flydog

charlesatlas said:

So when is Apple going to make a curved ultrawide display? I'd love for someone to do it right, with a nice, big 21:9 aspect ratio at 42-45". The only curved ultrawides at that size are 32:9, which are too wide and not tall enough for me.

There are no 4k ultrawide monitors so that is not an option at all for anyone who wants 4k.  

charlesn said:

"From this chair, Apple's 5K Studio Display is a nice monitor. It just delivers a beyond terrible price to delivered value ratio."

You've said it all in two short sentences. And there's nothing up for debate in this assessment--it's a perfectly "fine" monitor that--even by Apple standards--delivers nothing but appearance to justify the lofty price point. And even if the webcam issue can be fixed via software update, it's just inexcusable to ship such a premium-priced monitor in the age of Zoom with crappy webcam performance. 

There is no other monitor below $5,000 that can even match the brightness, contrast levels, and color range of the Studio Display, and when there is no substitute, $1,600 is a bargain. A comparable monitor simply does not exist. 

gavinthain said:

Out come the Tin Hats. 

The average cop is a lying sack of immoral dung. But feel free to hand over your unlocked phone on demand. 

keithw said:

I'm still trying to decide whether or not to spend the extra $1k for 64 GPU cores instead of 48.  I tend to keep machines for at least 5 years (or more,) and want to "future proof" as much as possible up front. Sure, I know there will probably be an M2 "Ultra" or M3 or M4 or M5 in the next 5 years, but the "studio" is the Mac I've always wanted.  My current 2017 iMac Pro was a compromise since the only thing available at the time was the "trashcan" Mac, and it was obsolete by then.  This thing is 2-1/2 times faster than my iMac Pro in multi-core CPU tests. Howerver, it's significantly slower in GPU performance then my AMD RX 6900 XT eGPU.

An Ultra is complete waste of money, as is adding cores.  Xcode does not use the extra cores, nor does anything made by Adobe, Blender, or even Final Cut Pro.  None of those apps are significantly faster on an Ultra vs Max (or even the most recent 27" iMac). Games may see a large improvement, but even the fastest Ultra is not a gaming PC replacement (nor is it intended to be).

In real world use, my Ultra is actually slower than my old iMac in some tasks, and the actual difference in performance across the average app is more like 15-20% (not the 300-400% that the benchmarks suggest).  Xcode builts are 30% faster, and exporting a 5 minute 4k video via Final Cut Pro is about 10% faster.  Anything that uses single core (safari, word, excel) will not be any faster than a Mac Mini.  On an average workday, that $4,000 Ultra saves maybe 3 minutes.  

Most people will do just fine with a Mac mini. 

netrox said:

Given the large price difference between M1 Max and M1 Ultra, this makes sense. 

What?  Even if the entire 2 lbs was copper heatsink, the difference in material cost is at most $5 if Apple paid retail for copper.