[HN Gopher] Apple Mac Studio
___________________________________________________________________
Apple Mac Studio
Author : 0xedb
Score : 450 points
Date : 2022-03-08 18:59 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.apple.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.apple.com)
| nanna wrote:
| Is it just me or have apple clearly not tested this page on
| Android Firefox?
| ShamelessC wrote:
| You're not alone.
| Kalanos wrote:
| yes! i have been so worried about my macbook 2014 dying because I
| don't want the new macbooks. this looks awesome.
| tonguez wrote:
| Don't a lot of people want a computer in the 1000-2000$ range?
| The average person who wants to do video editing on an M1 mac
| just wants >=32GB of RAM. The only way to get that is to shell
| out $2000+.
|
| M1 Mac Mini with 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD for $1100
|
| M1 Max Mac Studio with 32GB RM and 512GB SSD for $2000
|
| Yeah because nobody ever buys a computer that costs between $1000
| and $2000... ?
|
| A 512GB SSD in a $2k computer? People who deal with HD video are
| going to want at least 1TB right? So it basically starts at
| $2200?
|
| Is Apple going to release anything anytime soon for the
| young/not-rich kids who want to do real video editing (need
| >=32GB RAM)?
| borodi wrote:
| I imagine the mac pro is going to have a Super Sayan M1
| livinglist wrote:
| can't wait for M1 Ultra Pro Max Utimate
| aetherspawn wrote:
| It would be nice if it was rack mountable.
| gbrown_ wrote:
| Can't wait to see a teardown of the cooling solution. Not sure
| how the air flows between the bottom and the heat sink as there's
| a board between them.
| rovr138 wrote:
| It looked like it had space in the back and then the blowers
| were in the front to force the air over. Then it went out the
| top.
|
| Looks very interesting. I'm curious of benchmarks and if
| there's throttling.
| greendave wrote:
| Nice machine, but for all the lip service to sustainability and
| environmental friendliness, the insistence of soldering
| everything in makes for a disposable device. In particular, once
| the SSD goes, it's just a very expensive brick.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| Interesting tweet from Hector Martin, who is leading the Linux
| port:
|
| >Chances are our kernel will Just work on M1 Ultra with just
| device tree changes, might not even need any m1n1 changes.
|
| https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1501271229763706882
| speed_spread wrote:
| Good. None of these releases matter to me if all those machines
| can run is Mac OS. I'm not a Linux freak, but I like machines
| that last a long time. Long term support is the weak spot of
| any proprietary design. Given the incredible hardware
| capabilities of these new boxes, the 5 or 6 years official
| expected official lifecycle is waaay too short.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| Latest MacOS is supported by Mac Pro from 9 years ago, that's
| pretty good. Macbook Pro from 7 years ago. These M1 machines
| are the new baseline, I wouldn't be surprised if they're
| supported a decade from now, it's not like MacOS is going to
| need 10x the CPU/RAM to run in 2032 _knock on wood_
|
| https://www.apple.com/macos/monterey/ (have to scroll all the
| way down for supported devices)
| humanwhosits wrote:
| But chrome will
| mrcwinn wrote:
| If anyone thinks Apple is not very serious about AR/VR consumer
| products, their renewed focus on creative professionals, intense
| workloads, and GPU performance seems to suggest otherwise.
|
| Whatever the marketing out of Microsoft Surface, it's the Mac
| that has always enabled creative workflows. I'm genuinely more
| excited about the Mac than any other product, which I haven't
| felt or said for many years.
|
| Nice work, Apple silicon and hardware teams!
| boboguitar wrote:
| Can I build my large xcode project in less than 20 minutes with
| this?
| kulix425 wrote:
| jsz0 wrote:
| Apple finally releases a powerful affordable desktop computer.
| Now I am worried it's the start of WW3 or otherwise the end of
| the world. Going outside now to look for flying pigs
| randcraw wrote:
| What? $2000 for the Studio plus $1600 for their 5K display
| means Apple's new entry level workstation now costs $3600.
| That's a LOT more expensive than the old iMac 27 i7 at about
| $2400.
|
| To sum up, Apple just hiked their entry level workstation's
| price by $1200. AND they convinced you they performed magic.
|
| No, I think that flying pig you saw was proof that Jobs'
| reality distortion field is still alive and well.
| mkaic wrote:
| Except you don't have to buy their display, that's part of
| why the Studio is so nice. You can buy any generic display
| you want that doesn't cost 1600 bucks. For what you get, the
| 2k Studio is an absolute steal in terms of compute per watt,
| I/O, form factor, and longevity (Macs last _ages_ ). Plus,
| having 64 gigs of VRAM is absolutely amazing at that price
| point.
| cube2222 wrote:
| Looks like all the people saying "just start fusing those M1
| CPU's into bigger ones" were right, that's basically what they
| did for the top of the line new M1 CPU (fused two M1 Max'es
| together).
|
| And since the presenter mentioned the Mac Pro would come on
| another day, I wonder if they'll just do 4x M1 Max for that.
| jws wrote:
| The dialog around unveiling the Ultra had a "one final member
| of M1" vibe to it. I think that is the end for M1. The next cpu
| bumps will be M2s.
|
| Also I wonder about fabrication nodes. The iPhone SE is going
| to take a _lot_ of dies and keep that fan very busy. M1 is on
| something else, but it isn't going to free the A15 fab for
| other customers.
|
| I expect M2 is on a different process.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| An entry level M2 has been showing up in software developers
| logs.
|
| 4 big cores, 4 little cores (like the M1, but based on newer
| gen iPhone cores) and 10 GPU cores instead of 8. Said to be
| based on TSMC 4nm.
| Someone wrote:
| > and keep that fan very busy
|
| The wonders of auto-correct, I guess. It took me a moment to
| correct that to _"and keep that faB very busy"_.
|
| _"faN"_ made me wonder why you thought that phone ran hot
| and had a fan.
| [deleted]
| quirino wrote:
| If they do create another chip for the Mac Pro, I wonder what
| they'll call it.
|
| We have the M1, M1 Pro, M1 Max and M1 Ultra so far.
| cehrlich wrote:
| Pro, Max, Ultra, Mega?
| nameless912 wrote:
| There's a New Nintendo 23DSLite iXL[1] joke in here
| somewhere.
|
| [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4MHRcPLr38
| [deleted]
| minimaxir wrote:
| M1 Plus Ultra.
|
| Just go full anime.
| dilap wrote:
| M1 Ultra Pro, baby
| moooo99 wrote:
| When handing over to the M1 Ultra part of the keynote he
| literally said something along the lines of "we're adding
| this last M1 chip to our lineup". So maybe an upcoming Mac
| Pro will have the next generation of Apple Silicon (M2).
|
| I am curious to see how that device will look like.
| Surprisingly, with the last Mac Pro the modularity of the
| device and the ability to user-upgrade GPU, RAM or storage
| was actually a huge selling point that Apple emphasized. I
| can't imagine how this would work with Apple Silicon.
| nicoburns wrote:
| Maybe it won't be M at all? I still reckon they might do
| discrete GPUs for the pro model, which could make it quite
| different to the other M chips.
| pg_bot wrote:
| Mega, Supra, Domina, Prima, Stellar, Noto, Nova, Jumbo.
| can16358p wrote:
| M1 Epic (late 2022)
|
| M1 Ludicrous (early 2023)
|
| M1 Insane (late 2023)
|
| Probably they'll make enough changes to release M2 by that
| time.
| mkaic wrote:
| M1 Maximum Plaid (late early 2024)
| doctor_eval wrote:
| You missed M1 Plaid.
| eyelidlessness wrote:
| I'm surprised they've introduced four M1 variants already,
| and while that makes a fifth variant seem more likely... I
| still think they'll want to find another way to differentiate
| the new Mac Pro. What seems more likely to me: the M2 MBA is
| released either in tandem with a M2 Ultra MP, or a few months
| ahead of it, and the other higher spec models will lag 6-12
| months behind from then on. Especially given the significant
| delays on M1 Max, it makes sense to me they'll want to roll
| out the next gen in a lower volume/higher margin while they
| ramp up production.
| nojito wrote:
| M1 Ultra Max
| hughrr wrote:
| Reminds me of this from Minions: https://youtu.be/Xs4LF8QnELM
|
| At least it's less confusing than the fucked up Intel and AMD
| product numbers.
| speed_spread wrote:
| M1 Double Plus Good
| deadcore wrote:
| Holding out for the M1 Ultra Magnum Turbo
| Toutouxc wrote:
| M1 Hammersword Despacito.
| [deleted]
| unfocussed_mike wrote:
| I think the Mac Pro is almost like a phantom product at this
| point. Or a riff. Like they're going to say "the new Mac Pro is
| there is no more Mac Pro".
|
| What can they really do, in a single machine, that is more
| "Pro" than the Studio? How are they going to bring developers
| along when most aren't developing for twenty-core machines?
|
| I still think something else is coming. Maybe something
| unconventionally stackable. Something for render farms.
|
| Whatever it is, it feels like it's going to need novel OS
| support.
| bredren wrote:
| It has been a phantom product, because Apple has needed to
| fill major gaps in the desktop space first.
|
| I suspect Apple is set to debut powerful revision to the Mac
| Pro focused on AI/ML at WWDC.
|
| I wrote about this 10 months back[0], and it still applies
| following Studio:
|
| > It may not be obvious, but Apple has repair work to do in
| the pro community. Four years ago this month, Apple unusually
| disclosed that it was "completely rethinking the Mac Pro."
| [1]
|
| > The current Mac Pro design wasn't announced until June of
| 2019 and didn't hit the market until December 10th of 2019.
| That's just _six months_ prior to the Apple Silicon
| announcement.
|
| > It seems unlikely Apple spent 2017-2019 designing a Mac Pro
| that they would not carry forward with Apple Silicon
| hardware.
|
| > The current, Gen 3 2019 Mac Pro design has the Mac Pro
| Expansion Module (MPX). This is intended to be a plug-and-
| play system for graphics and storage upgrades. [2]
|
| > While the Apple Silicon SoC can run with some GPU tasks, it
| does seem it does not make sense for the type of work that
| big discrete cards have generally been deployed for.
|
| > There is already a living example of a custom Apple-
| designed external graphics card. Apple designed and released
| Afterburner, a custom "accelerator" card targeted at video
| editing with the gen 3 Mac Pro in 2019.
|
| > Afterburner has attributes of the new Apple Silicon design
| in that it is proprietary to Apple and fanless. [3]
|
| > It seems implausible Apple created the Afterburner product
| for a single release without plans to continue to upgrade and
| extend the product concept using Apple Silicon.
|
| Given "Ultrafusion" it seems plausible that M2 would be able
| connect multiple custom SoCs that are littered with GPU cores
| as stackable accelerator cards.
|
| > So, I think the question isn't if discrete Apple Silicon
| GPUs will be supported but how many types and in and what
| configurations.
|
| This prediction not come to pass:
|
| > I think the Mac Mini will remain its shape and size, and
| that alongside internal discrete GPUs for the Pro, Apple may
| release something akin to the Blackmagic eGPU products they
| collaborated on for the RX580 and Vega 56.
|
| But at least the mid market display now exists. > While
| possibly not big sellers, Apple Silicon eGPUs would serve
| generations of new AS notebooks and minis. This creates a
| whole additional use case. The biggest problem I see with
| this being a cohesive ecosystem is the lack of a mid-market
| Apple display. [4]
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26956886
|
| [1] https://daringfireball.net/2017/04/the_mac_pro_lives
|
| [2] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/06/apple-unveils-
| powerfu...
|
| [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33ywFqY5o1E
|
| [4] https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/wishful-thinking-
| wwdc-d...
| unfocussed_mike wrote:
| > It seems unlikely Apple spent 2017-2019 designing a Mac
| Pro that they would not carry forward with Apple Silicon
| hardware.
|
| I am really not sure about this bit, as you can probably
| deduce from what I've said elsewhere.
|
| The rest is interesting but I think it's entirely possible
| they designed a tail-end tower PC to sell for three years.
| valine wrote:
| New die with 64 M1 cores and support for 4TB of ram.
| Basically fill whatever market the threadripper fills.
| cududa wrote:
| They literally said in the keynote that the new Mac Pro is in
| the pipeline
| unfocussed_mike wrote:
| Right, but the keynote is marketing. And they've been
| saying that for, what, nearly a decade now? [0] And in that
| time they have chipped away at that segment from different
| directions, with the iMac Pro and the Mac Studio. The
| latter of which is a _beast_ already.
|
| What's left? Render farms, scaleable computing.
|
| I guess I think there will be some sort of new machine in
| that segment. But I figure it's not going to be what people
| expect from a single, unitary Mac Pro desktop.
|
| Because once you're up at that level of performance
| requirement, you start to want modular and scaleable
| things.
|
| What is the pitch for the part of the market that is used
| to using commodity hardware in scaleable configurations?
|
| [0] Edit: I obviously forgot the cheese grater
| yurishimo wrote:
| They released a new Mac Pro in 2019. I think there is a
| strong possibility for a revision late this year or next
| year.
| unfocussed_mike wrote:
| OK but to what end?
|
| Looking at the Mac Studio... what would an M1-based,
| drop-in Mac Pro replacement offer on top? That sounds
| like a tail-end product.
|
| It's not like 2022 Apple is the kind of business that
| announces deep partnerships with graphics card makers.
|
| It feels more to me like we're going to see either
| something that is half-rack-half-Mac, or something with
| major developments in neural engine hardware, or
| something.
|
| A new segment -- something that is going to need
| significant new OS work.
| cududa wrote:
| CGI, CAD, rendering, driving huge screens, running live
| sporting events, scientific workloads, massive
| simultaneous automated app testing, etc. Just because you
| can't imagine why someone would need that much compute
| doesn't mean the use cases don't exist.
| unfocussed_mike wrote:
| I did not say -- at all -- that I can't imagine that kind
| of power requirement.
|
| Not at all.
|
| What I said if you read the rest of my comments is that I
| find it difficult to believe there is a specifically
| _single-desktop-machine_ use case for that kind of power
| over and above the Mac Studio.
|
| The reason I mention this is that high end (TV and
| cinema) CGI just is not the domain of single machines
| anymore; it's the domain of render farms. The people who
| do that kind of work for TV and cinema now expect to run
| farms of commodity hardware that can be swapped out and
| replaced. And that technology is available to everyone in
| a way that can be constructed more pragmatically.
|
| Scientific workloads, similarly: most of that market is
| not going to spend a bucketload on a single Mac when they
| can spread their risk with cluster computing.
|
| App testing: again, an application for clustering, and
| low cost hardware spreads risk.
|
| So my point, again: given the existence of the iMac Pro
| line, and the M1 Ultra Mac Studio (with its evident
| astonishing GPU performance), given that I imagine most
| Mac Pro users never put an expansion card in their
| machines (which is the grand theme of Apple -- people
| don't upgrade or expand, usually), and given that cluster
| hardware is commonly in use and well-supported, is the
| niche for single mega-expensive desktops _really_ big
| enough?
|
| I don't think it is -- you think it is. But I think you
| can disagree with me without imagining me stupid, as I
| disagree with you without doing the same.
| cududa wrote:
| The real-time rendering demos of the Studio were
| incredible. If the pro is 4x that it would be insanely
| cool. If I were still doing music videos I'd kill to have
| one of those on set. Or what we did for Kanye's Yeezus
| tour (live motion tracking of the dancers with some
| kinects and putting them into models projected on the
| screen) - could've been so much cooler with this much
| compute in a small box. You're talking about this as if
| you have knowledge from working in an industry that you
| clearly haven't. $100,000 fragile rack or $8,000 shoe box
| you can drop and it'll still work fine.
|
| The visual arts this thing is going to enable us going to
| be amazing, and we haven't even seen the Pro yet. One
| former client has been texting me all day about ideas
| from 10 years ago that weren't feasible but now are with
| this lil thing. I keep telling him to wait for the Pro
| then we can take some REALLY neat ideas off the shelf.
| unfocussed_mike wrote:
| > I keep telling him to wait for the Pro then we can take
| some REALLY neat ideas off the shelf.
|
| Aside from the fact that you're making my point for me --
| you think the Mac Studio could do the job you imagine a
| Mac Pro doing -- there is this:
|
| You tell your former customers to wait for an unreleased,
| as yet unscheduled update to a product to which
| historically Apple has displayed considerable, time-
| insensitive indifference, rather than order maybe
| multiples of the product that _has_ been announced, or
| try to make it work somehow with kit that exists?
|
| I'll note down your prediction about $8000. That, I
| guess, would be interesting. But if it's that cheap it's
| going to be after the chip shortage is over, surely.
| karlshea wrote:
| > And they've been saying that for, what, nearly a decade
| now?
|
| The latest generation is from 2019?
| unfocussed_mike wrote:
| I guess. I mean, it's a forgettable stopgap machine (I
| forgot it ;-) It's not really what people wanted, is it?
| It's just something they had to put on sale to shut
| people up. A conventional, Intel-era thing.
|
| They've been saying "something really great is coming",
| all that. That Mac Pro was not that.
|
| Does Apple still care about the market that wants to plug
| in internal GPU cards? Does that make much sense even in
| the context of hardware the speed of the Mac Studio?
|
| I wonder.
| cududa wrote:
| If their GPU can do workloads replaceable ones can't then
| it's worth it. If you need that amount of GPU, you're
| doing high end shit with a high end budget, and can
| afford to just replace the machine in 2 years (if you
| even need it - many people stick with their Mac Pro 5-10
| years).
|
| Tons of people in pro industries bought it and love it.
| Pre-COVID it was sold out for almost a year. Every
| professional music producer I know bought one, and I'm
| sure they'll get the M1 Mac Pro.
|
| Funny story. Max Martin partnered with Creative to make a
| new audio rack to enable the audio for the first Back
| Street Boys album. That got miniaturized to audio cards
| for gaming which further shrunk down to a DAC and that
| lead to the iPod which lead to the iPhone which lead to
| Apple Silicon which brought us here today. Music
| producers are huge fucking tech nerds and literally move
| technology forward. Apple frequently works with producers
| when developing their highest end products that
| eventually trickle down to consumer grade.
| karlshea wrote:
| What? It's a whole new tower with PCIe slots and
| everything, and was super well received. Were you still
| under the impression they were selling the trashcan Mac
| Pro?
| unfocussed_mike wrote:
| I simply forgot that they made it. I forgot a lot of
| stuff in 2020 and 2021, like most people.
|
| But by extension I certainly _don 't_ remember it being
| "super well received", or I'd probably have remembered it
| at all.
|
| Either way: look at it. It's a tower PC. Do you think the
| current Apple trajectory has any meaningful room for
| that? What are people going to really be putting in it
| except disks?
| cpuguy83 wrote:
| "I forgot about it so it must not be great".
|
| It's an amazing machine. It's an incredibly expensive
| machine, but still amazing.
|
| > Do you think the current Apple trajectory has any
| meaningful room for that?
|
| Are you upset that you think Apple is going to stop
| making something that you forgot they made, except there
| is absolutely 0 evidence that they will stop making it?
| We know for a fact that they are going to release a new
| Apple Silicon based Mac Pro. We knew Mac Pro would be the
| last thing they move over to Apple Silicon. Apple even
| gave a timeline when they first launched M1, and so far
| it seems to be on track.
|
| Apple has been extremely pragmatic lately, backtracking
| on objectively bad decisions around everything from
| keyboards and ports to form factors.
| fastball wrote:
| They've been very pragmatic ever since Jony Ive left.
| unfocussed_mike wrote:
| > "I forgot about it so it must not be great".
|
| I didn't phrase it that way, but thanks, I guess.
| Whatever.
|
| > Are you upset that you think Apple is going to stop
| making something that you forgot they made, except there
| is absolutely 0 evidence that they will stop making it?
|
| I didn't say they'd stop making it, quite.
|
| So much as that I think the product designation is a
| phantom, in a way. And the more alternatives they add to
| the Mac Pro, the less the market needs it.
|
| How many people who bought the forgettable machine put an
| expansion card in it, do you think? How many of those
| people thus simply do not need anything more than the
| Studio?
|
| And also: how many third party manufacturers are going to
| rush out of the gate to port their drivers to some
| complex new multiprocessing M1 machine?
|
| I agree they have been pragmatic. But I think they've
| also sliced and diced this segment to the point where it
| doesn't make the sense it did.
| karlshea wrote:
| If all you want is disks then the Mac Studio seems to be
| exactly what you'd want. I would assume people that want
| a tower want exactly what you were asking for above,
| which is GPUs or other cards like audio engineers need.
|
| I didn't see a single negative review of the tower at
| all, so I'm really not sure where that comes from. And
| they said during the keynote today a new one is coming.
| kiratp wrote:
| Here is the target market
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIQINCWMd6I
|
| This is Apple's core creative audience.
| [deleted]
| the_lucifer wrote:
| > What can they really do, in a single machine, that is more
| "Pro" than the Studio?
|
| I'm guessing the Mac Pro will focus more on Upgradability and
| adding expansion slots? That seems like a direction Apple is
| willing to go tbh.
| rovr138 wrote:
| I'm just curious how that would look like and what would be
| compatible.
|
| Seems interesting!
| unfocussed_mike wrote:
| Why does it need expansion slots? Is that still a thing?
| :-)
|
| Drive bays, yeah. Maybe some approach towards coprocessor
| boards.
|
| But none of this new direction shrieks out "install your
| own graphics card" anymore.
| kiratp wrote:
| This is one of the reasons why - pro audio -
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIQINCWMd6I
| pvarangot wrote:
| There's USB-C MADI/DANTE stuff already and it handles a
| lot of bandwidth with similar latency to those PCIe
| cards. That guys setup is a niche in the niche.
| rovr138 wrote:
| Yeah. I'm wondering about network cards for some higher
| throughput setups.
| andjd wrote:
| Agreed.
|
| They showed it being used for pro audio, but that's a niche
| that still uses expansion cards a lot. Keeping the current
| mac pro form factor enables a lot of niche use cases.
|
| One question is whether the M1 chips have enough
| connectivity to efficiently handle as many expansion cards
| as the current pro. Even the Max version of the CPU is
| limited to 4 thunderbolt ports.
| andrewjl wrote:
| Connecting additional devices was the second thing talked
| about in the introduction, after power & performance. If
| anything, the focus on upgradability is growing.
|
| And I bet the Studio is a way to release what they've done
| so far to serve a subset of the Pro market that has simpler
| expansion needs. The Pro likely requires a ton more work.
| sid-ant wrote:
| Apple claims M1 Ultra is faster than 28 Core Intel Xeon W chip,
| which they ship in Mac Pro. If that's true, then Mac Studio is an
| excellent value.
|
| Mac Pro with 28 Core, 96GB RAM, 1TB SSD = $14,199
|
| Mac Studio with M1 Ultra (48GPU Cores), 128GB RAM, 1TB SSD =
| $4,800
|
| Also it looks like they compared their CPU performance with the
| latest intel generation in their demo.
|
| > "16-core PC desktop CPU performance data from testing Core
| i9-12900K with DDR5 memory" https://www.apple.com/mac-
| studio/#footnote
|
| It's kinda scary how monster of a company Apple has become
| lately. Their product line-up in compute is now unmatched.
| rconti wrote:
| Perfect. Recently went to a 40" ultrawide display to share
| between work laptop (during work hours) and personal desktop
| (after hours) to simplify my desk, and felt the Mini was probably
| just a little too limiting/low-end.
|
| Finally, the replacement to my 2015 iMac 5k.
| londons_explore wrote:
| So it has USB-C... yet can't be powered via USB-C?
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| torginus wrote:
| As a dev, I think this is neat - but unfortunately, to this very
| day, the most important workloads usually are single-threaded,
| even the ones that are multi-threaded, rarely scale to more than
| 8 cores.
|
| This usually means that the advanced M1 variants don't really
| offer an advantage over the base offering, although, more RAM is
| always nice.
| srvmshr wrote:
| I am genuinely crestfallen that there was no update to Mac Mini.
| That thing has the right balance for most computer science folks
| who want a Mac. Not everyone needs/runs a silicon Godzilla on
| their desk after all.
|
| As of the current lineup, Mini is still stuck with 16 GB RAM and
| a disappointing number of ports.
| BonoboIO wrote:
| Apple M1 | 8-core CPU, 8-core GPU, 16-core Neural Engine, 16GB
| RAM, 10Gbit LAN = 899$
|
| Apple Studio | 20-Core CPU, 48-Core GPU, 32-Core Neural Engine!
| 64GB RAM! 10Gbit LAN = 3999$
|
| I think the M1 is a nice product for 95% of people including
| iOS Devs.
|
| Silent, ,,cheap", cost effective, nice build server. If you
| need more power ... well get the small studio or buy another
| one.
|
| Renting from hetzner is also cheap. 49EUR with really unlimited
| bandwith. 20 TB traffic in a month? No problem, nobody cares.
|
| https://www.hetzner.com/de/dedicated-rootserver/matrix-apple
| thaw13579 wrote:
| There's only a gap of roughly $500 between a maxed out mini and
| the entry studio, so perhaps the studio is the answer to what
| you're looking for?
| tonguez wrote:
| M1 mini with 16GB RAM (most possible RAM): $1100
|
| entry studio: $2000
|
| That's a pretty big gap. Basically it means you have to shell
| out $2000+ if you want to do video editing on any M1 mac.
| Buying a brand new computer to do video editing that has only
| 16GB RAM in 2022 is unjustifiable.
|
| $2k+ is too much for most people especially young "creatives"
| that are making entertainment (videos). Lots of people here
| make hundreds of thousands a year but none of those people
| make that money doing video editing or working in
| entertainment.
| thaw13579 wrote:
| Maybe it's too much to expect a $1K computer to do heavy
| video work? Even then, I've been using an M1 macbook air
| myself for computational work, and haven't run into any
| memory issues and am surprised by how much power it
| provides for the price, and without a fan. The only issue
| I've had with the M1s is the display support, i.e. the mini
| only supports two displays and the macbooks only support a
| single external display.
| srvmshr wrote:
| Thats sounding more like being an Apple apologist. And
| there are certainly other uses of graphics without using
| PS or InDesign involved e.g Meshlab 3D renders, computer
| graphics & raytracing where more RAM definitely counts.
| Upselling the Studio definitely hits the academic bracket
| (mine) hard, when it was perfectly possible to just
| introduce M1 variants, with its advantage of ports & more
| RAM. That sort of upgrade would have cost ~$1500
| theoretically given Apple component listing, which is
| still 25% cheaper than baseline Mac Studio.
|
| (For students looking to upgrade, $400 is a month's rent
| saved)
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _Basically it means you have to shell out $2000+ if you
| want to do video editing on any M1 mac._
|
| 16GB is plenty, and in fact the conversation when the M1
| Macs were introduced was whether having 16GB vs. 8GB of RAM
| made a difference. (Mostly, it doesn't.)
|
| https://www.4kshooters.net/2021/01/27/8gb-or-16gb-ram-for-
| vi...
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| > 16GB RAM in 2022 is unjustifiable.
|
| MacOS on ARM handles memory differently, try it you might
| like it.
|
| They can only print so many M1max chips at a time, they
| want to sell them in a high margin machine. Give em a year
| and the M1max will trickle down to the mini.
| tonguez wrote:
| "MacOS on ARM handles memory differently, try it you
| might like it."
|
| Wow, you sure have given me a lot to think about.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| lol, if you're being sarcastic all I can say is I don't
| get a commission
| srvmshr wrote:
| > MacOS on ARM handles memory differently, try it you
| might like it.
|
| I already use the 16 GB 13". And while your comment is
| correct for most consumer applications regarding memory
| compression, it may not work that well in numerical
| computing on Python or C++ e.g. where a lot of RNGs are
| used or 2D/3D arrays are juggled. Just clarifying. Your
| statement is mostly true - but not always. Having a
| higher RAM machine could help definitely.
| digisign wrote:
| 16GB RAM was a ridiculous amount for hobby needs, just a
| short time ago.
|
| If you have pro needs, step up to the pro machine. $2k is
| paltry in this inflationary environment. Will pay for
| itself in productivity forthwith.
| [deleted]
| xienze wrote:
| What update were they going to do? Make an M1 Max model? That
| would cut into sales for the base Studio.
| infinityio wrote:
| They don't have a desktop M1 Pro implementation yet afaik?
| dopu wrote:
| This would make sense -- you can get the mac mini at the
| base M1, upgrade it to an M1 Pro, or jump up to a Mac
| Studio for M1 Max and above.
| [deleted]
| heartbreak wrote:
| > Not everyone needs/runs a silicon Godzilla
|
| Right, which is why the Mini exists.
|
| > Mini is still stuck with 16 GB RAM and a disappointing number
| of ports.
|
| Because people who need more are expected to buy the Studio.
| yurishimo wrote:
| WWDC is a few months away. There might be a refresh of the Mini
| there? If we don't see a refresh of the mini this year, I can't
| see them not upgrading it for M2 next year.
| dopu wrote:
| I initially thought the Mac Studio was the "pro" version of the
| Mac Mini. But no -- they're still selling the i5/i7 mini. This
| makes me wonder whether they're going to update it at all.
| Maybe they'll just quietly drop it at some point down the road?
| Havoc wrote:
| Easily the most obnoxious scroll/parallax presentation I've seen
| thus far 2022.
|
| Guess I'll watch to mkhb video to see what the product is
| QuikAccount wrote:
| This is such a random thing to complain about but I hate these
| Mac product pages with the animations as you scroll. I guess they
| are designed for mobile but I navigate them on a desktop using a
| mouse wheel and they always look super clunky.
| dmitriid wrote:
| They used to be quick and smooth on the desktop, too. But it
| looks like Apple has been taken over by designers in the name
| only.
| MBCook wrote:
| Apple does them FAR better than anyone else. I can't remember
| if they did it first, or just popularized it, but it works well
| for what it is.
|
| That said, while it looks cool, after the first time you've
| used it it's just a pain to navigate. I kind of wish it was a
| separate "intro" page or something.
|
| (They're annoying on mobile too, but work better than desktop)
| gowld wrote:
| It's terrible on mobile too.
| scrumbledober wrote:
| the first time they did it i was like wow apple is so good at
| this stuff this is really cool. It's gotten very old and
| annoying.
| adrianmonk wrote:
| It's like going to the library but someone has hired dancing
| cheerleaders to grab the book you're trying to read and wave it
| around so that you're more excited about reading it.
| wmeredith wrote:
| I'm going to use this example in my next usability review
| meeting. It's perfect.
| cwdegidio wrote:
| Yeah, I don't get it. They are such a UX nightmare. My company
| was trying to implement something like that in our latest
| redesign of our site and I put my foot down about it. We are in
| the financial B2B space and I had to explain to the marketing
| team that people come to our site for information... not to be
| shown cute animation. Also (I haven't tested Apples take on
| it), they are often ADA nightmares.
| kube-system wrote:
| Mouse wheels mostly just don't have a good input resolution.
| It's one of the main reasons I stopped using a mouse and
| switched to an apple trackpad full time. I can't stand static
| pages that scroll in chunks either.
| dilap wrote:
| it sucks w/ trackpad too tho! it's just totally breaks any
| physicality to scrolling
|
| it's insane to me that they keep using this
| cosmiccatnap wrote:
| simonjgreen wrote:
| This gives me distinct G4 Mac Pro tower aesthetic vibes but with
| a modern twist. Love it :)
| andjd wrote:
| I'm really happy they're not going with a iMac pro form factor
| for these. Having a separate display and computer is great for
| avoiding e-waste. There are a ton of iMacs out there that have
| obsolete hardware but a screen that still works great.
| wmeredith wrote:
| I died inside when they got rid of target display mode for
| iMacs.
| rsynnott wrote:
| This was initially kinda justifiable; when the first 5K iMac
| came out there was no commonly available connection that
| could do 5K (the iMac used a somewhat overclocked DP link
| internally, I think), so their only option would have been
| two DP cables (a configuration that then also had very
| limited support).
|
| That excuse really went away with TB3 and newer iterations of
| DP, tho, and it's pretty disappointing that they didn't bring
| it back at that point.
| infinityio wrote:
| I've seen projects online about converting 5k iMacs into
| external displays by essentially ripping out the insides and
| putting in a driver board instead - I wonder what the
| relative cost (/value proposition) of that is compared to
| these new displays if you don't need a webcam?
| vbezhenar wrote:
| It's ugly. And I love it. No more obsession over form.
| pipeline_peak wrote:
| I don't even care about the specs.
|
| Just love the fact they fit it all in that tiny case, flush under
| a Studio display monitor.
|
| There's something 90s about it, SGI maybe?
| robotresearcher wrote:
| Sun SPARCstation IPC: a lovely form factor and a great client
| machine. The matching monitor could sit on top. The whining
| fans were not so great.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARCstation_IPC
|
| It was quickly obsolete as CPUs got fast and too hot for that
| box.
| w-m wrote:
| The amount of compute paired with the shared memory and fast
| bandwidth would make this an awesome fit for machine learning.
| But for PyTorch, the framework everybody is using now at least in
| computer vision, there seems to be no support at all for the GPU
| or the neural cores (which the presentation went on and on
| about).
|
| I guess I'd better not hold my breath about support there, given
| Apples historical stance on support third party APIs/frameworks?
| bogwog wrote:
| The 2TB option is an extra $400. That's $200/TB. The 4TB option
| is $250/TB. The 8TB option is $275/TB.
|
| That looks like planned obsolescence to me. A customer with 1TB
| will likely want to upgrade sooner than a customer with 8TB, so
| this pricing strategy discourages people from buying the more
| future-proof options. Other SSDs on the market tend to be cheaper
| per TB as you go up in size, but Apple's seem to be completely
| backwards (and obscenely overpriced, of course).
|
| Or am I being too cynical here, and this is just that famous
| "luxury tax"?
| kube-system wrote:
| "Options" are a popular marketing scheme to have your customers
| with deep pockets subsidize a lower starting price at the
| bottom end while keeping the same overall margin. Doesn't
| matter if you're Works the same way whether you're buying a
| Mac, buying SaaS software, or buying a car.
|
| Apple does use very good quality SSDs, so I would expect them
| to be premium priced regardless.
| exhilaration wrote:
| I would argue that the professionals they're targeting are
| storing terabytes of assets on network-attached storage, not on
| the local machine.
| cehrlich wrote:
| Depends on what you compare it to.
|
| A basic 8TB SSD is about $500, but it's also more than 10x
| slower than what's in the Mac. A fast 8TB SSD from Sabrent,
| which is still slower than what's in the Mac, is about $1800.
|
| Of course not everyone needs a blazing fast SSD for all their
| stuff. But that's why it has USB ports in the back.
| andrewmcwatters wrote:
| A lot of professionals use external drives for their work, and
| Apple has the right of charging beyond market value per TB of
| storage because the space is integrated, so you'll find that
| most people will purchase on-the-curve storage and rely on
| high-performance commodity drives for day-to-day artifacts and
| asset work.
| my123 wrote:
| Those are desktops, and Thunderbolt/USB 4 allows for fast SSDs.
| You can have the OS installed on an external drive too.
|
| It's much less of an issue there than on laptops.
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| That seems pretty typical for Apple. Upgrading from 512gb to
| 1tb on a MacBook Air is $200.
| turdnagel wrote:
| I've never heard of an accusation of planned obsolescence based
| on price before.
|
| > A customer with 1TB will likely want to upgrade sooner
|
| Though I have no data to back it up, I think this is your
| mistaken assumption. I think it's much more likely that people
| upgrade because of CPU/RAM than disk space.
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| I think from a design perspective, this is the most disappointing
| Apple release so far. It's just way too tall, imo. There's a lot
| of empty space on the front which just seems odd.
|
| I'm not exactly sure what they could've done to keep the Mac Mini
| footprint, but this ain't it.
| yurishimo wrote:
| I'm convinced the design is a tradeoff to make this work in the
| datacenter. With the exact same footprint, racks of Mac Mini
| servers can be converted to fit these with very little effort.
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| Unfortunately, the height (3.7") is _just_ above a 2U (3.5 ")
| rack. It's also not a multiple of a Mac Mini height (1.4")
| which means you'll have some leftover space if you're
| replacing 3 Minis with one of these.
| MBCook wrote:
| But most rack mounted Mac minis seem to be placed on their
| sides with space between each individual machine. Perhaps
| it still works in that orientation, just fewer per rack?
| yurishimo wrote:
| Yeah, this was my thought as well.
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| I was thinking that as well, but I believe they still use
| some sort of support to keep them propped in place, so
| not being an exact multiple means modifying them would be
| harder than, for instance, just cutting some of the
| vertical supports off to fit a 3xMini.
| NorwegianDude wrote:
| In...datacenters? That's a strange usecase!
| yurishimo wrote:
| https://www.macstadium.com/datacenters
|
| If you scroll to the bottom of this page, there is an image
| carousel with an example.
| NorwegianDude wrote:
| But why would anyone do that? IO is very limited, memory
| on the m1/mini doesn't support ECC from what I know, and
| repairs/parts/redundancy is terrible.
|
| I can understand it if it's just for fun, but otherwise
| it seems like a really strange idea.
| yurishimo wrote:
| It's one of the only sane form factors available if you
| need off-site compute power running on MacOS. The rack
| mount Mac Pro helped to fill that niche somewhat, but
| they're just insanely expensive.
|
| Amazon has dedicated Mac hardware in AWS as well and the
| pricing is also crazy expensive.
|
| For large app devs though, the cost is worth it to build
| their apps in the cloud without bogging down their local
| machines constantly. If you have rebuild targets for a
| half dozen OS versions, it can add up!
|
| Datacenters are the solution and the Mac Mini just so
| happened to be the form factor that was available and
| could be made to work with less hassle than accommodating
| laptops.
| minimaxir wrote:
| From the presentation, the _entire top half_ is the thermal
| system so can 't really put I/O there.
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| Maybe extending the grill all the way around with some other
| design changes to make it feel fresh, and not just a taller
| Mac Mini?
| rovr138 wrote:
| You also have to consider thermals and how the air would
| flow over components.
|
| It's not just as simple as adding more holes
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| Fake grills have existed for years. More airflow is
| _usually_ , but not always, better.
|
| All I'm saying is the current design doesn't look good to
| me, and some more work could've been done to not just
| make it look like a weird, tall Mac Mini.
| abraae wrote:
| > All I'm saying is the current design doesn't look good
| to me
|
| That's not what you said. Here's what you actually said,
| which is ridiculously hyberbolic, hence this discussion.
|
| > I think from a design perspective, this is the most
| disappointing Apple release so far.
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| Yes, that's called an _opinion_. I think the design doesn
| 't look good, I think it's the most disappointed I have
| been with hardware design from Apple, and made my
| disappointment known. It even starts with "I think".
|
| What, exactly, is your issue with someone posting their
| opinion?
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| Agreed, they should have gone for cube proportions. I'm sure
| someone will come out with a NAS that has the right height to
| bring it back into harmony.
| hughrr wrote:
| This is actually really cheap. Maxed out at PS7999 is less than
| half the price of an HP Z with similar numbers configured in
| which it probably can't even get near the mac.
|
| And it doesn't need $1000 wheels.
| jeffbee wrote:
| $8100 for a 20-core, 128GB, 8TB, 2x10ge, 2xTB3 BTO config of a
| HP Z6 G4. You get more expandability but fewer and slower TB
| ports, random graphics, and a much slower CPU, also a different
| operating system. Z workstations won't be competitive for
| people who can choose macOS until they refresh them with a
| newer Xeon. On the other hand, Mac won't be competitive for
| people who require ECC or Windows or Linux.
|
| https://zworkstations.com/configurations/2944242/
| hughrr wrote:
| Stick two bigger GPUs in it to drive multiple 4k screens.
|
| But yes no ECC. Linux arm64 works on my M1 Pro in UTM using
| native virtualisation. And it's fast as anything.
| tonguez wrote:
| It's not cheap for the type of people who would actually want
| this the most (people working in entertainment, young
| "creatives", etc). The trust fund children depicted in the
| keynote who have $50k of A/V equipment in their room bear no
| resemblance to actual people living in the real world instead
| of some weird ivory tower of wealth.
|
| It's like a commercial for a fragrance where someone in a suit
| is rolling around in the middle of a field. It makes no sense
| except to delusional rich people like Tim Cook.
| hughrr wrote:
| I don't think you have worked in typical big city media
| companies...
| criddell wrote:
| It's cheap for what it is. If you need a machine like this,
| then what else could you buy?
|
| The Studio starts at $2k. If you are going to use it for the
| next 4 years, that's less than $1.50 / day. No trust fund
| required.
| schleck8 wrote:
| 32 GB of unspecified frequency ram? 512 GB of unspecified
| speed and type ssd?
|
| That's not a 2000 dollar configuration. For reference, that
| memory capacity costs 120 euros with 3200 Mhz
| geraneum wrote:
| That 32 GB is not a typical stick. It's a unified memory
| on SoC like how it is in smartphones. It affects
| performance significantly. You can read more about how
| they work and how they are different here:
|
| https://www.howtogeek.com/701804/how-unified-memory-
| speeds-u...
|
| Also it was mentioned, if I'm not mistaken, that the SSD
| has 7.5 Gb/s read, which is actually pretty good.
| [deleted]
| forgotmyoldacc wrote:
| My workstation build with Epyc is ~$5,000 and has more cores
| (24 core), more memory (256 GB), faster GPU (3090), a 2TB pcie
| 4 SSD and I suspect will perform better on standard benchmarks.
| Definitely not as compact as the Studio though but lot more
| extendable.
| rovr138 wrote:
| $5,799 for:
|
| * 20 core cpu
|
| * 64 core gpu
|
| * 32 core neural engine
|
| * 128GB of ram
|
| * 1TB SSD
|
| fully maxed out, 8TB SSD
| hughrr wrote:
| Yeah stuff SSD array in TB4 hole for less money.
| rovr138 wrote:
| Yeah.
|
| Obviously depends on people's workload. For myself and to
| future proof, I can see a benefit for 2TB locally.
|
| The rest I can offload to network storage.
| hughrr wrote:
| Indeed. I'm running on a 512Gb MBP 14" and have 310Gb
| free so no point in this for me.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Start editing high res video, and those TB's will quickly
| fill up.
| scottlamb wrote:
| That's why hard disks are still made and sold: they're an
| inexpensive way to achieve high capacity. I wouldn't
| expect seek latency to be problematic for video editing,
| and if it is, using the SSD as cache would likely be
| sufficient.
| hughrr wrote:
| I have been purposely avoiding that situation to save
| money :)
| gumby wrote:
| A TB4 connection is, for all intents and purposes,
| "local". Way faster than any network storage.
| ejb999 wrote:
| I'd buy one in a second if only it would support running vmware
| fusion - I still have to have one foot in Windows world, and not
| being able to spin-up and old windows vm is a deal breaker for
| me. (M1 chips won't support it).
|
| Sure hope my latest macbookpro with intel chip lasts a while, I
| fear it may be one of the last ones they make.
| AlphaSite wrote:
| For what its worth there is a tech preview:
| https://blogs.vmware.com/teamfusion/2021/09/fusion-for-m1-pu...
| temac wrote:
| For now do not attempt to run Win11 on it though. It kinda
| sorta works a little after doing tons of workarounds
| including some really crazy ones (network through a kernel
| debugger stuff or something; manually installing x64 store
| packages if you want the store, etc...), the graphics is
| crap, rdesktoping is not very good. Seems fine for Linux VMs
| though (then use them with ssh).
|
| If you want Win11 use Parallels, it works very very very
| well.
|
| You can even run Fusion tech preview and Parallels at the
| same time :)
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| I expect Microsoft's answer to that will be to run an instance
| of Windows in Azure.
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| Why would you overload this machine for that need, though? Just
| have a laptop sitting on a shelf for when you need to spin up
| those old VMs, do what you need to do, and put it back on the
| shelf.
| ejb999 wrote:
| Its just the inconvenience of having to lug around multiple
| machines, and backup multiple machines - its nice when
| everything you need fits under your arm, but you are right -
| I could offload my old VM's, and may need to do that at some
| point.
| gzer0 wrote:
| Have you tried Parallels?
|
| It works incredibly well on the M1 macs.
|
| https://www.parallels.com/
| hughrr wrote:
| Also UTM if you are a cheap ass like me.
|
| https://github.com/utmapp/UTM
|
| I use native virtualisation to run Debian arm64 and emulation
| to run Debian x86-64
| temac wrote:
| Quite slow and not multicore for x64-64 though. It
| eventually works, but you better take a spare PC for any
| non trivial task.
| hughrr wrote:
| I usually just run one in AWS when I need one if I'm
| honest.
| duskwuff wrote:
| ARM versions of Parallels can only run ARM VMs. They can't
| run x86 VMs.
|
| Parallels' marketing site does not make this very clear.
| nebula8804 wrote:
| They may be referring to the Non-Arm Windows. Let me tell you
| Parallels running Windows ARM is the snappiest Windows
| experience I have had in years....only problem is that its
| Windows 11 :/
|
| Really wish there was someway to easily run Windows 7 or 8 on
| this thing. It would be bliss. Now that Windows XP Source has
| been leaked, maybe we can come together as a community, try
| to harden the OS and make it forward compatible with ARM.
| Bring back the Windows that people actually somewhat liked!
| If only that wasn't a monumental task :/
| ejb999 wrote:
| Yes, but AFAIK, M1's will not support emulation of x86 based
| regardless of software vendor - and unfortunately, I still
| have to run some old VM's several times a week - include a
| very old Windows XP environment, and I don't think anyone's
| in any rush to support that anytime soon.
|
| Who knows, maybe get a Mac studio for my Mac work, and keep
| my MacBook Pro for when I need to run non-arm VM's
| 0x0 wrote:
| So an M1 max is not... max anymore (>_<)
| sanedigital wrote:
| Technically "Ultra" means "Beyond", so putting it above "Max"
| means it's "beyond the maximum" :P
| can16358p wrote:
| Well yes and no. M1 Ultra is obviously faster, but that
| actually is two M1 Maxes glued together. (Of course it's much
| more complicated than that) In that sense it's not a completely
| new processor so it's not exactly breaking the "Max" promise...
| or am I playing devil's advocate here?
| georgeburdell wrote:
| I don't buy Apple products for philosophical reasons, but the Mac
| Mini, and now Mac Studio, are everything I wish Intel NUCs were.
| I have an Intel Skull Canyon system from 2016 as my gaming PC and
| it fits in my wife's purse. Since then, the gaming NUC variants
| have gotten larger and larger so that they're nearly mini-ATX
| form factor again.
| dangus wrote:
| You should get into the small form factor (SFF) Mini ITX gaming
| scene.
|
| Brands like Velkase, Custom MOD (in Ukraine, cannot currently
| conduct business), Phanteks, DAN Case, NZXT H1 V2, and many
| others are really interesting options.
|
| I've built systems that use either SFX PSUs or Flex ATX PSUs
| (the latter are usually modified with Noctua fans to quiet them
| down, so using a case that requires an SFX power supply is more
| noob-friendly and will have more generous power limits)
|
| The Optimum Tech channel on YouTube is a great as a general
| small form factor resource. Here's a case roundup:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo8T81nuLFM
|
| Gamers Nexus sometimes covers small form factor, but Optimum
| Tech has a lot more focus on SFF in particular.
| minimaxir wrote:
| The Mac Studio's HDMI doesn't support 120Hz out (so likely HDMI
| 2.0?) and it also doesn't come with a keyboard and mouse.
| the_lucifer wrote:
| Seems like it shares the same shortcomings as the M1 Pro/Max
| family then.
| birdyrooster wrote:
| At least the display port goes 120Hz beyond.
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| The complete lack of what HDMI port it uses is indeed pretty
| bizarre, but why would it come with a keyboard and mouse? The
| people who buy this already have those, or know which ones they
| need far better than Apple does, and will buy the exactly
| models they want on their own.
| SZJX wrote:
| The Thunderbolt ports support 120Hz though. I've been using the
| company MBP 14" with a 144Hz display without a hitch.
| kccoder wrote:
| Apple said that Max's CPU is up to 2.5x faster and the Ultra's
| CPU is up to 3.8x faster than whatever intel CPU is in the iMac
| Pro, so you're getting about 52% more CPU performance with
| Ultra's doubling in CPU cores vs the Max, so definitely feeling
| some linear scaling limitations with the interconnect.
| rovr138 wrote:
| There has to be overhead to not have to deal with the multi-cpu
| architecture in software.
|
| It's impressive
| andjd wrote:
| I don't work in the relevant space, but what makes coding for
| multi-cpu substantially harder than programming for multiple
| cores? Is it just having to manage separate memory for each
| CPU?
| cyber_kinetist wrote:
| Though maybe we can get some NUMA-like affinity control for
| the M1 Ultra, so HPC control freaks can finally tune the fuck
| out of this hardware.
| rovr138 wrote:
| I'm actually curious about memory.
|
| Since they're 2 distinct chips, will a single chip be able
| to handle 128GB? Not sure how the interconnect works.
| cyber_kinetist wrote:
| Yes, as all NUMA machines do, one CPU can access all
| memory, both local (to the CPU) and global (through the
| interconnect). The problem is that there is a significant
| latency cost when a CPU accesses non-local memory
| (limitations of the interconnect). So the HPC people
| writing their algorithms make sure that this happens at a
| minimal amount, by enforcing that the data each CPU is
| using is allocated locally as possible (ex. by using
| special affinity controls provided by libnuma)
|
| I was just curious if these kinds of optimizations are
| possible in the M1 Ultra.
| MBCook wrote:
| But IS there an interconnect?
|
| The way Apple presented it sounded more like the chips
| talked at a lower layer, much like if it was all built as
| one physical chip, than when you have two normal chips
| with an interconnect fabric.
|
| Someone will figure it out with benchmarks or something.
| maronato wrote:
| Maybe, but performance doesn't usually increase linearly with
| cpu count anyway. See
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law
| alberth wrote:
| Mac Pro scale up?
|
| How is this going to scale up to a Mac Pro, especially related to
| RAM?
|
| The Ultra caps at 128 GB of RAM (which isn't much for video
| editing, especially given that the GPU uses the system RAM).
| Today's Mac Pro goes up to 1.5TB (and has dedicated video RAM
| above this).
|
| If the Mac Pro is say, 4 Ultra's stacked together - that means
| the new Mac Pro will be capped at 512GB of RAM.
|
| Would Apple stack 12 Ultra's together to get to 1.5TB of RAM?
| Seems unlikely.
| stirlo wrote:
| Hector Martin who's developing Asahi Linux for Apple Silicon
| recently tweeted about this. The M1 Pro, M1 Max and the at the
| time unannounced "Double M1 Max" have a completely different
| series identifier (T600x) to the forth coming Mac Pro chip
| (T6500) so no it won't just be a doubling/quadrupling of an
| existing design.
| https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1498317101245034502?s=21
| rpmisms wrote:
| Production houses working on massive projects will get the Pro.
| Anyone else will get the Studio and use proxy clips.
| xwowsersx wrote:
| Could/would this machine makes sense as a development machine? I
| use a Macbook Pro (M1) and it's always docked...I basically don't
| need it to be transportable. I could also use more power (I'm
| regularly running a bunch of docker containers + PyCharm +
| DataGrip + Android Studio).
| eyelidlessness wrote:
| I'll pretty likely swap this in for my almost always docked
| intel 16", and keep that around for the rare times I go mobile.
| turndown wrote:
| I was kind of disappointed as I expected this to be the keyboard
| thing that was leaked to the news a bit ago; seemed to fit just
| right with their arguments of portability, connectivity,
| modularity.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| yea they kinda glossed over "modularity", I didn't see any
| modules...
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| This is pretty squarely marketed towards current users of 27"
| iMacs and iMac Pro's, so from that perspective the
| "modularity" being spoken of is the ability to use the
| display with things that aren't the Mac as well as the
| ability to upgrade the display. Thunderbolt 4 also makes it
| better than the previous TB3 iMacs in terms of external
| expansion.
| copperx wrote:
| I'm pretty sure they meant "buy and connect up to three our
| new displays however you like".
| rovr138 wrote:
| I just couldn't see it. Specially for the studio.
|
| The thermals would have been insane to deal with
| colesantiago wrote:
| Is there any point to building a PC anymore?
| andrewmcwatters wrote:
| At the moment the PC market is upside down, too. If you're
| building a professional workstation, you'll find with current
| prices that a business XPS desktop is cheaper by a significant
| margin over building your own workstation with the highest end
| parts available today.
| etaioinshrdlu wrote:
| Hey look, it's finally the "Missing Mac" as longed for here:
| https://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2020/06/12/the-missing-ma...
| and here: https://www.cultofmac.com/1899/the-missing-macintosh/
|
| Fans have been asking for such a thing for so many years.
| dcchambers wrote:
| It's a little funny looking, proportionally speaking, but I am so
| happy to see some ports on the front. It can be incredibly
| awkward to try and find ports on the back of a machine. At first
| glance it seems a little expensive, but the value based on
| performance is actually fantastic. Well done, apple.
| sys_64738 wrote:
| It looks like the son of the Mac Cube.
| ar_lan wrote:
| Why is the M1 Max not... the maximum spec?
| andrewjl wrote:
| It is the maximum for a single chip. Ultra is two chips in a
| single package. I think the name subtly emphasizes the
| distinction.
| eddieroger wrote:
| It is the most they can get on one die, but they can glue
| multiple dies together and get more.
| lwkl wrote:
| Great they avoided $1000 stand memes by offering a more
| reasonable $400 stand.
|
| To be more serious looks like a pretty good product that fits
| well into offices. I stopped working in IT in 2018 but back then
| SFF was all the rage and a powerful workstation with a smaller
| form factor will probably be attractive to a lot of customers.
| hughrr wrote:
| I want a vesa mount one which should be cheaper. Hrumph.
| hagbarddenstore wrote:
| It's "free". No additional cost.
| [deleted]
| nerdjon wrote:
| More and more I see the M1 chips and I wish Mac worked seriously
| well for gaming. Would love too see something like Proton but for
| Mac (given up hopes for native support).
|
| I hate that I have my gaming PC and then my Mac for everything
| else.
|
| I have to wonder though what their plan is for the M2. Are they
| laying the groundwork for when the M2 comes out all of these
| variants will be ready at the same time? Or a gradual upgrade but
| the same series (Normal, Pro, Max, and then Ultra) for each.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| The good news is that optimized iPhone, iPad, and Mac games now
| share most of their code and run on the same CPU and GPU cores.
|
| There aren't many Mac games that have been ported over to both
| Metal and ARM, but World of Warcraft is an example.
| lwkl wrote:
| > but World of Warcraft is an example.
|
| Blizzard games are or were probably the outlier. They
| supported Macs even back in the PowerPC days. As a kid with a
| PowerBook G4 Blizzard games were the only good games I was
| able to play (Warcraft 3, WoW, Diablo). I have no idea if
| this is still the case for their newer games though.
| mcphage wrote:
| > I have no idea if this is still the case for their newer
| games though.
|
| Diablo 2 Remastered doesn't run on a Mac :-(
| smoldesu wrote:
| Sure as hell won't get better now that they're owned by
| Microsoft. You can expect DirectX to take center stage
| for their upcoming releases.
| amatecha wrote:
| Yeah, in fact, Blizzard supported Mac since the 68k days.
| Warcraft: Orcs and Humans required 68030 processor or
| better :) https://web.archive.org/web/19961019194943/http:/
| /blizzard.c...
|
| Blackthorne ran on 68040 as well. I think WarCraft came out
| first though...
| GeekyBear wrote:
| Given the sheer size of the market for iOS games, having
| Mac games share most of the same code makes a Mac port
| downright cheap.
| otterley wrote:
| Tell the game developers! They need to hear from you that the
| demand is there.
| NorwegianDude wrote:
| Giving Apple more power by making software for their products
| for free that Apple wants a large cut from doesn't sound like
| a good idea.
|
| Make games for Linux, and let Apple figure out a
| compatability layer to make it work on their products. That's
| the way it should be.
| criddell wrote:
| > Apple wants a large cut from doesn't sound like a good
| idea
|
| It sounds like a good idea if it leads to higher profits.
| Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo all charge game developers
| similar fees.
| NorwegianDude wrote:
| Maybe short term. Helping a company grow that is know to
| lock down their products and force developers to pay them
| for access might not be the best long term plan overall.
| [deleted]
| otterley wrote:
| Apple doesn't get a cut of software that's sold outside the
| App Store on MacOS.
|
| And the most performant MacOS APIs for graphics rendering
| aren't on Linux AFAIK. Besides, game developers generally
| eschew compatibility layers because they harm performance.
| criddell wrote:
| Has everybody forgotten about Apple Arcade? It has all the
| hits like Angry Birds and Fruit Ninja!
| JAlexoid wrote:
| There's more demand for streaming games, than games for Macs.
|
| Desktop Macs with GPUs even remotely capable of gaming are
| not that plentiful.
| xyst wrote:
| In reality though would you really want your games to be
| installed on the same machine as your daily driver?
|
| Game companies and their parent companies tend to install some
| shady spyware on your machine in the name of "anti-cheat
| software" (ie, installed in the ring0/kernel space). I am kind
| of relieved that I have 2 separate machines.
|
| Although if they develop virtualized environments to sandbox
| games from the host machine (similar to QEMU) then I suppose
| that might work.
| bart_spoon wrote:
| > In reality though would you really want your games to be
| installed on the same machine as your daily driver?
|
| Yes. The vast majority of people that I'm aware of don't buy
| multiple desktops. If I spend $1000+ for a gaming machine, I
| don't want to spend hundreds more to have multiple machines
| to jump between and to manage connections to and to take up
| space in my office.
| code_witch_sam wrote:
| - [x] RGB'd out PC with RTX 3090 for playing Minecraft and
| Elden ring
|
| - [x] Decent wired network in-home
|
| - [x] Connect via Moonlight from Mac Mini M1 to Gaming PC
|
| - [x] Best of both worlds
|
| It's wonderful. I only wish my Mac Mini had a 120hz display
| attached.
| joemi wrote:
| Minecraft runs great on M1 Macs, btw.
| nouveaux wrote:
| I don't feel the need to play cutting edge games anymore.
| Playing Windows games in Parallel on my M1 is pretty good. I
| was shocked to see how well it worked. It's unlikely to run
| Elden Ring well. However, the vast majority of games are fine.
| cube2222 wrote:
| It'd be cool to see some gaming-oriented benchmarks of the M1
| Ultra with Parallels.
| ar_lan wrote:
| Technically, I think this is illegal (Microsoft doesn't have
| a license for ARM support that isn't Qualcomm based). So for
| the pirating community this might not be an issue, but for
| long term survivability of the industry that would need to
| change.
| hammock wrote:
| Mac is going back to their most successful niche - creators.
| Tiktaalik wrote:
| Game developers are creators!
|
| Additionally all the creators, musicians, artists, etc that
| are making assets for and working with the game industry are
| having to use PCs to interface with the game.
| nkozyra wrote:
| Almost all of those assets can be created entirely
| independently, though. There's no need to use a PC to
| interface.
| neoberg wrote:
| Yes but to try and experiment with those assets "in
| game", they'd need to use a PC.
| Tiktaalik wrote:
| Yeah but in game dev increasingly the tooling is
| integrated in the engine and so doing assets on a mac,
| then bringing them over to a PC and putting them into the
| game is an incredible unnecessary and annoying friction
| point.
|
| Increasingly rare to find an artist that only works in
| photoshop and isn't working in the engine, directly
| putting their work into the game.
|
| Accordingly even the art side is using PCs.
| LegitShady wrote:
| Creators is not one group but many groups who create
| different things.
| satsuma wrote:
| and it makes total sense! computers are slowly transitioning
| back to professional/enthusiast/educational focused as casual
| internet browsing continues to move onto mobile devices. you
| don't have people buying laptops to browse the internet on
| their couch anymore.
| mshockwave wrote:
| Same, I want to run AAA games using these crazy Mac hardwares.
| A more interesting question will be: how hard it will be to
| implement such Proton for Mac? Is there any previous project?
| randmeerkat wrote:
| Some more donations to Proton's Patreon would probably help.
| They only get about $400 / month right now...
|
| https://www.patreon.com/protondb
| Anon1096 wrote:
| That is a Patreon link ProtonDB, not Proton. Proton is
| funded by Valve and ProtonDB is unaffiliated.
| randmeerkat wrote:
| You're right, thanks for pointing that out.
| zten wrote:
| It exists as a proprietary product. Final Fantasy 14's Mac
| "port" is using Crossover, which slaps some magic on Wine.
| Definitely not a AAA graphics title but you could run it
| today. On a 16" MBP with the top spec M1 Max, it will get
| about 30-50fps with medium detail and I think I tested it at
| 1680x1050 - which feels like a miracle, almost, but gets
| trounced by an Intel i9 + AMD Vega 56(?) MBP running Windows
| from a few years ago. If the right APIs were available and an
| aarch64 binary were published instead, it would probably be a
| different story.
| Thaxll wrote:
| Well crazy mac hardware is actually not very good compared to
| PC graphic cards.
| yurishimo wrote:
| The comparison chart for the high spec M1 Ultra was using a
| 3090.
|
| So even if it "only" reaches 3060 levels of performance in
| games, I think many people would be okay with that. Reality
| will likely place it somewhere between a 3060 and the 3090.
| ohgodplsno wrote:
| "Reality will place it between a low end enthusiast card
| and a high end enthusiast card"
|
| thanks nostradamus, i can also tell you tomorrow's
| temperature is going to be between 0 and 100C
| borodi wrote:
| So 3090 price for 3060 performance, doesn't sound very
| promising. I wish we could exploit those gpus easier for
| compute, but compute with metal is simply not there, at
| least for now.
| yurishimo wrote:
| It's not priced like a 3090 though? There's an entire
| computer there and the CPU performance is no slouch, even
| if the GPU may be lacking for what gamers want today.
| JAlexoid wrote:
| You're right, it's priced higher than RTX3090. Because HP
| sells the whole system with RTX3090 at $2909 right now.
| brimble wrote:
| I'm pretty sure the gamers who're always rocking high-end
| video cards are a small minority of PC gamers, anyway,
| even if we only count "serious" gamers (not just Candy
| Crush or whatever) to remove that potential objection.
|
| A lot more probably find a best-bang-for-the-buck
| midrange card and hang on to it for ~3 years, before
| upgrading to another midrange card.
| Thaxll wrote:
| It's their perf per watt chart that is irrelevant for
| gaming.
| olyjohn wrote:
| Honestly, performance per watt is probably the least
| important consideration for a desktop computer.
|
| Running a farm of these things? Maybe perf per watt makes
| sense to save some money. Mobile device running on
| battery? I totally get it.
|
| But surely, the difference in cost for one person running
| it in their house, or a few hundred people in an
| office... like who cares? The cost savings won't even be
| noticeable on the power bill.
| BirAdam wrote:
| Actually, they're excellent as one can actually easily
| purchase an M1 mac at the moment.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| What's the M1 Max equivalent to? Roughly a RTX3070 or
| thereabouts? That doesn't seem too awful.
| Keyframe wrote:
| Unless you want more or replace it.
| JAlexoid wrote:
| At almost twice the price of a desktop with the same
| RTX3070 from Dell or HP.
|
| It's definitely a great machine, but if you're a gamer -
| stay away.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I would like to see better gaming on Mac just so I
| wouldn't need two computers, or compromise just to get a
| machine that can be a halfway decent gaming setup.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Guess that means consoles will always have a place as
| that "second computer".
| JAlexoid wrote:
| GeForce Now is there for you...
| nerdjon wrote:
| Doing some quick searching around.
|
| I know there is Crossover, Wine technically works on Mac from
| what I can tell also. So not sure if there is a technical
| reason Proton couldn't work on Mac other than just not
| building it.
|
| Apple does talk a lot about gaming now on the iPhone and
| iPad, I would love to see them talk about it more on Mac
| (especially with how powerful these are) and maybe work with
| Proton like Steam is for the Steam Deck.
| chaosharmonic wrote:
| Proton also depends on DXVK, an additional translation
| layer that specifically bridges the Windows graphics APIs
| to Vulkan (as opposed to WINE handling its system calls in
| a general sense).
|
| Meanwhile, newer versions of macOS (and the M1 that runs
| the ARM builds in particular) don't use Vulkan at all,
| opting for Metal instead.
| xrisk wrote:
| Crossover is proprietary. Pure Wine cannot run x86 apps on
| ARM if I understand correctly.
| nouveaux wrote:
| I don't think something like Proton will pan out. What will
| likely happen is that the larger studio making AAA games will
| want an iOS port. At that point, it will be trivial to tweak
| it for the M1 chips. Games like Elden Ring and and GTA are
| perfectly playable on an iPad with a controller. M1 Apple TVs
| are definitely in the pipeline. iOS makes it worthwhile for
| AAA studios to port their hits over to the Apple ecosystem.
| SamuelAdams wrote:
| There is a lot of support for M1. See these lists. Please note
| though that "playable" does not mean "on par with other
| platforms", ie, Windows and Xbox / Playstation.
|
| https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1er-NivvuIheDmIKBVRu3...
|
| https://applesilicongames.com/
| lelandfe wrote:
| I believe OP meant Mac, not M1 - I.e. that there are many
| multitudes of AAA games that still have not hit macOS.
|
| You're right, though, that M1 has pretty decent parity with
| Intel Macs for games now.
| neogodless wrote:
| Games I've played over the past two years:
|
| Valheim - not in database
|
| ARK: Survival Evolved - "game won't launch"
|
| Conan: Exiles - not in database
|
| Grounded - not in database
|
| Civ V and Civ VI - each shows one record and seems it ran for
| that person (30-60 fps - for comparison, both run 144 fps on
| my $1000 Lenovo laptop.)
|
| It Takes Two - not in database
|
| That's all anecdotal, i.e. the games this one person likes to
| play are not supported, or don't play very well, and some of
| them are 5+ years old.
|
| Overall the point being, it's hard to shell out all that
| money for a device that won't play your games. (If this sort
| of gaming is part of your computer use case). So to that
| original comment's point "I wish Mac worked seriously well
| for gaming."
| jamesy0ung wrote:
| X-Plane is great on M1.
| Tiktaalik wrote:
| Seriously. If Apple supported gaming more I'd be able to drop
| this PC.
|
| Could be the sort of thing that could cause an avalanche of
| switchers.
|
| You'd also pull over the entire games industry into the Apple
| space. Right now we code on PCs. As Apple silicon gets better,
| it's gonna be more and more painful to not be able to make use
| of that.
| npunt wrote:
| Not sure about game developers, but gamers are a low-margin,
| high-touch, low-satisfaction-score, garish-aesthetic, speeds-
| and-feeds market. Pretty much antithetical to Apple's core
| focus and I think they rightly avoid them. Despite personally
| wanting more games on Mac :)
| outworlder wrote:
| > low-margin
|
| Really?
|
| Have you missed the insane markups on anything 'gaming'
| related for many years?
| andrewmcwatters wrote:
| Could you provide an example?
| jdgoesmarching wrote:
| Also I feel like everyone is missing their AR/VR push right
| around the corner. VR headsets with these chips will be
| dramatically more powerful than other devices on the
| market. Combine that power with Apple product marketing,
| and devs will be there regardless of how much the Metal
| APIs suck.
| jachee wrote:
| > If Apple supported gaming more
|
| You mean if gaming supported Apple more, right? The
| industry's reliance on DirectX and the frameworks that build
| on it are largely what keep gaming so PC-centric.
|
| If we saw AAA studios embrace macOS-compatible (or better yet
| Open Source) graphics architecture, the need to have separate
| gaming PCs (and the insanely expensive GPUs associated
| therewith) would evaporate.
| risho wrote:
| if they would just support vulkan they could basically pick
| up directx for free off of the back of valve
| minimaxir wrote:
| Even games running on engines like Unity and UE4 that
| support macOS/Metal don't support macOS because the
| userbase size isn't worth the overhead.
|
| It's a chicken and egg problem, although Apple Arcade is a
| good approach to try and bridge that gap.
| nightski wrote:
| There is no chicken and egg. Apple has tens of billions
| of dollars. If they wanted to support games it could be
| done really quickly. They straight up are anti-gaming
| unless it is of the exploitative micro-transaction mobile
| kind where they can reap that store tax.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Yeah, it's pretty sad to see them pimping the likes of
| Genshin Impact. Even among the people who do play and
| enjoy it, I've yet to meet anyone who will defend it as
| anything other than a Breath of the Wild ripoff with a
| slot machine-shaped tumor attached to it's hip.
| MattSteelblade wrote:
| It's Apple's refusal to support Vulkan that is it's biggest
| detriment to the gaming industry.
| ohgodplsno wrote:
| Right, it's the studio's fault, not because Metal is a
| dogshit API with dogshit performance. And instead of paying
| 900$ for a RTX 3090, you could pay 4000 for something with
| the equivalent power of a 3060Ti that you can't upgrade
| without buying an entire new SoC.
|
| But go on, blame directx for being the one API actually
| moving things forwards. Not Apple's shitty behavior.
| jachee wrote:
| You got a source on $900 3090s?
|
| I can't find 'em for under $2000.
| l-p wrote:
| > As of June 3, 2021, there is no native support for Vulkan
| API provided by Apple devices.
|
| > Apple deprecated OpenGL in iOS 12 and macOS 10.14 Mojave
| in favor of Metal, but it is still available as of macOS 11
| Big Sur (including Apple silicon devices). The latest
| version supported for OpenGL is 4.1 from 2011.
|
| OSX accounts for 2.62% of Steam users.
|
| Implementing another graphics backend is prohibitively
| expensive for small studios whereas you could implement
| either OpenGL or Vulkan and get the other 97.38%. And
| that's without factoring in the required investment in
| single-use hardware, people, and skills.
|
| DirectX is another safe choice but I try to stay away from
| anything proprietary or Microsoft-related.
| mhh__ wrote:
| Why would you spend a huge chunk of your R&D money
| supporting a platform with users who don't game built by a
| company that won't spend a tiny amount of their R&D budget
| supporting industry standard technology that's been
| established for years.
| asiachick wrote:
| AFAIK Unreal and Unity but support Metal. It's a chicken
| and egg thing. There is no game market on MacOS because no
| gamers are on MacOS because there are no games on MacOS so
| there are no gamers on MacOS ....
|
| Of course consumer level macs have never had GPUs that
| could run AAA games. I don't know what an M1 MacBook Air's
| perf is. If it's able to run AAA games and a reasonable
| framerate then maybe a market would build? But if you're
| limiting gamers to M1 Pro/M1 Max/M1 Ultra users only then
| it's probably a pretty small market?
| georgeecollins wrote:
| >> You mean if gaming supported Apple more, right?
|
| I can tell you from long experience-- more than 20 years
| ago I produced a Mac games with Apple's financing and as
| recently as five years ago I produced a game that sold over
| $100m on an Apple device-- Apple has been extremely
| consistent in their attitude. They are much less supportive
| of gaming then Microsoft or Sony. Part of it is that they
| see games as a lesser use of their devices over other use
| cases. Another part is that they consistently promote the
| kind of experiences they wish their customers wanted over
| the experiences their customers choose.
| cyberpunk wrote:
| How's your internet connection? I'm playing on a RTX3080
| thanks to geforce now, but I admit it's only possible due to
| my living in a big city with a very low ping connection to
| nvidias data centres.
|
| But the economics make total sense. It's like 15/euro a
| month. A RTX 3080 would cost me like 1200 euro to buy at the
| moment, without the rest of the PC to go with it. And I'd
| need to run windows, which I've not done since '98.
|
| Outsourcing hardware it seems, does work for gaming, if
| you've got the 'net for it, :}
| cyberpunk wrote:
| And cyberpunk 2077 or farcry 6 on full on ultra settings
| makes me almost want to cry it's so pretty. I'll walk past
| a puddle and just... walk back and forward. It feels like
| what your teenage overclock made crysis look look like in
| the early 2000's, I can recommend.
| jakear wrote:
| As someone who hasn't really gamed since Crysis, looking
| at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5rYjHuZsM0, I have to
| say I feel.... not impressed at all? Maybe that video is
| a poor example, but the plants for instance look
| absolutely awful, especially up close.
| asiachick wrote:
| Yea, here's Crysis and you're right IMO. At a glance I
| can't see much difference. I'm sure I could find them but
| they certainly don't stick out
|
| https://youtu.be/KVmc2P2PPRw?t=841
| Apocryphon wrote:
| The core gameplay mechanics of Far Cry have not changed
| significantly since Crysis, either. (Okay, more
| accurately since Far Cry 3- released a decade ago- or
| so.)
| asabla wrote:
| ha! are you me?
|
| Had the benefit to purchase my self a beasty computer
| right before Cyberpunk launched.
|
| I don't know how many times I just stopped what I was
| doing and just look at something shiny/bright.
|
| Last time I felt this way must have been back with HL2
| cyberpunk wrote:
| Fortunately it's gotten better. I didn't play it much
| during the first months as it was such a terrible
| shitshow of bugs. Seems they're getting ontop of it now
| though. I feel deeply sorry for the devs that they made
| them release it in such a condition. We've all been there
| I guess!
| mrtksn wrote:
| What I don't like about this model is that you are not
| allowed to run whatever you want, you can't even run all
| your library from Steam or Epic but select games only.
| cercatrova wrote:
| There are other services that allow you to run base
| windows from which you can run whatever you want.
|
| https://shadow.tech/
| nr2x wrote:
| 100% this: cloud gaming tech is solid but the business
| model is still in infancy. By the time Apple caught up in
| gaming I expect cloud gaming will have taken root.
| JAlexoid wrote:
| I'm in a rural area 1.5 hour north of NYC - I use GeForce
| Now and Stadia with 6ms latency. It's available to more
| than just the big cities.
| cyberpunk wrote:
| Okay, try that in rural Scotland ;)
| madeofpalk wrote:
| RTX3080 but you've got low bitrate mpeg artifacts. I've
| tried them, they're fine when its your only option.
| smoldesu wrote:
| It's important to note that Apple cut off the Proton devs; not
| the other way around. It would indeed be pretty cool to see
| that sort of thing running on Apple Silicon, but the plethora
| of architectural changes that came along with Catalina stopped
| Mac support from being a viable target for Valve.
|
| Not very surprising though; Mac native games don't really work
| that well either. If it relies on 32-bit libraries, it won't
| launch. If it uses outdated OpenGL, you can expect a plethora
| of errors to accompany you to an instantaneous crash. Apple has
| their work cut out for them, I just doubt they'll have the
| "courage" to bring back the features they so courageously threw
| away.
| ilrwbwrkhv wrote:
| Same. That chunky PC serves only one purpose now and rest of
| the time is unused.
| nerdjon wrote:
| The unused part is what bothers me, like I actively make sure
| I use windows for as little outside of gaming for various
| reasons.
|
| But for the price to use it, ok not rarely since I game a
| lot... but considering I also have consoles. I would say I
| use my Mac more.
|
| I just wonder if this is ever going to be a realistic
| alternative or am I just always going to have 2 personal
| computers.
| tannedNerd wrote:
| What Im hoping for is with fiber/5G things like GeforceNow
| become more popular. I used it recently thanks to 6 free
| months from ATT when I had an unscheduled layover due to a
| missed flight, and it was actually playable with 7 Days to
| Die (a FPS). Granted it wasn't as good as my home machine,
| but this was also over hotel wifi so not bad
| ralfd wrote:
| > More and more I see the M1 chips and I wish Mac worked
| seriously well for gaming.
|
| I guess Apple will never play the console game, with having
| their own game developer studios and buying exclusives.
|
| But I wish they would put a M1 in an Apple TV, releasing their
| own controller and just do something!
| paxys wrote:
| Third/fourth/fifth time's the charm I guess? I really hope apple
| gets the "Mac Pro" form factor right this time.
| the_lucifer wrote:
| > I really hope apple gets the "Mac Pro" form factor right this
| time.
|
| Tbh, they did mention at the end that their Apple Silicon Mac
| Pro is coming later down the line, which I'm guessing will
| focus more on upgradability and modularity
| mkaic wrote:
| hopefully M2 as well!
| ShakataGaNai wrote:
| As a comparsion a quick build on PCPartPicker: Xeon E5 22 core,
| Radeon RX 6900 XT, case, power supply, 64 gb of ram, motherboard,
| 1TB SSD and CPU cooler. Comes in at just shy of $5,000
|
| That CPU isn't as powerful as the one the M1 Ultra beat in their
| specs, but should be about the same GPU as they compared and
| beat. If the benchmarks are to be believed.... the $4,000 Mac
| Studio will be an absolute powerhouse in the
| price/performance/power market for quite some amount of time.
|
| Normally I'd make some snarky remark about Apple Tax, but in this
| case they look to have the PC hardware equivalent very well and
| truly beat on cost. For now.
| xemdetia wrote:
| If anything this just reminds me how frustrating their product
| line was pre-M1 for so many years. I'm still dealing with the
| legacy of having to work with people with 16GB as the ceiling
| and projects that simply do not fit in them.
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > As a comparsion a quick build on PCPartPicker: Xeon E5 22
| core, Radeon RX 6900 XT, case, power supply, 64 gb of ram,
| motherboard, 1TB SSD and CPU cooler. Comes in at just shy of
| $5,000
|
| And that's just the parts. Don't forget the M1 Ultra will use
| less electrical power too.
| ajconway wrote:
| Don't forget that any of the M1-family chips are absolutely
| crushing the competition in single-core performance.
| flembat wrote:
| Good to see the kind of computer we can all afford in ten years
| or so.
| rovr138 wrote:
| This is not really geared towards 'all'. You can see that on
| the presentation and who they had talking.
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| You missed the "ten years from now". I will happily pay
| $300-#400 for this machine 10 years from now to use as a
| random streaming box sat in a closet.
| bogwog wrote:
| I did that with a Mac Mini, but at some point it seems to
| have entered a permanently throttled state for some reason.
| Disk IO and CPU performance are atrocious, and idk why.
| Even tried installing Linux on it, but it's still
| incredibly slow. Maybe some sensor broke?
|
| Whatever it is, I've become much less trusting of Apple
| hardware that is that old.
| brimble wrote:
| I assume you cleaned the dust out? Otherwise I think your
| guess of a faulty sensor is most likely.
|
| [EDIT] Could be some thermal paste going bad, too, I
| guess.
| loudthing wrote:
| Darn. I was really hoping for a new Macbook Air :/
| youngtaff wrote:
| Boy is that an ugly box... the proportions seem all wrong to me -
| looks like they just stacked a bunch on Mac Mini's (which has
| pretty nice proportions)
| ksec wrote:
| The M1 Ultra is likely using CoWoS from TSMC.
|
| https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/tsmc/cowos
| andrewmcwatters wrote:
| The whole GPU thing is really funny. The M1 Ultra is supposedly
| more powerful now than an NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000, but I'm
| guessing really truly only for professional work.
|
| If you tried to play games on it or develop games for it, you're
| gonna find that it's less powerful than the standard AMD
| integrated GPU on a 5k iMac from 2015 until you come across
| software or build software using Metal directly.
|
| Both Wine and Parallels usage today provide poor graphics
| performance.
| thrusong wrote:
| Where does this fit in the lineup of Macs?
|
| The 27" iMac is gone and the Mac Studio looks like it's taking
| the place of that or could even be the new Pro.
|
| I don't want that thing on my desktop, I want a big all-in-one.
|
| At least the Studio Display looks like it could be used to stuff
| some kind of M chip in down the road for a "pro" all-in-one
| option.
| newaccount74 wrote:
| Using the 27" iMac with lots of stuff plugged in is a bit
| annoying. I occasionally have cables coming loose when I adjust
| the display. And it's impossible to get additional displays
| that match the iMacs look.
| ushakov wrote:
| The design looks like it was designed to be a fan, but they
| accidentally added a computer chip
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| Cool
| areoform wrote:
| I would like to highlight just how much Apple is focusing on
| their customers and use cases right now. It seems that they're
| targeting products to what their professional customers actually
| want. And in this case, it's a 3.7" little thing that can process
| 18 streams of 8k video (fully specced out). That's kinda crazy,
| and they're doing it at a price point that's competitive compared
| to all of the companies out there.
|
| Bravo Apple. I'd love to see what they have in store for
| designers and programmers next.
| nouveaux wrote:
| > they're doing it at a price point that's competitive compared
| to all of the companies out there
|
| I think they're blowing all their competitors out of the water
| with the price point. It's not just a 10-20% difference in
| price anymore.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| And you can tell because they were marketing their products
| in relation to older Apple products rather than other
| manufacturers.
| NorwegianDude wrote:
| $8k for 128GB RAM, 8 TB solid state storage and 22 trillion
| ops/sec isn't exactly a bargain.
|
| I do however image that the performance per watt will be
| really good.
| efficax wrote:
| Try and price out a PC with those specs, it will come in
| around $6k minimum, but much more power intensive and very
| very loud
| gigatexal wrote:
| Don't feed the "but I can build a pc for less" crowd.
| They can't see the apples to oranges comparison they're
| making: a Mac is not a PC. They have different use-cases
| and run different software.
| goosedragons wrote:
| johnmaguire wrote:
| This thread started with a comparison to PCs... I mean I
| assume, since no competitor is putting out Macs...
|
| > That's kinda crazy, and they're doing it at a price
| point that's competitive compared to all of the companies
| out there.
| MisterTea wrote:
| > They have different use-cases ...
|
| Likely mostly running the same workloads such as web
| browsing.
|
| > ... and run different software.
|
| Maybe if Apple wrote it. Otherwise you can run the same
| Chrome/Firefox, Photoshop and Office on a Windows or even
| Linux Machine. Most software is shared between platforms
| nowadays with posix/windows being the lowest common
| denominator in terms of "cross platform".
| bee_rider wrote:
| You definitely shouldn't buy a $4000 computer if your
| only workload is web browsing.
| cj wrote:
| > $8k for 128GB RAM, 8 TB solid state storage
|
| Maybe not, but 32GB RAM + 512GB SSD for $2k is a pretty
| competitive price point.
| adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
| a 512 gb ssd is kinda inexcusable in a machine that costs
| more than $1000 1tb of ssd is only around $100.
| brailsafe wrote:
| It's a bit miserly, to say the least
| asiachick wrote:
| it's there for framing, solely to push you to the next
| tier
| gigatexal wrote:
| But ssd is not 100 usd gumstick from of the shelf it's
| integrated and sports speeds of 7.4GB/s at the top end.
| Shrug
| brailsafe wrote:
| No, it's a $200-400 gumstick that you can get off the
| shelf
|
| https://www.newegg.com/seagate-2tb-
| firecuda-530/p/N82E168202...
| yborg wrote:
| The Apple upgrade cost to 1TB is also $200.
| brailsafe wrote:
| Right, but the link was for 2TB at the same speed, and
| it's a $600 upgrade for 2TB from 512, which means
| literally $800 for 2TB in total, plus tax! To be fair, it
| is likely higher quality, more efficient maybe, but I
| just think it's quite a reach to charge $800 USD for 2TB
| of storage that's not uniquely fast or anything. If you
| think that's a good value, it certainly might be
| depending on your work, but it would be twice as good
| value if it wasn't twice the price as off-the-shelf.
| throwanem wrote:
| A terabyte of dead-slow and flaky SSD costs a hundred
| bucks, sure. But it doesn't matter much because, in the
| kinds of professional workflows this machine is
| targeting, local storage is more like swap space than
| anything. It needs to be fast more than it needs to be
| big.
| goosedragons wrote:
| A 1TB Samsung 980 Pro is $150 retail and arguably
| overpriced. 512GB in a $2000 computer is a joke in 2022.
| go_prodev wrote:
| $600 extra for a 2tb drive. So they're just giving them
| away now? /s
| oneplane wrote:
| Depends on what we're comparing, an average 20-core Dell
| Precision workstation costs about $10k.
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > I think they're blowing all their competitors out of the
| water with the price point.
|
| Not only on price point but also performance per watt. The M1
| laptops were a game changer on that front, and I expect the
| M1 Ultra to be the same.
| nextos wrote:
| This is very interesting because PC workstations have been
| stagnating for quite long! It'd be cool to be able to bring
| medium-sized tasks back from clouds to personal computers.
|
| The CPU performance is impressive but I wonder how well it'd
| fare against say an AMD ThreadRipper or a dual socket system
| with an equivalent price? It'd be also interesting to see a
| deep learning benchmark against Nvidia. Branding and RAM limits
| suggest this is geared towards video processing, but might also
| be useful for some other domains.
| rfoo wrote:
| Depending on your use case. Assuming no video editing (since
| this is HN), for equivalent performance I guess they can't
| beat their rivals on price. Different story for power tho.
| MisterTea wrote:
| > This is very interesting because PC workstations have been
| stagnating for quite long!
|
| How have they stagnated?
| twoWhlsGud wrote:
| Look at
|
| https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/workstations-isv-
| certif...
|
| or the HP equivalent - they're still equipping them with
| Xeon's from 2 1/2 years ago. So pretty stagnant.
| kiratp wrote:
| My workstation has a 3990x.
|
| Our "world" build is slightly faster on my M1 Max.
|
| https://twitter.com/kiratpandya/status/1457438725680480257
|
| The 3990x runs a bit faster on the initial compile stage but
| the linking is single threaded and the M1 Max catches up at
| that point. I expect the M1 Ultra to crush the 3990x on
| compile time.
| amelius wrote:
| Time for your linker vendor to parallelize their algorithm.
| gaws wrote:
| > It seems that they're targeting products to what their
| professional customers actually want.
|
| A $2,000 machine to handle editing, processing and posting
| video ~content~ on YouTube.
| skybrian wrote:
| I don't know, "18 streams of 8k video" doesn't seem terribly
| customer-oriented? Is it something anything anyone really needs
| or understands other than "that's very fast?" How much video
| can you watch at a time?
|
| I also don't see how the size of a desktop computer matters,
| other than as a fashion statement.
| etchalon wrote:
| ... it's not for consumers. It's for their customers. Which
| are video editors.
| kayoone wrote:
| it's not a consumer product, video editors can utilize
| multiple streams of video in many usecases. The iMac and the
| Macbook Air are the consumer products with enough performance
| for 99% of users.
| rsynnott wrote:
| This generally isn't aimed at consumers; the much cheaper Mac
| Mini and iMac would be more appropriate there. It's for
| creative professionals (and to some degree programmers,
| though I really wish they'd make a similar-sized chip with
| less silicon budget spent on GPUs and more on CPUs...)
| WheelsAtLarge wrote:
| I think over all the designers that focused on how the products
| looked have lost the tight grip they had over them. For years,
| look was more important than function. It was probably a good
| thing since it helped make the company become what it is today.
| But giving engineering a bit more control is givings us some
| very functional products. Very cool.
| lquist wrote:
| Why are they doing this? Trickle down effects for their mass
| market products? There is no way that the prosumer market is
| big enough to justify this distraction for Apple even if it
| used to be their core business line.
| spfzero wrote:
| Apple's market share has always been a small slice of the
| overall PC market. In a way, they never did "mass market".
| While the prosumer market may be a small proportion of the
| overall market, it could be very significant, for Apple,
| relative to the market Apple addresses.
|
| Plus, I think a lot of people who would not normally call
| themselves a "prosumer" will want, and purchase these.
| alwillis wrote:
| _Apple 's market share has always been a small slice of the
| overall PC market._
|
| _Small_ is doing a lot of work in that sentence.
|
| Apple sold nearly $11 billion worth of Macs last quarter.
| Once you get out of the HN echo chamber and enterprise IT
| circles, Macs are quite popular.
|
| _In a way, they never did "mass market"._
|
| Having an Apple Store within a 20 minute drive of 80% of
| the American public counts as mass market [1]. Haven't been
| lately because pandemic but my local Apple Stores were
| always packed with people. And of course there's a Best
| Buy, Micro Center and other regional retailers that sell
| Macs in places with no Apple Stores.
|
| It's not just prosumers; it's normies who just want a good
| computer made by a company they've heard of and trust vs. a
| cheap plastic 3rd tier PC from a manufacturer they're
| vaguely familiar with. I've been involved in user groups
| since the 80's; trust me, most Mac users are just regular
| people--not music producers and cinematographers.
|
| An M1 Mac mini, which certainly outperforms most PCs in
| it's price class. The retail price starts at $699 but is
| available for significantly less via 3rd parties like
| Amazon.
|
| If you think of the market segment as "non-plastic
| computers that don't suck", Apple is doing quite well. And
| now that Apple Silicon performance continues to outpace the
| industry as a whole, this will continue.
|
| The other segment is the "I like nice things" crowd. They
| aren't price sensitive; they just like nice things and Macs
| have that in spades compared to the vast majority of PCs.
|
| [1]: https://www.apple.com/retail/storelist/
| mhh__ wrote:
| There is a big market of creatives/artists who basically own
| an apple product as a decent chunk of their personality, for
| good or bad. Ergo, they'll sell.
| kube-system wrote:
| More margin than ever now that they're just gluing ARM
| processors together instead of buying Xeons from Intel?
| phillco wrote:
| Ecosystem.
| raydev wrote:
| What do you mean big enough? You don't think there's any
| profits here?
| jameshart wrote:
| Are you saying this only targets prosumers because
| professionals will wait for the M1 (M2?) Mac Pro?
| madeofpalk wrote:
| I would imagine:
|
| - it's easy for them to make
|
| - some of their customers need them
|
| - prevents people switching to windows for high-even pro
| machines, which would influence their other computer
| purchases
| btown wrote:
| Yep, this is the requisite "hey Hollywood I know we haven't
| thought about your studio needs in a while, here's a bone
| that reminds you why Apple is the industry standard" play.
| rsynnott wrote:
| So, you'd think, and that's certainly what I was thinking
| when watching the thing... but they teased a future Mac
| Pro announcement at the end. This is a mid-level machine,
| apparently (similar to the old iMac Pro, I suppose).
| post-it wrote:
| The indie professional market is more than big enough to
| justify this. Small films have been able to roll some pretty
| impressive vfx on desktop computers recently, and North
| American creative types tend to love Macs.
| newaccount2021 wrote:
| aldanor wrote:
| I really wish they focused on bigger displays too. For
| music/video production having at least 2x27'' screen size is
| crucial. But two is kind of weird because you can't centre any
| app. And there is kind of too much...
| yewenjie wrote:
| Wait, how and why did Apple suddenly become cost-effective?
| codyb wrote:
| Apple's been fairly cost competitive for a while now. That's
| an old trope, lots of their new stuff is similarly priced or
| in some cases cheaper than their competitors.
|
| Given the longevity and resale value, they make great
| machines.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Apples stuff has been cost competitive since the M1 came
| out... Although it's partly because there isn't much else in
| the same performance envelope, so there isn't much to compare
| to.
| ggreg84 wrote:
| When the M1 was released... a year ago...
|
| You could buy a 900$ laptop with a better CPU than any laptop
| out there. 20 hours battery life (almost 3x any other laptop
| out there). Silent (no fans). With a great screen, a great
| keyboard, lightweight, well built, etc.
|
| Basically a machine that was more than 2x cheaper of
| competing laptops at 2500 $ or more, yet had more than 2x of
| everything.
| newaccount74 wrote:
| ... if you can live with machines that just come with the
| bare minimum RAM and SSD. If you get the Macs with the same
| amount of storage that the PCs come with, the $900 laptop
| quickly becomes a $2000 laptop.
|
| I wish I could get back all the time I've wasted helping
| relatives deal with their Photos libraries and backups just
| because they got the entry level machine with skimpy
| storage...
| mardifoufs wrote:
| I've had an 8gb macbook Air m1, and it's honestly never
| been an issue even for dev stuff since my workloads just
| wouldn't run on my local machine anyway. It's much, much
| less of an issue than on my Windows laptop with 8gb of
| ram, too.
|
| As for storage, yeah 240gb is probably not ideal for most
| people but since I bought the air mostly as a lightweight
| device I can carry anywhere instead of a workstation
| (even though it's insanely powerful for what it is) it
| does not really matter in my case.
|
| (This is my first Mac so I was very worried of the pretty
| limited ram since I had no idea how macOS deals with
| memory, but if it's fine for me I'd say it's fine for
| most normal/casual users)
| newaccount74 wrote:
| 8GB RAM is fine as long as you don't try running multiple
| VMs or lots of docker containers. macOS is surprisingly
| good at dealing with limited RAM thanks to memory
| compression.
|
| The small SSD is the bigger issue. If you use it as your
| main machine you will fill it up quickly and people then
| start doing stupid things like putting their Photos
| library on a USB stick or on an SD card, and that's just
| asking for trouble.
| ghostly_s wrote:
| How long did it take you to check the 'Optimize Storage'
| box?
| newaccount74 wrote:
| That's a somewhat recent addition, and it does help
| somewhat with the Photo library problem. It sucks if you
| don't have a fast internet connection, though. It also
| sucks if there's ever a problem with the photo library,
| because then you don't have a backup anymore.
|
| Maybe 240GB are enough for light usage if you store
| photos in the cloud. I can only say that in my experience
| 1TB is the bare minimum if I don't want to spend half my
| time copying files around.
| mhh__ wrote:
| 2x of everything apart from storage, ram, available
| software, ability to upgrade, ability to repair.
|
| It was a fantastic product launch sure but it's not really
| fair to say it was 2x better on all metrics at a given
| price.
| selimnairb wrote:
| Apple has consistently been cost-competitive since at least
| the Intel era, if you compare to mid- and high-end PC
| hardware. Apple never has made entry-level systems. Also,
| comparing to home-built doesn't really count because most IT
| departments won't support custom PCs.
| gtm1260 wrote:
| Since M1 pretty much.
| ohgodplsno wrote:
| brimble wrote:
| They have been off-and-on. They had a few notable price cuts
| back in the twenty-teens that made them damned competitive.
| At times they've been a rip-off but most of the "LOL look how
| expensive Apple is" stuff achieves such large gaps by
| comparing them to significantly worse hardware and calling it
| "equivalent". Plus theirs is the only consumer phone and
| computer hardware with a healthy used market, so you don't
| take as big a hit on recoverable value as soon as you "drive
| it off the lot".
| MuffinFlavored wrote:
| Not only that...
|
| > 20-Core CPU
|
| > 48-Core GPU
|
| > 32-Core Neural Engine
|
| for $3,999
|
| is that kind of like... a bargain?
| gowld wrote:
| Maybe? "Core" is apple, and everyone else sells oranges, so
| you need good benchmarks to compare.
| dekhn wrote:
| If you're an Intel/Windows gamer, or a Linux/Nvidia GPU
| server user, no. But this is a tailored product aimed at a
| distinct professional class, which spends heavily on the
| latest hardware that boosts their productivity.
| JohnTHaller wrote:
| I have a 10-core CPU with a performance advantage of 23% over
| an M1 Max in Cinebench R23 (AMD 5800x) and a 1,280 CUDA core
| GPU (GTX 1060 6GB) that cost a little over $1,000 US total.
|
| UPDATE - Sorry, I originally listed this as a 5900x by
| accident. I need more sleep.
| yborg wrote:
| Your setup is also probably 5x larger and uses 100W more
| power. It's a question of priorities.
| neogodless wrote:
| The 5800X is 8-core, while the 5900X is 12-core.
|
| You may have misread the number of cores on the box when
| you bought it!
|
| If you go into task manager, how many logical threads are
| there?
| abakker wrote:
| Which one?
| e4e78a06 wrote:
| Cinebench R23 is a worst case scenario for M1 because it
| doesn't have high core utilization and sits in L2 cache. If
| you look at a broader set of benchmarks (SPEC) then M1 Max
| in laptop form is competitive anywhere from a 5800x to a
| 5950x.
| SZJX wrote:
| > Bravo Apple. I'd love to see what they have in store for
| designers and programmers next.
|
| What would you say the programmers specifically need though. A
| laptop instead of a workstation?
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| Beautiful high resolution and crisp text rendering. I want
| looking at a dense page of code to look as beautiful and
| comfortable as reading a magazine. A comfortable keyboard and
| trackpad are a must too. Give me as much battery life as
| possible--at least a day or more. Performance, memory, and
| storage are less of a bottleneck these days and today's
| higher end specs are generally good enough.
| egypturnash wrote:
| _I want looking at a dense page of code to look as
| beautiful and comfortable as reading a magazine_
|
| I am trying to imagine what a page of code laid out by a
| professional designer would look like and I can hear a
| million programmers screaming bloody murder in my head
| about the thoughtful use of whitespace, proportional-width
| fonts (even though they are ones chosen to clearly
| differentiate between confusing characters like 1/I and
| 0/O), and the occasional change in font size for... what
| _is_ the source code equivalent of a subhead, anyway?
| Comments?
| AlanYx wrote:
| >I am trying to imagine what a page of code laid out by a
| professional designer would look like....
|
| You'll probably love this paper:
| https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.06030
|
| Nicolas Rougier has also implemented a few of those ideas
| in a series of packages for Emacs called "NANO Emacs";
| the actual implementation goes beyond what's discussed in
| the paper and is worth checking out.
| alwillis wrote:
| _I am trying to imagine what a page of code laid out by a
| professional designer would look like and I can hear a
| million programmers screaming bloody murder in my head
| about the thoughtful use_
|
| There are beautiful programmer fonts nowadays that look
| amazing on Apple's high resolution screens.
|
| There are several GUIs for Vim/Neovim that take advantage
| of the GPU and the text rendering abilities of modern
| computers in general and Macs in particular [1].
|
| And once you get used to seeing your code this way, it's
| hard to go back.
|
| [1]: https://github.com/neovide/neovide
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| _> I 'd love to see what they have in store for designers and
| programmers next._
|
| We're not really their target audience. Back when they had a
| rack server, they had something that looked good to us, but
| we're not really the ones that will buy a maxxed-out Studio.
|
| It's an interesting machine. It definitely is aimed at folks
| that would get Pros, beforehand. With the hint dropped at the
| end of the Studio presentation, I suspect that they may
| announce some crazy Pro, in the coming months.
| JohnWhigham wrote:
| Jony Ive leaving was a massive improvement for Apple.
| hughrr wrote:
| This. So much this.
|
| Getting what we need not what Jony says we needed.
| kube-system wrote:
| Jony contributed what he could. I think Apple is better off
| for having had him for a period of time, but that time has
| passed.
| scyzoryk_xyz wrote:
| This. He brought along the kind of design philosophy that
| was very much needed in devices. But that philosophy
| became the new normal, and pushing it to it's purest
| level did not end up being what everyone wants.
|
| Products and needs evolve and change. Saying bad things
| about the man is nasty especially considering his gentle
| nature. Especially that we really actually don't know who
| is exactly responsible for what in that world.
| drcode wrote:
| "Creatives" don't want a stylus or touchscreen to do their
| creative stuff?
| wmf wrote:
| Wacom
| neor wrote:
| They are doing a great job. 180 turnaround from the company
| that wanted their products to look clean above usable.
|
| Only downside to me is that in such relatively expensive
| hardware they should have doubled all storage options. Starting
| at 512GB for the entry spec and 1TB for the high end spec is
| rather low.
| whiteboardr wrote:
| This.
|
| I don't care if a laptop is a tad thicker, or the aesthetics
| would allow the device to sit in a museum - Ive helped make
| them desireable objects, the iPhone provided the scale and
| momentum and Apple silicon in macs at last allows for focus on
| actual usability. This set of kit will pave the way for a
| revolution in how we think about computing.
|
| Indeed, Bravo!
| hughrr wrote:
| Also the impressive things for me are it's actually really
| cheap, as in bargain territory, and you don't have to piss
| around with HP sales drones to actually get one like the Z
| series.
| rconti wrote:
| It's insane how boldly (for Apple) they focused on ports and
| cables. I can't remember a previous demo video that showed so
| many ugly cables hanging out the back of the machine. They've
| finally realized it's a selling point!
| jollybean wrote:
| On that kind of device it doesn't cost them much and those
| features are more appreciated. It's not much of a war. On the
| laptops it becomes a bit more of a design conundrum. I'd
| imagine they have different leadership teams, and, Jobs + Ive
| are both gone. So there's that.
| ilamont wrote:
| My jaw hit the floor when I saw USB A ports. If only it had
| multiple HDMI ...
| assttoasstmgr wrote:
| And yet none on the front. So your shoebox full of thumb
| drives are useless and you have to plug them in from
| behind.
|
| Just to be clear yes I know USB-C thumb drives exist but
| they are next to useless because their whole purpose is to
| shuttle files between devices. Devices that likely don't
| have USB-C yet.
| scns wrote:
| I gifted a thumb drive with USB A on one side and USB C
| on the other.
| dylan604 wrote:
| just connect that USB-A hub you know you already have and
| plug in all the USB-A thumb drives you can fit.
| G3rn0ti wrote:
| > My jaw hit the floor when I saw USB A ports.
|
| Don't forget the headphone jack!
| bowmessage wrote:
| so brave!
| runjake wrote:
| They did better with the limited space they have -- they
| included a bunch of multi-functional USB-C ports that can
| be used with dongles for additional HDMI ports!
| yupper32 wrote:
| "With the limited space they have"? They chose how much
| space they had to work with...
| dylan604 wrote:
| Because nobody outside hardcore computer nerds wants a
| beige box tower with 14 drive bays sitting on their desk.
| People want quite little boxes that gets work done
| without having to have dedicated room for loud machines.
| assttoasstmgr wrote:
| Are you referring to the front panel which is about 3.5"
| high x 7.7" wide and about 90% an empty blank face?
| paulmd wrote:
| USB-C can also carry a DisplayPort link natively, and you
| don't even need a dongle for that. Workstations don't
| really care about HDMI, that's for TVs.
|
| Not only that but with the Ultra variant, all of the
| USB-C ports are thunderbolt 4 ports at 80gb/s, that's a
| massive amount of IO.
|
| (note that despite the number of ports - only 4 of them
| can be running displays, plus the HDMI port gets its own
| channel)
| nicoburns wrote:
| > Workstations don't really care about HDMI, that's for
| TVs.
|
| And people who only have HDMI cables! I was using display
| port on my old MacBook, but I'm using HDMI on the new one
| as I already had an HDMI cable, but not a USB-C to
| DisplayPort one.
| [deleted]
| brailsafe wrote:
| What would you use multiple HDMI ports for? Do you
| exclusively use HDMI only screens/tv?
| scottkuo wrote:
| Drive additional outputs to broadcast/production displays
| ilamont wrote:
| So I don't have to use a dongle for a second screen. They
| break, come loose, and sometimes don't work with Apple
| equipment.
| johnmaguire wrote:
| No need for a dongle. Thunderbolt/USBC-DisplayPort cables
| exist.
| runjake wrote:
| I do this, and it supports 144 hz.
| girvo wrote:
| I do this, and sadly it won't do 4K at 144hz, at least
| not with my Intel MacBook. Maybe the M1 can do it?
| drorco wrote:
| I haven't yet seen screens with USB-C support that have
| refresh rates higher than 60hz, unfortunately.
| johnmaguire wrote:
| Why does the screen need USB-C support? I imagine you'd
| use a Thunderbolt/USBC-DisplayPort cable or similar.
| drorco wrote:
| For cases when you have let's say a gaming PC and a
| Macbook connected to the same screen. You want a USB-C
| port so the Macbook will get everything from a single
| USB-C port (power included), but you also want your
| gaming PC to benefit from a high performance monitor with
| high refresh rates on a DisplayPort/HDMI connection.
| johnmaguire wrote:
| Isn't this what a dock is for? Are you treating your
| monitor itself as the dock? I still don't see why the
| monitor itself needs USB-C support.
|
| I use a Lenovo Thunderbolt dock for both my M1 16" MBP
| and a Lenovo laptop running Linux. It runs 2 x
| DisplayPort monitors, mouse, keyboard, and webcam.
| paulmd wrote:
| yes, basically the idea is with a USB-C display the
| monitor can be your dock
| brailsafe wrote:
| Ya agreed. I have a similar setup and would love an easy
| was for both to use the same screen and peripherals
| bni wrote:
| USB-C to Displayport cable. I use a 144Hz gaming screen
| with my Mac mini in this way
| bonestamp2 wrote:
| Which display are you using and does it wake up properly
| when you wake your mac mini? I've had a problem with
| displays that wake up normally with an intel based mac
| but not with an M1 mac.
| deagle50 wrote:
| I'm also using a 144hz monitor (Samsung 28" G70A) with a
| DP-USB-C cable. Wakes up normally and VRR works both with
| my new MBP (M1 Pro) and with the previous MBA (M1).
| nebula8804 wrote:
| Is it an ASUS display? I have had multiple ASUS displays
| exhibit this problem. I think I have replicated it with
| other non-Apple machines as well.
| brailsafe wrote:
| Like others have mentioned, I've used displayport over
| usb-c for high-refresh rate at high resolution. Atm I'm
| using that for low-refresh rate 30" screen. Though I
| believe LG and Dell screens do have USB-C directly.
| cassianoleal wrote:
| I have one of these [0]. Goes up to 144Hz, single cable
| to hook up laptop to display and charge.
|
| [0] https://www.lg.com/uk/monitors/lg-38WN95C-W
| drorco wrote:
| Cool. Does G-SYNC/FreeSync work with the USB-C port?
| deagle50 wrote:
| It does on my Samsung G70A with a DP-USB-C cable.
| kjagiello wrote:
| Check out Gigabyte M28U/M32U. 4k & 144 Hz. DisplayPort
| over USB-C. Supports alt-mode.
| caeril wrote:
| > customers actually want
|
| Almost. The hardware looks fantastic all-around. But the
| hostility to running an actually-usable OS like Linux is a huge
| stumbling block. Their users having to rely on the herculean
| efforts of the Asahi project, et. al, is shameful for the
| world's largest company.
| thfuran wrote:
| They're never going to try to make it easy to avoid their
| ecosystem and that's not shameful for their company. If it's
| shameful for anyone, it's the US regulators who have allowed
| the largest companies in the world to continue vertically
| integrating.
| avar wrote:
| The chassis seems to be around the right size for a DIY project
| of combining it with an iMac G4 swivel display [1].
|
| With a modern display it would make for a really nice 3rd party
| accessory.
|
| 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30576310
| BonoboIO wrote:
| The design of it looks a bit off to me. Like a cheap mac-ish
| intel nuc designed by huawei with their matebooks.
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/29/17396818/huawei-matebook-...
| neal_jones wrote:
| Agreed
| ghostly_s wrote:
| I just don't get why they wouldn't turn those usb-c ports the
| other way so they line up nicely with the sd slot....
| the-golden-one wrote:
| like this? https://twitter.com/thijsvlierop/status/1501295909
| 275111425?...
| brimble wrote:
| It looks like they made a taller computer then cut it off 2/3
| of the way down. Something about the proportions read as simply
| _wrong_.
| BonoboIO wrote:
| But if it works, well its better than Jony Ive's ,,design is
| everything, function is last" approach.
|
| - Like the Mac Pro (2013) which was thermal limited even with
| the launch configuration and could not be refreshed because
| more power would mean less power through throttling
|
| - Magic Mouse 2 which well u could not use while charging
|
| - Macbook Pro Touchbar which is there because there was
| nothing else to ,,inovate"
|
| - MacBook Pro Keyboard which is so thin and lookin good that
| the owner has to replace it every 6 month
| brimble wrote:
| I agree with some of this, but will note that actually
| using a Magic Mouse 2 cured me of joking about the design
| (I was entirely on the "LOL how dumb" train before that).
| It wasn't an issue, in practice, and did keep me from just
| using it plugged in all the time (which is what I tend to
| do with other wireless things at my desk that have
| integrated rechargeable batteries).
| infinityio wrote:
| I think the main issue with the magic mouse 2 is that
| over time, as the batteries wear out, the effective life
| of the mouse risks dropping so much that you may
| eventually be unable to use it for a full work-day,
| whereas the previous solution of AA batteries had
| 'infinite' longevity - while it wouldn't be too much of
| an issue when new, it harms the resale value
| brimble wrote:
| That makes sense as a legit problem. Reminds me of people
| going "LOL WTF do you need 12 hours of battery life for?"
| about the new M1 laptops. Well, for one, more battery
| life is always nice, and for another, it'll be _really_
| nice to still have 8 hours of battery life when the
| laptop 's seen five heavy years of use without a battery
| replacement. I could see a few-years-old Magic Mouse 2
| getting to be kinda shitty, sure.
| dmje wrote:
| The clauses on those sentences don't scan.
|
| Stunningly compact. Extensive connectivity. Outrageous
| performance.
|
| I mean, you've gotta either go
|
| Stunning size. Extensive connectivity. Outrageous performance.
|
| or
|
| Stunningly compact Extensively connected. Outrageously
| performant.
|
| Anyway. Not sure anyone apart from me will care.
| mkaic wrote:
| Eh, reads fine to me. Helps break up the list so that people
| don't just skim over it, I'd guess.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-08 23:00 UTC)