The Apple M1 is a more powerful chip than the A12Z, and it sits inside of a computer chassis that’s ideal for the task at hand. Its running software, Final Cut Pro, just updated to a Universal app. Even with those limitations, when all the software and hardware aligns, say you are using Final Cut, then the M1 Macs sing. Here’s Ross’ take. He happens to be using a 16GB Mac mini – 16GB referring to the memory – and Final Cut Pro. The other thing he does is make sure to turn off as many other apps as possible. Final Cut Pro is a video editor for professionals. The latest update brings new proxy copies, social media transformation, and optimizations for M1 (Apple Silicon for Mac). Now uses can continue.
Last week, my M1-powered MacBook Air arrived.
I had opted for the base spec version – literally the cheapest M1 MacBook you can buy. That meant it arrived with an 8-core processor, 7-core GPU, a 256GB SSD drive and just 8GB of RAM.
8GB! In 2020!
By comparison, my 16” MacBook Pro is a beast. Intel i9 8-core processor, 32GB of RAM, a 1TB SSD and the best discreet graphics available.
I have a full M1 MacBook Air review in the works, but I couldn’t help myself. I’d just spent £999 on an M1 MacBook. Could it really keep pace with my £3,500 MacBook Pro?
So, I decided to run a little test, and the results were fascinating.
You can watch the video, here:
The Final Cut Pro battle
With limited time on my hands, I decided to conduct a quick but thorough test with a tool which I knew would put both machines through their paces.
This involved one piece of 4K footage that was 10 minutes long, and two tasks:
- a simple colour grade render; and
- an export to disk.
Why did I pick these two tasks? As a video guy, I know they’re two of the most important functions my computers perform. The speed with which they do so will dictate how quickly I can publish my YouTube videos or get paid by clients.
Pretty important, then.
I’ve been using the MacBook Pro 16” for around a year now, and it is a superb machine. Despite the emergence of the M1 chip, I think the 16” still has a place today within lots of people’s lives and businesses.
But I am intrigued to see how it performs against the M1. My 16” MacBook Pro has worked flawlessly for 12 months, and consistently undertakes the two tasks that would play a central role in this battle with ease.
Here’s what happened during the test.
The colour grade render
The rules for both tests were simple:
- the same piece of footage
- the same version of Final Cut Pro
- only built-in Final Cut Pro plugins
- no apps running in the background, bar the built-in macOS screen recording feature
- power supply, rather than battery operation
- same export settings
![Pro Pro](/uploads/1/3/7/4/137438082/286433439.jpg)
The colour grade was simple; an introduction of some contrast, slight bump in exposure and a boost to saturation.
![Pro Pro](/uploads/1/3/7/4/137438082/547605845.png)
The M1 MacBook Air completed the task in around two minutes. It screamed through it, in fact. That alone was impressive.
But I wasn’t really prepared for what happened next.
The 16” MacBook Pro took about five minutes and was noticeably slower. Its fans were also roaring and near takeoff speed, and the metal above the keyboard was too hot to keep your finger on for any longer than a few seconds.
The Air? Silent (it has no fan), and barely lukewarm.
Yikes.
This genuinely surprised me, as you’ll see in the video reaction at the top of this article. A £999 laptop had just spat loose tarmac into the front grille of its £3,500 cousin in a display of raw pace.
The export
This task was simpler to undertake, but just as intensive – if not more so – processor-wise, than the render.
Ensuring I had both laptops exporting with the exact same settings and to their respective desktops, I hit ‘go’ and started the timers.
This was the result:
- 16” MacBook Pro export time: 05:10.29
- M1 MacBook Air export time: 13:08.23
Surprised? Yeah, me too. And isn’t it weird how that’s the case, given that we should really be rooting for the 16”? Alas, its performance with the colour grade set brand new expectations for this equally nascent Apple silicon-powered computer.
But the Air struggled – really struggled. In fact, while the 16” MacBook Pro was hurtling towards 20% completion, the Air was languishing in single digits.
Without thinking, I decided to sit back, wait and stop the screen recording on the Air. And then it sped up – big time. In fact, the cancelling of the screen recording propelled that little machine onto an export speed not that dissimilar to the Pro.
It had clearly struggled performing both a Final Cut Export and a screen recording at the same time. The Pro didn’t at all, and as several people in the comments section of my video noted, it’s probably down to the RAM.
Maybe 8GB versus 32GB is a conversation worth having, after all…
Conclusion
I’m deeply impressed by the M1 MacBook Air just three days in. This test was fascinating not just because of the way in which it murdered the 16” during the rendering test, but because it was given a dose of its own medicine during the export.
This illustrates that for all the hyperbole surrounding the launch of the M1 – and I’m just as excited as everyone else – it is still incredibly early days. More importantly, these Intel-powered Macs still have plenty of life left in them and shouldn’t be kicked to the curb quite as quickly as some in the tech press seem so keen to do.
Incidentally, I also edited the video at the top of this blog with the M1 Air. And it did a superb job. However, that potential RAM issue did rear its head again during what was a relatively complex timeline; the odd beachball surfaced and frames consistently dropped. That wouldn’t have happened with the 16” MacBook Pro.
This is going to be a fascinating few years for the Mac. I can’t wait to dive more into the M1 and see how it compares against its Intel equivalents, but if my test proves anything, it’s that not everything is quite what it seems when you look beyond those raw benchmark figures.
Stay tuned for my full M1 MacBook Air review!
Shipment of the new M1-based Macs has started. As expected, benchmark results from tools like Geekbench are no longer just available. The performance in Cinebench as well as when exporting from Final Cut Pro is now known. There are also initial insights into the read and write speed of the SSD and the heat development of the Macs. With everything you shouldn’t forget: These are the entry-level models – to date, Apple has not converted any of the high-end Macs.Cinebench
It is often said that Cinebench brings meaningful results because it examines CPU performance, GPU performance and the performance of the entire system. The new MacBook Pro 13 “with an M1 chip achieves a value of in Cinebench R23 7508 points (Single Core: 1498). Compared to the 2020 MacBook Pro 13 “with Intel chip, the performance has almost doubled. The top model of the MacBook Pro 16” with 2.3 GHz Core i9 and dedicated graphics card is just around 20 percent higher than the new one with 8818 points Entry-level model. The base model of the 16 “device with 6912 points is clearly below the performance of the MacBook Pro 13” with M1. To take a look at the current record holders: The fastest Intel chip with 28 cores at 3.1 GHz and a TDP of 255 watts enables up to 31,000 meters. The i9 currently has 17,000 points, which requires 10 cores with 3.7 GHz and a TDP of 125 watts. Mind you: in a desktop computer.
It is often said that Cinebench brings meaningful results because it examines CPU performance, GPU performance and the performance of the entire system. The new MacBook Pro 13 “with an M1 chip achieves a value of in Cinebench R23 7508 points (Single Core: 1498). Compared to the 2020 MacBook Pro 13 “with Intel chip, the performance has almost doubled. The top model of the MacBook Pro 16” with 2.3 GHz Core i9 and dedicated graphics card is just around 20 percent higher than the new one with 8818 points Entry-level model. The base model of the 16 “device with 6912 points is clearly below the performance of the MacBook Pro 13” with M1. To take a look at the current record holders: The fastest Intel chip with 28 cores at 3.1 GHz and a TDP of 255 watts enables up to 31,000 meters. The i9 currently has 17,000 points, which requires 10 cores with 3.7 GHz and a TDP of 125 watts. Mind you: in a desktop computer.
- 8816 points: MacBook Pro 16 “Core i9, 8 cores
- 7508 points: MacBook Pro 13 “M1
- 6912 points: MacBook Pro 16 “Core i5, 6 cores
- 4329 points: MacBook Air, previous top model
Final Cut Pro
Ordinarily, no one would buy an entry-level Mac to render large movie projects on. In the current intermediate state, which consists of the new M1-based and the older Intel variants, the boundaries are blurred. A test project (format: H.264 Sony 10 bit 422) was exported on a MacBook Pro with M1 and 8 GB RAM in 10 minutes and 20 seconds. The iMac Pro with 128 GB of RAM, on the other hand, took 11 minutes and 30 seconds. Various other tests with different formats consistently showed a performance advantage of around 25 percent for the new MacBook Pro. The M1 demonstrated its strengths most impressively with the h265 export: 2:47 minutes for the iMac Pro, 62 seconds for the MacBook Pro.
Ordinarily, no one would buy an entry-level Mac to render large movie projects on. In the current intermediate state, which consists of the new M1-based and the older Intel variants, the boundaries are blurred. A test project (format: H.264 Sony 10 bit 422) was exported on a MacBook Pro with M1 and 8 GB RAM in 10 minutes and 20 seconds. The iMac Pro with 128 GB of RAM, on the other hand, took 11 minutes and 30 seconds. Various other tests with different formats consistently showed a performance advantage of around 25 percent for the new MacBook Pro. The M1 demonstrated its strengths most impressively with the h265 export: 2:47 minutes for the iMac Pro, 62 seconds for the MacBook Pro.
Adobe Premiere
- 11:30 minutes H264: iMac Pro
- 2:47 minutes 265: iMac Pro
- 10:20 minutes H264: MacBook Pro (M1)
- 1:02 minutes H265: MacBook Pro (M1)
SSD: read and write speed
Next discipline: How fast does the SSD work? The first tests also showed significant increases here. Write rates of 2.1 GB per second could be determined with the MacBook Air, reading even takes place at up to 2.7 GB per second. For comparison: The last Intel-based MacBook Air achieved a maximum of 1 GB / s (write) and 1.3 GB / s (read). The MacBook Air is roughly on par with the current MacBook Pro 16 “.
Next discipline: How fast does the SSD work? The first tests also showed significant increases here. Write rates of 2.1 GB per second could be determined with the MacBook Air, reading even takes place at up to 2.7 GB per second. For comparison: The last Intel-based MacBook Air achieved a maximum of 1 GB / s (write) and 1.3 GB / s (read). The MacBook Air is roughly on par with the current MacBook Pro 16 “.
- 2.7 GB / s read: MacBook Air M1
- 2.6 GB / s write: MacBook Pro 16 “2019
- 2.5 GB / s read: MacBook Pro 16 “2019
- 2.1 GB / s write: MacBook Air M1
- 1.3 GB / s write: MacBook Air 2020 Intel
- 1 GB / s read: MacBook Air 2020 Intel
Final Cut Pro M1 Version
Temperature development
With the Intel switch 15 years ago, the term “lap” top was put into perspective, because the faster variants in particular quickly caused red spots on the thighs. This is another aspect in which the M1 offers almost breathtaking values. The last Intel-based MacBook Air did not reach the values of the new M1-based device in Cinebench, but it did achieve a case temperature of up to 80 degrees. The M1? Even under heavy loads, it was never more than body temperature. In the case of the MacBook Air, the Tester maximum 37.4 degrees, the MacBook Pro was a bit cooler at 36 degrees.
With the Intel switch 15 years ago, the term “lap” top was put into perspective, because the faster variants in particular quickly caused red spots on the thighs. This is another aspect in which the M1 offers almost breathtaking values. The last Intel-based MacBook Air did not reach the values of the new M1-based device in Cinebench, but it did achieve a case temperature of up to 80 degrees. The M1? Even under heavy loads, it was never more than body temperature. In the case of the MacBook Air, the Tester maximum 37.4 degrees, the MacBook Pro was a bit cooler at 36 degrees.