MS 14,14 MAC STUDIO M2 ULTRA 60 CORE OR 76 CORE

[dawnrazor]

I have an M2 Ultra mac studio in the cart. I’m going to be pushing this machine hard so I’m maxing out the options…

But I’m dithering on whether or not to get the 76 core GPU or 60 core. It’s a lot of money for only a 26% increase in the number of cores…

I think I’ll just suck it up, as it’s bound to be one of those things I regret down the road…

Max it out… amiright!!!

 

[Beaverman3001]

Probably not worth the cost, but I went with 76 cores. Mostly a FOMO thing at this point if I'm going to be stuck with this machine for the next 3 years. Over the lifetime of the machine the 1k difference isn't that much, but up front it is quite a bit for what seems like a seemingly small hard to quantify difference. I'll probably never notice the difference and will never be able to justify why I did it, but I'll also never be in a position 6-12 months from now where I am annoyed at something being slow and regretting not having the highest performance possible. Is that worth the cost difference?

 

[dawnrazor]

Yeah same as you, Whilst I wont take advantage of 76 GPU cores everyday, if it means that my renders will be 26% faster then thats a win… this of course means that Apple have fixed the scaling…

*Edited to reflect the facts

 

[thunng8]

Yeah I was a little disappointed the GPU difference wasn’t larger. The M1 Ultra was 48 or 64 core for the same $1000 and extra 26 cores, but then that increase didn’t scale as expected… But the M2 Ultra is only an increase of 16 cores…

Yeah same as you, Whilst I wont take advantage of 76 GPU cores everyday, if it means that my renders will be 26% faster then thats a win… this of course means that Apple have fixed the scaling… Huh, maybe that’s what the core difference is not the same! I wonder if I’m onto something there…

Slight maths error there. 64-48=16.

so both are an extra 16 core. Percentage wise, yes going from 48 to 64 is 33% so more than going from 60 to 76

 

[jmho]

Paying the equivalent price of an entire high-end PC GPU just to go from a mid-tier GPU to a slightly faster mid-tier GPU is a tough sell.

Also I went with the 60 core because that will arrive next Tuesday, while the 76 core would take a month. So if I keep this machine for 2 years then getting it a month earlier means that sure 95% of my work won't be 26% faster, but 5% of my work will be 200% faster, which means that in total *holds up fingers and tries to count* its.... more.... gooderer.

 

[omenatarhuri]

Went with the 60 core, at face value seemed like it would not make a difference equal to the hefty premium.

Will just have to be sure not to read up on any reviews of the 76 core version.

 

[lcubed]

depends on whether your required software takes advantage of the extra cores.

i'm thinking of two pieces of photo software i'm using.
one uses the ANE and the other uses the extra GPU cores

both are screamers on the M1 Ultra

i don't think the 76 core version gets extra ANEs as well.

 

[Giant_enemy_crab]

I went with the 60 core, I don't need that extra performance for another $1K. At $500, I might've considered it.

 

[dawnrazor]

Pulled the trigger on the 76core. Simply I charge my services out by the hour but there are aspects of the workflow like ingesting, conforming and outputting that I have to wear as part of the job... so the faster I can get those done the better and when it comes time to render out files, having 16 more cores will make those outputs faster... then that's time I have to hang around at the end of a job...

 

[cpnotebook80]

Any reviews of mac studio ultra m2 out yet? I do not see them on you tube this morning.

 

[DaveOZ]

Out now.

 

[DaveOZ]

 

[anticipate]

Pulled the trigger on the 76core. Simply I charge my services out by the hour but there are aspects of the workflow like ingesting, conforming and outputting that I have to wear as part of the job... so the faster I can get those done the better and when it comes time to render out files, having 16 more cores will make those outputs faster... then that's time I have to hang around at the end of a job...

It is about 10% faster than the 60 core. But both are (for huge single render tasks) a LOT faster than the M1 Ultra GPUs due to far better scaling with a new memory controller. So in practical use many exports are anywhere from 35%-200% faster (for 3D intensive timelines). I had an M1 Ultra and the GPU gains are huge for M2 Ultra due to the hardware fixes.

M1 Ultra was fast with many simultaneous loads, but not with single large loads; the 2nd chip was barely used. With M2 Ultra the chips now work together. The net result is the "base" M2 Ultra 60 core is sometimes 2X faster than the old 60 core M1 Ultra.

 

[wendylou]

To date, I have not seen actual benchmarks between the 60-core vs 76-core GPU on Mac Studio M2 ULTRA. In addition, I am hoping for real-world app use comparisons between these two GPU options to see if it warrants the extra $1000! My primary interest regarding more graphics performance is how far can I push the GPU in X-Plane 12 before the load starts to compromise frame rates? The iPhonedo YT video review, above, shows the power of Metal in games on the 76-core GPU, 128 GB memory M2 Ultra Mac Studio, so I'm hoping for a similar comparison to the 60-core. If the 60-core is good enough, the money saved will offset the cost of dual monitors.

 

[Dopemaster]

I’m also interested in a comparison between the 60 and 76 core versions, specifically in Davinci Resolve performance.

Any kindly people out there who have already received their M2 Ultras?

 

[Dopemaster]

This video does a few tests between the two variations:

 

[wendylou]

This video does a few tests between the two variations:

Thanks! Results: 3DMark Wild Life Extreme Unlimited test (higher is better): 76-core GPU = 276.4 FPS vs 60-core GPU = 221.9 FPS. So that is about 25% more graphics performance. However, when they attempted to stress the graphics even more using the real-world app Lightroom Classic that maxes out both GPU and CPU when exporting 500 42 megapixel images, the results were identical: both exported all in 3:14.

I’m inclined to go with the 60-core and save the $1000.

 

[splifingate]

My primary interest regarding more graphics performance is how far can I push the GPU in X-Plane 12 before the load starts to compromise frame rates

*urhm*

You're elevated kilometers beyond the rest of us mere mortals

I've spent the past hour updating my Windows 10 machine (dual X5675 Dell) just to dive-in to a little bit of Black Mesa . . . I have always held a great deal of patience, but I am sorely tested, today

In real-life, I'm on the verge of pulling the trigger on a beefy M2 Max (for web/illustration/art/coding/development). The idea of gaming never entered-into-it.

So, you're proposing using the M2 Ultra to run X-Plane?

 

[wendylou]

*urhm*

You're elevated kilometers beyond the rest of us mere mortals

I've spent the past hour updating my Windows 10 machine (dual X5675 Dell) just to dive-in to a little bit of Black Mesa . . . I have always held a great deal of patience, but I am sorely tested, today

In real-life, I'm on the verge of pulling the trigger on a beefy M2 Max (for web/illustration/art/coding/development). The idea of gaming never entered-into-it.

So, you're proposing using the M2 Ultra to run X-Plane?

Absolutely! X-plane 12 uses Metal, and the M2 Ultra has really great Geekbench Metal scores. There are some using the M1 for X-plane who reported good performance, but now seeking faster FPS by upgrading to M2. A recent Max Tech review indicates the 76-core has 25% increase in FPS compared to the 60-core in 3DMark test, but the 60 vs 76-core performance was identical when they exported 500 42MB RAW files from Lightroom Classic that used both GPU and CPU to the max. So I’m inclined to go 60-core GPU and save $1000. Further GPU tests are coming, but that’s what we know so far.

 

[splifingate]

Absolutely! X-plane 12 uses Metal, and the M2 Ultra has really great Geekbench Metal scores. There are some using the M1 for X-plane who reported good performance, but now seeking faster FPS by upgrading to M2. A recent Max Tech review indicates the 76-core has 25% increase in FPS compared to the 60-core in 3DMark test, but the 60 vs 76-core performance was identical when they exported 500 42MB RAW files from Lightroom Classic that used both GPU and CPU to the max. So I’m inclined to go 60-core GPU and save $1000. Further GPU tests are coming, but that’s what we know so far.

hah ok, then

Happy flying!

 

[spaz8]

I would be inclined to invest the $1000 for the 76 core over the 60 into ram. From what I've seen very little software makes use of all 76 cores. Maybe in a couple years with software optimizations that will change but i'm not sure the 76 is worth it as of right now. Its tricky I am used to buying the best GPU apple will let us have cuz apples best is usually just tolerable.

 

[wendylou]

What are Apple's GPU cores?​

Near the end of the video guide, it is clear that Apple GPUs are not even close to e.g. GeForce 4080 GPU, and that Apple has no intention of chasing GPU performance compared to available PC GPU cards. Nevertheless, the M2 higher-core GPUs are Apple's most powerful to date. The rumored M2 Extreme would have gotten close to the GeForce 4080 GPU performance, but it never materialized.

 

[jmho]

It's important to note that it's mostly pointless using OpenCL on macOS since it's deprecated and Apple will have spent very little energy making sure OpenCL runs at all well on Apple Silicon.

I would hope that the Metal and OpenCL Geekbench workloads and scoring are identical across APIs though, so that an Apple GPU doing 200k in Metal is performing the same amount of actual work in a given amount of time as an nVidia GPU getting 200k in OpenCL.

That would make the M2 Ultra about ~85% of the performance of a 4080 in real life workloads*, not 50% as that video claims.

*assuming a decent Metal implementation, and except raytracing of course because the M2 doesn't have RT hardware.

 

[TECK]

I would be inclined to invest the $1000 for the 76 core over the 60 into ram.

I share your thoughts, this is what I have in my cart now.

I was reading into forums that using a 1TB HD (vs. 512GB) will double the transfer speed, due to an improved chip?

 

[spaz8]

Ya.. the 512 SSD is a dog from all the tests i have seen on any M1, or M2 products.. I'd get 2tb if apple didn't charge $500 for a $70 upgrade at any PC vendor.. 1TB SSD plus external TB3/4 drive for storage