- Last Active
canukstorm said:elijahg said:StrangeDays said:Gruber has already said it’s only OK to his eyes.
It is all about Jony Ive leaving the company and no longer being in total control of the designs. His 'fashion over function' has been a mistake for years. The moment he left, Apple was able to fix the MacBooks in 2019 by removing the butterfly keyboard. Remember the round hockey-puck mouse? Look what a mess that was. Not everything he designed was a good idea, and people prefer functionality over fashion. Now Apple can make computers that actually work and be reliable again. That's why I never got rid of my 2015 MacBook Pro 15" model.
Other articles have already posted the benchmarks for the M1 Ultra. Like all other M1 CPUs, the single core score is in the 1700 range. The M1 Ultra only excels with the multi-core score, over 20,000 in Geekbench 5. So unless your work specifically takes advantage of the multi-core tasks and video work, the Mac Studio would be a waste of money. The other difference between the base model studio and the Ultra CPU studio is the massive 2 pound heat sink required to keep the Ultra CPU cool. Shop wisely.
Everyone loves to claim how fast the M1 Macs are, but that is only the single core processes. Most Intel CPUs have faster multi-core scores than the M1, by a considerable margin. That is why Apple continued to sell the higher-end Intel Macs, also with dedicated GPUs that were faster than the M1. The M1 Pro and Max fix the limitations of the M1, and the Ultra has amazing multi-core scores. But if your work does not take advantage of the Pro, Max, and Ultra CPUs, you won't see any increase in performance because the single core score is the same as the M1 CPU. I wonder what the M2 will bring to the table?
I got a Mac Pro 1,1 for free from someone on Facebook. After buying two used 3.0 GHz quad-core Xeons on eBay for $50 and updating the firmware and SMC to the Mac Pro 2,1 firmware, it is now a '2008' Mac Pro with 8-cores. Great for running older software. That $50 CPU upgrade doubled the performance of the original Mac Pro 1,1, and that was already 3x faster than the Power Mac G5. Those Mac Pros 1,1 to 5,1 were the best Macs.
john-useless said:Andrew, you wrote: "Because of Thunderbolt data limitations, it isn't possible to daisy chain two 5K studio displays." Do you know if it's possible to daisy-chain a lower-resolution third-party monitor to a USB-C port on the new Apple Studio Display?
I have a 27-inch Dell QHD resolution monitor, which is 2560x1440 pixels. That's the same resolution as the original Thunderbolt Display and Apple's 27-inch iMacs from the 2009 to 2013 models. (The 2014 edition of the 27-inch iMac was the first Retina 5K model at 5120x2880 pixels.)
I have an Apple Studio Display on order. I'm hoping that I'll need only connect one cable (from the Studio Display's one Thunderbolt port) to my MacBook Pro (14-inch, 2021) and that the one cable will provide the MacBook both with power and with connections to two monitors — the Studio Display and a 27-inch Dell monitor with USB-C and QHD resolution. In other words, the chain would be: 14-inch MacBook Pro <—> Thunderbolt cable <—> Apple Studio Display <—> USB-C cable <—> Dell U2721DE monitor, if that works.
Thanks for any info!
You can't fix the lower quality ultra-wide camera with software patches. The fact that the software does a digital zoom destroys the image quality. A desktop monitor doesn't need center stage when you are sitting directly in front of it. Sad that Apple touted the camera features, and then used the lower quality ultra-wide camera in a $1,599 device. The 1080P camera in the 2017 iMac Pro and 2020 iMac 27" are better cameras and produce a far better image.
22july2013 said:Could Apple update the camera's hardware in a revision of the Studio Display without having to refund or fix the display for current owners?