foregoneconclusion said: 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.
Yeah, they could certainly just release a bigger-screen option for the iMac down the road, just like we pick between the 14" and 16" MBP. It wouldn't be a 'new machine' they haven't transitioned, just a build-option.
auxio said: 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.
Yes, and it is a different kind of performance... just like eGPUs are for the Intel platform. I hope they add it at some point, but we'll have to wait and see. My concern is that with Apple's internal GPUs being a solution to most people's needs, it would be a fairly niche thing. With Intel, it wasn't so niche, even if a lot of people didn't take advantage of it (nearly everyone needed it, whether they knew about it or not).
OutdoorAppDeveloper said: 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.
I think most of this problem is on the software side of things. Apple can't (directly) do much about that. It will just take time and a lot of finger-crossing.
tenthousandthings said: 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.
No reason to re-design the mini. It will probably get a nip & tuck over the years or something when it goes M2, M3, etc. The introduction of the Studio fixes their lineup, finally (something we've been screaming about for years, decades even).
They are being a bit disingenuous with the 'modularity' though, is that isn't what most people mean. That crowd (and maybe I'm *slightly* part of it still?) wanted upgradability of RAM, storage, GPU-slots, etc. Those are nice-to-haves, but for me, Apple has addressed the crucial aspects (performance and heat issues). I can save a bit more to buy more RAM/GPU from the start. I couldn't solve the performance/heat issues in the past w/o going to the Mac Pro.
briceio said: 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.
I don't know about overpriced, maybe a bit. I'm also going to have to save for at least the base Ultra. Though, I think I could be fine with the Max. I just don't want to buy there and then be said I didn't buy for the future a bit more.
But, I can see... if you have specific GPU needs, there are some problematic choices/costs that aren't on the Intel side (aside from GPUs being hard to get). More options there. Most of the problem is still on the software side of things, though.
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??
The speculation was the "Duo" (now formally called the Ultra) would be two M1 Max Chips in tandem. It stands to reason that the "Quad" that has been speculated will be in the Mac Pro. The only question is which superlative are they are they going to use: "Ultra Ultra"? "Super-duper"? "Hyper"?
sunman42 said: Sounds exactly right. The heat dissipation in the Midi, er, Studio clearly dictated the height of the enclosure, and that, in turn, meant there was no way they could fit the same cooling capacity into an M1 Double Wide, er, Ultra-powered 27 (or larger)-inch iMac and still retain a slim profile. Unless with some future generation of M<something> chips Apple manages to achieve even higher performance with less heat generation.
Yeah, they would have had to keep an enclosure closer to the previous/only iMac Pro, not the updated iMac design. Though, you'd have more 'horizontal' space to work with, so maybe they could have done something like 1.5x or 2x the thickness and found a way to pull it off. Unfortunately, I don't think Apple gets that most of us don't give a hoot about how thick it is within reason.
I'm *super* glad to see how they designed the Studio though. It's like 3/5ths cooling system! Yay, finally!
anome said: Almost certainly, the Pro will be at WWDC. At least I know it's nothing I'm going to be able to afford.
Bingo! It isn't going to be something in my price-range. It might be cheaper, though, than the current Mac Pros. So, exciting wait and see for those Pros now. But, I'm out of the waiting game (into the saving game).
entropys said: I think I would go the minimum spec mac studio and add external storage.
Yeah, I think I'm saving for an Ultra-spec'd version (unless some need comes up more quickly), but I'm really glad they included the Max version in the Studio. It's actually a fairly good deal at the base config.
So it looks like a Studio with an M1 Max configured same as a MBP is £1000 cheaper, so that £1000 gets you a very nice screen and portability. I do wonder if an M1 Max in a Studio will perform better than an M1 Max in a MBP due to being able to be fed more watts..
My understanding is that the 16" MBP can run full-out, but it's also a pretty big device. I had thought about going that route, but then decided I'd want the 14" for portability anyway. It doesn't seem worth buying a Max 14" from what I've seen (paying a bunch more, but getting little gain).
d.j. adequate said: I hope so. That mini would be my sweet spot and i was kind of hoping it would appear. Seems a hole in their pricing.
Hmm... I guess that's a fair point. You have a need that is beyond the base M1, but too much $ to get to the base Studio? I guess start saving for the Studio, depending on what it is. I kind of doubt we'll see a mini Pro now. We'll see a mini M2, I'd bet. But that might not address your need. It's less than $1k gap, but I hear you. I'm dealing a bit with the same dilemma but in regard to the base Studio vs the Ultra. I'm waiting and saving.
dewme said: The price-performance of the Studio is probably going to push the lowest end of a new Mac Pro way up into the stratosphere.
Yes, though I think we might be surprised that the price could potentially be lower than the current models. There might not be a stratosphere gap as there is now.
tenthousandthings said: 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.
No reason to re-design the mini. It will probably get a nip & tuck over the years or something when it goes M2, M3, etc. The introduction of the Studio fixes their lineup, finally (something we've been screaming about for years, decades even).
They are being a bit disingenuous with the 'modularity' though, is that isn't what most people mean. That crowd (and maybe I'm *slightly* part of it still?) wanted upgradability of RAM, storage, GPU-slots, etc. Those are nice-to-haves, but for me, Apple has addressed the crucial aspects (performance and heat issues). I can save a bit more to buy more RAM/GPU from the start. I couldn't solve the performance/heat issues in the past w/o going to the Mac Pro.
Yes, I guess I just meant that if they are choosing to use “modularity” in that way, then the larger iMacs aren’t likely to come back.
An amazing system. I can’t justify spending money on that much power, but I’m glad we finally have the really powerful headless Mac we’ve wanted for decades.
I’m really curious though as to what’s inside the box. I’m very interested when iFixit does a teardown.
I’d imagine the primary contributor to the additional height versus a Mac mini is the cooling tower needed for the M1 Ultra.
Still not aimed at game developers... they keep speaking about creators and developers in their videos, but clearly not game devs: UE5 is partially working and missing a lot of its core features on Mac, the last M1 Unity versions just keep crashing, DAZ3D doesn't work anymore since the switch from Intel, no Reallusion softs on Mac ... I guess Windows is still the future for us, even if I hate this So much power wasted
Yep, and CAD and 3D people, unless using the right tools. Notice how prominently they featured Vectorworks. I also understand the alpha/beta Blender stuff is looking promising. I think it will just take time before stuff works out on the software side. The problem is that the particular tools you use may or may not do so. There will be tools, they just might not be the ones you want/need.
For example, in CAD, some of the core modeling kernels aren't update for Apple Silicon, which means emulation/Rosetta2 performance at best. I'm hoping some Windows solutions eventually get good enough and mainstream, as well.
I'm actually going to start trying to learn Vectorworks. I know Revit, but after seeing Vectorworks, i'd *much* rather end up working at a Vectorworks based place than a Revit one. That's also going to be a *slow* impact on the industry. The software makers who don't embrace this, might end up suffering some industry-loss in that way, was well.
So what happened to the revised Mini and cheaper display, Ming? Paging Ming…
Next year? I'm sure we'll eventually get an updated mini. But, I think from Apple's perspective, its transition is already complete. Next opportunity is when it gets M2.
crowley said: Or Apple are just pulling their usual tricks with upgrade prices. "actually reasonable"
Oh yeah, we're paying more than just a component price increase. Would we expect any less from Apple?
chadbag said: I am not likely to buy the Apple Studio monitor. Not large enough for my needs and too expensive for my needs. But I am sure it hits the spot for a lot of people
Yeah, unless I'm missing something, it is just aimed at the premium market who want matching Apple stuff. I'm disappointed there. I don't get why it costs more than the equivalent with a whole computer included.
jabohn said: I guess I'll be looking for one of the last Intel 27" iMacs or a refurb. I'm not interested in moving away from the all-in-one design and spending $5000 to get it in 2 parts (Studio + display). The 24-inch model is not an option. Sheesh - I just convinced my bosses to upgrade our Macs to 27-inch models and we're not done yet.
I kind of get it, but I also don't. The aesthetics are THAT important? What about a mini or base Studio with a 3rd party display? If you don't absolutely need Retina rez or exactly 5k, or exact screen-size, then there are a bunch of much cheaper options, right? Put the savings into a much faster Mac.
auxio said: Thanks for the info. I guess Apple had to forgo some features to get the ASi transition going, and TDM didn't make the chopping block. Not many people really knew about it outside of us power users.
What I don't get is why they can't simply add a bit of hardware and an input select button. It couldn't cost much (as even $100 displays have it), and would make an iMac way more attractive to anyone but the most minimal setups. Heck, even an average consumer might get use out of plugging their Xbox into their iMac, etc. Apple's reluctance here baffles me.
keithw said: The speculation was the "Duo" (now formally called the Ultra) would be two M1 Max Chips in tandem. It stands to reason that the "Quad" that has been speculated will be in the Mac Pro. The only question is which superlative are they are they going to use: "Ultra Ultra"? "Super-duper"? "Hyper"?
Can they connect 4 together with that interface? Or, do they run into that software development problem he spoke of, with 2 separate 'CPUs'?
An amazing system. I can’t justify spending money on that much power, but I’m glad we finally have the really powerful headless Mac we’ve wanted for decades.
I’m really curious though as to what’s inside the box. I’m very interested when iFixit does a teardown.
I’d imagine the primary contributor to the additional height versus a Mac mini is the cooling tower needed for the M1 Ultra.
You can pretty much see in the presentation or on the web site. It's like power-supply on the bottom, with the board/CPU/GPU above that, then the cooling system taking up the top like 3/5ths.
An amazing system. I can’t justify spending money on that much power, but I’m glad we finally have the really powerful headless Mac we’ve wanted for decades.
I’m really curious though as to what’s inside the box. I’m very interested when iFixit does a teardown.
I’d imagine the primary contributor to the additional height versus a Mac mini is the cooling tower needed for the M1 Ultra.
It would be interesting to know the design tradeoffs for the M1 Ultra. Could they have kept the (shorter) Mini form factor if they'd separated the CPU cores enough to allow for better air cooling? Would separating them have slowed the interconnect and/or made it more expensive to produce? Not that the height really matters much for a desktop machine, but Apple tends to prefer making their machines as thin as possible.
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??
The speculation was the "Duo" (now formally called the Ultra) would be two M1 Max Chips in tandem. It stands to reason that the "Quad" that has been speculated will be in the Mac Pro. The only question is which superlative are they are they going to use: "Ultra Ultra"? "Super-duper"? "Hyper"?
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??
PCIe expansion, DIMM slots, support for ECC memory, and maybe 4 M1 Maxes.
I doubt the next Mac Pro will include user replaceable RAM, but rather maybe just unified ECC RAM. The days of replacing your RAM is gone. You buy all you can afford. That's the one thing I would increase as much as you can afford when spec'ing any Apple Silicon Mac out. PCIe expansion I can see yes. I wouldn't be surprised if we see an M2 CPU/GPU in the new Mac Pro. You can always add more storage with TB4 drives if you really needed it. For an general user or even company I doubt they'd even care to replace the RAM anyways.
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.
I agree re: RAM/GPU, but please drop the SSD. They are so easy/cheap to expand with fast storage later on, it just isn't inside the case.
As for the GPU, yes, we'll have to wait and see. But, keep in mind they should be fast on-paper. A lot of the issue is just software compatibility. Your hash-rate is a great example. While the Max isn't going to match a 3090 due to memory bandwidth, it would probably be close if the mining software were Metal. People currently getting that 10 MH/s are essentially doing an emulation hack. That's actually pretty good considering.
If I had to take a guess, I think with a Metal miner, we'd see like 70-80% of like a 3080 for the Pro and then given more memory bandwidth, faster than a 3090 on the Ultra (would need to do more math than I care for right now to find out by how much ).
I am not sure I understand your point about the SSD being external. A M.2 is a SSD. Externally you can get about 1GB/sec on a USB C 3.2 and about 2GB/sec on thunderbolt (although I have yet to see one get that much when tested). A M.2, on the other hand, can currently get as much as 7 GB/sec. The one I have in my PS5 is 6 GB/sec and costs about $220 for 2TB currently. SSDs have been getting a lot faster recently at reasonable prices. Even if the M.2 speed is limited, you can expect to see a lot larger ones in a couple of years (unless China invades Taiwan in which case all of this is moot anyway).
A M1 Max gets a compute score of 61256 on GeekBench 5 for OpenCL. A RTX 3090 gets 205005. Apple's performance graphs are a complete fantasy.
An amazing system. I can’t justify spending money on that much power, but I’m glad we finally have the really powerful headless Mac we’ve wanted for decades.
I’m really curious though as to what’s inside the box. I’m very interested when iFixit does a teardown.
I’d imagine the primary contributor to the additional height versus a Mac mini is the cooling tower needed for the M1 Ultra.
No need to speculate. Just look at the photo on the product page:
From top to bottom: cooling system (two side by side blowers), motherboard, power supply.
The cooling system was described during today's presentation. Air is sucked in through the vents in the base. The back grille is the exhaust.
The Mac Studio's power supply is beefier than the Mac mini's since the M1 Max/Ultra draws more current than the vanilla M1.
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.
Get a PC loser, lol. In any case Toms Hardware thinks the ultra will give the RTX-3090 a good run overall. Blender is still working on fully leveraging Apples Metal graphics engine. Ray tracing however is a specialized graphics function, and the RTX have RT specific cores. These haven't been integrated into the M1, although the specialized cores there will be more useful to most creatives. Maybe these will come with the M2 or Mac Pro. My bet is that the hinted mac Pro will only come with the M2 next generation chips. In any case, Silicon optimized mac apps will have massive advantages with the integrated OS making the most of the hardware. Not the drag of graphic card drivers and game engines struggling to make the best of a fire breathing (and watt chugging furnace) big ass double space $1500 PCI card. No thanks.
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??
The speculation was the "Duo" (now formally called the Ultra) would be two M1 Max Chips in tandem. It stands to reason that the "Quad" that has been speculated will be in the Mac Pro. The only question is which superlative are they are they going to use: "Ultra Ultra"? "Super-duper"? "Hyper"?
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.
Lol. You and your M.2 slot and "omg it's not upgradeable" like you're surprised... again.
It's been 6 years since they started soldering everything. And for good reason, as has been explained on this forum countless times. Has it possibly occurred to you, ever -- maybe even when explained to you -- that there's a direct relationship between the performance of these machines and how they're physically put together? When you want Apple to build in internal upgradeability, you're asking them to compromise some of that performance. That would hurt the rest of their customers, that DON'T CARE about upgrading.
The RAM isn't upgradeable, because, you know, the RAM is part of the actual CPU system now. But you knew that right?
Why does the internal SSD need to be internally upgradeable on a desktop? It's got up to SIX thunderbolt ports (one channel each) for a combined throughput of nearly 17 GigaBytes per second. Add whatever the heck storage configuration you want, right next to it.
Yes. You buy what you need, from the start. And when ANY PART of it is no longer what you need, that's ok, because Apple's stuff holds its value very well. It will meet someone else's needs who is willing to pay you for it, and you use the money from that plus a bit more (which you'd have otherwise spent on some upgrade part) and get a better Mac with your choice of configuration that meets your new needs. The Migration Assistant makes this process ridiculously easy.
That's now been the way you upgrade Apple stuff, for years. And this approach benefits the vast majority of Apple's customer base a lot more than the ability to open up a Mac and tinker, again as has been explained on this forum countless times.
Meanwhile, the GPU speeds... Not sure what you're talking about. These were compared directly against the actual options in the 2019 Mac Pro and highest end iMac.
And you're really going to compare a Mac's graphics performance -- for, you know, doing actual work -- against Nvidia's mining capabilities in a PC? You do realize the G in GPU stands for "Graphics", right?
How do you not understand that one of the other reasons Apple stuff is so good at what it DOES do is partly because of the absence of the other things it doesn't even try to do?
Hey here's an idea. Let's complain that the Ford F150 doesn't typically win sports car races, or have a convertible roof. Or float. And at that price? Good grief. What were they thinking? Ford is doomed.
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 can upgrade the monitor. For the first time in forever.
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.
I agree re: RAM/GPU, but please drop the SSD. They are so easy/cheap to expand with fast storage later on, it just isn't inside the case.
As for the GPU, yes, we'll have to wait and see. But, keep in mind they should be fast on-paper. A lot of the issue is just software compatibility. Your hash-rate is a great example. While the Max isn't going to match a 3090 due to memory bandwidth, it would probably be close if the mining software were Metal. People currently getting that 10 MH/s are essentially doing an emulation hack. That's actually pretty good considering.
If I had to take a guess, I think with a Metal miner, we'd see like 70-80% of like a 3080 for the Pro and then given more memory bandwidth, faster than a 3090 on the Ultra (would need to do more math than I care for right now to find out by how much ).
I am not sure I understand your point about the SSD being external. A M.2 is a SSD. Externally you can get about 1GB/sec on a USB C 3.2 and about 2GB/sec on thunderbolt (although I have yet to see one get that much when tested). A M.2, on the other hand, can currently get as much as 7 GB/sec. The one I have in my PS5 is 6 GB/sec and costs about $220 for 2TB currently. SSDs have been getting a lot faster recently at reasonable prices. Even if the M.2 speed is limited, you can expect to see a lot larger ones in a couple of years (unless China invades Taiwan in which case all of this is moot anyway).
A M1 Max gets a compute score of 61256 on GeekBench 5 for OpenCL. A RTX 3090 gets 205005. Apple's performance graphs are a complete fantasy.
unless China invades Taiwan in which case all of this is moot anyway).
This may be a smart reason for upgrading soon for both Mac and Windows machines.
Comments
Yes, and it is a different kind of performance... just like eGPUs are for the Intel platform. I hope they add it at some point, but we'll have to wait and see. My concern is that with Apple's internal GPUs being a solution to most people's needs, it would be a fairly niche thing. With Intel, it wasn't so niche, even if a lot of people didn't take advantage of it (nearly everyone needed it, whether they knew about it or not).
I think most of this problem is on the software side of things. Apple can't (directly) do much about that. It will just take time and a lot of finger-crossing.
No reason to re-design the mini. It will probably get a nip & tuck over the years or something when it goes M2, M3, etc. The introduction of the Studio fixes their lineup, finally (something we've been screaming about for years, decades even).
They are being a bit disingenuous with the 'modularity' though, is that isn't what most people mean. That crowd (and maybe I'm *slightly* part of it still?) wanted upgradability of RAM, storage, GPU-slots, etc. Those are nice-to-haves, but for me, Apple has addressed the crucial aspects (performance and heat issues). I can save a bit more to buy more RAM/GPU from the start. I couldn't solve the performance/heat issues in the past w/o going to the Mac Pro.
I don't know about overpriced, maybe a bit. I'm also going to have to save for at least the base Ultra. Though, I think I could be fine with the Max. I just don't want to buy there and then be said I didn't buy for the future a bit more.
But, I can see... if you have specific GPU needs, there are some problematic choices/costs that aren't on the Intel side (aside from GPUs being hard to get). More options there. Most of the problem is still on the software side of things, though.
I'm *super* glad to see how they designed the Studio though. It's like 3/5ths cooling system! Yay, finally!
Bingo! It isn't going to be something in my price-range. It might be cheaper, though, than the current Mac Pros. So, exciting wait and see for those Pros now. But, I'm out of the waiting game (into the saving game).
Yeah, I think I'm saving for an Ultra-spec'd version (unless some need comes up more quickly), but I'm really glad they included the Max version in the Studio. It's actually a fairly good deal at the base config.
My understanding is that the 16" MBP can run full-out, but it's also a pretty big device. I had thought about going that route, but then decided I'd want the 14" for portability anyway. It doesn't seem worth buying a Max 14" from what I've seen (paying a bunch more, but getting little gain).
Hmm... I guess that's a fair point. You have a need that is beyond the base M1, but too much $ to get to the base Studio? I guess start saving for the Studio, depending on what it is. I kind of doubt we'll see a mini Pro now. We'll see a mini M2, I'd bet. But that might not address your need. It's less than $1k gap, but I hear you. I'm dealing a bit with the same dilemma but in regard to the base Studio vs the Ultra. I'm waiting and saving.
Yes, though I think we might be surprised that the price could potentially be lower than the current models. There might not be a stratosphere gap as there is now.
For example, in CAD, some of the core modeling kernels aren't update for Apple Silicon, which means emulation/Rosetta2 performance at best. I'm hoping some Windows solutions eventually get good enough and mainstream, as well.
I'm actually going to start trying to learn Vectorworks. I know Revit, but after seeing Vectorworks, i'd *much* rather end up working at a Vectorworks based place than a Revit one. That's also going to be a *slow* impact on the industry. The software makers who don't embrace this, might end up suffering some industry-loss in that way, was well.
Next year? I'm sure we'll eventually get an updated mini. But, I think from Apple's perspective, its transition is already complete. Next opportunity is when it gets M2.
Oh yeah, we're paying more than just a component price increase. Would we expect any less from Apple?
Yeah, unless I'm missing something, it is just aimed at the premium market who want matching Apple stuff. I'm disappointed there. I don't get why it costs more than the equivalent with a whole computer included.
I kind of get it, but I also don't. The aesthetics are THAT important? What about a mini or base Studio with a 3rd party display? If you don't absolutely need Retina rez or exactly 5k, or exact screen-size, then there are a bunch of much cheaper options, right? Put the savings into a much faster Mac.
What I don't get is why they can't simply add a bit of hardware and an input select button. It couldn't cost much (as even $100 displays have it), and would make an iMac way more attractive to anyone but the most minimal setups. Heck, even an average consumer might get use out of plugging their Xbox into their iMac, etc. Apple's reluctance here baffles me.
You can pretty much see in the presentation or on the web site. It's like power-supply on the bottom, with the board/CPU/GPU above that, then the cooling system taking up the top like 3/5ths.
A M1 Max gets a compute score of 61256 on GeekBench 5 for OpenCL. A RTX 3090 gets 205005. Apple's performance graphs are a complete fantasy.
From top to bottom: cooling system (two side by side blowers), motherboard, power supply.
The cooling system was described during today's presentation. Air is sucked in through the vents in the base. The back grille is the exhaust.
The Mac Studio's power supply is beefier than the Mac mini's since the M1 Max/Ultra draws more current than the vanilla M1.
Lol. You and your M.2 slot and "omg it's not upgradeable" like you're surprised... again.
It's been 6 years since they started soldering everything. And for good reason, as has been explained on this forum countless times. Has it possibly occurred to you, ever -- maybe even when explained to you -- that there's a direct relationship between the performance of these machines and how they're physically put together? When you want Apple to build in internal upgradeability, you're asking them to compromise some of that performance. That would hurt the rest of their customers, that DON'T CARE about upgrading.
The RAM isn't upgradeable, because, you know, the RAM is part of the actual CPU system now. But you knew that right?
Why does the internal SSD need to be internally upgradeable on a desktop? It's got up to SIX thunderbolt ports (one channel each) for a combined throughput of nearly 17 GigaBytes per second. Add whatever the heck storage configuration you want, right next to it.
Yes. You buy what you need, from the start. And when ANY PART of it is no longer what you need, that's ok, because Apple's stuff holds its value very well. It will meet someone else's needs who is willing to pay you for it, and you use the money from that plus a bit more (which you'd have otherwise spent on some upgrade part) and get a better Mac with your choice of configuration that meets your new needs. The Migration Assistant makes this process ridiculously easy.
That's now been the way you upgrade Apple stuff, for years. And this approach benefits the vast majority of Apple's customer base a lot more than the ability to open up a Mac and tinker, again as has been explained on this forum countless times.
Meanwhile, the GPU speeds... Not sure what you're talking about. These were compared directly against the actual options in the 2019 Mac Pro and highest end iMac.
And you're really going to compare a Mac's graphics performance -- for, you know, doing actual work -- against Nvidia's mining capabilities in a PC? You do realize the G in GPU stands for "Graphics", right?
How do you not understand that one of the other reasons Apple stuff is so good at what it DOES do is partly because of the absence of the other things it doesn't even try to do?
Hey here's an idea. Let's complain that the Ford F150 doesn't typically win sports car races, or have a convertible roof. Or float. And at that price? Good grief. What were they thinking? Ford is doomed.
unless China invades Taiwan in which case all of this is moot anyway).