This means the Apple M1 Ultra is about 65% faster than the M2, but again, this is an expected result given that the M1 Ultra is a desktop-class processor, while the M2 is a hybrid desktop/mobile processor.Ĭompared to the M1, which scores a 354 on PugetBench’s Adobe Premiere Pro benchmark, The M2 comes out about 56% better than the M1, and on the Photoshop benchmark, it comes out about 26% higher than the M1. The Apple M2 meanwhile, scored 817 and 552, respectively, on the same tests. It scored 1,010 in PugetBench for Adobe Photoshop and 1,354 for PugetBench for Adobe Premiere Pro. When it comes to PugetBench for Adobe Photoshop and PugetBench for Adobe Premiere Pro, it’s a similar result with the M1 Ultra coming out way ahead of the pack, which is expected. This is also about 57% of the speed of the M1 Ultra, which is not bad at all for a mobile workstation. In terms of Apple-to-Apple comparisons, this is about 15% faster than its M1 predecessor, which is a solid gen-on-gen improvement. The M2 chip did an admirable job, encoding the same video at 54 fps, while the M1 chip encoded it at 47 fps.
In Handbrake, the M1 Ultra encoded Tears of Steel at into at about 94 frames per second (fps), while the next closest, the M1 Max and M1 Pro, were able to encode that same video at 76 fps. In terms of creative benchmarks, it’s no surprise that the M1 Ultra packed into the Mac Studio is the absolute winner here. Creative workloads are what make MacBooks some of the best laptops around, so how the M-series chips handle various tasks is an important matter. Well, what about creative performance? This is the Apple M-series bread and butter, after all, so this is what a lot of people are going to want to look at.
0 kommentar(er)
