Adobe really needs to give up on that cross platform **** code they have in so many of their apps.
If they cared.
But I suspect they look at their subscriber reveneue and just shrug.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
M1 Ultra CPU is 60% Faster Than 28-core Mac Pro, GPU is 80% Faster Than Highest-End Radeon Pro W6900X Graphics Card
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Adobe really needs to give up on that cross platform **** code they have in so many of their apps.
If they cared.
But I suspect they look at their subscriber reveneue and just shrug.
Damn, I'm upgrading to M1 max and get it in a couple of weeks. I was hoping it got better. Hopefully at least the new machine doesn't get as hot, because my current one is insane, it's so hot you can barely touch it.
We already have the data for M1 Max. You can just double those and you have the baseline.
So you could be skeptical all you want but the verdict is already out. Just look for it
So you could be skeptical all you want but the verdict is already out. Just look for it
Honest question what part of the M1 max wasn’t powerful enough for anyone it is a beast, it’s getting to the point like the iPad Pro the power is to much for what you can do
Maybe those people who post gigapixel “full color” pictures of the Moon using hundreds of layers with the saturation maxxed to show the Moon’s blue oceans and sandy beaches?
Nope, not even close. 24,000. Still amazing, but not light years ahead of the Mac Pro.
The m1 max is about equal to a desktop nvidia 3060ti (based on Apple’s own labeled slide released today) which is fine but not exactly amazing. It’s great for 4K and 8k video editing due to the UMA and multiple dedicated video blocks. The CPU is quite fast as well, Intel Alder Lake surpasses it but not by much.
Ultra is a LOT faster at a high price ($5,000 min buy in for the full 64 GPU cores). Apple says it’s roughly the speed of an nvidia 3090 which of course is a monster.
The m1 max was already overkill for video unless you do a lot of 3D graphics.
Keep in mind this is a locked down machine with no slots. When nvidia’s 4000 series come out, which will be 2x as fast as the 3000 series, eventually you can upgrade. Not so with the studio. It’s the old trashcan Mac Pro all over again.
I think $5000 is very high for a PC you can buy at similar speed for $2,000 to 2500 less. I have a m1 max laptop but it’s different. It’s a (current) Mac Pro that I can cart around and use on battery for hours. There’s really no comparable Pc laptop and Macs are better for creativity.
But if you edit with Resolve or Adobe, or render 3d graphics … or of course gaming, the Mac Studio is a huge ripoff. The Pc will be as fast at half to 2/3 the price.
Ultra is a LOT faster at a high price ($5,000 min buy in for the full 64 GPU cores). Apple says it’s roughly the speed of an nvidia 3090 which of course is a monster.
The m1 max was already overkill for video unless you do a lot of 3D graphics.
Keep in mind this is a locked down machine with no slots. When nvidia’s 4000 series come out, which will be 2x as fast as the 3000 series, eventually you can upgrade. Not so with the studio. It’s the old trashcan Mac Pro all over again.
I think $5000 is very high for a PC you can buy at similar speed for $2,000 to 2500 less. I have a m1 max laptop but it’s different. It’s a (current) Mac Pro that I can cart around and use on battery for hours. There’s really no comparable Pc laptop and Macs are better for creativity.
But if you edit with Resolve or Adobe, or render 3d graphics … or of course gaming, the Mac Studio is a huge ripoff. The Pc will be as fast at half to 2/3 the price.
I can't even imagine how much faster this beast is compared to my still running great 2013 iMac.
Mac13,2 - Geekbench
Benchmark results for a Mac13,2 with an Apple M1 Ultra processor.
browser.geekbench.com
As an M1 Max owner, you are right it IS a beast but there are certain workflows where having extra power would be welcome. People like myself who do a lot of 3D work will always take as much power as we can get. However, we are starting to get towards the point where I wonder if the extra performance is really worth the extra cost…
Judging by the price, name and the performance, the Mac Studio (particularly the one with the M1 Ultra) is no doubt built for a very specific customer. Your average tech head or tech YouTuber won’t use anywhere near the full capabilities of it.
Why even buy stuff anymore... it'll just be outdated tomorrow.
I don't want or need one (love my M1 Mini), but I cannot wait to read and watch the real world reviews on these.
Will be like when the M1 Mini was first launced I imagine. Apple are killing it..
Will be like when the M1 Mini was first launced I imagine. Apple are killing it..
The new apple display is just going to get an M1 in it next year.
I'm waiting!!
/snark
But the biggest difference is now you get that much more performance for $3,999 vs. $12,999 (and double the memory and quadruple the storage)
I love the size and performance - Just ordered one & screen.
BUT WHY IS IT SO UGLY????
2 x stacked mac minis it is indeed, but where as the mini was slim, this is just a fat bastard - and just as ugly. And no handle to boot. No style The trashcan was far better looking.
Something with this much power should be a statement piece on the desktop.
And why don't Apple make a decent sized screen - 43" 4k, but apple quality please.
BUT WHY IS IT SO UGLY????
2 x stacked mac minis it is indeed, but where as the mini was slim, this is just a fat bastard - and just as ugly. And no handle to boot. No style The trashcan was far better looking.
Something with this much power should be a statement piece on the desktop.
And why don't Apple make a decent sized screen - 43" 4k, but apple quality please.
That's what I gathered. Just wanted to make sure. At this point in Tech it doesn't matter as much. The days of 4MB or 8MB it was a big deal. But it's easier to decide you need 32GB or 64GB or more going into it.
Historically, going back 25+ years I have always found Apple to be pretty damn honest in their specs.
I get that, and you should be skeptical with vendor claims. But it’s really just two M1 Maxs stuck together with an interconnect. That’s why the single-core results we’re seeing are identical to those of an M1, and why the multi-core results are almost double those of an M1 Max, except a few percent less due to overhead.
Like, if Apple's claim we’re these are more than twice as fast as the Max, that’d be something to be skeptical about. But that wasn’t the claim.
Not trying to be a smart-ass, genuine question, how will this affect gaming on a Mac?
Are you planning on carting your desktop around to use with your Augmented Reality headset? Or just trolling?
What PC is remotely as fast as the Ultra Studio for anywhere near the price?
PCs build around the fastest Alder Lake (i9-12900K) are 30% slower and still cost well over $3,000 with a GPU equivalent to the Ultra Studio.
Buy a trachcan from IKEA and put your Mac Studio inside. Problem solved.