Apple's M1 Ultra Chip: Everything You Need to Know

[lowkey]

I use Logic but that’s not a very useful benchmark to me... what effects are on the tracks? What instruments? That’s more informative

Open the benchmark and have a look

The test is extremely useful for giving you an idea of how the computers compare to each other when doing exactly the same thing.

Logic Pro M1 (Pro & Max) Benchmarks - Music-Prod.com

Here is the Logic Pro X Benchmark project file to use. Just download it, run it and see how many tracks you can get to play.

music-prod.com

 

[lowkey]

I’ve seen the numbers. What I also have seen is a lot of photography and video YouTubers showing how long it takes their M1 Ultra to process a 4K video with color corrections and graphic overlays and instead of this huge time reduction-remember this is compared to a Studio Max and not an Intel based computer of any kind- the time saving that they are getting is a few minutes at best instead of a 2 or 3 times speed increase. And the Ultra has 64 GB of memory and literally twice the number of CPU and graphic cores of a Studio Max. They were expecting a lot bigger difference for something that costs at least $2000 more than the Studio Max.

The Studio Max showed a huge improvement over previous generation Mac desktop computers but not over the current MacBook Pro laptops, with the same amount of memory. The performance was about equal there.

Once more, I am not the one making these claims these are YouTubers that have regular channels and their emphasis is on higher end video and photography. Do a search for Studio Max and you should find lots of them.

I’m not sure why you expect a 3 times speed increase by doubling the core count??

It’s no surprise that the Studio Max is running about the same as the M1 Max MBP. It’s the same chip.

The Ultra is running at about 175% of what the Max is doing for Logic. That’s pretty well as expected.

 

[cupcakes2000]

I’ve seen the numbers. What I also have seen is a lot of photography and video YouTubers showing how long it takes their M1 Ultra to process a 4K video with color corrections and graphic overlays and instead of this huge time reduction-remember this is compared to a Studio Max and not an Intel based computer of any kind- the time saving that they are getting is a few minutes at best instead of a 2 or 3 times speed increase. And the Ultra has 64 GB of memory and literally twice the number of CPU and graphic cores of a Studio Max. They were expecting a lot bigger difference for something that costs at least $2000 more than the Studio Max.

The Studio Max showed a huge improvement over previous generation Mac desktop computers but not over the current MacBook Pro laptops, with the same amount of memory. The performance was about equal there.

Once more, I am not the one making these claims these are YouTubers that have regular channels and their emphasis is on higher end video and photography. Do a search for Studio Max and you should find lots of them. And if you think that they are wrong argue with them. I am looking personally for something for my amateur photography and my 2015 (actually purchased in early 2016) iMac gets incredibly slow if I have 6-10 pictures being edited or corrected by either Affinity Photo or LightRoom. And that’s why I’m looking. Spending $2000 and not locking up my computer and finishing work with them in 20 minutes instead of close to an hour is a better deal than spending $4000 and finishing in 18 minutes. The 2 minute improvement isn’t worth 2 grand to me.

And because I still need to buy a monitor and probably an external drive I may not be buying a new Apple computer at all.

For LR and C1 and basic PS or AF work you only need an M1 to blast through any most photography tasks. An m1 pro or a max would be better but for bang for buck an m1 with 16gb will absolutely be fine.

Get a m1 16gb mini and a sw240 benq for a bit over a grand instead. You’ll fly.

 

[EdT]

For LR and C1 and basic PS or AF work you only need an M1 to blast through any most photography tasks. An m1 pro or a max would be better but for bang for buck an m1 with 16gb will absolutely be fine.

Get a m1 16gb mini and a sw240 benq for a bit over a grand instead. You’ll fly.

I have a Nikon Z7 which has 4K video capability that I purchased 2 years ago for a vacation to Alaska that went all haywire because of Covid and I wanted something that could handle video editing of 4K video as well. We aren’t going to Alaska but we do plan to go to the Rockies this summer.

 

[chucker23n1]

I’ve seen the numbers. What I also have seen is a lot of photography and video YouTubers showing how long it takes their M1 Ultra to process a 4K video with color corrections and graphic overlays and instead of this huge time reduction-remember this is compared to a Studio Max and not an Intel based computer of any kind- the time saving that they are getting is a few minutes at best instead of a 2 or 3 times speed increase. And the Ultra has 64 GB of memory and literally twice the number of CPU and graphic cores of a Studio Max. They were expecting a lot bigger difference for something that costs at least $2000 more than the Studio Max.

It's always a question of what's the bottleneck. In their case, perhaps the workload is heavily GPU-based. Or it's very IO-heavy.

 

[EdT]

I’m not sure why you expect a 3 times speed increase by doubling the core count??

It’s no surprise that the Studio Max is running about the same as the M1 Max MBP. It’s the same chip.

The Ultra is running at about 175% of what the Max is doing for Logic. That’s pretty well as expected.

I never said that I expected any type of speed increase. What I said is that video editors and photographers who have YouTube channels are pretty universally saying that they initially ordered a Studio Ultra but they are returning it because it doesn’t significantly outperform a Studio Max, despite having a bigger SSD drive and twice the memory, cpu and graphics cores compared to a Studio Max.

Why did I focus on photography/ video? Because I found lots of videos about the performance of the new desktops and they put graphs showing what they were getting as far as speed increases when actually using programs instead of just running a benchmark program. I didn’t actually use either video or photography as search terms when I was looking, but those fields are far and away where a lot of people who release evaluation videos are from. The other users I saw posting a lot of online reviews were multitrack music or sound editing. But I don’t know anything about multitrack editing so I watched one or two and didn’t look at many more after that. I have done a lot of photo editing, as an amateur, for 10 years and my newest 35 mm Nikon 7Z digital camera can take 4K video as well so those were the videos that I watched. So when they said that they were doing batch updates for color correction on x number of files what they were talking about I understand. So saying it took 1 or 2 hours on whatever their old computer is, 40 some minutes on a stock Studio Max and 37 minutes on whatever Studio Ultra they had originally bought to process the same photos the same way, that means more to me than a benchmark number. For most of these videos they were concerned with the time it took to do the job, compared to what else they could buy and with what they were currently using. And the most significant time reduction came with replacing an older iMac or iMac Pro with a Studio Max. A Studio Ultra was a bit faster than a Max but not that much and it was thousands of dollars more expensive.

 

[EdT]

It's always a question of what's the bottleneck. In their case, perhaps the workload is heavily GPU-based. Or it's very IO-heavy.

Most of the people reviewing, at least in video or photography based reviews aren’t hardware specification centric. They don’t speculate what isn’t working only that they expected an Ultra which has 2 Ultra Max boards on a common bus to have a significant improvement over a Studio Max, and they were surprised when the speed was only a little better instead of it being a lot better. I don’t think anyone was expecting a Studio Ultra to cut the time of editing in half again from what the Studio Max was able to do, but they were expecting more of an improvement than what they saw.

I don’t think any reviews I saw said that the new computers were frauds, they said that the improvement from their old computer (whatever it was) to the Studio Max was astounding, but the improvement from the Studio Max to the Ultra was just a small increase and not worth the extra money. So they recommended sticking with the Max.

 

[chucker23n1]

Most of the people reviewing, at least in video or photography based reviews aren’t hardware specification centric. They don’t speculate what isn’t working only that they expected an Ultra which has 2 Ultra Max boards on a common bus to have a significant improvement over a Studio Max, and they were surprised when the speed was only a little better instead of it being a lot better. I don’t think anyone was expecting a Studio Ultra to cut the time of editing in half again from what the Studio Max was able to do, but they were expecting more of an improvement than what they saw.

I don’t think any reviews I saw said that the new computers were frauds, they said that the improvement from their old computer (whatever it was) to the Studio Max was astounding, but the improvement from the Studio Max to the Ultra was just a small increase and not worth the extra money. So they recommended sticking with the Max.

Right.

I'm not saying they should be more specification-centric. I'm just saying the reality is: "how much faster will it be" is always an "it depends". If a lot of your workload involves fetching data from web services, you could put the highest-end CPU in there and it wouldn't make a difference, because the network is the bottleneck.

 

[cupcakes2000]

I have a Nikon Z7 which has 4K video capability that I purchased 2 years ago for a vacation to Alaska that went all haywire because of Covid and I wanted something that could handle video editing of 4K video as well. We aren’t going to Alaska but we do plan to go to the Rockies this summer.

The m1 can handle 4K very well. Don’t over estimate your need, and don’t underestimate the basic m1 for power.

I doubt you will really use the full power of a max from a photo/video pont of view. I shoot full time in a professional capacity and although I will probably get a max on my next desktop upgrade cycle, due to time=money etc, everything I do can be done zippy quick on an m1, so likely the same for you.

Unless you’re shooting video in a major way and wanting to edit multi stream layered 4K or 8K mini films then I really doubt you’ll notice a thousand quids worth of difference. Invest in a decent factory calibrated monitor instead. Much, much more beneficial.

 

[powerslave65]

Early adopters of new hardware always pay more, but when the software catches up they are the first to benefit. The case for the Ultra has just begun and it’s way to early to have any conclusions.

 

[lowkey]

I never said that I expected any type of speed increase. What I said is that video editors and photographers who have YouTube channels are pretty universally saying that they initially ordered a Studio Ultra but they are returning it because it doesn’t significantly outperform a Studio Max, despite having a bigger SSD drive and twice the memory, cpu and graphics cores compared to a Studio Max.

Why did I focus on photography/ video? Because I found lots of videos about the performance of the new desktops and they put graphs showing what they were getting as far as speed increases when actually using programs instead of just running a benchmark program. I didn’t actually use either video or photography as search terms when I was looking, but those fields are far and away where a lot of people who release evaluation videos are from. The other users I saw posting a lot of online reviews were multitrack music or sound editing. But I don’t know anything about multitrack editing so I watched one or two and didn’t look at many more after that. I have done a lot of photo editing, as an amateur, for 10 years and my newest 35 mm Nikon 7Z digital camera can take 4K video as well so those were the videos that I watched. So when they said that they were doing batch updates for color correction on x number of files what they were talking about I understand. So saying it took 1 or 2 hours on whatever their old computer is, 40 some minutes on a stock Studio Max and 37 minutes on whatever Studio Ultra they had originally bought to process the same photos the same way, that means more to me than a benchmark number. For most of these videos they were concerned with the time it took to do the job, compared to what else they could buy and with what they were currently using. And the most significant time reduction came with replacing an older iMac or iMac Pro with a Studio Max. A Studio Ultra was a bit faster than a Max but not that much and it was thousands of dollars more expensive.

You wrote “the time saving that they are getting is a few minutes at best instead of a 2 or 3 times speed increase.”

Sounds like someone expect at 2 or 3 times speed increase??

 

[EdT]

The m1 can handle 4K very well. Don’t over estimate your need, and don’t underestimate the basic m1 for power.

I doubt you will really use the full power of a max from a photo/video pont of view. I shoot full time in a professional capacity and although I will probably get a max on my next desktop upgrade cycle, due to time=money etc, everything I do can be done zippy quick on an m1, so likely the same for you.

Unless you’re shooting video in a major way and wanting to edit multi stream layered 4K or 8K mini films then I really doubt you’ll notice a thousand quids worth of difference. Invest in a decent factory calibrated monitor instead. Much, much more beneficial.

Right now just amateur with video. I’ve done a few weddings but they were friends or family and I made it clear that I’m not a professional. They couldn’t afford to hire someone so they were fine with anything that I could get them. I kept it simple because I am stupid and didn’t move the camera much or frequently zoom in and out. I was better by the third wedding and I’ve signed up for classes so I can learn the basics faster than just by trial and error.

 

[cupcakes2000]

Right now just amateur with video. I’ve done a few weddings but they were friends or family and I made it clear that I’m not a professional. They couldn’t afford to hire someone so they were fine with anything that I could get them. I kept it simple because I am stupid and didn’t move the camera much or frequently zoom in and out. I was better by the third wedding and I’ve signed up for classes so I can learn the basics faster than just by trial and error.

Well, good luck! It’s a rewarding thing. Seriously though, after your lenses, a decent monitor is your primary purchase. Don’t get hung up on computer specs until you find that your computer can’t keep up with you. If you’re still at the learning stage the it’s not going to be something you need to worry about yet.

Colour accuracy will define your vision and put you in the right place output wise. A Mac that shaves off 3 seconds off of a render time on a job you won’t even be rendering anytime soon probably isn’t a priority unless money isn’t an issue.

 

[Sf844]

Just ‘so Apple could increase their margins’ is obviously a tiny narrow look at the big picture.
First, obviously that’s a goal.
Secondly though, and far more importantly they have created a product which blows away much of the competition in the fields in which Apple sees as the Macs core market. The creative arts, specifically; video, photo, dtp, music, illustration.

A great deal of work has gone into specific parts and abilities, over the fact of just doing it to try and increase their margins (allegedly- I suspect they’re spending a substantial sum on development to get to these better margins).

It’s true, we have lost windows compatibility, which was needed to run various softwares that don’t support the Mac or are less supported on the Mac. But at that point - you’re a windows user no? If your key software is Windows based?

Windows was a selling point of the mac before Apple turned into what they are now. They believe they no longer need this support pillar to move forwards with their own agenda.

Mate, be real. All software is windows first but two niche media editing programs made by Apple. If you haven’t noticed this you’re either a DJ/Youtuber or related, Apple coder or bought a 2500 plus dollars machine to surf the web and send mails with a fisher price native app.

There is nothing pro about a computer that cannot be used for pro software or pro peripherals. And by pro peripherals I mean HDMI, fe, not whatever gibberish niche port nobody has nor needs at work.

I’m sure you could create tremendously efficient professional vehicles and equipment if you could modify the whole world ad hoc to serve them. That’s not the way things work IRL. The theoretical potential doesn’t matter, what matters are the tangible results, and x86 is the only name in town there.

This is akin to buying a 1400 dollars ipad pro (it’s incredibly fast!) with keyboard and mouse and spend half a day trying to copy and modify files from an USB, a job you could perform in 3 minutes with a 7 years old random laptop. Solutions looking for problems that don’t exist. One can charge his laptop at night, at the very least, but can’t get pro software developers to release a version for arm.

 

[cupcakes2000]

Mate, be real. All software is windows first but two niche media editing programs made by Apple. If you haven’t noticed this you’re either a DJ/Youtuber or related, Apple coder or bought a 2500 plus dollars machine to surf the web and send mails with a fisher price native app.

There is nothing pro about a computer that cannot be used for pro software or pro peripherals. And by pro peripherals I mean HDMI, fe, not whatever gibberish niche port nobody has nor needs at work.

I’m sure you could create tremendously efficient professional vehicles and equipment if you could modify the whole world ad hoc to serve them. That’s not the way things work IRL. The theoretical potential doesn’t matter, what matters are the tangible results, and x86 is the only name in town there.

I earn a considerable income as a professional photographer. I don’t use HDMI, as that’s not particularly ‘pro’ in the space I work in - but I can choose so if I wish as I have multipurpose fast IO in the shape of TB. But I do use professional software to create images that people look at every day on various different medias.

You see, mate, what you’re doing is projecting your narrow idea of a professional and at the same time not only discounting other perfectly valid professionals, but openly ridiculing them. That’s what children do.

Most of the big softwares in the creative spaces were Mac first, not windows as you seem to insist. The Mac has always been aimed at this space - and nothing at all has changed in this respect for you to get your knickers in such a twist.

What’s changing is Apple is in the process of nixing the ability to run Windows and Intel based hardware. Windows still exists, as does Intel based hardware. If the apps you use professionally to design your rocket ships are windows only programmes, then my friend - you are a windows user. When your current Apple hardware becomes obsolete then you will have to purchase from a vendor that supports your needs.

 

[Sf844]

You see, mate, what you’re doing is projecting your narrow idea of a professional and at the same time not only discounting other perfectly valid professionals, but openly ridiculing them. That’s what children do.

Most of the big softwares in the creative spaces were Mac first, not windows as you seem to insist. The Mac has always been aimed at this space - and nothing at all has changed in this respect for you to get your knickers in such a twist.

What’s changing is Apple is in the process of nixing the ability to run Windows and Intel based hardware. Windows still exists, as does Intel based hardware. If the apps you use professionally to design your rocket ships are windows only programmes, then my friend - you are a windows user. When your current Apple hardware becomes obsolete then you will have to purchase from a vendor that supports your needs.

Au contraire.

I’m well aware that there are pro photographers, videographers, musicians and Apple coders.

However, I’m also well aware that those are by far an insignificant portion of the overall number of educated professionals.

Moreover, Apple plans to sell millions of computers per year. Therefore, I’m stating that what Apple tries to sell as a powerful professional tool for millions is a gimmick for millions, because for those millions, arm is a solution looking for a problem, best case scenario, or a problem itself.

 

[cupcakes2000]

Moreover, Apple plans to sell millions of computers per year. Therefore, I’m stating that what Apple tries to sell as a powerful professional tool for millions is a gimmick for millions.

That’s the case with any computing systems or platform.

 

[Fallinangel]

All software is windows first but two niche media editing programs made by Apple.

That's not true. You're only salty that the Adobe apps have overall been working best on macOS, even since the PPC era.

The theoretical potential doesn’t matter, what matters are the tangible results, and x86 is the only name in town there.

x86 was the only name in town, and now there's a new powerful, yet energy efficient kid on the block. Are you a personification of the status quo or what?
You get that the notion of the "professional" is a huge generalization and that it's super pretentious to claim to know what a "professional" needs or wants, when after all you only really know what you need for your profession.
It's up to the individual to make an informed decision on what to buy. At least Apple knows the crowd they cater to and nobody forces anyone to buy a mac.

I’m sure you could create tremendously efficient professional vehicles and equipment if you could modify the whole world ad hoc to serve them. That’s not the way things work IRL.

Tell that to the person(s) who invented the wheel, while everybody else still dragged their stuff over the ground. And then roads needed building for the wheels to run more smoothly, and the roads changed the landscape and how people traveled and settlements were built, ...

By the amount of programs that already have transitioned to run universally in under a year, I'd say the transition went rather well for Apple and their customers.

Moreover, Apple plans to sell millions of computers per year. Therefore, I’m stating that what Apple tries to sell as a powerful professional tool for millions is a gimmick for millions, because for those millions, arm is a solution looking for a problem, best case scenario, or a problem itself.

Each and every company plans to sell their goods and as much of them as possible. That's capitalism!
The ARM architecture "is a solution looking for a problem"? Wait, but didn't Apple solve many problems with their move to Apple Silicon, like having less power hungry chips and thus longer mobile performance for their devices and a more compact chip and thus smaller and thinner gadgets?

By the way, Microsoft had ARM-based laptops even before Apple.

 

[powerslave65]

Au contraire.

I’m well aware that there are pro photographers, videographers, musicians and Apple coders.

However, I’m also well aware that those are by far an insignificant portion of the overall number of educated professionals.

Moreover, Apple plans to sell millions of computers per year. Therefore, I’m stating that what Apple tries to sell as a powerful professional tool for millions is a gimmick for millions, because for those millions, arm is a solution looking for a problem, best case scenario, or a problem itself.

“Apple's M1 Ultra Chip: Everything You Need to Know”​

In this case read the article and skip the comments. You won’t miss a thing.

 

[chucker23n1]

Mate, be real. All software is windows first

That's a very 1990s' view.

Most software is web-first these days.

 

[Sf844]

By the way, Microsoft had ARM-based laptops even before Apple.

Equally useless, so?

 

[dogstar]

That's a very 1990s' view.

Most software is web-first these days.

I really miss that ****** windows 95 and COM objects and ****! Good ole days! Remember when MS allowed us to run ActiveX objects from the web page!?

 

[Sf844]

That's a very 1990s' view.

Most software is web-first these days.

Every web based service works on x86. What‘s your point?

You can create a Venn diagram and you’ll notice all you’re saying doesn’t move the needle toward arm.

The problem isn’t macos, there are tools for that. The problem is selling arm based “pro” computers.

Everybody knew they were a gimmick when Microsoft started selling them residually. Now Apple fans believe they’re the ultimate pro tool because ________ .

 

[chucker23n1]

Remember when MS allowed us to run ActiveX objects from the web page!?

I mean… there was really not much of a meaningful difference between ActiveX and NPAPI, just that one was only used by Microsoft and the other, originally by Netscape, was also implemented by other browsers.

 

[chucker23n1]

Every web based service works on x86. What‘s your point?

Uhhh. So now you want to run a web server on a Mac? If not, why bring that up?

You can create a Venn diagram and you’ll notice all you’re saying doesn’t move the needle toward arm.

I'm not sure you know what a Venn diagram is.

The problem isn’t macos, there are tools for that. The problem is selling arm based “pro” laptops.

We get it: your pet use case runs best on x86. Enjoy!

(By the way: so does mine. A lot of my work involves running VS in Windows, and a lot of that is still x64-only. But I don't go around telling people over and over that their use cases are invalid.)