Last Active
  • The Mac Studio isn't the xMac, but it's the closest we've ever been

    As I recall, the "xMac" - and there were other names for it through the years like a plain old mid range headless desktop - was born out of the quadrant of products laid out from Steve Jobs in 1999, or perhaps in 2000:

    Jobs basically retired all the Mac products lines, which included a plethora of boxes, save for the quadrant above. No more mid-range box, no pizza box. Everything was cancelled save for the quadrant. xMac was born as a wished for Mac headless desktop because there were a lot of people who didn't want an affordable but un-expandable iMac AIO but couldn't afford a Power Mac G3 tower. The only thing that changed across 20 years was the iMac and the Mac Pro moved up-market, so, the desire for "xMac" remained and the hole only got bigger.

    If Apple puts an M1 Pro in the Mac mini for $1200, an M1 Pro for the iMac 24 for $2000, it will come pretty close to a detente for folks. The M1 Pro has a suitably performant GPU, really performant CPU, and has a 32 GB of RAM. Curious why they haven't done it yet. There's definitely some upsell games there, but they are at the stage of the game where they should offer a good Mac product at every single price tier, as well as offering multiple product lines. Ie, a headless desktop isn't the same product as an AIO, and they should have a full product line for both.
  • The Mac Studio isn't the xMac, but it's the closest we've ever been

    cgWerks said:
    rundhvid said:
    What is going on here?
    • Weight (M1 Max): 5.9 pounds (2.7 kg)2
    • Weight (M1 Ultra): 7.9 pounds (3.6 kg)2
    Huh? I wonder if the Max has less power-supply/cooling/heatsink, etc. than they showed, as it doesn't need them? Interesting.
    The Mac Studio with a M1 Ultra uses a copper heatsink while the Mac Studio with the M1 Max uses an aluminum heatsink. That accounts for the vast majority of the weight difference.

    Kind of disappointing that they resorted to copper. There is still a bit of designing a product from the outside in. So, they choose a Mac mini footprint of 7.7 x 7.x7 inches and very purposefully choose 3.7 inch height before they knew how hot the Ultra was going to be. 3.7 inch is very deliberate because they wanted it to be able to sit underneath a Studio Display. And 7.7 x 7.7 footprint seems sacrosanct because of the Mac mini and the ecosystem developed around it?
  • Compared: Mac Studio versus Mac Pro

    I think the reasons to get the Mac Pro are all still there save for the CPU performance. You get the Mac Pro for the 8 PCIe slots which affords a whole bunch of capability that the Mac Studio can't provide: more I/O, GPUs, more storage, audio cards, so on and so forth. If a persons workflow is GPU bound, the Mac Pro will be the best option until Apple can get multiple 128 g-core GPUs in a box.

    For CPU bound workflows, and ProRes workflows, looks like the Mac Studio is the best option.
  • Intel Mac Pro not quite done yet, Apple releases Radeon Pro W6600X MPX module

    cia said:
    My only question is:  The card supports four 4k displays, but only one 5k display?  How is this?
    It supports 2 Pro Display XDRs, which are 6k, so it has the perf to drive 2 5k monitors. Driver issue? Typo?
  • New Apple 'Mac Studio' may fit in between Mac mini and Mac Pro

    Reportedly, the device will be mostly based on the Mac mini's design but will feature "much more powerful hardware."
    This is what threw me in reading the article. If this Mac Studio is the rumored Mac Half Pro, something the size of 3 or 4 stacked Mac mini's or a PowerMac G4 Cube, or a 2013 Mac Pro, or a Mac IIci on its side, at some point it's really not based on the Mac mini's design anymore.

    If it is that much larger, there isn't going to be much similarity between a Mac mini and this box.

    Then, how is it going to differ from the Mac mini that is rumored to have an M1 Pro and perhaps an M1 Max?