Xed

Rogue01 said:

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?

That's a whole lot of wrong information to unpack.

1) Apple Silicon has been eating Intel's lunch for a long time. Even AnandTech has shown that Apple has had "desktop class" performance in tiny iPads for a very long time before the M1 was announced. This was inevitable and Intel has nothing on the board except a strong desire to best Apple Silicon at some future date.

2) macOS and Xcode make it very easy for even a simple app to work across multiple cores and this has been the case for a very long time.

3) And you din't even mention the power draw to compete with Apple Silicon. Besides the Intel i9 12900 costing $600 for just the chip, it uses many times the power to run it at the same speed as the M1 Ultra. This makes the Mac Studio a very economical buy not just in terms of time to compete jobs, but your TCO.

Apple is eating Intel's lunch and this will get people to switch and we could even see Apple move back into the server market because a 10,000 servers running a fraction of the power saves cost of energy and also allows for many more devices to be places closer together without needing to increase the power coming into the server room.

kingofsomewherehot said:

crowley said:

I'd love to hear from someone who would lay down $2,000 extra just for a couple of Thunderbolt ports.

well... it was only $1400 ... and it gets you Thunderbolt ports AND twice the processing power.  you don't think there are people for whom that would be worthwhile?  You can't see where that would be lucrative without hearing from one of them?  

I thought his comment was very clear. He mentioned buying it just for the TB ports in the front over USB 3.1 ports. In other words, if it were a Venn diagram, is there anyone at the intersection of wanting front-facing TB ports over USB 3.1  and not caring about the increased performance of the M1 Ultra chip?

sflagel said:

Great product, and would have been incredibly useful even only three years ago, but COVID means that everyone accepts Contactless or Apple Pay now. I never take my wallet anywhere anymore, unless I am travelling - rental car companies need the drivers license and often need to swipe. I would expect that many Apple users do the same.

Not everywhere. This are the major holdouts but there are many others:

• Walmart (You can use Walmart Pay)
• Kroger (You can use Kroger Pay)
• Dick's Sporting Goods
• Home Depot
• Kmart
• Lowe's
• Sam's Club

Lowe's and Home Depot I deal with often.

I remember people bitching about the number of places that accept ApplePay the it first came out but I had no problem with that since I knew it would take a few years to get a tipping point of acceptance, but this holdouts are just annoying at this point, especially if they're reason is to pimp their own crummy system.

. . . . . 

mikethemartian said:

Why pay more if you don’t have to.

Why don't they have to? You think that Cook couldn't be poached if another company is willing to substantially more for him? Do you believe that anyone could run Apple just as well or better for a less money? Where's your evidence in all of this? Does this also mean you're fine with companies—including Apple—paying low-end employees below a living wage simply because they don't have to?

Additionally, would you prefer that a CEO gets paid a base salary without much emphasis on performance? As an investor I say that fuck that.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-highest-paid-ceos/