Rogue01

About

Username
Rogue01
Joined
Visits
11
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
173
Badges
0
Posts
55
  • New iMac Pro and M3 iMac coming, but not in 2022

    Marvin said:
    entropys said:
    Definitely a prosumer gap at the moment. No 27 inch iMac, and a base studio and studio display costs a lot more!

    I would settle for an Mx Pro Mac mini but it should be a lot less than a 5K iMac.
    The old $1999 27" was with an i5-10600, Radeon 5300, 8GB RAM + 4GB VRAM, 256GB SSD.
    M1 Mini 8GB/256GB = $699, Studio Display = $1599 = $2298.

    If people can live with 3rd party displays, it's cheap enough with the Mac Studio.

    https://www.amazon.com/LG-34WN650-W-34-Inch-UltraWide-DisplayHDR/dp/B087JB656Q ($349) + $1999 Studio = $2348.



    https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/show-us-your-mac-studio-setup.2338555/?post=30954257#post-30954257
    https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/show-us-your-mac-studio-setup.2338555/page-5?post=31007253#post-31007253

    Given that Apple prices the 27" at $1599, they can only put M1 inside to come close to the 27" iMac pricing so they either make an M1 27" around $1999 or people buy a $699 mini + $1599 display. Those options aren't that far apart. M1 Pro mini would be $300 extra ($2598 with Studio Display) and would be like the $2299 27" iMac with the 5500XT.
    Stop comparing the M1 mini with the 27" iMac.  The dedicated GPU in the iMac 27" blows away the integrated GPU in the M1, especially the 5700XT 16GB, which was only a $500 option.  60,000 Metal score of the 5700XT puts the M1 to shame at only 20,000 metal score.  Even the Vega GPU in the 21.5" iMac is faster than the M1 GPU (confirmed by your own website).  The equivalent replacement is the $1,999 Mac Studio, and even combined with a third party display is more than the iMac 27".  You still need to add a few hundred more to the Mac Studio because Apple doesn't include a keyboard or mouse with a $2K computer.  A 27" iMac with M1 Pro or Max CPU would have been the ideal solution, since those CPUs reside in a MacBook without thermal issues.  Since the M1 Ultra requires a 2lb. heat sink, that will never be in a MacBook or iMac.
    williamlondon
  • Compared: Apple Studio Display vs. 2011 Thunderbolt Display

    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!
    That is not possible.  Apple specifically stated that an additional display must be connected directly to the Mac.  The USB-C ports are for peripherals, storage, or networking.  Your Dell display would plug into the Mac Studio's HDMI port.
    FileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Compared: Apple Studio Display vs. 2011 Thunderbolt Display

    y2an said:
    So what did the Thunderbolt Display cost, back in the day?
    The Thunderbolt Display was $999.  Stand was removable and could be swapped with the VESA Mount by the customer.  Could daisy chain two displays together.  Offered Ethernet so your MacBook did not have to use a dongle.  And they still work great with a Thunderbolt 3 to Thunderbolt 2 adapter.  They ran hot though.  Since the Studio Display has two massive fans in it, I wonder if that display also could heat a room.  The Studio Display should have also been $999 and offer a removable stand.
    watto_cobra
  • Apple executives say creating Mac Studio was 'overwhelming'

    mac_dog said:
    williamh said:
    These self-congratulatory things Apple does occasionally should be a bit embarrassing.  The Mac Studio looks like a big Mac Mini and it’s the very computer people have requested for years. Apple folks were not psychic when they determined the need and didn’t come up with a revolutionary new design. Good on you for making the Studio Display speakers good. Why is the camera garbage?

    I seem to recall Ive or somebody gushing over the shape of the Apple Pencil or something like that. It’s some kind of joke. 
    Boo-hoo. Now go troll another apple site. 
    He isn't trolling at all.  The Mac Studio looks like a Mac mini on steroids (it is 2 1/2 minis tall), the Studio Display's camera is garbage (read the reviews, including the ones here), and Jony Ive did make a big deal about the shape of the Apple Pencil, to a ridiculous degree.  All true statements.  That is not trolling.  Trolling is making stuff up to annoy people.
    williamlondon
  • Apple Studio Display review: How badly do you want an all-Apple experience?

    I saw the new Studio Display at the Apple Store.  It is definitely not worth the $1,599 price tag.  The fact that the display has fans in it, makes you wonder how hot is it going to be?  The Apple Thunderbolt Display was a literal space heater that could heat a room.  I had two of them that I got used for $350 total.  One started to fail after 4 years of use with the LED burn marks appearing, and I was glad to sell them for cheap to get rid of them.  They literally heated my room and in the summer, it was brutal.  I replaced them with two Samsung 28" 4K monitors that have much better image quality, and they were only $269 each!  I think the general consumer doesn't care about 4K or 5K and most will opt for a decent 4K monitor for much less.  I don't need a webcam or speakers in my display.  I have the Klipsch 2.1 Media Speakers that blow away anything from Apple.  If I need a webcam, I have one in my MacBook Pro, 2020 iMac 27", or iPhone or iPad.  I don't need Center Stage either.  Most say they get a sick feeling watching the panning.  It is like they added a bunch of features that most people don't really care about, and the one feature people would use, they left out - Ethernet!

    Remember when everyone was spreading rumors that the new iMac would be 32"?  Guess what?  Apple gave you the same 27" display from the iMac, for the price of the iMac, without the iMac.  Remember when Schiller said you get this amazing 5K display, and it comes with a computer?  Now it is the other way around.  I think most people that buy the Mac Studio will opt for a third party display, and maybe go larger with a 32" 4K display.  Most will be able to get two excellent 4K displays for less than one Apple Studio Display.  If Apple priced it at $999, with the height adjustable stand, they would have had a hit.  Since Apple is so health conscious, the height adjustable stand should be the included stand.  The fixed tilt stand is ridiculous.  It is funny when people stack books under their iMac to raise it up.  Watch MKHBD's review of the display on YouTube.  He nails it with his review.
    kestraldarkvader