Nonsense. My all-in-one iMac 2012 is still up and running (with an old MacOS version, but still) and my iMac 2017 is fully up to date and still works fine. Paperweight: I think not.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac Studio M1 Ultra GPU will be beaten by AMD and Nvidia in just 6-7 months.
- Thread starter exoticSpice
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
TBH that's the main thing that the M1 chips are missing is the dedicated raytracing hardware.
If you're buying a Mac Studio for ... a studio 3-4 years is a pretty reasonable period of use for the hardware. Also most places replace the entire machine at eol rather than upgrading piecemeal.
That said if you think it will be a paper weight in 3-4 years I think you're probably overestimating how fast hardware becomes obsolete. My Mac Pro lasted 6 years and iMac Pro still going strong and probable has a few years left in it.
Thinking about it, this is kinda pathetic for a thread. It’s the same “PC HAS TO WIN!” garbage but now it’s “PC WILL BE BETTER IN 6-7 MONTHS!”
You realize 3-4 year old Macs still go for pretty high prices on the used market, right? You may not be able to upgrade the machine itself, but you can certainly resell it and get a good chunk of money towards the next model.
I knew a guy who would get the top-end 15” MacBook Pro every year. He was able to afford it because he could reliably sell the old one for ~85% of what he paid for it (after education discount), so the cost of year-over-year upgrades was pretty small.
The target market that is building high end workstations and making money off of it, they are not worried about a slightly higher electricity bill and they already know how to cool high end hardware. Even a 2000W machine running at full tilt for 12 hours a day will cost on average 80-90$ a month in elec bill which is peanuts in a production environment. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying efficiency is not a good thing, but it's not as big of a concern as you think for high end workstation use cases.
This is right. Most of the people who post here are just consumers who want something faster, etc. When I buy a 20k machine, I make that money back from this investment in 2 weeks. Yeah, these Apple products are expensive, this Mac Studio is a lot of money - but 99% of people who post here don't really need it, so who cares what it costs? You don't need it anyway. You want it because you are a prosumer, and I get that - but you don't need it. In the grand scheme of running my business, the cost of one of these things costs less than my monthly order of cardboard and styrofoam
Mac Studio M1 Ultra GPU will be beaten by AMD and Nvidia in just 6-7 months by adding another 100W power consumption while the M2 Ultra will have 40% increase in performance by using the same power consumption
these users from what i see are teenagers in general, gamers, and of course they need to justify something
When the Mac pro will come this kind of topics will be that pc will beat the mac pro in 2-3 years
PC will have something that will crush apple silicon in performance/W consumption in 20-30 years...so not in our lives
It’s benchracing nonsense, like the old “I can build something more powerful for less!” from kiddies on their HP laptop.these users from what i see are teenagers in general, gamers, and of course they need to justify something
When the Mac pro will come this kind of topics will be that pc will beat the mac pro in 2-3 years
PC will have something that will crush apple silicon in performance/W consumption in 20-30 years...so not in our lives
But sure, I’ll take the assertion at face value. You feel free to brag about your (potentially) more powerful system 6-7 months down the line and say how it’s superior to a Mac release on March 18.
And? So? I swear, some of you come here exclusively for reactions. It's more than a little sad.
Exactly. All this GPU talk is so tiring. "This gaming card is going to make prettier call of duty graphics than that video rendering accelerator!." Sounds a lot like "This Chainsaw is going to cut a lot faster than that coping saw!" to me. They're different tools for different jobs.
I have a PC with a serious discrete GPU I use for gaming. Building it cost about as much money and more trouble than buying my M1 Max MBP(bad investment, I'm on my mac ~40hrs a week and my PC less than 4). When I get down to work editing a video, I'll pick the mac every time. Just like when I want to play a game (Even one that exists on Mac!) I'll boot up the PC instead. I've tried Mac gaming and PC video editing multiple times over the last several decades and always come back to this arrangement.
Macs and PCs aren't competitors in my mind. Macs are useful tools for everything from text editing to video work while PCs are the annoying toy box you have to store your games in.
And soon “PC WAS BETTER A FEW YEARS AGO!” ?
And also 90% of desktop sales are to offices, and those are Mac minis and entry level iMacs.
It happens every time Apple releases something. It’s like these guys are insecure unless a PC (not necessarily theirs) is superior in some way.
Looking at the leaked OpenCL bench of the 48 core, I think even the 64 core is beaten by both AMD and Nvidia before it even come out, at least in 3D rendering.
Also..
Blender 3.1 open data benchmark
even if that scales perfectly the 64 core will be like 1400
Still way slower than even a 6900 XT
Not even talking about a 3090
Also..
Blender 3.1 open data benchmark
even if that scales perfectly the 64 core will be like 1400
Still way slower than even a 6900 XT
Not even talking about a 3090
Geekbench has some issues on Apple Silicon. The tests don’t run long enough to fully exercise the gpu. At least according to Andrei and Ryan from Anandtech.Looking at the leaked OpenCL bench of the 48 core, I think even the 64 core is beaten by both AMD and Nvidia before it even come out, at least in 3D rendering.
Also..
Blender 3.1 open data benchmark
View attachment 1971107
even if that scales perfectly the 64 core will be like 1400
Still way slower than even a 6900 XT
View attachment 1971108
Not even talking about a 3090
View attachment 1971109
Having said that, Apple really should be posting the exact benchmarks they use if they’re going to make claims about the Ultra beating the 3090.
The neat thing is the 2012 can have its SSDs/HDDs upgraded and both allow you to upgrade the ram for 1/8th the ripoff prices that Apple charges. Those all extend the life of your machines
New Apple = everything is soldered
Ok, but that’s not especially optimised either. While the lack of optimised software is a valid criticism of Apple Silicon, it doesn’t give us a useful idea of how capable the hardware is.