Apple silicon is now more powerful. 20% improvement is good. Not enough maybe to upgrade from M1 Ultra.
Yes and that’s why gaming on the Mac will never be more than an afterthought. AAA will only exists marginally on Mac where apple paid for a port (probably like No man sky), at best. Because gamers seek the platform that will give you the best performance per $, not per watt! And that only exists in the PC world where you can customise your machine however you like to suit your performance needs.The $700 Intel i9 is faster in single score but slightly slower in multi score. And once you add a RTX 4090 to it, it will beat the M2 Ultra at a fraction of the cost.
According to rumors , M3 Vision Pro Max Ultra Extra Super Duper gives 2 hours 37 minutes a 50% increase over the M2Go imagine M3.
BTW, no reasons why the Vision Pro must have a M2. It will come out in 2024 with M3, more power, better battery life.
hardcore gamers - maybe.Yes and that’s why gaming on the Mac will never be more than an afterthought. AAA will only exists marginally on Mac where apple paid for a port (probably like No man sky), at best. Because gamers seek the platform that will give you the best performance per $, not per watt! And that only exists in the PC world where you can customise your machine however you like to suit your performance needs.
But don’t worry, we still have Apple Arcade!
thats not 50%According to rumors , M3 Vision Pro Max Ultra Extra Super Duper gives 2 hours 37 minutes a 50% increase over the M2
Intel chips have come a far way since the old intel Mac Pro and the 13900k is faster than the m2 ultra . So is ryzen 7950x. Also, the x86 workstation class chips like sapphire rapids and Genoa blow the m2 ultra away in terms of multithreading. Of course apple leads in terms of performance per watt.
I think the m2 ultra is fine in the Mac Studio but the Mac Pro, with all the extra room, is underpowered. And it’s still using pcie4 with pcie switches and lane sharing, whereas sapphire rapids and Genoa use pcie 5 and have a ton of lanes available. Much more flexible and can access more RAM.
Faster x86 chips are coming: arrow lake, zen 5, granite rapids Xeons.
Unless apple creates a workstation class chip I think apple will lead in notebook perf per watt, but when it comes to workstation and desktop, x86 will pull ahead.
But regardless of all that, competition is great for consumers. And I am glad to see apple start to embrace gaming on the Macintosh. Maybe apple has some wild ambitions in terms of GPU performance and is now laying the groundwork to introduce high performance gaming hardware…
I can't believe I'm saying that: But why don't you buy a Studio Display for your Mac Studio with M2 Ultra? This way you can at least be sure, the fastest chip Apple ever made is properly cooled. Yes, we need a bigger more powerful iMac, but within reasonable expectations.Bring back the 27” iMac with an M2 ultra and wow would we have a powerhouse
Each time geek bench is updated it scores you against a new baseline score so you should expect results to go down over time .I'd like primate labs to explain what happened between Geekbench 5 and 6. The Ultra used to score almost double of the M2 Max, then with Geekbench 6 it was much lower. Is this internal Geekbench programming not being as good, are there some new limitations in GB 6 that weren't there in GB5?
I read their blurb, but nothing stood out to me to explain this
Actually some people do exactly that.The point is: nobody is virtualizing MacOS on PCs thus talking about superiority of MacOS is pure rubbish. No PC user is missing MacOS and market share of Windows dwarfs that of MacOS.
I push my intel workstation hard and it does not throttle on air cooling.No, it isn't. Your inefficient Intel chip throttles without water cooling. So you're the one without a choice. The M2 Ultra doesn't need water cooling and doesn't throttle either.
You want Apple to start mass manufacturing the device this fall with a chip that won't exist yet? Cool.Go imagine M3.
BTW, no reasons why the Vision Pro must have a M2. It will come out in 2024 with M3, more power, better battery life.
But Intel is still hot garbage compared to this no matter what personal anecdotes you provideI push my intel workstation hard and it does not throttle on air cooling.
I imagine Apple will make dedicated GPU cards for the Mac Pro at some point. Until then, the only fair comparison is to other integrated graphics chipsThe M series chips are impressive, and the Ultra's are overkill for most applications. Where the Ultra's have disappointed was in GPU performance vs a dedicated graphics card. But if Apple's claims hold true, the improved GPU performance on the M2 Ultra should take it into Nvidia territory and finally make it a viable option for 3D graphics work and rendering. Can't wait to see hands-on videos of it with Blender.
Agreed.They were. But this was not PC users desperate for MacOS. These were MacOS users desperate for PC hardware.
A tricked out i7 iMac would cost not much more than a Mac mini does today, and came with a 5K screen. I doubt Apple is interested in that a low margin approach anymore.I can't believe I'm saying that: But why don't you buy a Studio Display for your Mac Studio with M2 Ultra? This way you can at least be sure, the fastest chip Apple ever made is properly cooled. Yes, we need a bigger more powerful iMac, but within reasonable expectations.
The expansion slots are the reason, some pros need them. It's far more efficient than TBI still don’t get why Apple did not differentiate the Mac Pro anymore from the Mac Studio. Using the identical CPU there isn’t much reason to spend the much more money. Sure you get PCIe expansion, but you can get that in a TB4 Sonnet expansion box at a quarter the cost. You can’t use the PCIe for graphics cards, and you are still limited on the RAM…
Ahhhh well, no. it's not. It's faster, finishes my workflow faster, and its thousands cheaper. When Appple makes a system that's faster, then we will talk. Right now, it's not there.But Intel is still hot garbage compared to this no matter what personal anecdotes you provide
Agreed, the slots are welcome. I just wish they would give us nvme ssd expansion for storage, I noticed 2 Sata connections, and that's cool for big storage but for video/photo editing systems, fast SSD add ons would be a very welcome addition.The expansion slots are the reason, some pros need them. It's far more efficient than TB
I don't follow, which 5K iMac cost not much more than $599 ?A tricked out i7 iMac would cost not much more than a mac mini and came with a 5K screen. I doubt Apple is interested in that margin destroying approach anymore.
There are SSD slots, but proprietary SSDs needed.Agreed, the slots are welcome. I just wish they would give us nvme ssd expansion for storage, I noticed 2 Sata connections, and that's cool for big storage but for video/photo editing systems, fast SSD add ons would be a very welcome addition.
Ahhh, did not see those when on the apple website. I am sure the ssd will be 5 to 6 x the price of a regular NVME.There are SSD slots, but proprietary SSDs needed.
At what power consumption?Agreed.
I will just leave this here. From a gigantic apple fan. He didn't even use the most powerful PC components either.
You want Apple to start mass manufacturing the device this fall with a chip that won't exist yet? Cool.