Mac Studio Performance - Disappointing News

[Chancha]

Software development time lines aren't always predictable and not everyone buying a Studio is interested in FinalCut.

We are talking about an OS and the software (FCPX) that are also made in-house. Was Apple in a rush to meet a deadline for the unveiling? March event has never been a must. And WWDC is soon after.

In the case of Max Tech videos they have made it clear a number of times the FCPX pre-release version was used during Apple event and for the NDA review units to YouTubers (not including Max Tech of course). They did make clear to the audience that the numbers he sees may not be the final. But the fact of the matter is that any buyer of the Studio is going to see the same numbers as he does.

 

[m1maverick]

We are talking about an OS and the software (FCPX) that are also made in-house. Was Apple in a rush to meet a deadline for the unveiling? March event has never been a must. And WWDC is soon after.

In the case of Max Tech videos they have made it clear a number of times the FCPX pre-release version was used during Apple event and for the NDA review units to YouTubers (not including Max Tech of course). They did make clear to the audience that the numbers he sees may not be the final. But the fact of the matter is that any buyer of the Studio is going to see the same numbers as he does.

I suspect he knows this. Despite his claim Max's findings "aren‘t really valid" he finds them sufficiently valid enough upon which to hold off making a purchasing decision until the new version of FCP is released. Ironic isn't it?

 

[rkuo]

I would have thought that was obvious.

Your continued one line responses that completely elide obvious facts (like criticizing someone for not reviewing a version of FCP that is unreleased) are passive aggressive and actually rather offensive as you appear to be intentionally trying to waste everyone's time by stretching out a debate over tens of posts instead of just one or two.

Please engage with some bare minimum of thought.

 

[Adult80HD]

We are talking about an OS and the software (FCPX) that are also made in-house. Was Apple in a rush to meet a deadline for the unveiling? March event has never been a must. And WWDC is soon after.

In the case of Max Tech videos they have made it clear a number of times the FCPX pre-release version was used during Apple event and for the NDA review units to YouTubers (not including Max Tech of course). They did make clear to the audience that the numbers he sees may not be the final. But the fact of the matter is that any buyer of the Studio is going to see the same numbers as he does.

There's no reason to believe the OS needs any changes or optimization, and even if it had, OS 12.3 was released in conjunction with these Studio computers--the one I bought in store actually came with 12.2 on it, so Apple was clearly comfortable that the OS was fine. Any notion that the OS needs updating is 100% speculation raised by Internet "experts."

Final Cut, yeah, that should have just been updated to coincide with the release. That said, Apple makes their own business decisions. They probably--rightly so--knew that no one was buying a Studio just for the newest version of FCPX and those folks that are committed to Apple and Final Cut would be fine knowing that the update is imminent. Heck, it will probably be out before many of the Studio pre-orders are even filled.

 

[BanditoB]

One thing that I’m having a difficult time understanding is all of the talk about optimizing the software for the M1 Ultra. Apple specifically stated during the introduction of the SOC that the Ultra doesn’t require any software updates to take advantage of the full set of processor and GPU cores. Doesn’t this mean that optimization for this specific processor is not necessary?

 

[Adult80HD]

One thing that I’m having a difficult time understanding is all of the talk about optimizing the software for the M1 Ultra. Apple specifically stated during the introduction of the SOC that the Ultra doesn’t require any software updates to take advantage of the full set of processor and GPU cores. Doesn’t this mean that optimization for this specific processor is not necessary?

That depends. The additional media encoders apparently do need to have something done to fully enable their power. In terms of the GPU, if you aren't using the right methods or haven't ported your graphics to Metal, then they won't necessarily provide any benefit, or much less. For example, a lot of software still clings to OpenCL even though it's been deprecated. In the Adobe products many old functions were clearly coded to processor cores--both on the x86 architecture and on AS (great examples are things like Panorama and HDR); they cap out at 6 cores no matter what platform you are on, even though they *could* use more. They are using either old SMP/MP libraries or were hard-coded and need to be updated.

 

[F-Train]

In the case of Max Tech videos they have made it clear a number of times the FCPX pre-release version was used during Apple event and for the NDA review units to YouTubers (not including Max Tech of course). They did make clear to the audience that the numbers he sees may not be the final. But the fact of the matter is that any buyer of the Studio is going to see the same numbers as he does.

Potential buyers of the Studio for use for filmmaking are interested in videos like the one that Parker Walbeck just released. That's why Walbeck's video, not Yuryev's, has been discussed on the Blackmagic Design Post Production forum. Parker, unlike Yuryev, is seen as professional and reliable.

 

[m1maverick]

One thing that I’m having a difficult time understanding is all of the talk about optimizing the software for the M1 Ultra. Apple specifically stated during the introduction of the SOC that the Ultra doesn’t require any software updates to take advantage of the full set of processor and GPU cores. Doesn’t this mean that optimization for this specific processor is not necessary?

I think it would and, if so, that would be disappointing given that the Ultra matches the speed of the Max in several benchmarks. As such it diminishes the value of the extra hardware in the Ultra.

 

[F-Train]

[Apple] probably--rightly so--knew that no one was buying a Studio just for the newest version of FCPX and those folks that are committed to Apple and Final Cut would be fine knowing that the update is imminent. Heck, it will probably be out before many of the Studio pre-orders are even filled.

People who use DaVinci Resolve don't care and some people who use Final Cut are indeed waiting to see the Final Cut final release. Many of these same people are also considering the upcoming Mac Pro, and may now wait until the WWDC on June 6-10. The 2019 Mac Pro was also released at WWDC.

 

[Adult80HD]

People who use DaVinci Resolve don't care and some people who use Final Cut are indeed waiting to see the Final Cut final release. Many of these same people are also considering the upcoming Mac Pro, and may now wait until the WWDC on June 6-10. The 2019 Mac Pro was also released at WWDC.

Of course but what's your point? There's always going to be some people that wait and many that don't. BTW, I wouldn't say those that use DaVinci don't care. I am a casual user, and honestly it's the most impressive Mac video software out there--and BlackMagic has been very on top of updating and optimizing their software, no matter what platform you're on Mac, PC or Mac AS. I don't doubt they'll be updating their software to utilize the new resources available, where they can. Clearly even right now with some footage types and codecs, Resolve on the Ultra will give you a nice boost.

 

[F-Train]

Of course but what's your point? There's always going to be some people that wait and many that don't. BTW, I wouldn't say those that use DaVinci don't care. I am a casual user, and honestly it's the most impressive Mac video software out there--and BlackMagic has been very on top of updating and optimizing their software, no matter what platform you're on Mac, PC or Mac AS. I don't doubt they'll be updating their software to utilize the new resources available, where they can. Clearly even right now with some footage types and codecs, Resolve on the Ultra will give you a nice boost.

I meant that people who use DaVinci Resolve don't care about the Final Cut update

There are actually three "groups", leaving aside Premier Pro... People who use DaVinci Resolve, people who use Final Cut, and people who use Final Cut for editing but DaVinci Resolve for colour grading.

A significant percentage of film editors who are in the market for a new computer are indeed waiting to assess the Mac Pro, and some want to assess the Studio, the Mac Pro and Windows machines as a group. This is not just an exercise in "some people waiting". For many of the people that I'm talking about, this is a pretty important decision.

 

[m1maverick]

That depends. The additional media encoders apparently do need to have something done to fully enable their power. In terms of the GPU, if you aren't using the right methods or haven't ported your graphics to Metal, then they won't necessarily provide any benefit, or much less. For example, a lot of software still clings to OpenCL even though it's been deprecated. In the Adobe products many old functions were clearly coded to processor cores--both on the x86 architecture and on AS (great examples are things like Panorama and HDR); they cap out at 6 cores no matter what platform you are on, even though they *could* use more. They are using either old SMP/MP libraries or were hard-coded and need to be updated.

I am surprised that a premier product such as Photoshop hasn't been fully optimized yet.

 

[Adult80HD]

I meant that people who use DaVinci Resolve don't care about the Final Cut update

There are actually three "groups", leaving aside Premier Pro... People who use DaVinci Resolve, people who use Final Cut, and people who use Final Cut for editing but DaVinci Resolve for colour grading.

A significant percentage of film editors who are in the market for a new computer are indeed waiting to assess the Mac Pro, and some want to assess the Studio, the Mac Pro and Windows machines. This is not just an exercise in "some people waiting". For many of the people that I'm talking about, this is a pretty important decision.

Oh yeah that makes sense now. And honestly, I think the new Pro is going to be a beast. My business use is photography, and even there the Studio is amazing. Much of it is difficult to capture in a simply benchmark, and has to do with fluidity of the editing process while also simultaneously running multiple apps in different windows. I got a Mac Pro in late 2019 because even if the power it provided when using one app wasn't a huge jump, the overall usability when running multiple applications like my normal workflow requires was a big difference.

What's remarkable to me is how the new Ultra I got is faster than my top of the line 2019 Mac Pro on almost every task, and on some tasks its a LOT faster. I'm very intrigued to see what Apple has up their sleeves with the Pro. I was a skeptic when the AS migration was announced, but have lost all doubt now after the string of AS releases we have seen so far.

 

[m1maverick]

What's remarkable to me is how the new Ultra I got is faster than my top of the line 2019 Mac Pro on almost every task, and on some tasks its a LOT faster. I'm very intrigued to see what Apple has up their sleeves with the Pro. I was a skeptic when the AS migration was announced, but have lost all doubt now after the string of AS releases we have seen so far.

The problem, at least as I see it now, is that the issues which are limiting the Ultra in many tests will be even worse with the Mac Pro. IMO until the Ultra can be utilized for all it offers the Mac Pro will be even more of a disappointment (at least on those tasks where the Ultra cannot be fully utilized).

 

[F-Train]

Oh yeah that makes sense now. And honestly, I think the new Pro is going to be a beast. My business use is photography, and even there the Studio is amazing. Much of it is difficult to capture in a simply benchmark, and has to do with fluidity of the editing process while also simultaneously running multiple apps in different windows. I got a Mac Pro in late 2019 because even if the power it provided when using one app wasn't a huge jump, the overall usability when running multiple applications like my normal workflow requires was a big difference.

What's remarkable to me is how the new Ultra I got is faster than my top of the line 2019 Mac Pro on almost every task, and on some tasks its a LOT faster. I'm very intrigued to see what Apple has up their sleeves with the Pro. I was a skeptic when the AS migration was announced, but have lost all doubt now after the string of AS releases we have seen so far.

I use Final Cut for editing and DaVinci Resolve Studio for colour grading. I have a Max on order (see signature) but WWDC, at which the new Mac Pro may be announced, is a couple of weeks before my delivery window. The screenshot below is from Parker Walbeck's video. The computers are a built-to-order Ultra and a highly specced 16" MacBook Pro/Max. The screen capture shows why people are interested in the performance of the upcoming Final Cut release, which is presumably imminent. It also shows that software optimisation is a big issue.

 

[dogface1956]

You mean just like Max says at minute 16:20 of the video I previously referenced? Where he qualifies his findings (at 16:45) with the comment "right now"?

I have never watched Max or for that matter any of the so called experts on YouTube, I like to test things with my own work flow instead of relying on a reviewer who may or may not have an axe to grind.

 

[m1maverick]

You Max's press agent, I don't really have a dog in this hunt, but your responses are unusually supportive of a third party. I have never watch Max or for that matter any of the so called experts on YouTube, I like to test things with my own work flow instead of relying on a reviewer who may or may not have an axe to grind.

I don't have a dog in this hunt either nor am I supporting Max. What I am doing is asking those who have dismissed his findings to explain why with something other than "he's a click baiting YouTuber".

I have watched his videos and I found them quite helpful in evaluating the Mac Studio. If you have a tangible issue with his testing, results, and conclusions then I would welcome that feedback. Maybe there's something I have overlooked. As it is his results cannot be question and his conclusions as to why they are what they are appear plausible. But I'm willing to hear differently. What I won't accept it snarky comments to the effect I am Max himself, a press agent, a family member, a groupie, or some such nonsense. Give me articulate reasons which make sense and you may change my mind.

 

[sn1p3r845]

I don't think buying into what Max is saying here is a good idea, he's making some serious claims against Apple. I do think that with time things will get optimized more for the chips. It's still early days, and I think if you need the power then you should spec your machine to reflect that and let the software devs catch up.

 

[l0stl0rd]

There's no reason to believe the OS needs any changes or optimization, and even if it had, OS 12.3 was released in conjunction with these Studio computers--the one I bought in store actually came with 12.2 on it, so Apple was clearly comfortable that the OS was fine. Any notion that the OS needs updating is 100% speculation raised by Internet "experts."

Final Cut, yeah, that should have just been updated to coincide with the release. That said, Apple makes their own business decisions. They probably--rightly so--knew that no one was buying a Studio just for the newest version of FCPX and those folks that are committed to Apple and Final Cut would be fine knowing that the update is imminent. Heck, it will probably be out before many of the Studio pre-orders are even filled.

Apple thinking an OS is fine these days counts not for much as Monterey has been the Vista of the Mac World.

12.3 was not great, 12.3.1 seems better.
12.4 perhaps will make it good.

Example 12.3.1 fixed load of grafical glitches in Adobe products for me but there was no mention about GPU driver fixes in the release notes (or none that pointed to this.)

So 12.4 “fixing” the Ultra chips would not surprise me as there apparently is a new firmware version with the first beta already.

 

[m1maverick]

Apple thinking an OS is fine these days counts not for much as Monterey has been the Vista of the Mac World.

12.3 was not great, 12.3.1 seems better.
12.4 perhaps will make it good.

Example 12.3.1 fixed load of grafical glitches in Adobe products for me but there was no mention about GPU driver fixes in the release notes (or none that pointed to this.)

So 12.4 “fixing” the Ultra chips would not surprise me as there apparently is a new firmware version with the first beta already.

IMO any improvement for the Ultras, at least the reported GPU limits, would be firmware and not the OS (but may be delivered as part of an OS update). From what I've seen it appears Apple might be artificially limiting the GPUs. I have the base Ultra so it's not as big an issue for me but it would be nice to see the Ultra reach its full, theoretical, capability.

 

[atonaldenim]

Just chiming in to add that Max Tech’s latest video says the M1 Ultra, 48 core GPU, 64GB RAM, 2TB SSD is their recommended “sweet spot” config for the kind of video work they do.

Just happens to be the config I ordered! 😌

 

[Adult80HD]

Apple thinking an OS is fine these days counts not for much as Monterey has been the Vista of the Mac World.

12.3 was not great, 12.3.1 seems better.
12.4 perhaps will make it good.

Example 12.3.1 fixed load of grafical glitches in Adobe products for me but there was no mention about GPU driver fixes in the release notes (or none that pointed to this.)

So 12.4 “fixing” the Ultra chips would not surprise me as there apparently is a new firmware version with the first beta already.

Where have you heard there's new firmware version? I've not seen that reported anywhere.

 

[ddhhddhh2]

I don’t really understand all the hate for Max here. He is simply performing some real world tests and demonstrating that the upgraded Ultra GPU cores aren’t buying you a true doubling of performance that you would expect. The CPU cores do double the performance, but the GPU cores do not, at least currently.

He clearly shows that the power being used by the SOC is being limited for whatever reason and that is what is limiting performance. His conclusion, which is his opinion, is that at this time the upgraded M1 Utlra isn’t worth the additional $1,000 that you must pay because the performance value isn’t there. This is a logical conclusion.

We have to be honest and say that his tests so far have not been too problematic, take them apart and show everyone that he has done it. Tested them and used the data to show you the "current situation", which he did. Boldly and rudely critiqued some models and suggested which ones were not very cost effective, which he did.

Well, why did his comparisons and recommendations at Ultra cause some people to resent them? I guess it's like buying a car, no one likes to see their choice criticized, that's the problem.

Let's be clear about the fact that the Ultra is not a very good deal right now, considering the price difference, especially when you put your hopes in the future "optimizing what's possible". Interestingly enough, however, the rumored M2 is always going to catch up.

Apple's M1 showed us how far the chip has come, but for performance reasons, we all know that single-core performance is still the most important metric, and that's an undeniable fact. So in theory, the M2 should be more powerful than the M1 in terms of single-core performance. Then, considering that in life or work, it is likely that more than 80% of the situations are dominated by single-core performance. In this case, the more expensive M1 (or M2) with more cores is obviously more suitable for busy people who are always catching up on "critical minutes".

For this reason, I always include single-core performance as the most important reference (and it turns out to be so, as the single-core performance of M1, M1 Pro, M1 Max, and M1 Ultra is hardly different or even the same), based on the premise that :

1. the price difference of Ultra
2. M2 possible release time
3. the ratio of time in a day that single-core performance covers in life/work

Uh .... At the moment it may be wiser to consider a medium model.

 

[F-Train]

Marques Brownlee, who I take quite a bit more seriously than Max Tech, retired his 2019 Mac Pro in favour of a Studio Ultra today. Of course, a new Mac Pro is being released sometime in the next few months, maybe as early as WWDC in June.

 

[atonaldenim]

Marques Brownlee, who I take quite a bit more seriously than Max Tech, retired his 2019 Mac Pro in favour of a Studio Ultra today. Of course, a new Mac Pro is being released sometime in the next few months, maybe as early as WWDC in June.

View attachment 1987613

Wow, and his Mac Pro was a $45,000 config with 28-core Xeon, 768GB RAM, and two Vega II Duo GPUs!

He dinged the M1 Ultra in his review video for not beating his Mac Pro in every test, without mentioning the $6,199 Mac Studio was about 86% less expensive than the Mac Pro he tested.