Then it should be much faster on a Max or Ultra. If it isn't, the developers have more work to do.
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 Performance - Disappointing News
- Thread starter CodeSpyder
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And the Ultra should be much faster than the Max but it’s not, so here we are again back to square one.
The Ultra is much faster than the Max
I see from your previous posts that you don't have a Studio. From that, I can infer you've not done your own testing and your knowledge of its' performance is based purely on what you've seen online. Your definition of "night and day" might be different from mine, but from my own personal testing, the initial impression of my base Ultra was a bit "meh", but changing slightly my h.265 encoding workflow from 1 file to 3 in parallel went from the M1 hardware encode speed of 170ish fps to >520fps, a 3x speed improvement. The same 3x improvement was also obtained using software h.265 encoding. Night and day? not sure, but certainly within the ball park. My 3x M1 Mac Minis were certainly cheaper (the aim was to have the Ultra replace all 3) and performance wise it certainly can do, while also allowing a couple of virtuals to run at an acceptable level of performance and also carrying out all the other things a primary workstation is expected to do (Mail, Safari, Messages, Teams, Word, Excel etc) though none of these are really any quicker on the Ultra compared to the Mini. But then, who would expect them to be, it's the same single core and hence speed, but it all works smoothly and faultlessly while encoding h.265 video in the background at > 25x playback speeds .... I'd say that was kind of staggering ... oh and doing all that with sub 80W of power usage
Each person has different requirements for a device, each person has different views as to what is quick. Maybe a workflow can be altered slightly to parallelise tasks in the interim until software vendors can alter their code to make use of the additional capabilities. I know I've certainly found a way to exploit the performance and it is there to be had.
What? The imminent release of a new version of Final Cut is not a rumour. Nor is the DaVinci Resolve update. I told you that the latter is the subject of a thread on the Blackmagic Design forum with input from a Blackmagic developer. I can only assume that you haven't followed up and haven't read Blackmagic Design's own post on the subject.
Our exchange reminds me of a saying about leading a horse to water
Last edited:
With all the stress-testing that gets done, you wonder why they don't include scrubbing, rendering and exporting editing projects that have many hours of media (minimum 10 hours) from say 4 or more camera types.
Discussing the Mac Studio vs new Macbook Pros today a colleague made this exact comment. Editing on M1 Pro 16" MBP with 16gb ram, 20-core GPU and 10-core CPU with the latest iteration of Premiere and it's really not that fast to: 1) load up clips, 2) scrub through mixed and straight timelines and 3) export (we've been making proxies for editing on other older macs and the record is over 20 hours continuously for making 720p proxies from approx 200gb of 4K/5.6K footage stored internally from FX6, Gopro10s, A7SIII cameras and various drones, and phones).
It works, of course, but there are still moments when it stops to load a clip or it stops to 'think' in the middle of an insert edit. (Maybe it's just old buggy Adobe Premiere or there's not enough RAM?) These are the editing challenges that should be included in performance tests for the Mac Studio and other computers.
Discussing the Mac Studio vs new Macbook Pros today a colleague made this exact comment. Editing on M1 Pro 16" MBP with 16gb ram, 20-core GPU and 10-core CPU with the latest iteration of Premiere and it's really not that fast to: 1) load up clips, 2) scrub through mixed and straight timelines and 3) export (we've been making proxies for editing on other older macs and the record is over 20 hours continuously for making 720p proxies from approx 200gb of 4K/5.6K footage stored internally from FX6, Gopro10s, A7SIII cameras and various drones, and phones).
It works, of course, but there are still moments when it stops to load a clip or it stops to 'think' in the middle of an insert edit. (Maybe it's just old buggy Adobe Premiere or there's not enough RAM?) These are the editing challenges that should be included in performance tests for the Mac Studio and other computers.
How do you find it with a audio work? I was looking at the Max 64GB but am now thinking of buying an Ultra to future proof myself. Do you use orchestral libraries or more synths or both?
As of March 29th, iZotope RX 9 runs natively on M1. iZotope does not say that RX 8 has been updated.
It appears that Ozone is next.
Last edited:
Yup just downloaded the new version last weekend, have not really put it through it's paces yet, but if the first project I was working on is any indication I am seeing at least a 4x to 6x increase in speed over what I seeing on my 2012 PowerMac (3.06 MHz 12 cores, 128MB Ram, 2TB SSD, AMD Sapphire HD 7950) and about 1.5 to 2x speed increase over what I see on my MacBook Pro M1 Max.
That's helpful to know. iZotope's announcement video used a 2013 Mac Pro for its comparison, which raised a pretty obvious question. Good to see a number from an M1 computer.
I think that there are a lot of people who passed on upgrading from RX 8 to RX 9. I'm in that group and have to decide whether native M1 is worth it over Rosetta. Probably not coincidentally, iZotope is now offering RX 8 Advanced users the upgrade for $150. In my case, estimated delivery for my Mac Studio is June 27-July 11, and iZotope is likely to launch RX 10 in October, so the update isn't a no-brainer.
It will be interesting to see whether Ozone 9 gets native M1 or whether it's used to help sell Ozone 10
Last edited:
I went from RX7 to RX9 basely solely on iZotope's commitment to make RX9 Apple Silicon native. I didn't realize it got the update until your postThat's helpful to know. iZotope's announcement video used a 2013 Mac Pro for its comparison, which raised a pretty obvious question. Good to see a number from an M1 computer.
I think that there are a lot of people who passed on upgrading from RX 8 to RX 9. I'm in that group and have to decide whether native M1 is worth it. Probably not coincidentally, iZotope is now offering RX 8 Advanced users the upgrade for $150. In my case, estimated delivery for my Mac Studio is June 27-July 11, and iZotope is likely to launch RX 10 in October, so the update isn't a no-brainer
I was previously using it via Rosetta on my M1 Mac mini. It worked "OK", but I could tell it was struggling a bit. Not sure if that was due to only 8GB of RAM I had on the mini, or that it was using Rosetta.
I'll admit it... I'm that guy who just upgraded from the M1 mini to the Studio Max for just a single application. And because I like new toys ha. Overall the graphics performance of the Studio Max is an improvement vs. the M1 mini just for ordinary windows and UI, when connected to my XDR. The M1 mini is just about perfect for those that don't mind or notice a few dropped frames or won't max out the RAM. I fall just beyond that threshold, so it's perfect for me as a "prosumer".
I purchased the Ultra because I tend to hold onto my computers for at least 5 years and I used my 2012 MacPro for 10 years. The audio work I do is mostly restoration of audio from old tapes in a variety of formats from wire recorders to multi-channel masters and very old music from Edison Music Cylinders, 78's, to DAT, Mini Disc, Philips Digital Cassettes, 8-Track tapes, old cassette tapes etc.
For fun I play around with Ableton Live, but I can't say it use it seriously. I use Studio Artist for working on my photos which also just came out with a M1 version of their software which is a lot of fun to use. It looks like I will need to update my version of 4D since the version I am currently running does not work at all on the M1, the latest version of Filemaker Pro does run, but not in native mode hopefully they will upgrade it soon.
So I am hoping to get at least 5 years out of my Mac Studio, which is why I went with the Ultra with 128GB RAM, 2TB SSD, 48 Graphic Cores. The only thing I load on my main drive is the OS and my applications so 2TB should be good, don't do that much where I need a lot of Graphic power so saving the $1,000 on upgrading the graphic cores was a no-brainer, I am a firm believer that you can never have too much RAM so maxing out the RAM was also a no-brainer, I have done with every computer I have owned since my Apple // which I upgraded from 4K to 48k. The amount of RAM is the only thing I am worried about as far as getting years of use out of the Studio since it can't be upgraded and who knows how much RAM future applications will run.
anyone ready to place bets as to whether the "reviews" increase or decrease the performance complaints ?
That style of "reviewing" comes from people who are mostly interested in generating "controversy". It isn't characteristic of serious reviewers
That style of "reviewing" comes from people who are mostly interested in generating "controversy". It isn't characteristic of serious reviewers
I know, appolgies, it was meant to be more of a comment on the apparent overreaction of people to good/bad/reaction invoking reviews in general
FWIW, I went with the 16" MacBookPro M1 MAX, 64RAM and feel like I got most of what this generation of Apple's SOC can do. Even with 8K RED material editing/primary CC/export the M1 MAX feels snappy. It also allows me to wait a bit before getting a serious shredder based on upcoming chips. My goal is to wake up in a couple of years with a powerful laptop and a $4-8K desktop that can handle heavy workloads.
“Heavy workloads” is a moving target. Not long ago, editing 1080p video was considered a heavy workload. Now it’s child’s play you can do on any phone.
There was/is an old adage relating to Microsoft and intel:
“What itel giveth, Microsoft taketh away”.
The same will be true with M series SOCs and the Mac.
There was/is an old adage relating to Microsoft and intel:
“What itel giveth, Microsoft taketh away”.
The same will be true with M series SOCs and the Mac.
More from Max Tech:
Apparently what’s he’s saying is inaccurate, but there may be a grain of truth in it in terms of optimisation (ie use metal). However, you should probably wait for someone who specialises in this area before jumping to conclusions.
Apparently what’s he’s saying is inaccurate, but there may be a grain of truth in it in terms of optimisation (ie use metal). However, you should probably wait for someone who specialises in this area before jumping to conclusions.
Just seen Apple has released 10.6.2 and this topic is like a ghost town. So what’s the news?What? The imminent release of a new version of Final Cut is not a rumour. Nor is the DaVinci Resolve update. I told you that the latter is the subject of a thread on the Blackmagic Design forum with input from a Blackmagic developer. I can only assume that you haven't followed up and haven't read Blackmagic Design's own post on the subject.
Our exchange reminds me of a saying about leading a horse to water
Has this given the Ultra a massive performance boost over the Max as you said it’s wood and should I be re-ordering an Ultra again?
Please explain why you invented that out of thin air. I didn't say anything of the kind.
What I said is that Apple had released a Final Cut beta and that the release in final form was probably imminent (sure enough, I was right) and that Blackmagic was also working on an update (which it is).
What is your problem? Why are you making stuff up for the purpose of attacking me, not for the first time in this thread?
Last edited:
Who do you think you're kidding? Stop misrepresenting my posts. Whatever your problem is with the Mac Studio, it's your problem, not mine.
Last edited:
Why are you avoiding my question??
Have no problem with the Studio And want to buy one.
Base Ultras are seen in stock as it’s a standard config so much easier to get than higher end Max but there is a substantial difference in cost. Max and Ultra showed little performance difference so I cancelled my Ultra order and have decided to wait it out a until further optimisations.
I questioned the performance of the studio and you labelled my response as uninformed and directed me to a topic about FCP and Resolve imminent updates. Resolve (which I don’t use) looks like it will be cloud collaboration but who knows yet. Most importantly for me, FCP just arrived and wondered if there is any change.
Not being weird here, would just like to know.
I think the reviewers need another day or two to finish their tests and post their results. The Max Tech guys were on this Cult of Mac podcast yesterday and talked about their initial impressions of the new software updates. They said for the tests they like to run, they were not seeing big changes on the Ultra export times to H.265, but they did see some gains in exporting to ProRes.
I'm not an FCP user but @Ethosik I hear you on wanting to know about how to speed up your 8-10 hour video exports as much as possible! Probably telling you things you already know, but I believe the fastest way to get a video out of FCP would be to export in the same ProRes format that you're editing with (Optimized Media). I think that type of export of existing render files should be relatively fast? And then in Compressor you could take that ProRes master and compress it to H.264/5 or whatever your delivery format is. I know in Compressor, don't know about if also in FCP, you can set up distributed rendering where the ProRes to H.264/5 encoding job is split into multiple pieces / across multiple Compressor machines on the network. That kind of parallelism is how you could squeeze every last drop out of the M1 Max / Ultra I think.
Last edited: