Interesting event, though irksome on the timing given we just recent caved and got some of the LG 5K displays after giving up hope on finding anything else ever. Sigh. But I'm glad Apple is getting at least something back into the "between Mac Mini and $4k+" desktop market. Lowers my hopes for one last x86 Mac Pro though. And it was more than a touch on the squirrely side of marketing to compare the new M1 Ultra to the current ancient mediocre MP. I think Apple shouldn't have done that at all, actually made it look worse that the "2.5x" came next to a 2019 Xeon, I doubt it compares nearly so favorably vs an Epyc 3 system let alone Genoa later this year. And of course these systems are stuck with worse networking and won't age as well. Still, overall if this is the start of the Mac getting yearly attention again that by itself would be something. Will be curious what they do now with the MP itself.
Peek Performance: March 8th Event [Event discussion begins on p6!]
- Thread starter Mhorydyn
- Start date
I waited just to make sure they didn't do anything crazy and ordered a 16" MBP. Can't wait to get back in the eco system.
I continue to be blown away by Apple of late. Even though their prices are ludicrous for some things (Wheels! Monitor stand!) their machines offer a lot of value for the price.
EDIT: Also, that green color is hawt. Makes me wish I didn't run a case.
I continue to be blown away by Apple of late. Even though their prices are ludicrous for some things (Wheels! Monitor stand!) their machines offer a lot of value for the price.
EDIT: Also, that green color is hawt. Makes me wish I didn't run a case.
Then again Apple's webpage still lists the 24" iMac. If there's only one iMac, then the 24" part is redundant and would likely get dropped. If they bring the big iMac back as an iMac Pro, then it wouldn't be a model that got transitioned, it would be a new model (since the iMac Pro is currently dead). Semantics, but plausible. I could easily see it going either way. Personally not a fan of making an AIO with such a big, expensive panel that has to get thrown out when the computer gets replaced, and I'd say a mini with an M1 Pro from below and a Studio with an M1 Max from the top make the big iMac redundant, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a place.
The Space Grey Intel mini is still a thing, so it's clear that the mini lineup isn't complete.
That’s my hope, and the i7 version of it is what I own. Current mini doesn’t match capabilities, studio is overkill. Pro in mini is just right to replace it.
orionquest
Ars Praefectus
Now that Apple has revealed the M1 Ultra, and hinted that the Mac Pro will get some attention later on. Any guess's to what chip they might use, 2x M1 Ultra's?
That seems like the likeliest option. One possible gotcha is RAM; assuming the same on-package RAM as all of the other systems, a putative 4-die M1 Hyper (M1 Plaid?) would top out at 256 GB, well below what the current cheese-grater models support.
Apple would know how relevant that is.
Anybody have a 3rd party way to figure out how many such systems exist? Could be in the single digits.
Steam have a system specs page based on their users. Max RAM tops out at 64GB though. https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey ... atform=mac
Didn’t Omni used to have a regular survey of what their users had?
Didn’t Omni used to have a regular survey of what their users had?
Squaring the circle of rumors here:
iMac Pro = iMac 24 with M1 Pro/Max (or M2 equivalent)
:bigdumbgrin:TBH I’m actually pretty sad that the 27” iMac got taken out the back and shot.
The new Mac Studio is pretty sweet. But I don’t need a supercomputer to run my IDE and productivity tools.
The new Mac Studio is pretty sweet. But I don’t need a supercomputer to run my IDE and productivity tools.
Geekbench database? Probably not an unbiased population sample; I imagine the sort of people who need 1 TB of RAM have specialized enough requirements that running Geekbench isn't high up on their to-do lists.
Quite happy about the Mac Studio. I think its ugly but that’s irrelevant. The display is a nice option for those only wanting 27”. And nice to see Apples commitment to hardware for all their users workflows.
Then you'd probably be okay with a Mac Mini or 24" iMac (if you want/need the included screen).
That's probably the best part of the current line-- there aren't any machines that are dramatically slower than the others. If you've got a workload that's graphics-heavy or that multithreads really well, you'll see some benefit from the extra CPU and GPU cores in the M1 Max or M1 Ultra, but more casual use (especially largely single- or few-threaded workloads like web browsers or code editors or office applications) won't see a huge difference.
Even my M1 Air's a very capable machine, despite being fanless. Most workloads I've thrown at it aren't noticeably slower than my 16" M1 Max MBP, and it even did a respectable job with the FCPX editing work I spent a while on pre-MBP launch.
(From another point of view: you're getting a "supercomputer" regardless of which model you pick. Not literally, of course, but even the low end of Apple's current line are among the fastest computers Apple's ever produced, exceeded by nothing in single-core CPU performance and only the highest-end iMacs and Mac Pros in multicore performance.)
The problem, of course, is RAM. Which an M1 Pro Mini would solve, but it may be that the M2 will have max support for 32GB and an extra display controller, thus solving the problem once and for all.
I am certain that every machine Apple currently makes would be more than capable of running my current and future workflows.
I’m just sad is because AIO systems with a large high-quality screen are ideal for the general purpose computing that I do for a living. The 24” iMac is a very fine machine … I was just hoping for something with a bit more screen real-estate.
The new 27” display costs more than I paid for the 27” iMac that I am using to compose this message.
orionquest
Ars Praefectus
So I wonder if M1 Ultra is going to be in the next iphone with a gold plated case?? 
The cynic in me fears that Apple will be quite content to leave those limitations in place in future machines, because it makes for an easy upsell for a certain class of professional who don't really need anything from the M1 Pro/Max except the extra RAM and dual external display support.
Even if they put an M1 Pro or M2 in a mini, it will probably be around $1500 configured with 32GB of RAM. That makes it even better upsell bait, when you can move to a Studio for just $500 more.
That's what I keep coming back to in my negotiations with myself, anyway. I could wait and see if a less powerful and less expensive Mini upgrade comes along in the next 8 months, but it will save me what? $600-700? Over a 4-5 service life?
For an individual it might make sense to bite on the upsell, but if you're buying a dozen or more to kit out a lab, that five hundo apiece adds up.
I say this as I bit on the upsell to the $3499 16 inch MBP because it could be had immediately versus ordering and waiting for a 32GB M1 Pro.
I say this as I bit on the upsell to the $3499 16 inch MBP because it could be had immediately versus ordering and waiting for a 32GB M1 Pro.
Responding to myself, I can’t believe I missed the obvious choice: M1 Quadra. It's time.
Jason Snell is advising the reason for the A13 bionic is for centre stage, processing the audio for spatial audio and to make the display’s compatible with intel Macs. Makes sense.
orionquest
Ars Praefectus
With Apple going all integration and no eGPU's and maybe the only option for GPU upgrades being the Mac Pro, where does this leave a company like AMD. Basically being reduced to a tiny fraction of the Mac userbase. I'm sure Apple has a great relationship with AMD for GPU's but how long can that last before AMD says were done here.
I’m sure AMD already know this and it’s just business. Looks like the AS Mac Pro will be all integrated SoC GPU only, which leaves the only problem of how to deal with Pro Tool users with HDX Cards etc, which probably means some PCIe slots.
..I think going 4x M1 Max pretty much negates the need for any PCI card but the most extreme niche hardware.
That’s not the problem for high end Pro Tools users. it’s the next to zero latency such cards offer which they deem critical with hundreds of tracks. If Apple are still going to support such users they’ll have to offer a solution or lose them. It will be interesting.
Edit. I’m not an audio guy, i just hear them saying this is why they need the cards.
Edit. I’m not an audio guy, i just hear them saying this is why they need the cards.
I'm skeptical that Apple's going to bend over backwards to support niche hardware from a vendor whose software still doesn't run on current versions of macOS (and therefore doesn't run at all on anything equipped with M1 Pro or M1 Max, because they all shipped with Monterey).
(At any rate, HDX cards work over Thunderbolt, via an Avid-supported enclosure. If you can get their software to run, that is.)
(At any rate, HDX cards work over Thunderbolt, via an Avid-supported enclosure. If you can get their software to run, that is.)
Vincent Hanna
Ars Tribunus Militum
Don't go anywhere near a Pro Tools user or the air gapped, Dual G5 PowerMac he is still using as his main production box. You'll lose a hand.
After having had a day to process this, a few things are sticking in my craw.
At this point I feel more confused than anything else, and like I still need more information to decide what my strategy will be to replace my two Intel Macs.
- Why aren't the Studio Display specs better? $1599 is not "pro display" territory but it is at the very high end for consumer displays. But this looks like the exact same panel that was in the last 27" iMac, which only cost a bit more for the whole computer, and which was good but hardly industry-leading. At 5K resolution, 120 Hz would be possible through a TB3/TB4 connection, but we get the same old 60 Hz. The backlight is still the same old single-zone LED, meaning that there is no HDR capability and the same brightness and contrast specs as before. Instead, it feels like all the effort went into the non-display systems. The camera appears to be the best available in any display on the market and the speaker system looks like a beefed-up version of the pioneering one in the 24" iMac. For all this effort, we're still in a situation where the display on a 14" MBP or a 12.9" iPad Pro shows better pictures and video than Apple's big beautiful creative-professional tool.
- Why aren't the SSDs with M1 Ultra faster? The claims for Mac Studio SSD performance are the same as those for MBP SSD performance, so I assume they are using the same controller and SSD components. 6 GB+/s is nothing to sneeze at, although high-end PC parts compare to it. But the M1 Ultra has double the I/O bandwidth and seems like it ought to be able to do better. The CPU and GPU performance claims for the M1 Ultra are industry-leading, but is there any reason they can't be accompanied by industry-leading disk I/O? Maybe we have to wait for Mac Pro for that.
- Where's the mid-priced solution? A fully loaded 24" iMac, with 16GB/1TB/10GbE, is $1929. The most basic configuration of Mac Studio + Studio Display is $3598, and has three times the GPU, twice the SSD speed, and twice the RAM. That's an absolutely monstrous empty space from a company that's usually very good at finding something for every price point. What will fill that space? A M1 Pro Mac mini? The Big iMac that Gurman still thinks is coming, even though I thought Temus was pretty unambiguous that the Mac Pro was the only one left? Or does Apple just expect people in the middle to buy MBPs?
At this point I feel more confused than anything else, and like I still need more information to decide what my strategy will be to replace my two Intel Macs.
Vincent Hanna
Ars Tribunus Militum
The new Studio Display, like the LG Ultrafine before it, is the ONLY retina 5K display on the market. Cannot be had from any other vendor at any price. Throw in the higher peak brightness, the three USB-C ports, a great webcam, supposedly great speakers, and Mac-native media controls that just work, and it's a steal compared to the 5K2K monstrosities in the same price range.
And that gap in the middle of the new desktop lineup is intentional. Why offer a $1299 Mac mini with M1 Pro when the majority of those buyers will just pony up for the $1999 Mac Studio if they have to? I bet we don't see an upgraded Mac mini until at least October, so that the new Mac Studio can have a gravitational field for a while.
And that gap in the middle of the new desktop lineup is intentional. Why offer a $1299 Mac mini with M1 Pro when the majority of those buyers will just pony up for the $1999 Mac Studio if they have to? I bet we don't see an upgraded Mac mini until at least October, so that the new Mac Studio can have a gravitational field for a while.
No-one's kvetching about the price of the monitor. For what it is, it's at the high end of reasonable.
It's the fact that such a premium display comes on a nice-looking-but-shit stand and costs £400 to get to nice-looking-but-not-quite-as-shit.
Many Pro Tools users moved to the Intel 2019 Mac Pro — probably not your area to be unaware of them. You’ll likely even find some on youtube detailing their experiences.
Yes, I suspect you’re right. The hardware is close (latency wise) and the M2 Mac Pro will likely push it over the line.
Put another way: "You can't do better from the other guys, so we'll put in minimum effort." As a display I don't see how this is better than the 2019 version of the Ultrafine 5K, which I could pick up tomorrow at my local Apple Store for $300 less. The Ultrafine 5K integrates just as weill with macOS and has the same connectivity options. And the Spyder measures its real-world maximum brightness, at least the example on my desk, at 589 nits. If I'm going to have a three-display setup, only the one in the middle needs the industry-leading camera and speakers. The ones on the side could be the Ultrafine 5K with no loss of anything.
It's actually making me think that instead of ordering a Studio Display like I initially thought I would, I should pick up another UF5K tomorrow to replace my left monitor (a color-distorted and increasingly flaky 2015 HP Z27q) and wait on anything further until we know for sure whether Big iMac is dead or just on vacation. If there's no Big iMac then I can pick up a Studio Display later to fill the middle spot vacated by my existing Big iMac.
Big intentional price gaps are not typical of Apple's strategy. Maybe there's something to it as a short-term strategy to try to capture a few people in the excitement of Real xMac and upsell them to the $3600 price point, but I can't imagine this is the permanent vision for the desktop lineup.
27” iMac “I’ll be back.”
A consumer version with an M2 to fill the product gap. Seems there are too many happy 27” AIO users out there not to offer an alternative. Some clarification in the coming days is in order. It reminds me when the iMac Pro came out, a totally unsuitable replacement for many and a WTF.
Ditto.
I've been waiting to replace my work 27" iMac since 2020. The Mac Studio is nice, but the price of entry including the monitor is quite a bit higher than what the 27" iMac used to be.
I'm not working at a studio, but at a university. I do need a mic' and a webcam for video conferencing, but I don't need such high-end specs (12 MP, badass sound system). I also want a retina monitor, and there's almost nothing that suits me except the (late) 27" iMac and this new Apple monitor. 8K is overkill, 4K has too low pixel density (except for very small monitors).
The LG ultra fine 5K + webcam/mic + speakers would be clunky solution. :/
What are the "affordable" monitors with retina pixel density out there?
Put an M1 Pro + SSD inside this Studio Monitor, price it at $2500 and I'm sold. Call it iMac Pro if you want.
Neither is anything to write home about, but the Ultrafine 5K does have both a 1080p cam and built-in stereo speakers. But if you are using the mic and speakers I think the extra for the Studio Display is probably worth it.
There are basically none. The LG 24UD58-B (24" 4K) is probably the best solution and it seems to be out of stock everywhere at the moment, although not formally discontinued. There's also the LG UltraFine 4K, which adds Mac-specific docking like the 5K but costs twice as much for the same panel as the UD58.
The mass market has standardized around 27" 4K at 163 dpi.
I'd feel the same about an M1 Max (for 3 displays and 64 GB RAM) at $3000.
The M2's not some black box at this point, and it's not a great choice for the return of the 27" iMac. If you look at the M1 compared to the A14, you can extrapolate the M2 from the A15 or maybe A16 depending on when it launches. You're looking at the 4 performance and 4 efficiency CPU cores, roughly double the GPU cores of the corresponding An SoC, and the same NPU, plus some extra goodies sprinkled through the uncore. But that's not ideal for driving a 5k iMac. I'm sure it could do the job, but going up the ladder some you'll get a processor far better suited for the task. And looking at the lineup the right SoC already exists with the M1 Pro. Plus with the continued existence of the Intel Mac mini we know Apple sees the hole too.
An M1 Pro would certainly fit within the current mini's thermal headroom. You might even be able to fit an M1 Max, but looking at the current lineup and extrapolating I don't see a price point between a theoretical M1 Max mini and the base Mac Studio. Looking at the 14" MBP the price jump from the low-end M1 Pro with 16 GB RAM to the full M1 Pro with 32 GB is $700. Meanwhile the price gap between a 16 GB M1 mini and a base Studio is "only" $900 (assuming equivalent SSD size to take that out of the equation). Unlike the M1 Pro/Max Apple doesn't ship anything that let your choose between an M1 and M1 Pro, so we have to guess at how much that jump will cost, but $200 minimum seems like a safe bet and it's probably higher. Which means that if you add in the upgrade cost of jumping from an M1 to an M1 Pro a maxed M1 Pro mini would end up costing MORE than the base configuration of the Studio. I'm guessing this is the reason they didn't stealth update the mini with an M1 Pro; they're waiting to introduce a new, smaller case with lower bill of materials that will allow a lower entry point and a straightforward climb up the pricing ladder that transitions straight into the Mac Studio (call it $1700-1800 from a 10 CPU/16 GPU M1 Pro mini with 32 GB of RAM and a 512 GB SSD, or whichever Mn processor we're on when this happens, I'm using M1 for simplicity).
You're gonna see the same math with the iMac. A "full" M1 24" iMac (8 CPU, 8 GPU, 16 GB RAM) is $1900. An M1 Mac mini with 16 GB RAM plus Studio Display is $2700 (call it $2900 when you add in keyboard and mouse) and a base Mac Studio with Studio Display is $3600 ($3800 with keyboard and mouse). While again I expect a redesigned mini to be less expensive it's still useful as a baseline point of comparison, even if the Studio is probably more helpful. So those are your starting points. Even if they're functionally identical I expect the iMac at worst to hit price parity with the equivalent separates and less expensive wouldn't surprise me. So that's the [massive] price range you're trying to fill in. There's plenty of room to take the 24" higher with an M1 Pro, which covers a lot of that space, but not all of it. I could easily see that being it with AIO being limited to a 24" screen and if you want bigger you need to go with separates. The presentation sure seemed to imply the 27" iMac is gone for good and with the new Mac Studio and Studio Display it's not really needed anymore. But then again Gurman still insists it's coming, even after today's event, and he knows his stuff. Plus Apple's website still refers to the 24" iMac, which is redundant unless there's another size to compare it to. So I'm working from the assumption that it'll be back even if that could easily be wrong. In that case you can use the Mac Studio at $3800 as a starting point. Knock off a few hundred bucks for AIO savings (but add some back to include the keyboard and mouse) and you've got a 27" iMac with a fused M1 Max at $3500. Go down the price ladder from a fused M1 Max to a fused M1 Pro with 16 GB RAM and you take $900 off the price, so now we're starting at $2600. Not far off from what we'd expect using the current mini as a price baseline. If you assume it's $300 to go from M1 to M1 Pro then a comparable 24" iMac would be $2200, so the bigger screen costs you $400. Don't remember what the price gap was back when both were Intel, but that seems like it's in the right ballpark. A little bit more massaging and I bet the numbers work almost perfectly.
An M1 Pro would certainly fit within the current mini's thermal headroom. You might even be able to fit an M1 Max, but looking at the current lineup and extrapolating I don't see a price point between a theoretical M1 Max mini and the base Mac Studio. Looking at the 14" MBP the price jump from the low-end M1 Pro with 16 GB RAM to the full M1 Pro with 32 GB is $700. Meanwhile the price gap between a 16 GB M1 mini and a base Studio is "only" $900 (assuming equivalent SSD size to take that out of the equation). Unlike the M1 Pro/Max Apple doesn't ship anything that let your choose between an M1 and M1 Pro, so we have to guess at how much that jump will cost, but $200 minimum seems like a safe bet and it's probably higher. Which means that if you add in the upgrade cost of jumping from an M1 to an M1 Pro a maxed M1 Pro mini would end up costing MORE than the base configuration of the Studio. I'm guessing this is the reason they didn't stealth update the mini with an M1 Pro; they're waiting to introduce a new, smaller case with lower bill of materials that will allow a lower entry point and a straightforward climb up the pricing ladder that transitions straight into the Mac Studio (call it $1700-1800 from a 10 CPU/16 GPU M1 Pro mini with 32 GB of RAM and a 512 GB SSD, or whichever Mn processor we're on when this happens, I'm using M1 for simplicity).
You're gonna see the same math with the iMac. A "full" M1 24" iMac (8 CPU, 8 GPU, 16 GB RAM) is $1900. An M1 Mac mini with 16 GB RAM plus Studio Display is $2700 (call it $2900 when you add in keyboard and mouse) and a base Mac Studio with Studio Display is $3600 ($3800 with keyboard and mouse). While again I expect a redesigned mini to be less expensive it's still useful as a baseline point of comparison, even if the Studio is probably more helpful. So those are your starting points. Even if they're functionally identical I expect the iMac at worst to hit price parity with the equivalent separates and less expensive wouldn't surprise me. So that's the [massive] price range you're trying to fill in. There's plenty of room to take the 24" higher with an M1 Pro, which covers a lot of that space, but not all of it. I could easily see that being it with AIO being limited to a 24" screen and if you want bigger you need to go with separates. The presentation sure seemed to imply the 27" iMac is gone for good and with the new Mac Studio and Studio Display it's not really needed anymore. But then again Gurman still insists it's coming, even after today's event, and he knows his stuff. Plus Apple's website still refers to the 24" iMac, which is redundant unless there's another size to compare it to. So I'm working from the assumption that it'll be back even if that could easily be wrong. In that case you can use the Mac Studio at $3800 as a starting point. Knock off a few hundred bucks for AIO savings (but add some back to include the keyboard and mouse) and you've got a 27" iMac with a fused M1 Max at $3500. Go down the price ladder from a fused M1 Max to a fused M1 Pro with 16 GB RAM and you take $900 off the price, so now we're starting at $2600. Not far off from what we'd expect using the current mini as a price baseline. If you assume it's $300 to go from M1 to M1 Pro then a comparable 24" iMac would be $2200, so the bigger screen costs you $400. Don't remember what the price gap was back when both were Intel, but that seems like it's in the right ballpark. A little bit more massaging and I bet the numbers work almost perfectly.