Mac Studio M1 Max - Upgrading from iMac 2010

[PsychoCenobite]

I finally feel in a position to upgrade my old iMac (27-inch, Mid 2010), which has done me well and I have only had to upgraded the memory (16GB) and hard drive (3TB SATA).

Due to my budget I'm looking at the Mac Studio M1 Max, rather than the M1 Ultra.

I have watched a few YouTube reviews and I'm glad I did because I'd made the assumption that I'd be able to upgrade the memory and storage at a later stage but I now know that isn't possible.

Because of this I want to make sure I make the best choice when selecting what upgrades, if any, I choose when buying from Apple.

Initially I was just going to upgrade the processor to the 32-core version but that was before I found out I couldn't upgrade the memory and storage at a later stage. So, would I be better upgrading the processor (32-core), the memory (64GB), the storage (1TB) or a combination?

With this new Mac I will be changing the way I usually store my files - usually everything is saved on the internal storage and I use an external drive as a time machine backup. But I'm going to use the internal storage just for the OS/programmes and an external drive for my files, plus another external drive as a time machine backup... unless this isn't recommended?

Because of this I'm not sure if I really need to upgrade the storage from 512GB to 1TB - the programmes I mainly using are:

Adobe Photoshop
Adobe InDesign
Adobe Illustrator
Adobe Acrobat
Adobe After Effects (occasionally)
Mac Mail
Google Chrome
Word and Excel
iMovie
Preview
Skype

Will the 512GB SSD be plenty for these plus the OS?

If so, then that just leaves me with deciding between the processor and the memory, which I'm struggling to decide between or if either.

Any advice would be appreciated.

Many thanks.

 

[F-Train]

A couple of questions... Right now, you're using 16GB of RAM. Are you finding that that is inadequate for what you're doing or plan to do in the future? What kind of storage do you plan to use for working data: spinning hard drives or USB 3.2 Gen 2 SSDs such as Samsung's T7?

 

[atonaldenim]

If you're likely to keep this computer for 12 years like your iMac, I'd say internal storage is the number one thing you should spend money on. 512GB SSD fills up really fast over time, especially when working with media files. I'd tell any friend to get at least 1TB and consider 2TB or more if you can.

If you've been doing fine with 16GB of RAM, then 32GB of RAM would probably keep you happy for a good while. 64GB of RAM never hurt anyone, if you're working with really big image files in your Adobe apps or you think you might in the future.

The upgrade from 24 to 32 GPU cores is probably the more optional one. More GPU cores would slightly accelerate renders in After Effects, heavy duty Photoshop filters, special effects in iMovie, things like that. Probably would not make a noticeable difference otherwise in day to day use. The M1 Max GPU will already feel like an incredible upgrade from your 2010 GPU whether 24 or 32 cores. (Note that it's not 32 CPU cores, all the Max chips have 10 CPU cores, while all the Ultras have 20 CPU cores.)

Enjoy!

 

[dogface1956]

I finally feel in a position to upgrade my old iMac (27-inch, Mid 2010), which has done me well and I have only had to upgraded the memory (16GB) and hard drive (3TB SATA).

Due to my budget I'm looking at the Mac Studio M1 Max, rather than the M1 Ultra.

I have watched a few YouTube reviews and I'm glad I did because I'd made the assumption that I'd be able to upgrade the memory and storage at a later stage but I now know that isn't possible.

Because of this I want to make sure I make the best choice when selecting what upgrades, if any, I choose when buying from Apple.

Initially I was just going to upgrade the processor to the 32-core version but that was before I found out I couldn't upgrade the memory and storage at a later stage. So, would I be better upgrading the processor (32-core), the memory (64GB), the storage (1TB) or a combination?

With this new Mac I will be changing the way I usually store my files - usually everything is saved on the internal storage and I use an external drive as a time machine backup. But I'm going to use the internal storage just for the OS/programmes and an external drive for my files, plus another external drive as a time machine backup... unless this isn't recommended?

Because of this I'm not sure if I really need to upgrade the storage from 512GB to 1TB - the programmes I mainly using are:

Adobe Photoshop
Adobe InDesign
Adobe Illustrator
Adobe Acrobat
Adobe After Effects (occasionally)
Mac Mail
Google Chrome
Word and Excel
iMovie
Preview
Skype

Will the 512GB SSD be plenty for these plus the OS?

If so, then that just leaves me with deciding between the processor and the memory, which I'm struggling to decide between or if either.

Any advice would be appreciated.

Many thanks.

I'm a big proponent of buying as much RAM and Storage as you can afford. Storage can be upgraded using external SSD's or HD's, but I would try to go with 1TB if you can swing it as someone mentioned 512GB will fill up fast. RAM can't be upgraded externally so if you can handle the price to 64GB I promise you that you will not be sorry. If you are hoping to get another 12 years out of a machine upgrade to at least as much RAM as you can afford.

 

[Lobwedgephil]

Honestly, you are using a 12 year old computer, the base model will be more than enough. I like more than 512GB, but if you have a plan to deal with that, this computer will fly for years compared to what you are used to.

 

[cinder]

You are likely fine with the base model, but I do a lot of creative work too, mostly in Figma these days, and I went with 64GB/2TB because I like to treat my machine like hell and have 10 apps running all the time with 50 Chrome tabs.

I think you will be OK with the base model, unless you want to run all (or many) of those apps simultaneously, in which case you should strongly consider 64GB of memory.

16GB on my current M1 iMac is NOT enough.

 

[PsychoCenobite]

Thanks for the replies.

I think where my current Mac is so old now I’d find it a bit hard to tell if it is inadequate due to the 16GB RAM.

Overall the computer takes a long time to get going and settle down - I usually turn it on and give myself 20mins before I try to start doing any work.

Some of the Adobe programmes struggle and I can’t use some of the more complex features (e.g. Photoshop 3D). But generally I can more than get by when using them.

Though, I am aware that I can no longer update the OS or the Adobe programmes due to how old my Mac is.

Currently I use a WD My Passport (USB 3) as my external time machine backup and I was thinking of using the same for working data. But if a SSD (USB 3) is recommended then I’d consider that - that might be better for working data due to speed?

So I might get the Samsung T7 (USB 3) if that is a reliable and secure one to choose.

I've just done a quick check to get an idea of the current size of the following:

Documents: 700GB
Movies: 500GB
Pictures: 45GB
Music: 40GB
Applications: 15GB

Total: 1.3TB (3TB HD with 1.2TB available - 500GB difference due to other system and OS files)

I'm sure I could archive most, if not all, of the 500GB movie files - mainly old iMovie projects that I haven't touched in years. And I could probably archive some of the documents - the ones relating to the iMovie projects are about 350GB. That clears 850GB with just those two.

Based on your replies I think I'll concentrate on the memory and storage, rather than the processor.

If I upgraded the storage to 2TB SSD and also get an external 1TB SSD I could split some of my files over the two:

Internal: Majority of Files - 950GB (2TB SSD with just over 1TB available)
External: Archived Movies / iMovie Documents - 850GB

My original budget was £3K, including a monitor (Dell UltraSharp 4K 27"), so I think I might have to stick with 32GB memory, which will still put me over budget by about £300 vs £700 over budget if I upgraded to 64GB memory.

Thanks again!

 

[PsychoCenobite]

Something I have just thought of and would reduce my initial spending - is it possible for me to use the Mac Studio with my current iMac 27" screen?

That would save me having to buy a new screen straight away and I could upgrade that at a later date.

My current iMac screen is fine and I have no real issues with that.

 

[azentropy]

Looking at your use case, if I was you I'd just go with the base Mac Studio in terms of RAM and CPU/GPU. It is an gigantic improvement over what you are coming from. If you need more storage, which you may, can just get an inexpensive external 2TB SSD drive for ~ $200 now that will blow away your current internal 3TB drive.

No, you can't use the 2010 27" iMac as a display for the Mac Studio. While it supports Target display mode, Macs after 2019 no longer support driving it. See. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204592

 

[PsychoCenobite]

Thank you for your reply.

I think I'm swaying towards the base Mac Studio M1 Max but with an upgrade to the storage (1TB), I'll get an external 2TB SSD (Samsung T7... unless another option is recommended) for working data and/or archive data, and an external 4TB HDD (WD My Passport) to use for time machine backups of everything.

In the future I might get another 1TB SSD that is just used to archive the 850GB of movie files and will free up some more space on the 2TB SSD for working data. The same goes for the 4TB HDD used for backups - I might upgrade that to a 4TB SSD in the future once prices come down.

As well as the Dell UltraSharp 4K 27" monitor.

This should come to about £3,200 - about £200 over my original budget.

 

[PsychoCenobite]

I take it an SSD is better for long term archive storage, i.e. it will be unused for long term (put away in a cupboard), rather than being connected to the Mac on a daily basis.

 

[Ned911]

I just moved from a mid-2010 Mini to the base Studio with a 1TB drive. Super easy migration and well worth it. My Mini has 16GB of ram and a 1TB drive. The speed of the Studio is insane versus the old Mini.

 

[azentropy]

Probably the 1TB would be better, however I guess it also depends on when you need it. The base model is available right now (at least in my area). If you custom order with 1TB you are looking at mid-June according to the Apple Store.

The Samsung T series are excellent. I don't have a T7, but have a few T5s. As for long term storage I'd say an SSD is probably better since it is smaller, doesn't having moving parts and can't be demagnetized as easily. Although debatable if it is really worth the cost.

Not sure which Dell you are looking at, but have a Dell 4K Ultrasharp U2720Q that I really like for my MacBook Air and have always had good luck with their displays. While not at quite the level as the iMac 5K display (or now the Apple Studio Display) it is really good at about 1/3 the price of the ASD. They just came out with an upgraded version - the U2723QE.

 

[F-Train]

The Samsung T series are excellent. I don't have a T7, but have a few T5s.

The T7 and the T5 are both available from retailers. The T7 comes in two versions, standard and "Touch". The latter is only of interest if you are concerned about security of the data on the drive. The T7 is newer and faster than the T5. The T5 does have some niche markets. For example, owners of Blackmagic Cinema Cameras can record to a T5 but not a T7. Apart from cases like that, standard T7 and T5 prices are so close (at least in the U.S. and Canada) that the T7 makes more sense for most people.

 

[atonaldenim]

The T7 is fine, I usually recommend the Sandisk Extreme V2 SSD when on sale, it’s a little faster than the T7. (I have both.) The WD My Passport SSD (latest version) is also a good option, the case gets hotter to the touch than the Sandisk but I think the extra heat dissipation actually allows it to run faster, at least mine does. Otherwise the WD and Sandisk are largely identical (same company).

Technically speaking I think an HDD is better for archiving, if it truly will sit in a cupboard. I believe SSDs can actually start to lose data if left unconnected for a long time (years)? If used at least once per year an SSD should be fine.

Also a modern 3.5” desktop HDD will copy data about twice as fast as a 2.5” portable bus-powered HDD (like your My Passport), might be something to keep in mind.

 

[PsychoCenobite]

Thanks again for the replies.

I was referring to the Dell Ultrasharp U2720Q 4K 27", so thank you for pointing out that there is an upgraded version - U2723QE. I'll aim to get that one!

It looks like the Dell Ultrasharp some with the following cables:

DisplayPort 1.8 M cable (DisplayPort to DisplayPort)
USB-C Gen2 1.0 M cable (A to C)
Type-C 1.0 M cable (C-C cable)

But I take it I will need use an HDMI cable to connect to the Mac Studio?

And thanks for pointing out the waiting time if you get an upgraded version - it looks like early June for me.

What is the best way to connect the external storage (Samsung T7 and WD My Passport), USB-C, USB-A or Thunderbolt?

Many thanks.

 

[F-Train]

What is the best way to connect the external storage (Samsung T7 and WD My Passport), USB-C, USB-A or Thunderbolt?

I haven't received my Mac Studio yet and I use the T7, which is USB 3.2 Gen 2, but not the WD. Using a USB-A port will hobble a T7. That leaves the two USB-C ports on the front of the Max and the four Thunderbolt 4 ports on the rear.

You might find it useful to have a look at this 9to5 Mac article, published three days ago: https://9to5mac.com/2022/04/18/m1-mac-thunderbolt-4-ports-speed-tests/

This is the article that the 9to5 piece is based on: https://eclecticlight.co/2022/04/18/m1-thunderbolt-ports-dont-fully-support-usb-3-1-gen-2/

It effectively says that a T7 drive will perform as expected when connected to a Mac Studio Thunderbolt port:

• "USB 3.2 storage connected direct to a Thunderbolt port on an M1 Mac operated at 10 Gb/s, with read and write rates of about 910 and 970 MB/s.
• "10 Gb/s SuperSpeed+ in USB 3.2 devices does appear to be supported by the Thunderbolt ports of M1 Macs".

 

[lcubed]

I haven't received my Mac Studio yet and I use the T7, which is USB 3.2 Gen 2, but not the WD. Using a USB-A port will hobble a T7. That leaves the two USB-C ports on the front of the Max and the four Thunderbolt 4 ports on the rear.

It effectively says that a T7 drive will perform as expected when connected to a Mac Studio Thunderbolt port:

• "USB 3.2 storage connected direct to a Thunderbolt port on an M1 Mac operated at 10 Gb/s, with read and write rates of about 910 and 970 MB/s.
• "10 Gb/s SuperSpeed+ in USB 3.2 devices does appear to be supported by the Thunderbolt ports of M1 Macs".

my 512 GB T7 has ~820/800 MB/s read/write on my studio when attached to the thunderbolt ports via a TB3 cable and virtually identical numbers when using the USB-C cable included with the T7.
using Amorphous Disk Mark 4.0

 

[azentropy]

Thanks again for the replies.

I was referring to the Dell Ultrasharp U2720Q 4K 27", so thank you for pointing out that there is an upgraded version - U2723QE. I'll aim to get that one!

It looks like the Dell Ultrasharp some with the following cables:

DisplayPort 1.8 M cable (DisplayPort to DisplayPort)
USB-C Gen2 1.0 M cable (A to C)
Type-C 1.0 M cable (C-C cable)

But I take it I will need use an HDMI cable to connect to the Mac Studio?

Probably best to just use the Type-C 1.0 M cable (C-C cable), then you can also use the ports on the Dell too with just the one cable.

 

[PsychoCenobite]

Probably best to just use the Type-C 1.0 M cable (C-C cable), then you can also use the ports on the Dell too with just the one cable.

Thanks for all the great advice!

I take it the Type-C cable plugs into the USB-C port on the front of the Mac Studio?

That would be handy to use some of the extra ports on the Dell monitor, as I was going to ask about options for extra ports.

 

[azentropy]

Thanks for all the great advice!

I take it the Type-C cable plugs into the USB-C port on the front of the Mac Studio?

That would be handy to use some of the extra ports on the Dell monitor, as I was going to ask about options for extra ports.

It could, but you'll have 4 USB-C ports on the back which also happen to be thunderbolt so that would be cleaner.

 

[PsychoCenobite]

It could, but you'll have 4 USB-C ports on the back which also happen to be thunderbolt so that would be cleaner.

Thanks again! I didn't know that the Thunderbolt ports on the back supported USB-C.