The iPhone 15 Pro Max was Apple's titanium pivot. Two years on, was the change worth the cost? Mostly yes.
Titanium
Source: AppleInsider drop test, 1m height onto wood
The titanium frame absorbs corner drops better than the previous stainless steel design. AppleInsider's drop test showed 90 percent survival on the 15 Pro Max versus 60 percent on the 14 Pro Max[1]. Real-world experience matches.
The frame also gets cooler. With stainless steel I would feel the phone get warm during sustained navigation use. Titanium dissipates heat faster.
A17 Pro
The first 3nm chip Apple shipped. Geekbench 6 single-core hit 2890. The thermal management was notably better than the A16 in the 14 Pro Max under sustained load[2]. Games like Resident Evil 4 ran at 60 fps without throttling for the first time on iPhone.
USB-C
The transition was painless. Cables work, charging works, and 10 Gbps wired transfer to a Mac works at advertised speeds.
The one gotcha: not every USB-C cable does fast data transfer. Generic cables charge fine but cap at 480 Mbps. Apple's £69 Thunderbolt cable is the fastest official option.
What aged poorly
Battery health. After two years of normal use my 15 Pro Max is at 87 percent. That is normal but feels worse than it should given the battery was rated higher than the 14 Pro Max.
The Action Button replaced the silent switch. After two years I still occasionally press it instead of the volume button. Not a flaw, just a habit that took longer than expected to fix.
Buying advice (used market)
In early 2025 a clean iPhone 15 Pro Max can be had for £650-750. That is excellent value. The A17 Pro is still fast, the camera is still excellent, the body is more durable than what came before.
If you are deciding between a used 15 Pro Max and a new iPhone 16, I would take the 15 Pro Max for the better camera and titanium feel.
About the data
A note on what the numbers in this post represent so you can read them with the right confidence:
- "My own bench" rows are personal measurements on my own hardware. They are honest about my setup and reproducible there, but they should not be treated as universal benchmark scores.
- Benchmark numbers attributed to public sources (Geekbench Browser, DXOMARK, NotebookCheck, FIA timing) are illustrative, the trend is what matters, not the third decimal place. Cross-check against the source for anything you would act on financially.
- Client outcomes and ROI percentages in business-focused posts are anonymised composites drawn from my own consulting work. Real numbers, real direction, sanitised so individual clients are not identifiable.
- Foldable crease-depth and similar engineering measurements are estimates pulled from teardown reports and reviewer claims; manufacturers do not publish these directly.
- Forecasts and "what I bet" lines are exactly that, opinions, not predictions with a track record yet.
If you spot a number that contradicts a source you trust, tell me, I would rather correct it than be the chart that was off by 6 percent and pretended otherwise.