cgWerks

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.

aderutter said:

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.

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.

AppleOverlord said:
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

I'd guess that after the transition (which takes re-design of everything), we'll see mostly the same models with yearly update to M2, M3, etc. I don't know how quickly Intel/AMD can advance, or how long Apple will continue the generation performance jump we've seen in the iPhones (which has been, by comparison, quite considerable). Interesting times.

bobolicious said:

AceRanchero said:

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...

That's an interesting point I hadn't thought of (as hasn't been my situation). I guess it *is* a bit harder to grab a Mac Pro or iMac Pro and stuff it under your jacket and walk out. There are probably better ways of addressing it though, than a lock-cable. That seems pretty easily thwarted as well. Also, with all the new security, isn't it kind of a brick if stolen? It would suck for the one being stolen from, but wouldn't benefit the thief much.

foregoneconclusion said: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.

The problem is that in the Mac Pro, you can stick 4x of those things in there. But, the fact that they hit 3-4x the performance, means these are starting to get in the general ball-park of a max-config Mac Pro. Given the cost is 4x to 5x LESS money, that's pretty impressive.

danvm said:
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.  

Yeah, the iMac Pro was pretty spendy, though. I think the more problematic comparison was against the 5k iMac. Couldn't you get one of those closer to $2k? I'm not sure what those people do at this point (ie. big-screen iMac people on a budget). I guess Studio display + Mac mini, but the GPU performance would suffer. Probably have to go for the Mac Studio + 3rd party display. (guess you addressed that)

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. 

It's probably going to be 2x the Ultra. So, we can probably imagine. Pretty awesome.
x86 is still the problem. The question is more whether the software will work out, or whether the Mac Pro will remain x86 & Apple Silicon split.

StationGrey said:

So... there won't be a 27" iMac at all?? 

Possibly not. My issue here is the pricing. While i'm not that familiar with higher-end monitor pricing, is this display that much better than an $1800 (or less) iMac? So, a stand-alone display costs MORE than a complete iMac with the same screen? I had been hoping they'd have a 27" 4k or 5k display closer to $1k.

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 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.

Good observation, but... I'm not sure I'm OK with that (at least for others, I think I have my solution). By the time you buy a Studio display + Mac mini or Mac Studio, the cost is far beyond a 27" iMac. It's more computer, but also a lot more money.

The solution is just to buy the Mac mini or Mac Studio and then some other display at a reasonable cost. That's most likely what I'll do. But, I had hoped the Apple display would be reasonable in price. I'm a bit sad about that. (Maybe Bitcoin will soar and I'll have some money to burn, but I don't right now.)

cpsro said:

The G4 Cube mated with the Mac Pro Trash Can. End of snark, though. It's a nice system.

I'm totally thrilled. Something about it doesn't look as nice as I'd hoped. But, it's going to be at the back of my desk anyway. As long as it performs well and is fairly quiet, I'm a happy camper.

cpsro said:
PCIe expansion, DIMM slots, support for ECC memory, and maybe 4 M1 Maxes.

Good points, but how will they even pull that off? I guess they could, but I'd think it would sacrifice performance. Maybe the true-pros that need that stuff won't care so much if the overall package is good enough? IMO, the main missing things are ECC and GPU scalability. I wonder if we'll end up seeing Apple Silicon eGPU come back into the picture at some point, or card-based?

polymnia said:
I’m sure there will be complaints about the lack of internal expansion. I’m choosing to look at the glass overflowing with performance out-of-the-box. They make Mac Pro for the tinkerers. This one is for us. The non-tinkering pros. Not a contradiction in terms, Apple even made us our own special Mac.  

Yeah, I got over my tinkering phase years ago. The main concern, is that I can't buy now, add later. That's a valid concern, but the tradeoffs are pretty compelling. I'll just have to wait a bit longer to jump in.

crowley said:

AppleInsider said:

The Mac Studio starts from $1,999 with M1 Max, $3,999 with M1 Ultra.

That UltraFusion interconnect must cost a pretty penny to make sense of those prices.

Those base configs are pretty reasonable, though. They are high for someone who doesn't care about GPU-power, I guess and just needs the other aspects (like RAM). But, a no-name gaming PC costs ~$2000. This might not be quite the GPU power (at base), but isn't too far off, and blows the PC away in overall performance.

The Ultra is a bit high I suppose, but it's also a pretty high-end machine. So, a bit hard to compare, and people usually have to pay premiums for that kind of thing (not that I want to, LOL).

mjtomlin said:
Makes me wonder if the iMac and mini will now get an M1 Pro option?

I doubt it now.

OutdoorAppDeveloper 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.

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 ).

ravnorodom said:

First time Mac really exceeds top of the line PC hardware.

Well, at least since mid-2000s. The G5 crushed PCs.

Wow.... this is finally what I've been waiting for from Apple!
Need to start saving... I'm going to be broke for a while.

Actually, the Max based Studio is pretty nice and at a good price-point. It would make a good replacement for my mini i7/eGPU (software compatibility aside). But, I think I'd be sad, long-term, if I don't go for Ultra. (Please, please someone write a native Metal crypto-miner. That would speed up my adoption rapidly!)