Skip to content
RU

Apple M2 Pro (GPU, 19 cores) vs Apple M2 Ultra (GPU, 76 cores): specs and benchmark comparison

AApple · Apple Silicon

Apple M2 Pro (GPU, 19 cores)

  • 19 GPU cores

2023

BApple · Apple Silicon

Apple M2 Ultra (GPU, 76 cores)

  • 76 GPU cores

2023

Short verdict

Apple M2 Ultra (GPU, 76 cores) leads in every scenario with comparable benchmarks: rendering and compute. This does not imply an advantage in tasks without benchmarks.

Compare with AI
← Apple M2 Pro (GPU, 19 cores)Apple M2 Ultra (GPU, 76 cores) →

  • Rendering and compute

    B +262.7%

    Apple M2 Ultra (GPU, 76 cores) leads in this scenario (up to 262.7% in comparable benchmarks).

No comparable benchmarks yet: gaming: rasterization, gaming: ray tracing, power efficiency.

Advantages

Only measured and rated values: a noticeable benchmark gap and specs where more is better.

Where Apple M2 Pro (GPU, 19 cores) is better0

No advantages found in our data.

Where Apple M2 Ultra (GPU, 76 cores) is better2

  • Blender Benchmark 3.6.0 262.7% faster3,421 samples/min vs 943 samples/min

  • Compute units 57 more76 GPU cores vs 19 GPU cores

Benchmarks

Results are compared within one benchmark, one version and the same conditions.

  • Blender Benchmark 3.6.0

    GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) · samples/min, higher is better

    B ahead by 262.7%

    Position among tested models (11, Metal)

    A · 943B · 3,421
    01,0002,0003,0004,000
    Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, samples/min.

    Apple M2 Ultra (GPU, 76 cores) is ahead by 262.7% in this benchmark.

    About the measurement and source
    A · Apple M2 Pro (GPU, 19 cores)

    943.1 samples/min · community measurement, sample 45 · November 14, 2026

    Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)

    Median of 45 submissions (0 outliers excluded), interquartile range 911.53–972.7; submissions 2023-06-29 to 2025-03-04; METAL backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.

    B · Apple M2 Ultra (GPU, 76 cores)

    3,421 samples/min · community measurement, sample 21 · November 14, 2026

    Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)

    Median of 21 submissions (0 outliers excluded), interquartile range 3304.4–3449.4; submissions 2023-07-04 to 2025-11-10; METAL backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.

    difference = |A − B| ÷ the smaller value × 100%. The 5% noticeable threshold is a UX heuristic, not statistical significance.

    Cycles render in Blender Benchmark. Median of the sum of samples per minute over three scenes after removing outliers.

Reference results (12)
BenchmarkABDifference
Blender Benchmark 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal)853.23,268.4reference
Blender Benchmark 4.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal)904.13,407.7reference
Blender Benchmark 5.1.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal)886.63,387.1reference
Blender Benchmark 5.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal)911.53,310.2reference
Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal)759.42,746.6reference
Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal)969.83,400.6reference
Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal)889.53,220.3reference
Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal)882.1—no pair
Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal)892.83,362.2reference
Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal)906.63,430.6reference
Blender Benchmark 5.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal)690.2—no pair
Blender Benchmark 5.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal)896.9—no pair

Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.

Specifications

Chip

  • GPU chip

    AApple M2 Pro

    BApple M2 Ultra

    differs

  • Architecture

    AApple Silicon

    BApple Silicon

    equal

  • Compute units

    A19 GPU cores

    B76 GPU cores

    B: 57 more

    SM (NVIDIA), CU (AMD) and Xe-core (Intel) are different units and are not compared numerically across vendors.

Memory

  • Memory type

    AUnified memory

    BUnified memory

    equal

“More” does not always mean “better”: higher power draw or size is a system requirement, not an advantage (such bars are dimmed).

Compare with AI

An AI model reviews the specs and benchmarks of this pair and gives a plain-language verdict on who each model suits.

AI verdict

Questions and answers

Which is faster: Apple M2 Pro (GPU, 19 cores) or Apple M2 Ultra (GPU, 76 cores)?

Apple M2 Ultra (GPU, 76 cores) leads in every scenario with comparable benchmarks: rendering and compute. This does not imply an advantage in tasks without benchmarks.

Data sources (2)
  • Apple — specifications of Apple M2 Pro (GPU, 19 cores), specifications of Apple M2 Ultra (GPU, 76 cores)checked November 14, 2026
  • Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation) — benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.5.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.1.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.4.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.5.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.6.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.0.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.1.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.3.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.4.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.0.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.1.0checked November 14, 2026

How we compare: methodology. Where the data comes from: sources.

TelegramVK