MP All Models A conundrum, a dilemma, call it what you will...

[carlosbutler]

tl;dr​

One very hot top-spec MBP 16", no high-end iMac Pro/5k available, and Mac Studio is 💸💸. Will a Trash Can solve it?

At present...​

I am a software engineer, having used Apple's hardware since 2008 at university. iMac, for me, is still my favourite machine they make.

I've a top spec 16" MBP from the day it was released in late 2019, and it has served me well. Alas, I find it more and more irksome as a permanent desktop. Seldom do I take it out the house now (originally bought due to travelling to Asia for work).

I need a very high powered desktop, yet the Mac Studio pricing at £3,999 is quite beyond acceptable, thus I believe I am left with these options:

• iMac Pro (second hand)
• iMac 24"
• Mac Pro 🗑 (second hand)

My question is, more so out of disbelief: are Geekbench results actually indicative of real-world, and could an M1 iMac 24" actually be so much faster than a Mac Pro 🗑?

And if so, iMac Pro vs iMac 24"?

N.B. I appreciate I've long been absent in posting, but would greatly appreciate comments from those who've used the above machines.

 

[SpotOnT]

You don't mention what you need a high powered desktop for...so it is hard to make suggestions. Are you compiling code? Doing 3D Modeling? Web design?

My first thought is why do you think the M1 Max Mac Studio isn't enough for you? That would come in at more like £1,999 rather than £3,999, and should totally blow your 2019 MBP away, as well as have lot of I/O that one might expect of a proper desktop.

That would sort of be my first guess. Sell your 2019 and that might get you close enough to make the base Mac Studio affordable.

As for your options, the 2013 Mac Pro still has a few things that it does very well, but I wouldn't put software work on that list. It has a low single core speed. Very outdated I/O that doesn't work great with modern peripherals. Nothing special about its graphics power either and most modern software can't utilize its dual GPUs, which makes it even slower.

As for the iMac Pro. If you really want a 27" 5k display that isn't the worst way to go if you are on a tight budget. Probably better than the 2013 Mac Pro anyway.

But if you can't swing the base Mac Studio, I think I would still recommend the M1. Either the smaller M1 iMac or the M1 Mini if you already have a display. And yes the basic M1 iMac/Mini is probably better than the trashcan Mac Pro. It has comparable graphics performance (assuming you are actually using both GPUs in the trashcan to begin with) and higher CPU performance. In my real work experience anyway.

Just make sure to get as much RAM as you can in that thing. Also bump up that SSD to make room for swap files. If you are compiling code that is anyway. Lack of RAM is the only way I have gotten the M1 to beachball.

 

[carlosbutler]

You don't mention what you need a high powered desktop for...so it is hard to make suggestions. Are you compiling code? Doing 3D Modeling? Web design?

My first thought is why do you think the M1 Max Mac Studio isn't enough for you? That would come in at more like £1,999 rather than £3,999, and should totally blow your 2019 MBP away, as well as have lot of I/O that one might expect of a proper desktop.

That would sort of be my first guess. Sell your 2019 and that might get you close enough to make the base Mac Studio affordable.

As for your options, the 2013 Mac Pro still has a few things that it does very well, but I wouldn't put software work on that list. It has a low single core speed. Very outdated I/O that doesn't work great with modern peripherals. Nothing special about its graphics power either and most modern software can't utilize its dual GPUs, which makes it even slower.

As for the iMac Pro. If you really want a 27" 5k display that isn't the worst way to go if you are on a tight budget. Probably better than the 2013 Mac Pro anyway.

But if you can't swing the base Mac Studio, I think I would still recommend the M1. Either the smaller M1 iMac or the M1 Mini if you already have a display. And yes the basic M1 iMac/Mini is probably better than the trashcan Mac Pro. It has comparable graphics performance (assuming you are actually using both GPUs in the trashcan to begin with) and higher CPU performance. In my real work experience anyway.

Just make sure to get as much RAM as you can in that thing. Also bump up that SSD to make room for swap files. If you are compiling code that is anyway. Lack of RAM is the only way I have gotten the M1 to beachball.

Mainly:

• Docker sucking up all resources (fortunately multi-core)
• Scripting languages (Ruby and the likes) being single core
• Every so often compiling libraries

Thank you for the hardware real-life recommendations. Perhaps a Mac Studio with M1 Max should be enough. Worst case I can always return it even after using it (at least in the UK).

I still miss my iMac all-in-one experience though 🥹

 

[russell_314]

Have you considered the M1 Mac mini in 16 GB config? The trash can Mac is almost a decade old at this point. The new Apple Silicon processors are very fast and I'm sure considerably faster than the trash can. Buy a refurb Mac mini if you're on a budget.

I don't know your use case but I can't imagine it would be slow.

 

[SpotOnT]

Mainly:

• Docker sucking up all resources (fortunately multi-core)
• Scripting languages (Ruby and the likes) being single core
• Every so often compiling libraries

Thank you for the hardware real-life recommendations. Perhaps a Mac Studio with M1 Max should be enough. Worst case I can always return it even after using it (at least in the UK).

I still miss my iMac all-in-one experience though 🥹

Well you can try the m1 iMac and see how it goes for you. Then upgrade if Apple ever releases a more powerful all in one. The M1 only has 4 performance cores and is RAM limited, so Docker would probably run smoother on the M1 Max. Still think the M1 would be better than the trashcan or the iMac Pro if you are on a tight budget though.

 

[avro707]

I have the maximum spec Mac Pro 6,1 which is used all the time since my 12 core 5,1 is out of action.

I use it for web work and a lot of video captures and compression and it makes short work of that. But it won’t run Ventura. That said, it’s a beautiful little thing but it is getting old.

I have a 7,1 on order also, mainly for ease to upgrade. I don’t think the iMac Pro is a realistic choice now.

I suspect you might go the maximum spec of M1 iMac that you can go for.

 

[theluggage]

I need a very high powered desktop, yet the Mac Studio pricing at £3,999 is quite beyond acceptable

That £3999 would get you a M1 Max Studio with 10 core CPU & 32GB RAM - not just base model but with the optional 32 core GPU, 1TB SSD (£2400) and a Studio Display (£1600). That would be significantly faster than the base iMac Pro - 10 core CPU with 1TB storage and 32GB RAM - which cost £5000. The only performance question is whether the GPUs are comparable - but none of your uses sound like they're GPU heavy so you've probably 'wasted' £200 on getting the 32 core GPU. If you're even contemplating the Studio Ultra then you really have to compare it with at least the 18-core iMac Pro, costing over £7000 (don't forget to add the cost of an extra 32GB RAM).

So, as far as I can see, the only "saving" you are getting with the iMac Pro is whatever deal you get on a second-hand one - which could easily be in the same ball park as a new Mac Studio.

Plus you don't have to buy the £1600 Studio Display - the 5k iMac has you spoilt, but on my Studio I have two 28.2" 3:2 ratio "4k+" Huawei MateViews which cost a total of £900. They're not quite in the same league as Apple 5k when it comes to absolute image quality, but they're pretty good and in terms of "how many lines of code can you display" even one of them beats the Studio Display (yes, there's a slight quality compromise if you use scaled mode to get the same UI size as a 5k iMac but that's only noticeable if you're leaning in to do 1:1 pixel photo editing).

That's if you need a Studio. A modestly expanded M1 Mini will eat editing and compiling code for breakfast but of course, as a software engineer, you need to be able to actually run the software you are working on, so it rather depends on whether you're writing iPhone fart apps, video editing software or commercial-grade "big data" AI/ML systems.

• Docker sucking up all resources (fortunately multi-core)
• Scripting languages (Ruby and the likes) being single core
• Every so often compiling libraries

Docker raises an important issue: are you OK with running Docker on ARM? AFAIK Docker runs on Apple Silicon - but it does mean that all your containers are running ARM binaries. I'm sure there are solutions and work-arounds, but it's something you do need to research before jumping - especially if you are targeting x86 systems (although cross-compiling and emulation are a thing).

It's also worth remembering that you can run Docker quite efficiently on any old x86 box while using your Mac as the front end.

Scripting languages don't have to be single core (pretty sure Ruby does multi-threading, and you've even got web workers in browsers these days) - but I'll assume that they are for your purposes.

Compiling libraries - Apple Silicon rips through that. Again, what systems are you targeting? If you're developing for Mac then you have to target both x86 and ARM anyhow.

 

[parameter]

You don't mention what you need a high powered desktop for...so it is hard to make suggestions. Are you compiling code? Doing 3D Modeling? Web design?

My first thought is why do you think the M1 Max Mac Studio isn't enough for you? That would come in at more like £1,999 rather than £3,999, and should totally blow your 2019 MBP away, as well as have lot of I/O that one might expect of a proper desktop.

That would sort of be my first guess. Sell your 2019 and that might get you close enough to make the base Mac Studio affordable.

As for your options, the 2013 Mac Pro still has a few things that it does very well, but I wouldn't put software work on that list. It has a low single core speed. Very outdated I/O that doesn't work great with modern peripherals. Nothing special about its graphics power either and most modern software can't utilize its dual GPUs, which makes it even slower.

As for the iMac Pro. If you really want a 27" 5k display that isn't the worst way to go if you are on a tight budget. Probably better than the 2013 Mac Pro anyway.

But if you can't swing the base Mac Studio, I think I would still recommend the M1. Either the smaller M1 iMac or the M1 Mini if you already have a display. And yes the basic M1 iMac/Mini is probably better than the trashcan Mac Pro. It has comparable graphics performance (assuming you are actually using both GPUs in the trashcan to begin with) and higher CPU performance. In my real work experience anyway.

Just make sure to get as much RAM as you can in that thing. Also bump up that SSD to make room for swap files. If you are compiling code that is anyway. Lack of RAM is the only way I have gotten the M1 to beachball.

I'm a full-time software developer, very little web work. Mainly compiled code with larger IDEs and projects. When the M1s first came out, I had my old Mac Pro 2008 still in use which was actually still pretty fast.

But it was time for a new machine. And I was mostly just testing for fun during the holiday extended return window with the M1 8GB model. I brought it home and the thing was screaming fast doing "normal" things. Though it did have its limits that I kept hitting when trying to work on larger projects that kept processor use up for extended times, or doing multiple tasks.

So I returned it for the 16GB mini and kept it. I'm still using it today. I'd really like the ability to add a 3rd display onto this, which I cannot, however the new Studios can. For users like me at least, I still use the many multi-monitor setup for viewing code, portrait monitor and so on, probably like you?
But, for now I've learned to keep with the 2 monitor setup, eventually moving up after I possibly see what comes next in the more "pro" lineup.

My point is that this Mac Mini, as long as you get the 16GB version(!), should do a lot for you. I never owned a mini before, always the bigger Power Mac or Mac Pro. But I'd give this thing an honest try and see what you can throw at it. As others have mentioned, depending on your sub-specialties or any sub-necessities, it might affect how things work on this versus a studio. But once again, I'd at least think about trying the Mini out, it's cheap and very powerful in everyday use as well as even into (yes) the pro-level.
I'd love to hear what you decide to get and how it turns out so keep us updated! If you have any specifics that I could help answer I'll try to watch this thread, so ask away!

EDIT:
I wanted to chime in on the Docker issue mentioned. I'm not a super web developer, but do do some. I'm definitely not a power user when it comes to web work. I have and do use Docker, but not for full on web projects. I actually fall back on using MAMP which isn't exactly always in the "pro" group either, but it does actually run very well. For Docker, I've used it a bit on this machine and also run some containers remotely and some on my local connected via GB ethernet Intel Mac Pro 2008, which is super fast and fully compatible with nearly any Docker image that requires an x86 running target. But I keep moving more and more things into and onto my mini and have definitely made it my "main machine" without a doubt.

 

[Alex Cai]

I am a software engineer, having used Apple's hardware since 2008 at university. iMac, for me, is still my favourite machine they make.​

I've a top spec 16" MBP from the day it was released in late 2019, and it has served me well. Alas, I find it more and more irksome as a permanent desktop. Seldom do I take it out the house now (originally bought due to travelling to Asia for work).

I need a very high powered desktop, yet the Mac Studio pricing at £3,999 is quite beyond acceptable, thus I believe I am left with these options:

• iMac Pro (second hand)
• iMac 24"
• Mac Pro 🗑 (second hand)

Neither a trash can or a iMac Pro will do this job, since it’s not future proof(trash can can’t even run macOS Veturna) and both machine have thermal defunct.
Newer products are better in design and take in consideration of better design.
So my opinion is get a M1 Max Mac studio.
Apple silicon chips are actually cheaper than intel/AMD, referring to price per performance

 

[Danfango]

Mainly:

• Docker sucking up all resources (fortunately multi-core)
• Scripting languages (Ruby and the likes) being single core
• Every so often compiling libraries

Thank you for the hardware real-life recommendations. Perhaps a Mac Studio with M1 Max should be enough. Worst case I can always return it even after using it (at least in the UK).

I still miss my iMac all-in-one experience though 🥹

Dead easy if you are desktop bound:

1. Buy an arse end iMac.
2. Buy or build a suitable desktop PC and cram it with RAM and SSD, install Linux on it. I would do an i5-12600, 64Gb RAM, 1TB Samsung Pro SSD. Probably throw one together for £700
3. Remote into it with your IDE (I use VSCode) or ssh from the iMac.

Your requirements aren't really that immense.

Edit: I do this but the Linux box lives in Amazon AWS and gets turned on for the occasional few minutes when I need it to do something. The rest of the time it's off and I'm only paying for the EBS image to lurk quietly.

 

[deconstruct60]

tl;dr​

One very hot top-spec MBP 16", no high-end iMac Pro/5k available, and Mac Studio is 💸💸. Will a Trash Can solve it?

At present...​

I am a software engineer, having used Apple's hardware since 2008 at university. iMac, for me, is still my favourite machine they make.

...

..My question is, more so out of disbelief: are Geekbench results actually indicative of real-world, and could an M1 iMac 24" actually be so much faster than a Mac Pro 🗑?
And if so, iMac Pro vs iMac 24"?

For compiling libraries there is a "Clang" component to the Geekbench score. You'd have to dig into individual reports to pull it out separately there is a closer metric. That said , Geekbench has some "noise" as proxy to just sole software development workloads but it isn't a ton of noise. It can help at least to do some top level binning of options to do a deeper dive on.

What Geekbench does an extremely poor job of is factoring in the workload memory footprint requirements for comparison. If your workloads need 18GB versus 8GB it isn't going to tell much useful.

Presuming it is a >= 10 core iMac Pro that would be better option if not willing to wait for a Studio or iMac 24" update .
( Unless there is a some pressing major problem (besides too noisy ) with the MBP 16" another option is to wait. The M2 iMac update shouldn't take longer than the late Fall to arrive. There is a sizzle article on front page of macrumors that the M2 MBP 13" is going to be faster than MP 2019 8 core in Geekbenck score. ).

The MP 2013 has just been left by behind with the latest macOS releases. It is OK if already have one, but to put money into something that is already pragmatically on the Vintage/Obsolete list it is a questionable spend. It's performance isn't all that great. ). In many aspects, the iMac Pro was the replacement for the MP 2013. Used MP 2013 vs used iMac Pro .. that should go to the iMac Pro. Better CPU , Better Memory , better GPU .
iMac Pro doesn't have a large number of years left on new macOS support but it is better than zero years. ( 2021 + (5- 1) = 2025 would be optimistic. [ if went 2019 - 2022 and then 2022 - 2025 then it would be same 3 year cycle] Apple isn't giving the Intel stuff large leeway on intersection of Vintage/Obsolete date and new macOS coverage. If the new macOS release year covers a V/O date then now looking that it can get pulled. The T2 might help the iMac Pro, but perhaps not. )


If your docker deployments are primarily to x86-64 then there is a mismatch for the iMac 24" . If the MBP 16" limitation motiving the change is the 64GB cap then that would be a major factor. ( workload footprint currently at and shifting to pressing over 64GB .) . It is a pragmatically a fixed memory size but the used model could come with substantially more than just 64GB of RAM. ( it can be updated with "major surgery"). If want to run more VM/Containers locally concurrently than iMac Pro has an edge. Even a M2 iMac 24" will top out at 24GB.


If was highly specific macOS development then the iMac 24" would have an edge. ( more so if could wait for M2 version. )

 

[Cognizant.]

I would highly recommend getting an Apple silicon Mac for support and longevity. That is what Apple is pushing hard to switch everything over to and it wouldn't make sense to stay on an unsupported device or one that will lose support very soon.

 

[AlexMaximus]

I have to agree on the Apple silicone route. Intel times are over. Either a M1 Mac mini with 16 GB Ram or a base line Studio would do wonders.

 

[prefuse07]

Yeah, echoing some of the other posts, I would NOT buy a 6,1 in 2022 for any price > $400. If you can get a 12-core 6,1 for that price, then go for it, otherwise, total waste of cash.

 

[tsialex]

Yeah, echoing some of the other posts, I would NOT buy a 6,1 in 2022 for any price > $400. If you can get a 12-core 6,1 for that price, then go for it, otherwise, total waste of cash.

That's totally unrealistic, even Apple pay you over US$ 800 when you trade-in a late-2013 D700 12-core. Trade in value for a D300 quad core is still over US$ 400.

 

[prefuse07]

That's totally unrealistic, even Apple pay you over US$ 800 when you trade-in a late-2013 D700 12-core. Trade in value for a D300 quad core is still over US$ 400.

That's fine, I still wouldn't pay more than $400 for one, especially now that Ventura won't even work on it...

 

[avro707]

That's fine, I still wouldn't pay more than $400 for one, especially now that Ventura won't even work on it...

It won't on 5,1s either at the moment - not very well anyway, but people are still selling top spec 5,1s for a fair amount.

Of the old Mac Pros, the 6,1 is easier than the 5,1 for most things because there is no Opencore needed.

Shame that so many old Intel Macs are probably nearing end of life.

 

[Weisswurstsepp]

Mac Pro 5,1s still sell for some money because a spec'd out 5,1 is only marginally slower than a top-spec 6,1 but can have much faster GPUs and storage and is vastly more expandable. Plus the 5,1 is a lot more robust and doesn't overheat.

 

[Bodhitree]

I’d second @parameter in his advice to seeing how much mileage you can get out of an M1 machine with 16 GB of RAM, if you don’t want to stretch to a Mac Studio. I use my 24” M1 iMac (with 16 GB RAM) for some dev, mostly Unity game projects with some C# coding in Visual Studio, and it’s surprisingly quick.

 

[avro707]

Mac Pro 5,1s still sell for some money because a spec'd out 5,1 is only marginally slower than a top-spec 6,1 but can have much faster GPUs and storage and is vastly more expandable. Plus the 5,1 is a lot more robust and doesn't overheat.

Heat in 5,1: Northbridge runs hot with dual CPU and X5690. Need to put in extra fan (Noctua) in addition to replacing thermal compound and spring-clips for better cooling (and less fan noise). With your single CPU you don't get that problem.

Faster GPUs: Can be very expensive, 6800/6900 Radeons need to be flashed for compatibility. 6800/6900 limit expansion because they take up many slots. Depending on the card, you might not get boot screens unless you use Opencore.

They are getting too old and too many workarounds to keep them going. Eventually we have to move on.

 

[MacPeasant123]

So I returned it for the 16GB mini and kept it. I'm still using it today. I'd really like the ability to add a 3rd display onto this, which I cannot

I saw this the other week: you can use DisplayLink to get more than 2-3 monitors running with M1-based systems. The guy in the YouTube video got six of them running

M1 Macs Able to Run Up to Six External Displays Using DisplayLink

It is possible to run up to six external displays from the M1 Mac mini, and five external displays from the M1 MacBook Air and MacBook Pro, with the...

www.macrumors.com

DisplayLink on MacRumors

DisplayLink articles on MacRumors.com

www.macrumors.com

Run Six Displays on M1 Macs Apple Silicon (Mac Mini, Macbook Air, Macbook Pro)

 

[parameter]

I’d second @parameter in his advice to seeing how much mileage you can get out of an M1 machine with 16 GB of RAM, if you don’t want to stretch to a Mac Studio. I use my 24” M1 iMac (with 16 GB RAM) for some dev, mostly Unity game projects with some C# coding in Visual Studio, and it’s surprisingly quick.

To save even more memory, instead of VScode (which is Electron-based), give Panic's Nova a try.
It depends on what you're doing and how reliant you already might be on VScode. But Nova is a native Mac-only very fast and robust IDE that is new to the scene.
I'd take it for a trial spin if you want to further stretch those memory resources.

 

[carlosbutler]

For anyone who may wish to agree, or disagree, I've decided with a Mac Studio M1 Max. Alas, I need to configure as the default 512GB is a tad pitiful, thus, an eternity awaits until I get one delivered.

Thanks all who help me make the decision.

 

[Weisswurstsepp]

Heat in 5,1: Northbridge runs hot with dual CPU and X5690. Need to put in extra fan (Noctua) in addition to replacing thermal compound and spring-clips for better cooling (and less fan noise). With your single CPU you don't get that problem.

Faster GPUs: Can be very expensive, 6800/6900 Radeons need to be flashed for compatibility. 6800/6900 limit expansion because they take up many slots. Depending on the card, you might not get boot screens unless you use Opencore.

They are getting too old and too many workarounds to keep them going. Eventually we have to move on.

Until 2019 we still had several fully kitted dual core MP 5,2s at work which, despite being under almost constant heavy load, didn't overheat. Out of over 20 machines we had only two or three which had broken retainers eventually (something that was easily fixable with a $0.50 replacement part from our workshop).

BTW, the Northbridge in the cMP sits in front of the CPUs and thereby in the airflow, so it's temperature isn't really dependent on whether it's a single or dual CPU system. And the cMP's cooling is more than capable to prevent even the high power variants of the XEON 5600s from overheating/throtteling, so I'm not sure why you believe you need to fiddle with adding fans.

As far as GPUs are concerned, there are so many options for a cMP which most are also way faster than the trashcan's sclerotic and non-upgradeable AMD GPUs. There's really no need to spend big $$$ on Radeon 6800/6900 GPUs when even the trashcan's top-end GPU (the D700) is completely incapable of even keeping up with an old RX470, something which these days goes for little money. And yes, if you want a boot screen on a cMP then you needed a GPU with Mac ROM, but that has already been alleviated by OpenCore and Canopy.

I completely agree, though, that both cMPs and trashcans are getting a bit long ion the tooth, and even more so when Apple is currently busy successively axing x86 support. But when the choice is between a MP 5,1/5,2 and a trashcan I'd always pick the cMP, because it's still the more reliable, more capable and in most situations even much faster system than the trashcan (a name this Mac didn't get just because of its looks!).

But if the choice was between the trashcan and anything else then I'd rather get a new Mac mini M1.

In any case, the trashcan is probably the worst possible option for a day-to-day Mac in 2022.