New Mac Studio Likely to Be Introduced at WWDC

[The point and shoot pro]

There's no point in arguing about this. You obviously don't understand how heat works.

But, I can assure you that my i7-13700K heats this room up so much I had to close vents elsewhere in the house to redirect more A/C here.

Yes. sure. I have no idea how heat works. Listen to yourself. that's funny crap right there buddy! As I said, you are not supposed to light the computer on fire. that's not how HEAT WORKS. 🧑‍🚒

I am sitting at my workstation right now, my pc is right next to me. Candles are melting, the thermometer is on 98c and the world is starting to rotate the other way. SMDH!

 

[Chancha]

Let's brush off the semantics argument and let's just put down an alternate way to say the same thing:

The Mac Studio clearly produces less wasted heat and uses less power for a similar task when compared to x86 machines, including Intel Macs. The Ultra models especially can produces work that rivals "workstation class PCs" while acting like a thin client, power consumption wise. These are all already measured since the Mac Studio is already more than a year old. And whether or not this is of value to a user of course is relative, but the difference is real and is there.

 

[The point and shoot pro]

Let's brush off the semantics argument and let's just put down an alternate way to say the same thing:

The Mac Studio clearly produces less wasted heat and uses less power for a similar task when compared to x86 machines, including Intel Macs. The Ultra models especially can produces work that rivals "workstation class PCs" while acting like a thin client, power consumption wise. These are all already measured since the Mac Studio is already more than a year old. And whether or not this is of value to a user of course is relative, but the difference is real and is there.

Agreed. However, most people using these systems for work want fast, and don't care about power consumption as time is money. A fully built PC is much faster than the studio. That's why I am hoping for a new PRO. true workstation power levels from a mac device. Dedicated graphics and huge ram lots make a difference no matter what system is working. Ram limitations are real in either system.

The heat argument is laughable at best.

 

[Serqetry]

Yes. sure. I have no idea how heat works. Listen to yourself. that's funny crap right there buddy! As I said, you are not supposed to light the computer on fire. that's not how HEAT WORKS. 🧑‍🚒

Yes, you clearly do not understand how head works. A PC using a high TDP CPU puts out a lot of heat, regardless what nonsense you are claiming about your computers generating zero heat. You probably also believe that meat generates maggots and rags turn into mice.

 

[The point and shoot pro]

Yes, you clearly do not understand how head works. A PC using a high TDP CPU puts out a lot of heat, regardless what nonsense you are claiming about your computers generating zero heat. You probably also believe that meat generates maggots and rags turn into mice.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about...so I will make you disappear now because the nonsense is mind numbing...take care now!

 

[nerdo]

It's a very valid point that the annual energy cost of running a computer can now be a significant part of the "total cost of ownership" (probably always been true, but rising energy costs vs. 500W PC GPUs have bought it home) and Apple Silicon Macs win big on power consumption.

I'd just point out, though, that even if you need the sort of high-end GPU power you can get in a tower PC (and which Apple Silicon struggles to match) you don't need to run that 24/7. If your super-gaming-workstation PC is using $3000 worth of electricity a year then its worth paying for a laptop or Mini PC to use as your daily driver. There's a lot of Mini PCs around now, and while they're not quite as power-frugal as a Mac Mini they're a lot better than an old-school tower PC and very capable.

That's where the price comparisons get sticky - I see plenty of Ryzen 7 Mini-PCs for around £500. OK, the first impression is "the Mac Mini doesn't cost much more and makes this look like a noisy bucket of spare parts with a fugly great power brick" - but then you look at the specs and see that the PC comes with 32GB RAM, 500GB of SSD and can be upgraded with regular SO-DIMMs and M.2 sticks, and pretty soon the comparable £600 Mac Mini you want has doubled in price, while the power difference is more like £50/year for the Mac vs. £150/year for the Mini PC. Plus, if you really did want a day-to-day web browser/wordprocessor/casual gaming/file server then there are much cheaper, down to £200, Mini PC options which might not bear comparison with the Mac Mini but will get the job done.

Mac Studio ultra isn't the same as a Mac Mini?

 

[The point and shoot pro]

Couldn't disagree more, changed from a brutal self build PC to a Mac Studio and save over $3000.- a year in electricity with very similar performance. The machine pays for itself in 2 years and is pure profit every year after this. Buying an Apple desktop is free money and without the hassle of owning anything windows based. My big macho brag Pc has been sitting next to the mac studio, untouched from day 2 of getting the Studio.

3000 dollars in power? where do you live? that is next level ******** there.

 

[nerdo]

3000 dollars in power? where do you live? that is next level ******** there.

1200 Watt PC rendering 24/7 burns a lot. I guess I live where it makes a 3000 difference?

 

[The point and shoot pro]

1200 Watt PC rendering 24/7 burns a lot. I guess I live where it makes a 3000 difference?

Basically anywhere in North America it would be 50 to 100 dollars a year savings with both running 24/7. So again...you must be paying dollars not cents per kw/h. And rendering 24/7. Sure. If you are rendering 24 7 you are or should be making money so that's a non issue then as well.

 

[theluggage]

1200 Watt PC rendering 24/7 burns a lot. I guess I live where it makes a 3000 difference?

Consumer Price Index Publication Changes to be Implemented on February 12, 2025

Consumer Price Index Publication Changes to be Implemented on February 12, 2025

www.bls.gov

According to that, electricity in the US costs $0.127 (Atlanta) - $0.477 (San Diego - yikes!) per kWh depending where you live. Depends on whether it comes from gas, oil, coal nuclear or alternatives. Here in the UK it peaked at £0.38.

1000W = 1kW, for a year = 1kW * 24 hours * 365 days = 8760 kWh giving a cost of $1148 to $4178

Yeah, 1200W 24/7/365 is unrealistic unless you're bitcoin mining or something - but even a substantial fraction of that is money you'd rather not spend and might have a challenging time reclaiming from an employer.

Mac Studio ultra isn't the same as a Mac Mini?

According to Apple (https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT213100)

Mac Mini M2: 7W Idle, 50W Max
Mac Studio M1 Max: 11W to 115W
Mac Studio M1 Ultra: 13W to 215W

You'd actually have to try your own workflow to see what the actual average power draw was - you can get a plug-in power meter for 10 bucks. A quick google shows that the 4090 GPU people pine after is 30W at idle and 450W (or more) under load. So, twice that of a M1 Ultra just for the GPU - the question you have to ask is "does it get my work done in half the time".

 

[nerdo]

Consumer Price Index Publication Changes to be Implemented on February 12, 2025

Consumer Price Index Publication Changes to be Implemented on February 12, 2025

www.bls.gov

According to that, electricity in the US costs $0.127 (Atlanta) - $0.477 (San Diego - yikes!) per kWh depending where you live. Depends on whether it comes from gas, oil, coal nuclear or alternatives. Here in the UK it peaked at £0.38.

1000W = 1kW, for a year = 1kW * 24 hours * 365 days = 8760 kWh giving a cost of $1148 to $4178

Yeah, 1200W 24/7/365 is unrealistic unless you're bitcoin mining or something - but even a substantial fraction of that is money you'd rather not spend and might have a challenging time reclaiming from an employer.


According to Apple (https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT213100)

Mac Mini M2: 7W Idle, 50W Max
Mac Studio M1 Max: 11W to 115W
Mac Studio M1 Ultra: 13W to 215W

You'd actually have to try your own workflow to see what the actual average power draw was - you can get a plug-in power meter for 10 bucks. A quick google shows that the 4090 GPU people pine after is 30W at idle and 450W (or more) under load. So, twice that of a M1 Ultra just for the GPU - the question you have to ask is "does it get my work done in half the time".

You are a year late with this dude, but thanks for this, maybe it helps someone else haha. You do realise when someone says it saved me X a year, a year has passed right? I have figured out my workflow which is why I ended up with the Mac studio and your little theory does not trump real world experience.

 

[nerdo]

Basically anywhere in North America it would be 50 to 100 dollars a year savings with both running 24/7. So again...you must be paying dollars not cents per kw/h. And rendering 24/7. Sure. If you are rendering 24 7 you are or should be making money so that's a non issue then as well.

Nonsense, $3K a year is not nothing. I'm sure it is dirt cheap, which is why the US burns almost 20% of the worlds energy, that's not a non issue, it's pervers.

 

[H2SO4]

ah I would just like to know what kind of machine and when we can expect an apple silicon Mac Pro to make some business decisions. The Mac Pro is still flying, but I’d really rather have an M machine with all the video decoding enhancements and the improved overall snappiness of the system.

Oh, Ok. I see.
Thankyou.

 

[chucker23n1]

ITT: people who brag that they don't care about the climate

 

[spaz8]

I'm looking forward to seeing if the M2 Ultra scales better than the M1 Ultra did. If it actually feels closer to two M2 Max's.. vs.. 1.5? at 2x the cost.

 

[The point and shoot pro]

Nonsense, $3K a year is not nothing. I'm sure it is dirt cheap, which is why the US burns almost 20% of the worlds energy, that's not a non issue, it's pervers.

I will leave this here. 50-100 dollars a year........NOT 3000.

 

[Abazigal]

I will leave this here. 50-100 dollars a year........NOT 3000.

The difference in size between the two desktops though.

 

[The point and shoot pro]

The difference in size between the two desktops though.

That's not what's being talked about I will take the small size hit for much improved performance. and for only 50 bucks a year in power cost increases. NO PROBLEM for me.

 

[Abazigal]

That's not what's being talked about I will take the small size hit for much improved performance. and for only 50 bucks a year in power cost increases. NO PROBLEM for me.

I think this sums up the difference in marketing strategy and product design direction for these two companies.

Apple will always prize power efficiency and space savings. It started with their mobile chip, which then became the Ax series for their iPads, which in turn morphed into the M-series chips for their Macs. The benefit here is that it has allowed said devices to be as thin and light as they are, while being incredibly power efficient (with the Vision Pro being the latest beneficiary). This also means less costs in manufacturing and shipping.

The problem then comes when Apple has shown that they are not going to redesign a processor from the ground up just for the Mac desktop, because these sell in way fewer quantities than their laptops, and the ROI simply isn't there. Instead, what we get are laptop chips (albeit still very powerful ones), and Apple is opting to instead compete in areas like form factor which they know the competition cannot match (like the iMac), but where the consumer (like yourself) may also not care as much.

In contrast, Intel seems to be doubling down on absolute performance in a vacuum, perhaps because they know this is one area they still get a marketing and sales advantage over Apple in, and maybe because their efforts to improve the performance of their integrated graphics simply hasn't borne fruit (yet).

For what it's worth, I am thankful that Apple has chosen to go down the path it has. I don't really need the absolute performance that Intel's most powerful chips bring, and I do still appreciate Macs being as compact as they are. Even as we speak, I am aware that my 2017 5k iMac will not be getting Sonoma, and I am on the fence as to whether I want to stick with it for a couple more years (the display is gorgeous, but the latest macOS has somehow been running like molasses, even after I replaced the Fusion Drive with a SSD) or look towards a Mac mini (the M2 Pro variant) + 4k display setup, and I am glad there won't be a giant honking tower taking up space on my desk.

 

[The point and shoot pro]

I think this sums up the difference in marketing strategy and product design direction for these two companies.

Apple will always prize power efficiency and space savings. It started with their mobile chip, which then became the Ax series for their iPads, which in turn morphed into the M-series chips for their Macs. The benefit here is that it has allowed said devices to be as thin and light as they are, while being incredibly power efficient (with the Vision Pro being the latest beneficiary). This also means less costs in manufacturing and shipping.

The problem then comes when Apple has shown that they are not going to redesign a processor from the ground up just for the Mac desktop, because these sell in way fewer quantities than their laptops, and the ROI simply isn't there. Instead, what we get are laptop chips (albeit still very powerful ones), and Apple is opting to instead compete in areas like form factor which they know the competition cannot match (like the iMac), but where the consumer (like yourself) may also not care as much.

In contrast, Intel seems to be doubling down on absolute performance in a vacuum, perhaps because they know this is one area they still get a marketing and sales advantage over Apple in, and maybe because their efforts to improve the performance of their integrated graphics simply hasn't borne fruit (yet).

For what it's worth, I am thankful that Apple has chosen to go down the path it has. I don't really need the absolute performance that Intel's most powerful chips bring, and I do still appreciate Macs being as compact as they are. Even as we speak, I am aware that my 2017 5k iMac will not be getting Sonoma, and I am on the fence as to whether I want to stick with it for a couple more years (the display is gorgeous, but the latest macOS has somehow been running like molasses, even after I replaced the Fusion Drive with a SSD) or look towards a Mac mini (the M2 Pro variant) + 4k display setup, and I am glad there won't be a giant honking tower taking up space on my desk.

Apple nailed it for notebook use, I agree. But desktops are about power. Absolute power, get stuff done as quickly as possible. My workstation takes zero space on my desk, and very minimal below it. It's not like my old thermaltake gaming system where I have a full ATX gaming tower with 5 3.5 bays 2 3.5 bays, a bunch of hardrive racks etc. My workstation is a compact, powerhouse of a system. I cannot fit anything else into it as I have used all available space. It's fast, REALLY fast. It's quiet even when encoding 4k + videos, and it eats that work up like chocolate cake (or vanilla if that's your jam).

I love the macbooks battery life, but intel and AMD have caught up now when it comes to that as well. the "18hrs of battery life" is not accurate in apple's marketing for real world use. That's everything shut off like wireless etc, playing 720k video with the screen on the dimmest setting. NOBODY will use their mac like that. The real world battery life is closer to 11 hrs. Which is great. But there are plenty of other systems as well that can achieve that as well.

I think apple has moved from catering to the creatives to catering to the normal facebook pc user.

 

[Abazigal]

The real world battery life is closer to 11 hrs. Which is great. But there are plenty of other systems as well that can achieve that as well.

Any examples of a windows laptop with a similar form factor, and capable of providing equivalent battery life under real world usage? I remember getting the M1 MBA in 2020 and being wowed by it lasting 9 hours of zoom, while staying cool to the touch. A similar windows laptop would be lucky to get 3 hours out of it.

 

[The point and shoot pro]

Any examples of a windows laptop with a similar form factor, and capable of providing equivalent battery life under real world usage? I remember getting the M1 MBA in 2020 and being wowed by it lasting 9 hours of zoom, while staying cool to the touch. A similar windows laptop would be lucky to get 3 hours out of it.

There are many. XPS 13 plus, Zephrys...and more. There are many.

 

[Gudi]

There are many. XPS 13 plus, Zephrys...and more. There are many.

They all achieve their battery life under light usage. The Intel x86 way of increasing battery life is to switch of cores, reduce clock speed and run idle all the time.

 

[The point and shoot pro]

They all achieve their battery life under light usage. The Intel x86 way of increasing battery life is to switch of cores, reduce clock speed and run idle all the time.

HINT, so did apple.

 

[chucker23n1]

HINT, so did apple.

I mean, yeah, but M1 was unquestionably more efficient than Alder Lake, and M2 is still slightly more efficient than Raptor Lake. Raptor Lake-P scores better in multi-core than M2, but needs to turbo up to 64 W in order to achieve that. M2 never reaches anything close to that. Raptor Lake-U scores slightly worse than M2, but still burns 55 W.