Apple MacBook Pro (14-inch, M5 Max) review: Blazing-fast super cores

And the 40-core GPU is no joke.

MacBook Pro 14 (M5 Max)
Editor's Choice
(Image credit: © Tom's Hardware)

Tom's Hardware Verdict

With M5 Max, the 14-inch MacBook Pro is at the height of its powers as an ultraportable workstation. It's expensive with the M5 Max and 128GB of RAM, but it's a luxury device that delivers in just about every way.

Pros

  • +

    Extremely fast

  • +

    Nano-texture display is excellent

  • +

    Long battery life

  • +

    Powerful speakers

  • +

    Strong port selection

Cons

  • -

    Very expensive as configured

  • -

    At this point, OLED is increasingly common on screens

Why you can trust Tom's Hardware Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.

Apple's MacBook Pro, in its current profile, is trusted among the best ultrabooks. This chassis has been around for a few years. But the company's M5 Max, including an 18-core CPU with Apple's fastest cores ever, as well as a 40-core GPU and 128GB of unified memory, feels fresh, new, and of the moment.

The huge amount of memory and a powerful GPU allow for a wide variety of workloads, including those who are dabbling in local AI.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Andrew E. Freedman
Senior Editor

Andrew E. Freedman is a senior editor at Tom's Hardware focusing on laptops, desktops and gaming. He also keeps up with the latest news. A lover of all things gaming and tech, his previous work has shown up in Tom's Guide, Laptop Mag, Kotaku, PCMag and Complex, among others. Follow him on Threads @FreedmanAE and BlueSky @andrewfreedman.net. You can send him tips on Signal: andrewfreedman.01

  • JamesJones44
    Super Cores :rolleyes: . Both benchmarks and the fact that the regular M5 P cores were renamed to "Super Cores", shows they are just renamed P cores.

    Next year I'm sure Apple will come up with a fancy name for efficiency cores to try to confuse everyone on what they really are.
    Reply
  • timsSOFTWARE
    In a "pro" device, I don't really view non-OLED as a "con". I know burn-in can be managed, but it's not something I really want to have to worry about at all on a "pro" device that's going to be regularly displaying static screen elements for long periods for work.

    For a gaming/media consumption device - sure, why not OLED. But when I upgraded the monitors for my desktop workstation a couple years ago, I intentionally avoided OLED and stuck with IPS.

    I'm curious why the benchmarks didn't compare to M4 or earlier Apple laptops? When I bought my Macbook for work, it was because you can't compile native programs for Apple targets on a non-Apple machine. So comparisons to other hardware really don't matter all that much. Likewise people who love or hate MacOS are probably not going to decide to buy/not buy a Mac because it gets a 20% higher score in a benchmark relative to devices running other OS platforms that cost half as much. Battery life might be the one thing that could influence purchasing decisions in that way. But people who want to or have to have a Mac will be interested in how it compares to other/older Macs. Were there none available to test with?
    Reply
  • lotechnz
    Nano texture is a must order, the few times you do need to see your screen outside its great.
    Reply
  • Paradise Pete
    JamesJones44 said:
    Super Cores :rolleyes: . Both benchmarks and the fact that the regular M5 P cores were renamed to "Super Cores", shows they are just renamed P cores.

    Next year I'm sure Apple will come up with a fancy name for efficiency cores to try to confuse everyone on what they really are.

    I'm a lot more concerned with how they perform than what they are called. What about the benchmarks didn't you like?
    Reply
  • JamesJones44
    Paradise Pete said:
    I'm a lot more concerned with how they perform than what they are called. What about the benchmarks didn't you like?
    The benchmarks are fine, it's the deceptive marketing I don't like. Apple spun the "Super Cores" as something new, just about every article I've read tries to spin them as some kind of revolution, even though there is zero change compared to the base M5. Even calling the non-Super Cores "all-performance" cores is deceptive IMO. An efficiently core is one that runs less demanding tasks or adds additional help when the system is loaded. It doesn't matter if they perform like an M3 Max P core or a 2018 i9, their job is to handle task the P/Super Cores shouldn't or can't.

    I get Apple is trying to distinguish high performance E cores form "standard" E cores but the naming scheme is very Elon Musk Autopilot like.
    Reply
  • ejolson
    I don't mind the overstated super core terminology. I think it would be nice if this laptop could run Windows and Linux, because macOS--even Tahoe--seems to be like an old version of BSD with an irritating GUI to me.
    Reply
  • Notton
    40-core GPU running on 614GB/s bandwidth, 128GB unified memory controller...
    still gets beaten by a mobile 5070 stuck with 8GB VRAM and 384GB/s memory bandwidth.
    :rolleyes:

    Does no one care with screen performance these days? I checked all the usual review sites, but none of them covered screen uniformity, ghosting, flickering, etc.
    Reply
  • Dr3ams
    All that on a 14" screen? No thanks.
    Reply
  • LordVile
    TBH I’ve had my M1 model since launch and it hasn’t missed a step. Issue is Apple knocked it out of the park in the first gen and most people have no reason to upgrade.

    Notton said:
    40-core GPU running on 614GB/s bandwidth, 128GB unified memory controller...
    still gets beaten by a mobile 5070 stuck with 8GB VRAM and 384GB/s memory bandwidth.
    :rolleyes:
    There’s more to life than just gaming. If professional workloads you can easily chew through 8GB of VRAM.
    Notton said:

    Does no one care with screen performance these days? I checked all the usual review sites, but none of them covered screen uniformity, ghosting, flickering, etc.
    Display is the same as the M4, even then the only difference between that and my M1 is the SDR brightness levels.
    Reply
  • watzupken
    As expected, performance is good for people using like M1 to M3, but not so much for people already with the M4. Whatever Apple calls their CPU cores, it is clear that it is not as performant as it sounds over their previous CPU cores.
    Reply