Well, I am not going to knock Nvidia RTX 3090 performance with an integrated GPU. It is pointless. AMD's best integrated GPU, the Radeon 680M, performs between an Nvidia GeForce MX450 and a GeForce GTX 1650. Based on the integrated GPU performance alone, Apple has the "best CPU" crown and isn't giving it up for awhile. Intel and AMD are going to have to fight it out for #2.
Looks like Apple just ate Alder Lake for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. They even hinted at a revised Mac Pro. I cannot even imagine.
I think it's very clear that Apple Silicon totally dominates Intel for use in the Macs that Apple wants to design.
But, I think it will continue to be the case there are users for whom the Macs Apple wants to design aren't the best option.
For example, if you need a bunch of CPU cores and don't care too much about GPU performance, both AMD and Intel offer options that are a better match. However great Apple's 20 cores are, they aren't going to outperform the 64 cores in the new Threadripper 5000.
Somewhat relatedly, if you don't care very much about power consumption (maybe you live on the dark side of the moon and it's always chilly), then you might be willing to tolerate the 280 watt TDP of that 64 core Threadripper.
Again, though -- for Apple's purposes, they clearly have the better chip. I can't see Intel winning back their business for the foreseeable future.
What's missing? No upgradeability. At all. None. Zero. Nada. No way to upgrade the RAM, SSD or any other components. What you get is what you get. Forever. You are welcome. Not even a M.2 slot for when the built in SSD seems very slow and small two years from now.
Those GPU speed/power charts were missing the name of the discrete GPUs they used for comparison. The charts shown when the M1 Pro and Max when the MacBook Pro was released ended up being very misleading. How exactly does the M1 Ultra stack up to a RTX 3090 when ray tracing in Blender? Who knows? Guess we have to wait for a real review to find out. We do know that that the M1 Max hash rate is around 10.7 MH/s while a 3090 gets 121 MH/s so even if the M1 Ultra is twice as fast, it is still 1/6th the speed of the 3090.
Exactly, instead of an all-in-one package with a 27" iMac, they release this overpriced monitor and a cpu with no upgradeability in a box. Cool. Cool.
Are you two obtuse? Or sponsored by Intel?
The only possible thing to knock is the lack of RAM upgradeability. Thunderbolt 4 is plenty fast for an SSD upgrade, external GPU, etc. But I guess it lacks the cool cool factor of taking selfies with an exposed motherboard.
Looks like Apple just ate Alder Lake for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. They even hinted at a revised Mac Pro. I cannot even imagine.
I think it's very clear that Apple Silicon totally dominates Intel for use in the Macs that Apple wants to design.
But, I think it will continue to be the case there are users for whom the Macs Apple wants to design aren't the best option.
For example, if you need a bunch of CPU cores and don't care too much about GPU performance, both AMD and Intel offer options that are a better match. However great Apple's 20 cores are, they aren't going to outperform the 64 cores in the new Threadripper 5000.
Somewhat relatedly, if you don't care very much about power consumption (maybe you live on the dark side of the moon and it's always chilly), then you might be willing to tolerate the 280 watt TDP of that 64 core Threadripper.
Again, though -- for Apple's purposes, they clearly have the better chip. I can't see Intel winning back their business for the foreseeable future.
Let's see what happens when Apple releases the new Mac Pro, which they hinted that they are indeed working on and will be the last Mac to transition to Apple silicon. I suspect it will also eat the Threadripper 5000 for breakfast, lunch and dinner lol
Okay, so there were two statements made that sealed the fate of the larger iMac. The first was that the Mac Studio and Studio display were the perfect for 27” iMac users. The second statement was at the very end when he said there was only one Mac left to transition, the Mac Pro.
So, there will be no iMac Pro, no iMac with a larger screen. The 24” iMac is it. The Mac Studio is the future and I’m okay with that.
He did say that there was only one mac left to transition but I can't recall anyone saying Mac Studio and Studio Display were perfect for 27" iMac users. Who said that? What's the timestamp?
About the Intel comparisons, it really looks like you guys need to realize that the current leader in this sector is AMD. By a significant margin. And when their Zen 4 Threadripper comes out in 2023 it will be even worse. Between the AMD Threadripper and the M1 Ultra, it is safe to say that Intel's strength is going to be laptops and low end to midrange desktops. Their options perform better than AMD and are cheaper than Apple. But workstations are going to be Apple #1 and AMD #2 for pure performance as well as power per watt.
mjtomlin said: Very true they could at some point release a larger iMac, they can always change their mind, But John did say there was only one Mac left to transition; the Mac Pro. That would imply everything coming along through the transition is done, leaving the 27” iMac behind.
27" iMac isn't a separate line of hardware like the Mac Pro. iMac was already updated to M1, but that doesn't mean iMac will never have a screen larger than 24". IMO, this is more of a maximize-near-term-sales approach for the Mac Studio and Studio Display.
Looks like Apple just ate Alder Lake for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. They even hinted at a revised Mac Pro. I cannot even imagine.
Yes I suspect some engineers at intel just **** themselves. They lined up to make a field goal and Apple moved the goalposts into the next county.
For Intel, AMD is a much bigger problem right now than Apple. Head to head PC workstation comparisons - Threadripper vs Xeon - sees AMD with a 60% market share. Alder Lake was great for consumer and gaming, but they continue to have no answer for AMD in workstations and servers.
Nothing in these keynote implies there will not be a 27" (or greater) iMac "pro". They have moved the iMac over and that is the 24" model. It makes perfect sense that the larger version will simply be spec-bump with a larger screen.
If anything, the new Studio Display is most likely an indication that the iMac "Pro" will look like this.
Doesn't make sense to have the 24" iMac only, and have an external display that is larger than it. There will be a 27"+ iMac coming.
What's missing? No upgradeability. At all. None. Zero. Nada. No way to upgrade the RAM, SSD or any other components. What you get is what you get. Forever. You are welcome. Not even a M.2 slot for when the built in SSD seems very slow and small two years from now.
Those GPU speed/power charts were missing the name of the discrete GPUs they used for comparison. The charts shown when the M1 Pro and Max when the MacBook Pro was released ended up being very misleading. How exactly does the M1 Ultra stack up to a RTX 3090 when ray tracing in Blender? Who knows? Guess we have to wait for a real review to find out. We do know that that the M1 Max hash rate is around 10.7 MH/s while a 3090 gets 121 MH/s so even if the M1 Ultra is twice as fast, it is still 1/6th the speed of the 3090.
Exactly, instead of an all-in-one package with a 27" iMac, they release this overpriced monitor and a cpu with no upgradeability in a box. Cool. Cool.
Are you two obtuse? Or sponsored by Intel?
The only possible thing to knock is the lack of RAM upgradeability. Thunderbolt 4 is plenty fast for an SSD upgrade, external GPU, etc. But I guess it lacks the cool cool factor of taking selfies with an exposed motherboard.
There is no eGPU support with Apple Silicon.
Maybe not today, but that doesn't mean it'll never happen. It might be added when the Mac Pro is updated to ASi, but it really depends on market demand and whether the GPU Apple comes up with for the Pro can satisfy high end needs.
Popular discrete GPU performance data from testing Core i9-12900K with DDR5 memory and GeForce RTX 3060 Ti. Highest-end discrete GPU performance data from testing Core i9-12900K with DDR5 memory and GeForce RTX 3090. Performance tests are conducted using specific computer systems and reflect the approximate performance of Mac Studio.
Thanks! I don't see any ray tracing/photoreal rendering performance comparisons against a 3090. All the GPU comparisons appear to be in video editing apps. Those favor high memory speed and system bandwidth. No doubt the Studio with its highly integrated design blows the doors off any Windows workstation in that area. However in Pro 3D rendering you get a lot better bang for the buck with a 3080 or 3090 in a custom built PC (assuming you can find a GPU anyway). In fact this may be the Studio's biggest feature for pros: You can actually buy one. The form factor trounces PCs as well. Much less clutter with that tiny Mac than a bloated PC. Much quieter and much less power usage. Power savings while significant don't make up for the lack of expandability and price tag though.
All this being said, yes I would still love to own one.
Just so frustrating for a person looking to replace their 27-inch iMac. iMac is under $3K. And memory can be upgraded. Studio + Studio is closer to $4.5K. But, you do get more cables.
mjtomlin said: Very true they could at some point release a larger iMac, they can always change their mind, But John did say there was only one Mac left to transition; the Mac Pro. That would imply everything coming along through the transition is done, leaving the 27” iMac behind.
27" iMac isn't a separate line of hardware like the Mac Pro. iMac was already updated to M1, but that doesn't mean iMac will never have a screen larger than 24". IMO, this is more of a maximize-near-term-sales approach for the Mac Studio and Studio Display.
27" iMac no longer listed on the Apple Store. It's gone unless Apple u-turn.
Okay, so there were two statements made that sealed the fate of the larger iMac. The first was that the Mac Studio and Studio display were the perfect for 27” iMac users. The second statement was at the very end when he said there was only one Mac left to transition, the Mac Pro.
So, there will be no iMac Pro, no iMac with a larger screen. The 24” iMac is it. The Mac Studio is the future and I’m okay with that.
He did say that there was only one mac left to transition but I can't recall anyone saying Mac Studio and Studio Display were perfect for 27" iMac users. Who said that? What's the timestamp?
Yes, I missed that too, but it seems right. At least the M2 Mini redesign seems to have been given a reprieve. Definitely still a place for it in the lineup.
On the death of the larger iMac, end of an era, but it’s the right thing to do. Agree that it probably means no 32-inch iMac Pro as well, for the same reasons. They even highlighted the word “modularity” when discussing it.
Any speculation on how the M1 Ultra will fit regarding a 6900 XT or 3090... just wondering cause I need GPU power and those Apple charts are... hmmm... imprecise!
Just so frustrating for a person looking to replace their 27-inch iMac. iMac is under $3K. And memory can be upgraded. Studio + Studio is closer to $4.5K. But, you do get more cables.
Same here... sad cause I was looking to update my M1 Mini but the M1 Max isn't great enough - I already have a 5950X on the side with much more GPU power - and the M1 Ultra is way overpriced.
Comments
But, I think it will continue to be the case there are users for whom the Macs Apple wants to design aren't the best option.
For example, if you need a bunch of CPU cores and don't care too much about GPU performance, both AMD and Intel offer options that are a better match. However great Apple's 20 cores are, they aren't going to outperform the 64 cores in the new Threadripper 5000.
Somewhat relatedly, if you don't care very much about power consumption (maybe you live on the dark side of the moon and it's always chilly), then you might be willing to tolerate the 280 watt TDP of that 64 core Threadripper.
Again, though -- for Apple's purposes, they clearly have the better chip. I can't see Intel winning back their business for the foreseeable future.
https://www.pcworld.com/article/620129/amds-newest-threadripper-pro-5000-to-crush-xeon-again.html
All this being said, yes I would still love to own one.
iMac is under $3K. And memory can be upgraded.
Studio + Studio is closer to $4.5K. But, you do get more cables.
Luna Display - which now supports 5k iMacs - I’m currently using a 2015 iMac 5k Retina on an M1 Mini (only 45khz though).