Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
It looks like the M3 Ultra version will be the one to get. I love my base M1 Studio. An amazing machine at a fantastic price. I would love to splurge on an Ultra, but the GPU performance is still not where I would like it to be for four grand. But it looks like it's heading in the right direction.
 
Once we want to buy new computers, we suddenly all become videographers who must need all the computational and graphics capabilities that we will never use in the coming few years before the machine becomes “outdated”. 😂 (I’m perfectly happy with my M1 Pro MBP by the way.)
 
Last edited:
M2 Mac Studio (2023) in action! 🎥

IMG_4317.jpeg
IMG_4316.jpeg
IMG_4314.jpeg
IMG_4315.jpeg
 
here's my dilemma: it's time for me to buy a new machine. i want a mac studio. my choices i'm mulling is do i get the M2 Max and get 96 GB of RAM, or should I get the M2 Ultra with 64GB RAM? The kind of work I do is drawing in Clip Studio, Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, After Effects, and Premier. Basically, I do a lot of graphics and some video. Right now I'm using an M1 Macbook Air with 16GB of RAM I bought when it came out (~2.5 years ago) and I'm ready for a desktop again. Thoughts?
At this point, my opinion is anyone still buying from Apple should always get the most recently released product, since it will be discontinued later than the previously released product. Probably. Or maybe not.
 
True, and that option was available for the Intel desktop Mac line (Mac Pro, iMac and Mac mini). But again, my point is that Apple's OEM pricing for those parts was not out of line to what PC OEMs were pricing many of their components and in both cases, you could buy cheaper RAM from third parties.

Apple Silicon's design might not really suit itself for socketed RAM (user-replaceable or otherwise). And Apple is not unique in this - I am pretty sure you cannot upgrade the RAM in the portable models of Microsoft's Surface line (definitely the ARM models and I believe the Intel models, as well) nor can you upgrade the RAM in smartphones or tablets, for example.

You are correct in that many of the laptops that attempt to copy Apple in slimming their laptops, the RAM is soldiered. For example, the X1 Carbon line and Surface, as you pointed out. For the time being, the laptops that compete with the Macbook Pro lines still offer expandability. I think if those laptops ever switch, it will be a dark day for consumer tech.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CWallace
So M2 Ultra is slower than both the new Intel and AMD CPUs in real world tests according to the Ars Technica review, despite it doing better in synthetic benchmarks. Shows that Geekbench results don't really mean anything.
"The bad news for Intel and AMD is power efficiency. In our Handbrake CPU video encoding test, the Ryzen 7950X gets the job done faster, but it uses twice as much power to do the same work. Intel's i9-13900K at its default power settings uses four times as much power to eke out a 10 percent speed improvement. For both processors, you can lower their power use to make them more efficient—in this scenario, the Ryzen actually runs a little faster because it's running cooler, while Intel's chip falls a bit behind the M2 Ultra—but they're still using more than twice the power to achieve similar performance."
 
For those thinking through M2 Mac mini vs M2 Mac Studio
Some practical perspective on the M2 Pro Mac Mini with the M2 Mac Studio now out (as I'm thinking through my options and and convincing myself not to jump to the Studio out of excitement).

... I bought the base M2 Pro Mac Mini on sale for $1,049 + tax.

For all the careful thought you've given this and all of the pros/cons, that sale price you got is really the determining factor.

When it's *not* on sale, the base M2 Pro Mini is $1299. And if you want an extra 16GB of RAM (to match that of the base M2 Max Studio, it's an extra $400. :oops:

The M2 is faster than the M1, and the M3 will be faster than the M2. Apple will always be gouging on memory and storage costs, but unless you need power *now*, the option to pay "half now" for an M2, and "half later" for an M3 or M4 option in a few years, is a great opportunity.


Thaaaaat being said, the first sale on the M2 Max Studio is going to undercut the optioned out M2 Pro Mini... which will make the decision a bit more difficult. ;)
 
  • Sad
Reactions: zapmymac
If you need that level of GPU cards then the new Mac Pro and Studio are not for you and it is off to PC land and either Windows or Linux for you.
Correct, which is why the OP was asking for comparisons with the 2019 MacPro with GPU cards, to see if you need that level of GPU compute power. Maybe these are powerful enough that we don’t need to switch, maybe not, but a comparison would be helpful.

Fyi: these are way more powerful than I need.
 
(a) Are you talking about CPU or GPU?

(b) For CPU we knew that going in! The A15 is essentially the same IPC as the A14. And was designed as such; it was designed to be basically the same design as the A14 but everything optimized for significantly lower power while still achieving slightly higher frequency on the same process. This was valuable (battery life on A15 phones is noticeably longer) and part of the plan.
(There are a few very specific tweaks in A15 that help some specialized code, most notably javascript in Safari; but they are very specific.)

Same transfers to M2. It's basically M1 IPC, but a slightly boosted frequency.

None of this is catastrophic or an indication that Apple is running out of steam. The A15 should have been just an energy-saving tick to be followed by a performing-enhancing tock. It's quit possible that it was never supposed to even be in the M2; the next core would have done that job. But as I keep saying, covid screwed up the timelines and Apple was forced to scramble with what was available.
We're now tick tocking at Apple for CPUs? Earlier A-series were monumental improvements over each other. A15 was still substantial over A14 although not that much as previous generations. A16 was A15 with a speed bump.

With that said it's not surprising Apple runs out of steam. Intel has already, and AMD has also more recently. Silicon has its limits. We're not getting 20% IPC improvements every year forever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dork and zapmymac
"The bad news for Intel and AMD is power efficiency. In our Handbrake CPU video encoding test, the Ryzen 7950X gets the job done faster, but it uses twice as much power to do the same work. Intel's i9-13900K at its default power settings uses four times as much power to eke out a 10 percent speed improvement. For both processors, you can lower their power use to make them more efficient—in this scenario, the Ryzen actually runs a little faster because it's running cooler, while Intel's chip falls a bit behind the M2 Ultra—but they're still using more than twice the power to achieve similar performance."
Well, considering the Mac Pro with this chip and its enormous power supply the low power benefit of the mobile SoC doesn’t matter. Mac Pro customers want absolute performance.
 
For all the careful thought you've given this and all of the pros/cons, that sale price you got is really the determining factor.

When it's *not* on sale, the base M2 Pro Mini is $1299. And if you want an extra 16GB of RAM (to match that of the base M2 Max Studio, it's an extra $400. :oops:

The M2 is faster than the M1, and the M3 will be faster than the M2. Apple will always be gouging on memory and storage costs, but unless you need power *now*, the option to pay "half now" for an M2, and "half later" for an M3 or M4 option in a few years, is a great opportunity.


Thaaaaat being said, the first sale on the M2 Max Studio is going to undercut the optioned out M2 Pro Mini... which will make the decision a bit more difficult. ;)
Yes, I agree. The sale made the decision easier. Coming from a 9 year old mid-2014 MBP certainly helped as well! If I were on a more recent Intel or M1, I'd sell and put the proceeds toward the studio!

I'm still trying to figure out the memory thing though...I'm not sure how all those pro apps running had me at under 12 GB, yet with only Safari and Activity monitor, I'm over 10 GB!
 
  • Like
Reactions: zapmymac
Because dGPU wether PCI-E slot or eGPU are gone. Watch the video where basically the Apple Engineer says with the new architecture then GPU cards are thing of the past with the chosen architecture and unified memory.

If you need that level of GPU cards then the new Mac Pro and Studio are not for you and it is off to PC land and either Windows or Linux for you.
I’d still like to know how It compares to my 3,5 years old machine…
 
Ooh, aah, finally, in 2023, we get "an HDMI 2.1 port, enabling 8K external display"...ooh, oh wait, you don't make an external 8K XDR monitor. Hrmm, what's a video/color editor to do?!

How about you wrap that 42" 8K display into an iMac with the same "dern" M2 chips and we call it a day?! You remember, "...bicycles for the mind" and all that. Thanks so much!
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.