Is it even photography at that point? Maybe it should be called something else...
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.
M4 Max (16-Core CPU, 128GB RAM) vs. M3 Ultra (28-Core CPU, 96GB RAM)
- Thread starter seastar
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Short lived test use cases are totally useless. The testing needs to be done over a period of time, say a week or two, so that it represents the real world use users put the Mac through. Some of the SSD enclosures may sound great for a short time use, but they need to be tested over a much longer period of time being used as they would in a production scenario. If they hold up, great, but if they disconnect randomly, they really are useless and a waste of money... Cheers.
You can install macOS on an external SSD; the only thing you need to ensure is that you shouldn't remove macOS from the internal SSD, as it’s used for serial number validation in that case.
Instead of opting for 2TB of internal storage, you could get an 8TB external SSD, which might give you more flexibility and better value.
I have been using the Acasis TB4 SSD case (TBU405M1) since June 2023 without any issues, and it has been just as stable as the internal SSD.
At first, I installed macOS on this external SSD and booted directly from it. The only issue I encountered was that my professional audio interface’s kext kernel driver didn’t support loading from an external disk (which is quite rare case), but something to consider.
Despite this, I used macOS from the external SSD for 5–6 months without any other issues before switching back to the internal SSD. There were no cache-related problems, and macOS had no issues creating swap space on the internal SSD.
That said, with 64GB of RAM, swap usage is minimal, at least for my workload, so it was never a concern.
Mine has shipped!! (128GB 2TB). Pick up date has changed from March 25 to March 21!!
I just picked a base M4 Max at Microcenter for $1699. Yes I would have liked 64GB and a little more storage but it didn’t feel like it’s worth it for the extra $1000-$1200.
Hope I don’t end up regretting it.
Hope I don’t end up regretting it.
I am a photographer and use a variety of tools with my M2 Max base with 32GB RAM. Darktable, Pixelmator Pro, DXO PureRaw, and Luminar NEO. I have over 80,000 photos in my library and even the most intensive AI generative fills barely touch my Studio's capacity.
Of course people experiences with some of these 3rd party SSD enclosures can vary quite a bit.
I also have an ACASIS SSD blade enclosure having a Samsung 2TB blade inside it. It was fine for several months, but over past few months it will repeatedly get the 'infamous' macOS "Disk improperly ejected" alert notice. Sometimes when I see this the ACASIS shows as being mounted still and other times it's not mounted. Because of this I cannot rely on it anymore, especially if application is running over night and needing the ACASIS and not discovering it causing the application to either stall or terminate. This issue then means I've lost hours of compute time and a loss of productivity which can be costly if project time-line is extended due to recovering from such an incident.
Because of this I try very hard to seek out external SSD devices or enclosures that have a strong history of reliability via user feedback being evident. A U-tuber testing any of these 3rd party SSD enclosures in a one time test case saying it's 'marvelous' has to be taken with a pinch of salt IMO. Only long time use without seeing issues for the device will confirm the device as being 'marvelous'.
The Mac's internal SSD is the very best for being reliable, and if this aspect is important for a user's workload then unfortunately the high price that Apple charges for its internal SSDs is going to be the best choice. I've never ever seen the internal SSD in my Macs ever suddenly dismount unless the system experiences KPs.
For kicks I posed this question to DeepSeek....
Are OWC TB5 SSD devices more reliable than the ACASIS SSD enclosures?
DeepSeek's response....
"When comparing OWC Thunderbolt 5 (TB5) SSD devices and ACASIS SSD enclosures, reliability can depend on several factors, including build quality, performance, and intended use. Both brands have their strengths, but OWC (Other World Computing) is generally considered a more premium and established brand, especially for professional users. Here's a detailed comparison to help you decide:
OWC Thunderbolt 5 SSD Devices
Pros:
- Build Quality: OWC devices are known for their robust construction, often using high-quality materials like aluminum for better heat dissipation and durability.
- Performance: Thunderbolt 5 offers significantly faster speeds (up to 120 Gbps) compared to USB-based enclosures, making OWC TB5 devices ideal for high-performance tasks like 8K video editing, large file transfers, and professional workflows.
- Reliability: OWC has a strong reputation for reliability, particularly among creative professionals and Mac users. Their devices are often optimized for macOS and come with strong customer support.
- Warranty and Support: OWC typically offers better warranty coverage and customer support compared to ACASIS.
- Plug-and-Play: OWC devices are often pre-formatted and ready to use, reducing setup time.
Cons:
- Price: OWC devices are significantly more expensive than ACASIS enclosures, which might not be justified for casual users.
- Overkill for Basic Use: If you don't need Thunderbolt 5 speeds, the extra cost and performance may be unnecessary.
- Limited Compatibility: While Thunderbolt 5 is backward compatible, it requires a Thunderbolt-enabled system to achieve its full potential.
ACASIS SSD Enclosures
Pros:
- Affordability: ACASIS enclosures are generally more budget-friendly, making them a great option for casual users or those who don't need Thunderbolt speeds.
- Versatility: ACASIS offers a wide range of enclosures supporting USB 3.1 Gen 2, USB-C, and Thunderbolt (depending on the model), making them compatible with a variety of systems.
- Good Performance: For most users, ACASIS enclosures provide sufficient performance for everyday tasks, gaming, and moderate creative work.
- Portability: Many ACASIS models are compact and lightweight, ideal for on-the-go use.
Cons:
- Build Quality: While decent, ACASIS enclosures may not match the premium feel and durability of OWC devices.
- Heat Management: Some users report that ACASIS enclosures can get warm during extended use, especially with high-performance SSDs.
- Customer Support: OWC generally offers better customer service and warranty support compared to ACASIS.
Which is More Reliable?
- OWC TB5 SSD Devices: If you're a professional user or need top-tier performance, OWC is likely the more reliable choice. Their devices are built for demanding workflows and come with better support and warranty coverage.
- ACASIS SSD Enclosures: For casual users or those on a budget, ACASIS offers good reliability and performance at a lower price point. However, they may not be as durable or optimized for professional use.
When to Choose OWC TB5:
- You need Thunderbolt 5 speeds for professional workflows.
- You prioritize build quality and long-term reliability.
- You're using a Mac or high-end PC and want seamless compatibility.
- Budget is not a primary concern.
When to Choose ACASIS:
- You need an affordable enclosure for everyday use.
- You don't require Thunderbolt speeds (USB 3.1 Gen 2 or USB-C is sufficient).
- You're using a variety of systems and need broad compatibility.
- Portability and value are more important than premium features.
Final Verdict:
If reliability is your top priority and you're willing to invest in a premium product, OWC TB5 SSD devices are the better choice. However, if you're looking for a cost-effective solution that still offers good performance and reliability for most tasks, ACASIS SSD enclosures are a solid alternative."
Last edited:
I’m actually amazed by how efficiently Orbstack handles VMs and Docker images on MacOS. I’m using a lot less memory than I thought I would need.
Once you Max out the mini the difference becomes like $300-$400. I think the Studio is a better buy.
Yes. In fact I had ordered a maxed out M4 Mini when it was released, but the reports of system crashes (because of MacOS bugs at release time) helped me cancel the order and wait for the next update of the Mac Studio, which happened now. The Studio has better value, no doubt. And better thermal design. And the cherry top on the cake: USB-A ports 😄
Edit: we all know we are buying Studios just because of the USB-A ports 😂
I have two of the ACASIS ssd enclosures and can normally only mount one at a time. Sometimes I would not see the second drive and other times both would mount and then I would get a message that one was improperly ejected. At first I thought this was a compatibility issue. I had a hunch it could be a power issue, that the Mac Studio thunderbolt ports have a fixed amount of voltage or wattage to share. I had a CalDigit Element Hub 4 in a closet and pulled it out and was then able to mount the two ACASIS drives - one directly to the MS and the other to the Hub and they both work perfectly.
I have since added a Maiwo external ssd enclosure to the Element 4 Hub and everything works fine.
Yes, when one experiences the "Disk Improperly Ejected" alert (and this issue has been with macOS now for a number of years with Apple not responding with an explanation nor a fix for the issue), it can not only be inconvenient but can be disastrous for long running unattended production workloads. We all have to find solutions for this issue in our own way, such as you did. I've used many different SSD enclosures and the worst ones I've come across that require much TLC are the ACASIS and even the low cost Sabrent models. I have to say, the OWC SSD models have been the most reliable for me, their warranty is excellent, their service for technical issues is excellent, and they are primarily US-based, and very easy to get hold of on the telephone.
It's also of importance here that the Apple's internal SSD does not suffer from the insidious "Disk Improperly Ejected" issue, and for important revenue producing production work to not be affected by the occasional "Disk Improperly Ejected", it maybe that using and choosing larger internal SSD capacity is prudent.
Last edited:
The above issue is related to the number of higher bus-powered devices that an Apple Silicon Mac can have. Sometimes you have to unplug everything, even including non-bus-powered like type-C displays, and only plug the most power hungry ones first like the NVMe SSDs, to get macOS seeing the 3rd device onwards. It seems the Mac has a set amount of power from a "pool", and you need to unplug and have that pooling reset in order to get it to properly distribute power. The whole behaviour is hard to explain unless you have tested it yourself, there have been threads on macrumors before discussing this.
This is actually one thing I am really interested if the new Studio have solved / changed this behaviour.
This is actually one thing I am really interested if the new Studio have solved / changed this behaviour.
Here's a comparison from ArtIsRight on M4 Max vs M3 Ultra vs M4 Pro for those interested:
Especially when they have an affiliate link in their video description.
Excellent points. Plus, for that monthly subscription, you get all the enhancements/new features they add. Whereas if you wanted those new features on your own local machine, you'd likely have to add yet more RAM/storage/processor overhead.
I went with 64GB on my Mac Studio. Ample for local applications. Not enough to run a smart AI locally, but also not something I need to do.
Some of those benchmarks are definitely affected by half of the machines only having 512GB of storage with much lower read and write speeds (3000MB/s versus 6500MB/s). Especially the Lloyd Photoshop test.
Some of it straight up doesn't make sense with the M2 Max (32GB, 512-bit memory channel width, 400GB/s memory bandwidth) with less memory being faster than the M4 Max (48GB, 512-bit memory channel width, 546GB/s memory bandwidth) with more and even having the Mac mini M4 Pro being faster than both.
I purchased the base model of the Mac Studio and canceled my previously ordered M4 Max Mac Studio (128GB RAM and 1TB SSD).
As I mentioned in my previous reply, Apple releases new models frequently, so I decided to buy only what I truly need without any extras.
36GB of RAM will be sufficient for me because even if I allocate 16GB of RAM per VM and run two VMs simultaneously, I will still have 4GB of RAM left for the main system. Additionally, Docker doesn’t consume much RAM, so this setup should work well for my needs.
By the way, this is the most CPU and RAM intensive scenario for my use cases, which is why I shared it.
As I mentioned in my previous reply, Apple releases new models frequently, so I decided to buy only what I truly need without any extras.
36GB of RAM will be sufficient for me because even if I allocate 16GB of RAM per VM and run two VMs simultaneously, I will still have 4GB of RAM left for the main system. Additionally, Docker doesn’t consume much RAM, so this setup should work well for my needs.
By the way, this is the most CPU and RAM intensive scenario for my use cases, which is why I shared it.
Last edited:
Art has mentioned before that certain apps sometime give surprising results. That is seen in a couple of instances in this video, and in the prior one. He reruns tests to make sure it is repeatable.
Why these flukes happen I don't know. If I were to guess, it has something to do with the apps requesting memory that somehow sends MacOS into doing a lot of swapping.
Previous (marginally credible) rumors have it that the M5 generation will remain on TSMC's 3nm, though perhaps at an improved process that allows TSMC to make the sitting the devices a tiny bit closer. If so, then I don't expect a big jump from M4 to M5 as far as throughput. Notice also that the M3 Max and M4 Max have the same core counts. If the M5 Max remains at 3nm I doubt the core count will go up, or if it does then not by much.
When Apple transitions to TSMC's 2nm process (in 2026?) maybe there will be a big jump then.
Even if each generation brings only a small improvement, over time these small jumps add up to a significant leap.
For example, someone who buys an M3 Ultra today might end up with an outdated system much sooner than expected especially with the release of the M5 and possibly even the M6 not long after.