HDMI and its General inability to drive 8K 203 00:14:41,459 --> 00:14:47,399 displays well with the HDMI upgrade and 204 00:14:45,300 --> 00:14:52,620 the M2 ultra's ability to drive up to three of those aforementioned 8K panels 205 00:14:49,860 --> 00:14:57,480 those limitations have basically melted away and if you think about it there are 206 00:14:55,320 --> 00:15:01,980 very few scenarios where this much expansion is not going to be sufficient 207 00:14:59,480 --> 00:15:05,339 especially considering that 10 gigabit Ethernet has been standard since the 208 00:15:03,839 --> 00:15:12,300 first Mac Studio imagine saying that about an Apple product class leading IO I love it side 209 00:15:10,320 --> 00:15:16,800 note by the way it's really strange that apple neglects to mention that the first 210 00:15:14,279 --> 00:15:20,720 gen Max studio also has a high impedance headphone jack just like the new one 211 00:15:18,899 --> 00:15:25,500 does in the compare page archive.org exists you guys come on that 212 00:15:23,279 --> 00:15:28,860 is not a value add for this gen speaking of value 213 00:15:27,060 --> 00:15:33,360 there are certainly professionals and prosumers out there who are going to buy 214 00:15:30,839 --> 00:15:38,399 this and be happy with it at any price and I'm not going to mock them for it I 215 00:15:35,399 --> 00:15:40,139 mean Apple's got their ecosystem and 216 00:15:38,399 --> 00:15:44,820 perhaps more importantly they've got applications like Final Cut and logic 217 00:15:42,540 --> 00:15:49,620 pro so if your workflow requires Apple tools that is totally valid and 218 00:15:47,160 --> 00:15:54,600 objectively speaking this is the fastest a Mac can go today and it's going to be 219 00:15:52,560 --> 00:15:58,199 quiet and draw less power than a PC while doing it 220 00:15:55,980 --> 00:16:02,459 that's what you're paying for same price as last gen faster computer 221 00:16:00,720 --> 00:16:06,540 what's there to complain about then aside from the ridiculously expensive 222 00:16:04,620 --> 00:16:12,240 proprietary storage that you can't upgrade post purchase for everyone else 223 00:16:08,639 --> 00:16:14,519 however 4 000 US dollars is a freaking 224 00:16:12,240 --> 00:16:18,480 lot of money and that doesn't even get you the top of the line M2 Ultra that's 225 00:16:16,860 --> 00:16:22,740 going to be an extra thousand dollars on top and then another eight hundred 226 00:16:20,459 --> 00:16:25,500 dollars for the 128 gigs of memory that we put in ours let's put this into 227 00:16:24,480 --> 00:16:33,000 perspective a PC with a core I9 13900k and a GeForce 228 00:16:29,519 --> 00:16:34,740 RTX 4090 with the same capacity NVMe SSD 229 00:16:33,000 --> 00:16:39,660 the same amount of system memory actually more if you count the GPU RAM 230 00:16:36,720 --> 00:16:45,600 and even taking into account the cost of the operating system is going to cost 231 00:16:43,279 --> 00:16:50,519 1722 dollars less you could quite literally buy a 232 00:16:48,300 --> 00:16:55,079 completely Overkill PC that most people wouldn't even consider to begin with and 233 00:16:53,160 --> 00:17:02,160 then with the money left over you could also buy an M2 Pro MacBook or a Mac Mini 234 00:16:59,579 --> 00:17:06,600 that's a yikes and it might be about to get even worse I mean what if anything 235 00:17:04,860 --> 00:17:12,179 is going to be the advantage of using Apple's brand new Mac Pro chassis over 236 00:17:09,059 --> 00:17:13,919 the Mac Studio the soc is the same but 237 00:17:12,179 --> 00:17:19,439 the price is three thousand dollars higher and there's no support for GPU 238 00:17:16,799 --> 00:17:22,620 accelerators in its PCIe slots maybe the entire point of that product is to make 239 00:17:21,059 --> 00:17:26,160 the Mac Studio seem like a somewhat acceptable value 240 00:17:24,480 --> 00:17:30,299 we're gonna find out just like we're gonna find out about our 241 00:17:27,959 --> 00:17:34,200 sponsor it's summer and what better time to enjoy the great outdoors but if you 242 00:17:32,640 --> 00:17:37,080 need to stay connected to the world or just power that fancy electric barbecue 243 00:17:36,000 --> 00:17:44,940 you just brought along with you you're gonna need some power that's where you Green's power roam 1200 watt portable 244 00:17:42,000 --> 00:17:50,400 power station comes in with 1024 Watt hours of battery support for up to 2500 245 00:17:47,400 --> 00:17:53,039 watt devices and 100 watt USBC and a 246 00:17:50,400 --> 00:17:56,460 ports it really is an all-in-one get it all done Workhorse but what about 247 00:17:54,840 --> 00:18:00,299 actually charging the thing won't that take forever you green claims that it 248 00:17:58,140 --> 00:18:04,919 can charge up from zero to eighty percent battery in 50 minutes five zero 249 00:18:02,580 --> 00:18:09,240 minutes with its power zip tech oh and it harnesses the power of the Sun as 250 00:18:07,559 --> 00:18:12,780 well with solar charging that will fully charge it in four hours be prepared for 251 00:18:11,400 --> 00:18:17,520 your next Outdoor Adventure check out the ugreen power ROM 1200 watt portable 252 00:18:14,880 --> 00:18:21,720 power station below if you guys enjoyed this video for more on the M2 go check 253 00:18:19,679 --> 00:18:26,419 out our review of the M2 MacBook Pro turns out cooling is a big deal