CPU Comparison
Apple M2 vs Apple M2 Ultra
A side-by-side comparison of specs, performance and value. The Apple M2 is a second‑generation 5 nm ARM‑based system‑on‑chip for Macs, with an 8‑core CPU, up to a 10‑core GPU, 16‑core Neural Engine, and 100 GB/s unified memory bandwidth, designed for thin‑and‑light laptops and compact desktops.
The Bottom Line
Overview & Launch
Specifications Compared
Performance Compared
Productivity
Gaming
Virtualization
Efficiency
Specialized Performance
AI / ML
- 16‑core Neural Engine at 15.8 TOPS
- Good for on‑device inference and Core ML workloads
- No large‑scale training focus; more for consumer features than datacenter AI
- The 32-core Neural Engine provides massive throughput for on-device ML.
- Ideal for training large Core ML models locally.
- PyTorch and TensorFlow are well-optimized for this architecture via MPS.
Content Creation
Gaming
- Integrated 8–10 core GPU with up to 3.6 TFLOPS FP32
- Good for 1080p and some 1440p gaming at medium–high settings
- Limited by unified memory bandwidth and 8 CPU threads for CPU‑heavy titles
- Best experienced in macOS; Windows via virtualization or translation has overhead
- While the GPU is powerful, macOS gaming library is limited.
- Lack of dedicated ray tracing hardware compared to modern NVIDIA/AMD GPUs.
- Excellent performance for Apple Arcade and optimized titles.
- Not designed for high-refresh-rate competitive gaming.
Industry Impact
Best CPU by Use Case
Target Audience
Strengths & Weaknesses
Pros
- Very strong single‑core performance for an ultrabook‑class chip
- Integrated 8–10 core GPU with up to 3.6 TFLOPS and hardware ProRes acceleration
- Unified memory architecture with 100 GB/s bandwidth simplifies development and avoids CPU–GPU copies
- 16‑core Neural Engine accelerates on‑device ML workloads
- Fanless designs in MacBook Air and very quiet operation under typical loads
Cons
- Not sold as a standalone CPU; only available inside Macs
- No user‑upgradable RAM or PCIe slots; I/O limited to what Apple provides
- Only 8 CPU threads; heavy multi‑threaded workloads are limited compared to higher‑core M2 Pro/Max or x86 chips
- CPU efficiency is slightly worse than M1 at maximum performance due to higher clocks and power
- Gaming performance is constrained by 8 threads and integrated GPU; not a gaming‑focused SoC
Pros
- Massive unified memory capacity (up to 192GB)
- Incredible power efficiency relative to performance
- Industry-leading media engine for video professionals
- Silent operation in Mac Studio chassis
- Seamless integration with macOS ecosystem
Cons
- Cannot upgrade RAM or storage after purchase
- High cost of entry for professional configurations
- Software compatibility issues with some legacy x86 plugins
- Gaming performance trails dedicated high-end PCs
- Repairability is extremely limited
Competitors & Alternatives
Apple M2
- AMD Ryzen 7 6800URival
Ultrabook
- Intel Core i7‑1260PRival
Ultrabook
- Intel Core i7‑1355URival
Ultrabook
- AMD Ryzen 7 7730URival
Ultrabook
- Compare head-to-headApple M1Rival
Ultrabook
- Alt
More CPU/GPU cores and higher memory bandwidth for heavier creator workloads.
Compare head-to-head - AMD Ryzen 7 7840UAlt
Stronger multi‑threaded performance and better x86 Windows compatibility in ultrabook form factors.
- Intel Core Ultra 7 155HAlt
Good balance of CPU and integrated GPU performance for Windows ultrabooks with NPU‑accelerated AI features.
- Alt
Newer architecture with higher performance and better efficiency if you are buying a new Mac in 2024+.
Compare head-to-head
Apple M2 Ultra
- AMD Ryzen Threadripper Pro 7995WXRival
Workstation
- Intel Xeon w9-3495XRival
Workstation
- NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada GenerationRival
GPU Compute
- AMD Ryzen 9 7950XRival
High-End Desktop
- Compare head-to-headApple M3 MaxRival
Mobile Workstation
- Custom PC (Threadripper + RTX 4090)Alt
Better for users who need Windows-specific software, maximum upgradeability, or raw gaming FPS.
- Alt
Significantly cheaper while still offering excellent performance for most creative tasks.
Compare head-to-head - Mac Studio M1 UltraAlt
Viable used option for those who need raw power but have a tighter budget.
- Intel Core i9-14900K BuildAlt
Higher peak clock speeds for specific gaming and lightly-threaded workloads.
Our Verdict on Each
A very efficient, well‑balanced SoC that makes more sense inside a Mac than as a standalone chip; strong single‑core performance, capable integrated graphics, and excellent efficiency, but not a workstation‑class part.
Best for: You are buying a new or refurbished Mac laptop or desktop and want a significant step up from Intel‑based Macs or older M1 models, especially for single‑threaded tasks and GPU‑accelerated apps.
Read the full reviewThe M2 Ultra is a technological marvel that effectively renders high-end Intel Xeon and AMD Threadripper workstations obsolete for the vast majority of creative professionals by offering massive memory bandwidth and core counts in a relatively power-efficient package.
Best for: Professional video editing, 3D animation, or developers requiring massive memory datasets.
Read the full reviewFrequently Asked Questions
Which is better, Apple M2 or Apple M2 Ultra?
Based on our editorial ratings, the Apple M2 Ultra comes out ahead with a score of 9.5/10. That said, the best choice depends on your workload — check the spec and performance breakdown above for gaming, productivity and efficiency differences.
Which is faster for gaming, Apple M2 or Apple M2 Ultra?
For gaming, the Apple M2 leads with a gaming performance score of 78/100 among Apple M2 and Apple M2 Ultra.
Do Apple M2 and Apple M2 Ultra use the same socket?
No. They use different sockets (Apple M2: On‑Package (BGA), Apple M2 Ultra: BGA (Integrated)), so each needs a compatible motherboard.
Which has more cores?
The Apple M2 Ultra has the most cores. Core counts: Apple M2 (8 cores), Apple M2 Ultra (24 cores).
Which is faster in multi-core benchmarks?
The Apple M2 posts the highest multi-core benchmark score. Multi-core results: Apple M2 (9,800), Apple M2 Ultra (0). Benchmark figures are approximate and workload-dependent.