WEBVTT 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 00:00:05.759 --> 00:00:13.440 was some positive spin that we could put on our review of the M2 ultramax Studio 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 00:00:15.599 --> 00:00:23.279 outrageously priced Mac Pro that's going to be arriving in our lab shortly but we 00:00:19.800 --> 00:00:25.500 failed and the blame Falls squarely on 00:00:23.279 --> 00:00:29.880 Apple not on the engineers they're amazing and apple silicon is a miracle 00:00:27.720 --> 00:00:35.160 of Modern Hardware engineering but on the marketers 00:00:31.140 --> 00:00:37.620 all they had to do was say M2 Ultra it's 00:00:35.160 --> 00:00:44.520 M1 Ultra but more betterer and we could have said yup sounds good but no instead 00:00:42.600 --> 00:00:47.820 they're back to their old tricks with performance claims that would get any 00:00:46.020 --> 00:00:53.940 other company sued Weiss in this paragraph Apple compares 00:00:50.700 --> 00:00:55.680 the M2 Ultra to the M2 Max then they've 00:00:53.940 --> 00:01:00.120 got these eye-catching performance claims that are floating down beneath it 00:00:57.360 --> 00:01:04.739 then we scroll down more down further and this is where those numbers come 00:01:02.820 --> 00:01:09.720 from they're doing it again with the unlabeled graphs and frankly comical 00:01:07.320 --> 00:01:14.880 comparison points for their claims this is really misleading they weren't 00:01:11.640 --> 00:01:17.760 comparing to M2 Max or even M1 Apple 00:01:14.880 --> 00:01:21.540 silicon does Apple really think we're gullible enough to believe a 00:01:19.140 --> 00:01:26.520 three-year-old iMac is a sensible performance reference for a professional 00:01:23.520 --> 00:01:29.759 machine also where did this number even 00:01:26.520 --> 00:01:32.220 come from click on any other heading and 00:01:29.759 --> 00:01:36.600 even directly from Apple the M2 ultra's performance leadership looks a lot more 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 00:01:38.640 --> 00:01:47.159 read the fine print and figure out what apple is trying to hide from me 00:01:44.040 --> 00:01:50.399 and hide from our sponsor eugreen do you 00:01:47.159 --> 00:01:53.000 need some on-the-go juice the ugreen 145 00:01:50.399 --> 00:01:58.799 watt power bank is equipped with PD 3.0 QC 3.0 and a massive 25 00:01:57.119 --> 00:02:03.540 000 milliamp hour battery check it out at the link below externally the new Mac 00:02:01.259 --> 00:02:07.259 Studio is identical to its predecessor right down to its total weight and that 00:02:05.579 --> 00:02:11.340 means that everything I have to say about it concerns what's under the hood 00:02:09.179 --> 00:02:14.640 you've got substantially more bandwidth for displays than the previous 00:02:12.360 --> 00:02:19.739 generation to the point where it greatly exceeds what a single GPU PC can handle 00:02:16.980 --> 00:02:24.599 plus you get Apple's upgraded Wi-Fi 6E module with support for Bluetooth 5.3 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 00:02:26.220 --> 00:02:32.220 found in M2 MacBooks that makes for a maximum transfer rate that is double 00:02:30.239 --> 00:02:37.020 that of last gen should your wireless router supported of course the stars of 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 00:02:41.099 --> 00:02:49.739 found on the MacBook Pro 14 and 16 while M2 Ultra is only available on the 00:02:46.680 --> 00:02:51.540 desktop Mac Studio and the Mac Pro it's 00:02:49.739 --> 00:02:58.080 the most powerful silicon that Apple can build and ours is the most powerful 00:02:54.239 --> 00:03:01.560 version of it with 24 CPU cores and 76 00:02:58.080 --> 00:03:03.599 GPU cores which is not a massive 00:03:01.560 --> 00:03:08.640 Improvement on paper next to our M1 Ultra Studio especially since the memory 00:03:06.239 --> 00:03:12.300 bandwidth and Ultra Fusion fabric that connects the two dies together is the 00:03:10.739 --> 00:03:18.120 same as last gen but with the extra course also comes 00:03:15.360 --> 00:03:22.560 higher clock speeds both for the CPU and the GPU which according to Apple gives 00:03:20.400 --> 00:03:26.580 the M2 Ultra over double the 3D rendering performance compared to last 00:03:24.120 --> 00:03:31.379 gen this is achieved in large part by the move to tsmc's enhanced n5p 00:03:29.280 --> 00:03:36.120 manufacturing process which makes the die denser and more energy efficient so 00:03:33.959 --> 00:03:40.200 far so good then but as soon as we tried to replicate Apple's performance claims 00:03:38.040 --> 00:03:43.799 things went South faster than a Gamepad controlled submersible headed for the oh 00:03:42.840 --> 00:03:48.360 sorry things went bad let's start with their 00:03:46.140 --> 00:03:52.739 deeply suspicious octane X render performance the x-axis on their graph 00:03:50.700 --> 00:03:57.000 isn't labeled but we can infer from the numbers that are listed that the M2 00:03:54.599 --> 00:04:03.599 Ultra should be about three times faster than the M1 Ultra that is not what we 00:04:01.019 --> 00:04:09.239 found nor is it what this user from the otoi forums observed we had some ideas 00:04:07.019 --> 00:04:13.739 um like maybe our test was too short and a longer higher resolution render would 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 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 00:04:21.060 --> 00:04:27.960 have done a complete architectural overhaul here the new GPU got some more 00:04:25.680 --> 00:04:33.960 cores and a faster clock speed and when we click on 3D interaction another GPU 00:04:31.020 --> 00:04:39.479 bound test we see a much more realistic generational bump so what is going on 00:04:36.840 --> 00:04:44.220 here truthfully we're still not sure what we know is that it almost certainly 00:04:42.360 --> 00:04:48.840 has to do with the unspecial specified project that Apple used to generate 00:04:46.259 --> 00:04:52.860 their numbers what we don't know is exactly how they managed to create a 00:04:51.180 --> 00:04:56.820 perfect storm of conditions to support these numbers 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 00:05:00.060 --> 00:05:05.400 the maximum amount of unified memory that's supported by the previous 00:05:03.060 --> 00:05:10.080 generation Apple silicon if they pushed the project out of RAM that would have 00:05:07.919 --> 00:05:14.820 severely hampered M1 ultra's ability to keep up and that would have hampered our 00:05:12.479 --> 00:05:20.280 test machine too since we didn't spring for the full 192 Gigabyte config 00:05:18.060 --> 00:05:25.199 but then that still doesn't explain their M2 Max numbers since that machine 00:05:22.860 --> 00:05:29.520 was configured with 96 gigabytes of memory all we can say for sure right now 00:05:27.300 --> 00:05:35.340 then is that the improved GPU performance is clearly very dependent on 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 00:05:37.919 --> 00:05:44.820 a candle to an RTX 4090 which completes the render at the maximum resolution 00:05:41.940 --> 00:05:49.560 available in just three seconds ouch okay well what about other 3D 00:05:46.979 --> 00:05:53.340 rendering Suites like redshift then here the M2 Ultra looks like it's doing about 00:05:51.600 --> 00:05:57.960 how you'd expect against both its predecessor and its little brother M2 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 00:06:00.419 --> 00:06:06.479 want to invite these comparisons that's about the same degree of demolition as 00:06:04.560 --> 00:06:12.300 we saw in octane with the M2 Ultra managing just under 30 percent of the 00:06:09.479 --> 00:06:19.860 4090s performance potential but Linus you might say that's unfair the RTX 4090 00:06:16.080 --> 00:06:23.280 is overpriced it costs 6 600 US Dollars 00:06:19.860 --> 00:06:26.280 and that's true but the GPU and the M2 00:06:23.280 --> 00:06:28.259 Ultra costs more than that it costs 00:06:26.280 --> 00:06:33.360 whatever Apple included in the base config pricing plus a thousand dollars 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 00:06:35.220 --> 00:06:40.500 then version 3.5 added an official metal 00:06:38.220 --> 00:06:46.380 renderer that promises a major speed up and yeah it's fast like this data from 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 00:06:48.900 --> 00:06:55.020 seeing nearly RTX 30 90 levels of raw 00:06:52.139 --> 00:07:00.360 GPU compute power here though again depending on the scene M2 ultra's best 00:06:57.960 --> 00:07:05.759 showing is still trumped by the ray tracing cores on the RTX 4090 and even 00:07:03.539 --> 00:07:12.539 gets beat by the card's slower Cuda renderer so then maybe applement CPU 00:07:09.840 --> 00:07:17.220 based 3D rendering in their claims sure why they would focus on that but 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 00:07:19.500 --> 00:07:27.300 expect from an extra four efficiency course and a bit more clock speed then 00:07:23.639 --> 00:07:30.780 compared to a core I9 13900k PC well 00:07:27.300 --> 00:07:32.039 it's about that much slower still I mean 00:07:30.780 --> 00:07:35.400 it's a pretty impressive showing considering that it's fairly Apples to 00:07:33.960 --> 00:07:39.120 Apples in terms of core count against that Intel chip and that's a pattern 00:07:37.860 --> 00:07:43.979 that continues when we hit it with synthetics like geekbench 6 where single 00:07:41.759 --> 00:07:49.139 threaded performance is about 90 percent of what the I9 can do but multi-threaded 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 00:07:52.139 --> 00:08:00.419 it depends performance with geekbench's GPU test where opencl is above where our 00:07:58.080 --> 00:08:04.259 previous results were but metal is actually higher than what the RTX 4090 00:08:03.060 --> 00:08:10.020 is capable of this highlights two very important 00:08:06.780 --> 00:08:13.380 things first that optimization is King 00:08:10.020 --> 00:08:15.120 and second that you cannot rely on a 00:08:13.380 --> 00:08:19.080 single Benchmark to determine what your real world performance will be even if 00:08:17.460 --> 00:08:23.819 that Benchmark happens to be derived from a real world workload you've got to 00:08:21.599 --> 00:08:29.160 have a full suite for an example in the other direction then cinebench while it 00:08:26.699 --> 00:08:33.839 is an apple silicon native app cinebench is a notoriously Intel optimized 00:08:31.800 --> 00:08:39.240 Benchmark that hasn't yet been updated with Cinema 4d's Apple silicon 00:08:36.180 --> 00:08:41.459 optimizations so while we are seeing 00:08:39.240 --> 00:08:47.160 okay scaling between our apple chips Intel absolutely dominates here again 00:08:44.880 --> 00:08:51.060 this isn't something that we saw in real world workloads and shows you how 00:08:49.260 --> 00:08:55.140 important Benchmark selection can be whether you're trying to paint a 00:08:52.620 --> 00:08:58.920 narrative about your own product or a narrative about a competitors let's look 00:08:57.060 --> 00:09:03.420 at another of Apple's chosen benchmarks then color grading Apple's using DaVinci 00:09:01.680 --> 00:09:09.540 Resolve Studio here and the test sequence is a 28 second prores project 00:09:06.660 --> 00:09:14.040 with noise reduction last time I checked that's not really what color grading 00:09:11.220 --> 00:09:19.860 means so our project then is four minutes of mixed 4K and 8K Blackmagic 00:09:16.860 --> 00:09:23.100 raw and red raw Clips with actual HDR 00:09:19.860 --> 00:09:24.240 color grading and denoising and I'm 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 00:09:28.680 --> 00:09:34.500 whatever reason our M2 Ultra machine far 00:09:31.920 --> 00:09:40.740 from being 50 faster like apple claims ended up running slower than our M1 00:09:37.560 --> 00:09:43.019 Ultra machine this has to be some kind 00:09:40.740 --> 00:09:46.980 of bug maybe something kind of like what we saw with the game porting toolkit 00:09:44.580 --> 00:09:50.519 video where we used M1 Ultra silicon because it was what we happen to have 00:09:48.360 --> 00:09:54.720 and it turns out it's totally bugged and performance was way lower than it's 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 00:09:56.640 --> 00:10:02.339 Studio 18.5 beta just like apple did we 00:10:00.180 --> 00:10:07.080 tried changing the export parameters and we just got the same results every time 00:10:04.560 --> 00:10:10.260 all I can guess is that because this is beta software maybe something thing 00:10:08.820 --> 00:10:14.640 broke in between apple doing their testing and me doing mine so Apple I 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 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 00:10:20.220 --> 00:10:27.500 intended uh what's left then oh how about code compiling Apple used an open 00:10:25.080 --> 00:10:32.880 source project built with xcode thanks very reproducible Apple so we used 00:10:30.720 --> 00:10:37.560 chromium and whatever Apple was compiling we are just not seeing the M2 00:10:35.459 --> 00:10:42.899 Ultra getting double the performance of the M2 Max though the M1 Ultra number 00:10:40.860 --> 00:10:47.459 does look like it's in the ballpark just by eyeballing the bar graph links Apple 00:10:45.660 --> 00:10:51.959 does manage to outperform Intel here though but that could be partly down to 00:10:49.920 --> 00:10:57.120 the build Target Apple didn't specify whether they were targeting Apple 00:10:53.220 --> 00:10:58.980 silicon or x86 on the Intel Mac so we 00:10:57.120 --> 00:11:03.660 just built native for each platform just like we built our screwdriver available 00:11:00.660 --> 00:11:06.959 at lttstore.com so far all of this 00:11:03.660 --> 00:11:08.100 sounds pretty bad for Apple then and as 00:11:06.959 --> 00:11:12.180 far as their Shady marketing is concerned turned it very much is but 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 00:11:13.920 --> 00:11:19.320 power in our M1 Ultra Max studio review 00:11:17.040 --> 00:11:24.600 We observed power consumption that never pushed Beyond 227 Watts for the entire 00:11:23.279 --> 00:11:29.579 box however while we had a pretty good CPU 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 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 00:11:36.540 --> 00:11:41.640 bear in mind of course that this is a worst case scenario 00:11:39.839 --> 00:11:46.200 and uh it's pretty impressive it looks like the 00:11:44.100 --> 00:11:54.240 total power from the wall Peaks at around 331 Watts at room temperature 00:11:48.959 --> 00:11:57.680 which Real Talk guys either a core I9 or 00:11:54.240 --> 00:12:01.079 an RTX 4090 could draw on its own 00:11:57.680 --> 00:12:03.060 sometimes even more and the idle power 00:12:01.079 --> 00:12:09.180 consumption is maybe even more impressive at just 18 and a half Watts 00:12:05.880 --> 00:12:11.579 my phone charges with more juice than 00:12:09.180 --> 00:12:16.980 that given that we're looking at CPU performance that's roughly 90 of the way 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 00:12:20.579 --> 00:12:26.459 an RTX 4090 this efficiency is nothing short of 00:12:24.660 --> 00:12:30.899 unbelievable this is what Apple should have been 00:12:28.560 --> 00:12:35.459 shouting from the rooftops about not cherry-picked benchmarks compared 00:12:32.940 --> 00:12:38.760 against older Hardware uh speaking of which there is one more claim that we 00:12:37.079 --> 00:12:42.660 need to verify though operating temperature to do so we popped the Mac 00:12:41.100 --> 00:12:47.700 Studio into our handy dandy environmental chamber and let our 00:12:44.339 --> 00:12:50.040 combined CPU and GPU load rip and 00:12:47.700 --> 00:12:55.139 fortunately the Mac Studio's thermal design is quite capable of handling the 00:12:52.200 --> 00:12:59.519 load at room temperature however it's worth noting that the system does 00:12:56.940 --> 00:13:04.560 throttle its performance rather than increase the fan speed Beyond 1900 RPM 00:13:02.459 --> 00:13:09.540 that means that you could end up sacrificing some performance for lower 00:13:06.899 --> 00:13:13.860 noise unless you use a utility like TG Pro to Auto Max your fans 00:13:11.820 --> 00:13:19.320 to simulate a warmer environment we cranked our ambient heat to 35 degrees 00:13:15.800 --> 00:13:21.660 and unfortunately it chokes pretty hard 00:13:19.320 --> 00:13:26.639 here that's disappointing compared to the perfect performance we saw from an 00:13:23.459 --> 00:13:29.760 RTX 4090 at these temperatures at least 00:13:26.639 --> 00:13:31.980 the fans do finally push past 2000 RPM 00:13:29.760 --> 00:13:36.600 and they do creep a little higher over time but even after 20 minutes they 00:13:34.920 --> 00:13:40.980 never managed to Max themselves out despite the fact that the CPU is 00:13:38.760 --> 00:13:46.740 obviously throttling we saw power consumption that was rapidly fluctuating 00:13:42.899 --> 00:13:48.180 between 215 and 280 Watts so if you're 00:13:46.740 --> 00:13:51.660 living in a hotter climate and you don't have air conditioning don't settle for 00:13:50.100 --> 00:13:55.620 Apple's Auto settings you're going to want to set an aggressive fan curve cap 00:13:53.880 --> 00:13:58.920 off our thermal chamber testing we wanted to see if dropping the 00:13:57.000 --> 00:14:03.600 temperature unlocked a little bit more performance so we set it to 10 degrees 00:14:01.160 --> 00:14:08.459 roughly fall or spring temperatures around these parts and the answer is no 00:14:06.060 --> 00:14:12.779 apple will simply maintain the fan at a lower RPM meaning that you could get 00:14:10.380 --> 00:14:16.740 quieter operation but you won't see any more performance and this is confirmed 00:14:14.700 --> 00:14:19.860 by the roughly similar Peak wattage that we observed compared to our room 00:14:18.180 --> 00:14:23.519 temperature test expansion is an interesting conversation 00:14:22.079 --> 00:14:29.040 that we haven't touched on yet though almost all of the criticism for the M1 00:14:26.220 --> 00:14:33.660 Ultra SOC aside from our assertion that M1 Max made it a pretty tough sell oh 00:14:31.500 --> 00:14:38.040 and Apple's disproven claims of GPU performance kingship was centered around 00:14:35.579 --> 00:14:45.300 the lack of 48 gigabit per second HDMI and its General inability to drive 8K 00:14:41.459 --> 00:14:47.399 displays well with the HDMI upgrade and 00:14:45.300 --> 00:14:52.620 the M2 ultra's ability to drive up to three of those aforementioned 8K panels 00:14:49.860 --> 00:14:57.480 those limitations have basically melted away and if you think about it there are 00:14:55.320 --> 00:15:01.980 very few scenarios where this much expansion is not going to be sufficient 00:14:59.480 --> 00:15:05.339 especially considering that 10 gigabit Ethernet has been standard since the 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 00:15:10.320 --> 00:15:16.800 note by the way it's really strange that apple neglects to mention that the first 00:15:14.279 --> 00:15:20.720 gen Max studio also has a high impedance headphone jack just like the new one 00:15:18.899 --> 00:15:25.500 does in the compare page archive.org exists you guys come on that 00:15:23.279 --> 00:15:28.860 is not a value add for this gen speaking of value 00:15:27.060 --> 00:15:33.360 there are certainly professionals and prosumers out there who are going to buy 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 00:15:35.399 --> 00:15:40.139 mean Apple's got their ecosystem and 00:15:38.399 --> 00:15:44.820 perhaps more importantly they've got applications like Final Cut and logic 00:15:42.540 --> 00:15:49.620 pro so if your workflow requires Apple tools that is totally valid and 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 00:15:52.560 --> 00:15:58.199 quiet and draw less power than a PC while doing it 00:15:55.980 --> 00:16:02.459 that's what you're paying for same price as last gen faster computer 00:16:00.720 --> 00:16:06.540 what's there to complain about then aside from the ridiculously expensive 00:16:04.620 --> 00:16:12.240 proprietary storage that you can't upgrade post purchase for everyone else 00:16:08.639 --> 00:16:14.519 however 4 000 US dollars is a freaking 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 00:16:16.860 --> 00:16:22.740 going to be an extra thousand dollars on top and then another eight hundred 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 00:16:24.480 --> 00:16:33.000 perspective a PC with a core I9 13900k and a GeForce 00:16:29.519 --> 00:16:34.740 RTX 4090 with the same capacity NVMe SSD 00:16:33.000 --> 00:16:39.660 the same amount of system memory actually more if you count the GPU RAM 00:16:36.720 --> 00:16:45.600 and even taking into account the cost of the operating system is going to cost 00:16:43.279 --> 00:16:50.519 1722 dollars less you could quite literally buy a 00:16:48.300 --> 00:16:55.079 completely Overkill PC that most people wouldn't even consider to begin with and 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 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 00:17:04.860 --> 00:17:12.179 is going to be the advantage of using Apple's brand new Mac Pro chassis over 00:17:09.059 --> 00:17:13.919 the Mac Studio the soc is the same but 00:17:12.179 --> 00:17:19.439 the price is three thousand dollars higher and there's no support for GPU 00:17:16.799 --> 00:17:22.620 accelerators in its PCIe slots maybe the entire point of that product is to make 00:17:21.059 --> 00:17:26.160 the Mac Studio seem like a somewhat acceptable value 00:17:24.480 --> 00:17:30.299 we're gonna find out just like we're gonna find out about our 00:17:27.959 --> 00:17:34.200 sponsor it's summer and what better time to enjoy the great outdoors but if you 00:17:32.640 --> 00:17:37.080 need to stay connected to the world or just power that fancy electric barbecue 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 00:17:42.000 --> 00:17:50.400 power station comes in with 1024 Watt hours of battery support for up to 2500 00:17:47.400 --> 00:17:53.039 watt devices and 100 watt USBC and a 00:17:50.400 --> 00:17:56.460 ports it really is an all-in-one get it all done Workhorse but what about 00:17:54.840 --> 00:18:00.299 actually charging the thing won't that take forever you green claims that it 00:17:58.140 --> 00:18:04.919 can charge up from zero to eighty percent battery in 50 minutes five zero 00:18:02.580 --> 00:18:09.240 minutes with its power zip tech oh and it harnesses the power of the Sun as 00:18:07.559 --> 00:18:12.780 well with solar charging that will fully charge it in four hours be prepared for 00:18:11.400 --> 00:18:17.520 your next Outdoor Adventure check out the ugreen power ROM 1200 watt portable 00:18:14.880 --> 00:18:21.720 power station below if you guys enjoyed this video for more on the M2 go check 00:18:19.679 --> 00:18:26.419 out our review of the M2 MacBook Pro turns out cooling is a big deal