Apple's Mac Studio launches with new M1 Ultra chip in a compact package

245678

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 155
    Placed my order already. Can’t wait to get it.  Still riding an old 2012 MacBook Pro as my main computer. 
    JapheywilliamlondoncgWerksargonautMisterKitjony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 155
    JinTech said:
    Looks like Apple just ate Alder Lake for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. They even hinted at a revised Mac Pro. I cannot even imagine. 
    Some wait is probably in order before such definitive comment: in the x86 camp AMD Threadripper is to beat in the HEDT sector, while Intel is surely not sitting idle. Also M1 CPU architecture as a platform is well over a year old at this point: Why don't they upgrade all their platforms to M1 within a short window can't fathom, with M2 Pro/Max/Ultra away at least in mid to late 2023
    williamlondon
  • Reply 23 of 155
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,530member
    Ok, so I just ordered the Studio Ultra with Studio display and keyboard. Already into mid, late April.
    bageljoeyargonautMisterKitjony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 155
    mobirdmobird Posts: 755member
    Thank you Apple-
     Lonnnggg time in coming and most said it would never be done...
    ravnorodomkillroyblastdoorcgWerksargonautradarthekatjony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 155
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    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.
    The GPUs used are in the footnotes on the product pages: https://www.apple.com/mac-studio/
    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.

    killroyOutdoorAppDevelopercgWerksargonautVermelhoJWSCjony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 155
    boboliciousbobolicious Posts: 1,148member
    RIP 27" iMac. 
    End of an era. 
    Back to boxes and cables. 
    Hey, wanna steal my life? Grab this little box off my desk. 
    I have long wondered about the omission of (and asked for) the ubiquitous lock slot...?
    The previous mini might have been tight for room, yet this case would seem to afford such with ease...
    Clearly it is meant to sit on a desk vs in a locked cabinet... Sigh...
    forgot usernamewatto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 155
    OutdoorAppDeveloper said: Those GPU speed/power charts were missing the name of the discrete GPUs they used for comparison.
    They definitely included comparisons to the "most popular" GPU configuration in the current Mac Pro as well as the "most powerful" GPU configuration in the current Mac Pro. That's in addition to the specific GPU comparisons for current iMac models.
    edited March 2022 williamlondonargonautwatto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 155
    GG1GG1 Posts: 483member
    melgross said:
    Ok, so I just ordered the Studio Ultra with Studio display and keyboard. Already into mid, late April.

    What config did you order? Ultra?

    Edit: I missed your "Ultra" in your post. oops.
    edited March 2022 watto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 155
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,426member
    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.
    There is no M.2 as fast as the built in storage in these things. 

    They did name the GPU, the Ultra was being compared to an RTX 3090. It’s at the bottom of the slide just like last time. 

    Never good enough for you, is it?
    mwhitemike1williamlondoncgWerksargonautVermelhoDetnatorJWSCpscooter63jony0
  • Reply 30 of 155
    HrebHreb Posts: 83member
    JinTech said:
    Looks like Apple just ate Alder Lake for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. They even hinted at a revised Mac Pro. I cannot even imagine. 
    Ah ... no. With a dual CPU architecture and $4000 entry level price, this is competing with the 26 core Xeon chips, not the 12th gen Core i9. 
    Or to look at it a little differently, i9-12900 is priced from around $489 for the CPU.  Going from m1max/32G/512G to m1ultra/64GB/1TB costs +$2000.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 31 of 155
    danvmdanvm Posts: 1,424member
    lkrupp said:
    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 tradition, 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.


    I agree.  When you consider cost (the entry iMac Pro was $5,000 vs $3600 for the Mac Studio + Display Studio) and performance, there is no reason to release a revised iMac Pro, IMO.  
    seanjwatto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 155
    killroykillroy Posts: 276member
    At the end when he said we have one more but that’s for another day and said the Mac Pro… so this studio isn’t going to be their biggest powerhouse but merely a stepping stone.. What the hell will the new Mac Pro be packed with??

    M1 Zilla.
    cgWerkswatto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 155
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,736member
    jamoses66 said:
    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.
    Japheyforgot usernameaderutterwilliamlondonmike1argonautseanjkillroyVermelhoDetnator
  • Reply 34 of 155
    danvm said:
    lkrupp said:
    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 tradition, 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.


    I agree.  When you consider cost (the entry iMac Pro was $5,000 vs $3600 for the Mac Studio + Display Studio) and performance, there is no reason to release a revised iMac Pro, IMO.  
    Agree on iMac Pro. Disagree on iMac 27". There's no real reason to believe Apple won't release a 27" or larger iMac at a later date. The screen size has nothing to do with the use of M series processors. 
    radarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 35 of 155
    JapheyJaphey Posts: 1,767member
    Placed my order already. Can’t wait to get it.  Still riding an old 2012 MacBook Pro as my main computer. 
    Did you get a launch day delivery?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 36 of 155
    danvmdanvm Posts: 1,424member
    danvm said:
    lkrupp said:
    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 tradition, 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.


    I agree.  When you consider cost (the entry iMac Pro was $5,000 vs $3600 for the Mac Studio + Display Studio) and performance, there is no reason to release a revised iMac Pro, IMO.  
    Agree on iMac Pro. Disagree on iMac 27". There's no real reason to believe Apple won't release a 27" or larger iMac at a later date. The screen size has nothing to do with the use of M series processors. 
    You are right, I was talking specifically about the iMac Pro, considering the Studio is a low / midrange workstation.  The closest thing you could have to an iMac 27" is a Mac Mini + Display Studio, and it starts at $2,300.  That's more expensive that the entry iMac 27" at $1,800.
    cgWerkswatto_cobra
  • Reply 37 of 155
    Because they mentioned, there's (only) one more transition to go, with mac pro. I think, mac pro will also use M1 chip. Probably, they gonna attach 3 x M1 Max to each other for a price of 6'000 USD and 2 M1 Ultra for a price of 8'000 USD and that will be the highest spec Mac Computer. Size will be probably like the pics on the rumors, a miniaturized form of a current mac pro, like maybe twice as big as mac studio. Because, they mentioned there's one more transition to go, i think, they just killed IMac Pro. With this studio display (27 inches) and a mac studio, there won't be any need for a Imac Pro. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 38 of 155
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,677member
    danvm said:
    lkrupp said:
    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 tradition, 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.


    I agree.  When you consider cost (the entry iMac Pro was $5,000 vs $3600 for the Mac Studio + Display Studio) and performance, there is no reason to release a revised iMac Pro, IMO.  
    Agree on iMac Pro. Disagree on iMac 27". There's no real reason to believe Apple won't release a 27" or larger iMac at a later date. The screen size has nothing to do with the use of M series processors. 

    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.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 39 of 155
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 2,799member
    JinTech said:
    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. 
    JinTechmuthuk_vanalingamwilliamlondonravnorodomargonautseanjpscooter63watto_cobra
  • Reply 40 of 155
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    jamoses66 said:
    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. 
    You and that other guy haven’t been paying attention for the last two years have you. Get a clue.
    tmaywilliamlondonkillroypscooter63melgrosswatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.