Apple MacBook Pro 16 2026 Review

Blazing fast PCIe 5.0 SSDs & Wi-Fi 7. | The MacBook Pro 16 with the M5 Pro gets a big bump both in terms of CPU as well as GPU performance. Apple also includes faster PCIe 5.0 SSDs as well as Wi-Fi 7, so the overall package is even better than before.

The new Apple M5 Pro SoC is a perfect fit for the MacBook Pro 16 because it can utilize the full performance of the chip without throttling. We see noticeable performance advantages over the previous M4 Pro chip (~20 % CPU, 30-50 % GPU) and Apple also includes Wi-Fi 7 as well as much faster PCIe 5.0 SSDs. The battery runtime is a bit shorter compared to our previous M4 Pro review unit, but the additional RAM most likely increases the power consumption as well.

Other aspects remain unchanged, which means you get Thunderbolt 5 ports, but still no SD Express support for the card reader. The Mini-LED panel is still among the best, and the optional matte surface is big advantage over most rivals; only Lenovo offers a matte Tandem-OLED panel in the ThinkPad T1g. The MacBook also stays very quiet in most scenarios. Prices are still high, especially when you add upgrades.

Windows laptops with the RTX 5070 offer more GPU performance, even though the MacBook is obviously not limited to 8 GB VRAM, which is a big advantage for creative workflows. The included 140W PSU is also insufficient, even though the issue is not nearly as bad as on the M5 Max model, which we will see in the upcoming review of the MacBook Pro 14 M5 Max. All in all, the MacBook Pro 16 got even better with the new M5 Pro chip and additions like Wi-Fi 7 as well as PCIe 5.0.

Apple launches the updated MacBook Pro 16 with the new M5 Pro SoC. The base model for $2699 features 24 GB and now comes with twice the storage at 1 TB, which is also faster than before (PCIe 5.0). Wi-Fi 7 is included as well. Our review unit has some pricey upgrades (matte nano-texture display, 64 GB RAM, 4 TB SSD storage), which increases the price to $4449. Apple did not change the chassis, which includes the connectivity (3x Thunderbolt 5) as well as the 12 MP center stage webcam as well as the input devices and the Mini-LED panel.

Please see our comprehensive review of the M4 Pro MacBook Pro 16 for more information on these topics. The maintenance options are still limited to the fans and the battery, while all the other components are soldered. The SD-card reader also stayed the same, which means the performance is good for the UHS standard, but the latest SD Express standard is not supported. The new Apple N1 chip provides Wi-Fi 7 as well as Bluetooth 6 and the transfer rates in our test were very high and stable.

Apple offers a comprehensive environmental report including data about the CO2 emissions as well as recycled contents. The following image shows exemplary data for the base model of the MacBook Pro 16 M5 Pro and the highest shown M5-Pro-SKU with 48 GB RAM and 1 TB SSD storage has a carbon footprint of 284 kg CO2e. The new MacBook Pro 16 is always equipped with the fastest M5 Pro chip with 18 CPU cores and 20 GPU cores.

You also get at least 24 GB LPDDR5x-9600 RAM and 1 TB of faster PCIe 5.0 storage. The MacBook Pro offers three different performance modes: the default Auto mode, Low Power & High Power. The maximum CPU performance is only available in High Power mode, while the GPU and gaming performances do not differ. We used the High Power mode for our benchmarks to show the maximum performance potential of the M5 Pro.

All three modes are also available on battery power with the same performance figures. The MacBook Pro 16 is equipped with the new M5 Pro SoC that uses 18 CPU cores (6 super cores, 12 performance cores) and it is identical to the CPU of the new M5 Max. Please see our CPU analysis for more information about the chip details and efficiency figures. As shown in the table above, the CPU consumes up to 72 Watts under load and settles at 62 Watts under sustained workloads, so the overall performance is very stable.

The benchmark results are very good and the new M5 Pro CPU is a little bit faster than the old M4 Max and around 20 % faster than the previous M4 Pro. However, this also means the new M5 Max is actually not much faster than the old M4 Max. The subjective system performance is once again excellent and the benchmark results support this impression. Apple also increased the memory bandwidth slightly compared to the M4 Pro.

Overall, you will not notice a difference compared to the more expensive MacBook Pro models with the M5 Max or the much more affordable base model of the MacBook Pro 16 M5 or the old MacBook Pro 16 M4 Pro in everyday scenarios. Apple now uses faster PCIe 5.0 SSDs and our test unit with the 4 TB version manages extremely high peak transfer rates of 17 GB/s. The new 20-core GPU of the M5 Pro is a big improvement over the previous M4 Pro and we see improvements between 30-50 % in the synthetic benchmarks.

Compared to Windows rivals, the GPU performance is about 15 % slower than the RTX 5070 you will find in most multimedia laptops. The gaming performance depends a lot on the title. While the M5 Pro is close to the RTX 5070 in Baldur's Gate 3, for example, it is much slower both in Cyberpunk 2077 as well as Assassin's Creed Shadows. The GPU performance is completely stable, both under sustained workloads as well as battery power, which is not the case for Windows laptops with dGPUs.

Please see our dedicated GPU analysis for more information as well as performance and efficiency data on the new M5 Pro GPU. The combination of the efficient M5 Pro chip and the defensive fan curve once again results in a very quiet everyday laptop. The fans are often turned off and the first fan stage at 1400 rpm is inaudible, so the laptop also stays silent when you stress it a bit more. Gaming is also very efficient and only results in 33 dB(A) & 2600 rpm, while our stress test shortly leads to more than 51 dB(A), which then levels off at 49.6 dB(A) and 4600 rpm.

In Auto mode, we measure up to 41.6 dB(A) and 3600rpm, which is a bit quieter than before. In Low Power mode, the laptop stays inaudible (1400rpm). There were no issues with other electronic nosies. The temperatures are no problem and we only measure little more than 40 °C under load. During the stress test, the M5 Pro consumes up to 92 Watts and then settles at 70 Watts in High Power mode (or 88/50 Watts in Auto, respectively).

Even though the competition caught up and most expensive multimedia laptops offer good sound systems, Apple is still a little step ahead and the six-speaker sound system in the MacBook Pro 16 remains one of the best in a laptop. (+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84.7 dB)Bass 100 – 315 Hz(+) | good bass – only 4.9% away from median(+) | bass is linear (6% delta to prev. frequency)Mids 400 – 2000 Hz(+) | balanced mids – only 1% away from median(+) | mids are linear (2.7% delta to prev.

frequency)Highs 2 – 16 kHz(+) | balanced highs – only 2.7% away from median(+) | highs are linear (2.9% delta to prev. frequency)Overall 100 – 16.000 Hz(+) | overall sound is linear (5.2% difference to median)Compared to same class» 1% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 98% worse» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 17%, worst was 45%Compared to all devices tested» 0% of all tested devices were better, 0% similar, 100% worse» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 24%, worst was 134% (+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85.6 dB)Bass 100 – 315 Hz(±) | reduced bass – on average 5.9% lower than median(±) | linearity of bass is average (7.9% delta to prev.

frequency)Mids 400 – 2000 Hz(+) | balanced mids – only 3.7% away from median(+) | mids are linear (4.3% delta to prev. frequency)Highs 2 – 16 kHz(+) | balanced highs – only 2.2% away from median(+) | highs are linear (3.4% delta to prev. frequency)Overall 100 – 16.000 Hz(+) | overall sound is linear (7.3% difference to median)Compared to same class» 5% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 94% worse» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 17%, worst was 45%Compared to all devices tested» 1% of all tested devices were better, 0% similar, 99% worse» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 24%, worst was 134% (+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85.6 dB)Bass 100 – 315 Hz(±) | reduced bass – on average 9.3% lower than median(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.9% delta to prev.

frequency)Mids 400 – 2000 Hz(+) | balanced mids – only 2.5% away from median(+) | mids are linear (4% delta to prev. frequency)Highs 2 – 16 kHz(+) | balanced highs – only 3.4% away from median(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.5% delta to prev. frequency)Overall 100 – 16.000 Hz(+) | overall sound is linear (8.7% difference to median)Compared to same class» 10% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 88% worse» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 17%, worst was 45%Compared to all devices tested» 2% of all tested devices were better, 1% similar, 97% worse» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 24%, worst was 134% (±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80.8 dB)Bass 100 – 315 Hz(+) | good bass – only 3.3% away from median(±) | linearity of bass is average (7.7% delta to prev.

frequency)Mids 400 – 2000 Hz(+) | balanced mids – only 2.9% away from median(+) | mids are linear (1.9% delta to prev. frequency)Highs 2 – 16 kHz(+) | balanced highs – only 4.1% away from median(+) | highs are linear (5.5% delta to prev. frequency)Overall 100 – 16.000 Hz(+) | overall sound is linear (8.3% difference to median)Compared to same class» 8% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 90% worse» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 17%, worst was 45%Compared to all devices tested» 2% of all tested devices were better, 1% similar, 98% worse» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 24%, worst was 134% (±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.4 dB)Bass 100 – 315 Hz(±) | reduced bass – on average 5.5% lower than median(±) | linearity of bass is average (7.5% delta to prev.

frequency)Mids 400 – 2000 Hz(+) | balanced mids – only 1.7% away from median(+) | mids are linear (3.1% delta to prev. frequency)Highs 2 – 16 kHz(±) | reduced highs – on average 6.2% lower than median(+) | highs are linear (3.9% delta to prev. frequency)Overall 100 – 16.000 Hz(+) | overall sound is linear (9.7% difference to median)Compared to same class» 12% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 87% worse» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 17%, worst was 45%Compared to all devices tested» 4% of all tested devices were better, 1% similar, 95% worse» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 24%, worst was 134% The idle consumption is a bit higher compared to the MacBook Pro 16 M4 Pro we tested, but you also have to take the additional RAM into account.

The consumption under load is also a bit higher than before, but still lower compared to Windows rivals. Under maximum load, the 140W PSU of the MBP 16 is the limiting factor for a little while, before the consumption eventually settles at around 134 Watts. With a 180W PSU, we measured a maximum consumption of 147 Watts. The difference is not huge, but the battery is slightly drained in these combined workloads, even though the battery indicator still shows 100 % and the little LED on the MagSafe connector stays green.

Our measurement device on the other hand clearly shows that the battery is charged after the stress test, so Apple is hiding the fact that the original PSU is insufficient. Following the slightly higher idle power consumption, we can also see a slight drop of battery runtime. In our Wi-Fi test at 150 nits, the runtime is now 18.5 hours, so one hour shorter compared to the previous model. The result is still excellent though and clearly superior to most Windows alternatives, only Samsung's Galaxy Book6 Ultra can keep up despite the much smaller battery.

At full display brightness, the result is once again lower than before at 6.6 vs 7.3 hours, while the Galaxy Book6 Ultra is clearly ahead at 8.4 hours (but at a lower brightness of 500 vs. ~630 nits on the MBP 16). The selection of devices to be reviewed is made by our editorial team. The test sample was provided to the author as a loan by the manufacturer or retailer for the purpose of this review.

The lender had no influence on this review, nor did the manufacturer receive a copy of this review before publication. There was no obligation to publish this review. As an independent media company, Notebookcheck is not subjected to the authority of manufacturers, retailers or publishers. Every year, Notebookcheck independently reviews hundreds of laptops and smartphones using standardized procedures to ensure that all results are comparable.

We have continuously developed our test methods for around 20 years and set industry standards in the process. In our test labs, high-quality measuring equipment is utilized by experienced technicians and editors. These tests involve a multi-stage validation process. Our complex rating system is based on hundreds of well-founded measurements and benchmarks, which maintains objectivity. Further information on our test methods can be found here.

Summary

This report covers the latest developments in samsung. The information presented highlights key changes and updates that are relevant to those following this topic.

---