New Mac Studio + Studio Display + black & silver keyboards, mouse & trackpad

[NoPro]

Yeah me to …my favorite set up was a Mac g5 ppc with two non apple monitors but yeah the price is outrageous….just being honest

[fisherking]

what is the problem exactly?[/i] if the mac studio is in many ways more powerful that the current mac pro... isn't that enough? or the 14 & 16-inch macbook pros... and none of these macs is 'as much as a car'... unless you're talking about a really old, run-down used car. with the silicon chips, more ports, etc... it's a great time for the mac.

The Mac Studio may be a great choice for someone who used to be a Mac Pro customer, however not many people bought Mac Pros, many were perfectly happy to work with a then $1,799 27" Retina iMac, and have been waiting for years for an upgrade which never came and most likely never will.

 

So what's the alternative? I suppose a Mac mini plus a 3rd party screen from LG or Samsung or Dell. It's not that bad however that means we're back to having multiple cables all over our desk, when Apple was offering a great all-in-one solution with a 27" Retina screen with one single power chord for only $1,799, which now appears to be a thing of the past.

 

who knows? despite all the rumors, i'd think apple will not abandon the imac, and we will see something better in that line this year. still, i do email and basic stuff on a 12" macbook (from 2016), and i keep waiting for a new 12"... which really seems unlikely (the 12" line ended 5 years ago). still... with apple, who knows?

[MrTed]

So I’m just curious, how do you store your kontakt and other big libraries with your new Mac Studio ?

What ssd ? What size ?what speed ? Thx

[fisherking]

So I’m just curious, how do you store your kontakt and other big libraries with your new Mac Studio ?

What ssd ? What size ?what speed ? Thx

 

you have options: a larger internal drive, or you can store your libraries on an external. this is a desktop setup, so it's not like you're carrying it around; hence, external storage is do-able. the entry-level mac studio should kill for logic; and 32gb unified ram is amazing. so you (again) bump up the internal storage, or get external drives.

 

lots of choices, for lots of power.

 

EDIT: personally, i was going to do the studio, and a samsung monitor, but now thinking about the new macbook pros. either way, a big step forward...

[danyg]

on my actual old Mac Pro I've always had one small SSD for the OS and 2 HDs for the libraries and projects. (plus a few external HD's for Carbon Copy Cloner) ... everything hidden under my desk, so I don't care about the cables.

[fabriciom]

And you have actual benchmarks that show this?

[fisherking]

It's bonkers. Fully specced out, the Mac Studio at $8K will smoke a $23K Intel Mac Pro.

 

(And we still have the M1 Mac Pro to come yet, which will likely feature the quad die - ie, 4x M1 Max / 2x M1 Ultra.)

 

Crazy times for the Mac. I love it!

 

And you have actual benchmarks that show this?

 

here's something: https://appleinsider.com/inside/mac-studio/vs/compared-mac-studio-versus-mac-pro

 

it's the internet, am sure a google search will find more...

[redgreenblue]

Yeah, to me that’s the brilliance of this move. For their part, Apple stands to make a lot more money by separating the display from the computer, because that display can be used with many different devices (RIP Target Display Mode). But at the same time, people can invest the same amount of money, more or less, in just getting a more powerful computer itself, and BYO monitor.

 

Target Display mode has been dead for quite some time. The 4K and 5k iMacs never supported it.

[redgreenblue]

 

And you have actual benchmarks that show this?

 

here's something: https://appleinsider.com/inside/mac-studio/vs/compared-mac-studio-versus-mac-pro

 

it's the internet, am sure a google search will find more...

 

Those benchmarks are VERY encouraging for Logic users considering how important single core performance matters in avoiding overloads.

[des99]

And you have actual benchmarks that show this?

 

Sorry, mod edit fail.

I don’t, but Apple has, I’m just paraphrasing the info they gave at the event. Give it a watch if you’re interested…

[fisherking]

And you have actual benchmarks that show this?

 

Sorry, mod edit fail.

I don’t, but Apple has, I’m just paraphrasing the info they gave at the event. Give it a watch if you’re interested…

 

did you see my post (a few before this)? appleinsider info/benchmarks...

[David Nahmani]

And you have actual benchmarks that show this?

Here's a quick summary of the link that Fisherking just posted:

 

 

[fabriciom]

And you have actual benchmarks that show this?

Here's a quick summary of the link that Fisherking just posted:

 

bench1.jpeg

 

bench2.jpeg

 

Let’s wait and see how that translate to logic an track numbers…

[David Nahmani]

Let’s wait and see how that translate to logic an track numbers…

Yes indeed. But keep in mind no benchmark is fully descriptive of the results you're going to get, not the one I just posted, not the ones testing track numbers in Logic Pro. The goal is not always to have more tracks with the same collection of plug-ins on each track (which is how most of these Logic Pro benchmarks test Logic). Single core performance is also of paramount importance for Logic Pro since many tasks cannot be easily spread out over multiple cores.

 

In any case it certainly does look promising IMO if you're into machines in that price range.

[lookatthisguy]

Yeah, to me that’s the brilliance of this move. For their part, Apple stands to make a lot more money by separating the display from the computer, because that display can be used with many different devices (RIP Target Display Mode). But at the same time, people can invest the same amount of money, more or less, in just getting a more powerful computer itself, and BYO monitor.

 

Target Display mode has been dead for quite some time. The 4K and 5k iMacs never supported it.

 

Oh, I know. But I'm still lamenting its demise, as I know many others do. Makes for a pointlessly expensive display, but the feature was convenient.

[fisherking]

 

Target Display mode has been dead for quite some time. The 4K and 5k iMacs never supported it.

 

Oh, I know. But I'm still lamenting its demise, as I know many others do. Makes for a pointlessly expensive display, but the feature was convenient.

 

you're assuming the imac is over; personally, i doubt it. either way, no need to lament in advance, as we don't know what's coming next...

[David Nahmani]

no need to lament in advance, as we don't know what's coming next...

Oh come on fisherking, it is precisely because we don't know what's coming next, that right now is the best time to lament! Obviously, if a new 27" iMac comes out in June, then it will be too late to lament then, so better start lamenting right now! Live in the present, like the buddhists do! Or maybe I have this all wrong?

[lookatthisguy]

 

Oh, I know. But I'm still lamenting its demise, as I know many others do. Makes for a pointlessly expensive display, but the feature was convenient.

 

you're assuming the imac is over; personally, i doubt it. either way, no need to lament in advance, as we don't know what's coming next...

 

There's no advanced lamentation when the feature has been dead for something like six years now. I'm very specifically lamenting the demise of Target Display Mode, not the iMac.

 

Which, look, we can keep going around and around about this, but I think it's been beaten pretty thoroughly at this point. I'm looking at a number of factors that suggest to me that the iMac is going to continue on as just a 24" consumer model computer, and you're keeping hope alive that some sort of larger unit is in the pipeline. It's clear.

[xgman]

I don't really see much difference in sticking this under the studio display or nearby and calling it a day. It's not like the imac is a portable. But it's akin to the imac pro high end pricing when you account for the display cost, and so not a normal 27" imac. So there's that. Anyway, my Ultra order is in. By the way, fr audio processing, you don't need the highest end graphics option.

[fisherking]

 

you're assuming the imac is over; personally, i doubt it. either way, no need to lament in advance, as we don't know what's coming next...

 

There's no advanced lamentation when the feature has been dead for something like six years now. I'm very specifically lamenting the demise of Target Display Mode, not the iMac.

 

Which, look, we can keep going around and around about this, but I think it's been beaten pretty thoroughly at this point. I'm looking at a number of factors that suggest to me that the iMac is going to continue on as just a 24" consumer model computer, and you're keeping hope alive that some sort of larger unit is in the pipeline. It's clear.

 

ah, thought you meant the imac. and, again, speculation with apple is pointless, they do what they do, and we find out when they tell us.

 

david: am a (kinda-lapsed buddhist), and we don't live simply in the present, but on a (much) higher plane. which means i am always right

[lookatthisguy]

speculation with apple is pointless

 

Is it really though? For better or worse, people leak information that often gives a sense of where things are going. A lot of the time, those leaks do spoil the surprise before Apple gets to announce new things, so speculation is at least somewhat grounded in reality. (Though in this case, that seems to be where the surprise came from: people expected updates and assumed it was all the existing product lines, a souped-up Mac Mini and 27" iMac, but then what we got wound up being different.) We know from the Mac Studio that M1 Max and Ultra requires a larger thermal envelope. I'm no engineer, so I have to defer that it's definitely possible the larger real estate offered by housing a monitor is enough that the new iMac design can manage a Pro, Max, or Ultra chip, but it seems unlikely that the form wouldn't have to change somehow. We know that Apple has to keep growing its profits because hashtag capitalism, and this is a pretty straightforward way to do that, so it makes sense from a business perspective. Beyond that, Apple have removed the 27" Intel iMac from their website, but continue to sell the Intel Mac Minis, so it's not like they're hiding the fact that Intel Macs still exist… not to mention, Apple considered the "iMac" and "27-inch iMac" as two separate product lines, as was evidenced by their separation on the website. Someone in the keynote mentioned explicitly that there's just one Mac remaining to be upgraded to Apple silicon—the Mac Pro. And again, Apple further confirmed to ArsTechnica that the 27" iMac is end of life.

 

At this point, it's hardly even speculation anymore. We're getting close to the same turf as people that still think Trump won the election.

 

Honestly, seriously though, I do admire the openness to something new coming along and surprising everyone. I just don't think it's in the cards for at least a few years.

[fisherking]

speculation with apple is pointless

 

Is it really though? For better or worse, people leak information that often gives a sense of where things are going. A lot of the time, those leaks do spoil the surprise before Apple gets to announce new things, so speculation is at least somewhat grounded in reality. (Though in this case, that seems to be where the surprise came from: people expected updates and assumed it was all the existing product lines, a souped-up Mac Mini and 27" iMac, but then what we got wound up being different.) We know from the Mac Studio that M1 Max and Ultra requires a larger thermal envelope. I'm no engineer, so I have to defer that it's definitely possible the larger real estate offered by housing a monitor is enough that the new iMac design can manage a Pro, Max, or Ultra chip, but it seems unlikely that the form wouldn't have to change somehow. We know that Apple has to keep growing its profits because hashtag capitalism, and this is a pretty straightforward way to do that, so it makes sense from a business perspective. Beyond that, Apple have removed the 27" Intel iMac from their website, but continue to sell the Intel Mac Minis, so it's not like they're hiding the fact that Intel Macs still exist… not to mention, Apple considered the "iMac" and "27-inch iMac" as two separate product lines, as was evidenced by their separation on the website. Someone in the keynote mentioned explicitly that there's just one Mac remaining to be upgraded to Apple silicon—the Mac Pro. And again, Apple further confirmed to ArsTechnica that the 27" iMac is end of life.

 

At this point, it's hardly even speculation anymore. We're getting close to the same turf as people that still think Trump won the election.

 

Honestly, seriously though, I do admire the openness to something new coming along and surprising everyone. I just don't think it's in the cards for at least a few years.

 

so, why keep this going? your theories, mine... it's all theory. apple controls the board, and we adapt.

[David Nahmani]

When you have to make the hard decision to buy or wait, you have to speculate on what you're thinking may happen to prices, or what new models will be released, in the near or far future, and weigh in your options as to whether or not it's worth the wait or you should buy what's available today. Hence the speculation on what will be released next, and when it may be available, and at what prices.

[danyg]

In 2010 I bought a 6 core Macpro and I updated it in 2016 to a new mainboard with 12 cores. My machine is doing better than a 2014 trashcan in 2022 and I could save a lot of money by keeping all my old hardware and by upgrading the computer later when RAM was cheap. One thing that was not possible though was thunderbold.

 

Personally I just want to be good for the longest time period possible. The specific Apple product itself isn't important to me. They can put out whatever they want and I don't speculate. Getting a Mac Studio would be +- the price of my Mid 2010 - 6 core back than. So I might.... dare the change this year. I will have to sell it after 5 years because one can not upgrade it.

 

In any case I'm happy that I didn't buy a new 12 core in 20/21.

[paulcristo]

Here's a quick summary of the link that Fisherking just posted:

 

bench1.jpeg

 

bench2.jpeg

What's irritating about these benchmarks is they used the fully upgraded Mac Studio Ultra machine, which muddies the waters a bit. It's unclear if the M1 Ultra's superior performance is base on having the 128GB of RAM (upgraded from 64GB) or somehow the bump in GPU cores is helping, or both. I wish they'd used the stock M1 Ultra as the baseline.

[fisherking]

Here's a quick summary of the link that Fisherking just posted:

 

bench1.jpeg

 

bench2.jpeg

What's irritating about these benchmarks is they used the fully upgraded Mac Studio Ultra machine, which muddies the waters a bit. It's unclear if the M1 Ultra's superior performance is base on having the 128GB of RAM (upgraded from 64GB) or somehow the bump in GPU cores is helping, or both. I wish they'd used the stock M1 Ultra as the baseline.

 

we should see more of these reports once everyone gets their hands on the studio... am looking forward to that.

[des99]

What's irritating about these benchmarks is they used the fully upgraded Mac Studio Ultra machine, which muddies the waters a bit. It's unclear if the M1 Ultra's superior performance is base on having the 128GB of RAM (upgraded from 64GB) or somehow the bump in GPU cores is helping, or both. I wish they'd used the stock M1 Ultra as the baseline.

 

If you're talking about plugin processing, the CPU doing the processing is the issue. A Max will do what a Max does (in plugin workloads, essentially the same as a Pro, as the processing part is the same), and an Ultra can do double that. GPUs, and extra RAM won't really make a significant difference in these kinds of benchmarks. RAM *can* make a different in real world use if you're running cinematic composer template-type workloads, but for more typical use cases, more or less RAM isn't going to give you different plugin processing counts, as the CPU cores doing the processing are what counts, and as long as there is enough RAM to work in, extra RAM or extra unused GPU cores won't make the slightest difference.

 

And Geekbench benchmarks are all about the CPU processing, so they should be accurate, and the available RAM or GPU cores won't impact those benchmark results.

[paulcristo]

What's irritating about these benchmarks is they used the fully upgraded Mac Studio Ultra machine, which muddies the waters a bit. It's unclear if the M1 Ultra's superior performance is base on having the 128GB of RAM (upgraded from 64GB) or somehow the bump in GPU cores is helping, or both. I wish they'd used the stock M1 Ultra as the baseline.

 

If you're talking about plugin processing, the CPU doing the processing is the issue. A Max will do what a Max does (in plugin workloads, essentially the same as a Pro, as the processing part is the same), and an Ultra can do double that. GPUs, and extra RAM won't really make a significant difference in these kinds of benchmarks. RAM *can* make a different in real world use if you're running cinematic composer template-type workloads, but for more typical use cases, more or less RAM isn't going to give you different plugin processing counts, as the CPU cores doing the processing are what counts, and as long as there is enough RAM to work in, extra RAM or extra unused GPU cores won't make the slightest difference.

 

And Geekbench benchmarks are all about the CPU processing, so they should be accurate, and the available RAM or GPU cores won't impact those benchmark results.

Then why use the maxed out M1 Ultra machine to perform the benchmarks?

[des99]

Then why use the maxed out M1 Ultra machine to perform the benchmarks?

 

Who knows? *shrugs* Maybe those were the machine specs that Apple supplied to them for evaluation, who knows...

[just20]

I thought now you can finally easily clean the fans