Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

darkus

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Nov 5, 2007
383
153
For some reason the studio did not get the m2 chip update.

To me the studio is the perfect form and package and a good spiritual successor to the trash can Mac Pro.

But it’s sad that there is no m2 update, or at least sell the m2 pro along side the m1 ultra.

Could this be apples signal that the studio is over and would be replaced by the rumored Mac Pro update? I hope not. That thing is way to large
 
  • Angry
Reactions: chikorita157

designerdave72

macrumors regular
Aug 18, 2010
135
113
For some reason the studio did not get the m2 chip update.

To me the studio is the perfect form and package and a good spiritual successor to the trash can Mac Pro.

But it’s sad that there is no m2 update, or at least sell the m2 pro along side the m1 ultra.

Could this be apples signal that the studio is over and would be replaced by the rumored Mac Pro update? I hope not. That thing is way to large
It's not even a year old and if Apple are going to replace their current M1 Studio line up with M2 chips, it probably won't be until the Autumn. The power behind the Studio is still a powerful and affordable machine for the months to come. Their next 'that's for another day' promise will be the Mac Pro so they'll concentrate on making sure that's in the final silicon line up. In the meantime, I assume the iMac will be refreshed with M2 in the spring.
 
Last edited:

NJRonbo

macrumors 68040
Jan 10, 2007
3,231
1,222
No, certainly not the end of the road for the STUDIO. However...

At this point, how close does the maxed-out M2 Mini come to outperforming the base M1 studio?

On the Mini, they allowed the addition of 32GB of ram whereas the M1 Mini maxed out at 16GB.

If I am correct on my quick compare...

It's a $300 price difference between a maxed-out Mini (10-core) and the base STUDIO (12-core) with that memory and 1TB drive.

What you gain with the STUDIO is a 24-core GPU compared to 16-core on the MINI

BUT...the Mini is M2 and the studio is not

So, the gap has been considerably narrowed when considering a top-spec M2 Mini to base M1 Studio. I am wondering if the new Mini outperforms the base studio due to its M2 chip. I am assuming more cores on the Studio still make it the performance champ even if it contains an older chip.
 

lcubed

macrumors 6502a
Nov 19, 2020
540
326
probably not. apple has probably chosen to delay announcing the m2ultra chip to keep from stealing the thunder of the m2max and m2pro.

otherwise, everyone would be talking about the m2ultra instead.
 

Jorbanead

macrumors 65816
Aug 31, 2018
1,209
1,438
I think it's far more strange that they skipped updating the M1 iMac. That seems odd to me. Much more so than not updating a product that is less than a year old.
For some reason the studio did not get the m2 chip update.

To me the studio is the perfect form and package and a good spiritual successor to the trash can Mac Pro.

But it’s sad that there is no m2 update, or at least sell the m2 pro along side the m1 ultra.

Could this be apples signal that the studio is over and would be replaced by the rumored Mac Pro update? I hope not. That thing is way to large

Apple rarely updates all of their macs at once. None of this is unusual.

If you look at the last 10 years of macs, apple very consistently updates macs throughout the year. Usually in small chucks (like they did today with 3 new Macs). Sometimes they only announce one new Mac.

Also, in the intel days, Apple very often updated their desktops on a 2-year cadence, even though intel had processors they could use every year. The iMac for example went years where it was updated every 2 years. The Mac mini famously went 4 years without an update.

Of course since the transition, there have been so many variables that it has become hard to predict: apple creating their own chips, supply shortages, the pandemic, etc. but my assumption is that once things settle and Apple can maintain consistency in their routine, we will see that desktop computers will get updates every 2ish years, while laptops will get updates every year. Of course the big variable now is Apple makes their own chips so they need to have those ready to release.

My other speculation here is that on even number chip years (M2, M4, M6) Apple is not going to create the ultra variant of their chip. The Ultra is a very niche chip that doesnt sell in high volumes, so for Apple they likely would put the ultra chips on a 2 year cycle (so M1, M3, M5). This tracks with my prediction that desktops will get updates every 2 years.

So if I’m right; the iMac should get an update this year if they announce M3. I think this is likely as I think Apple is now done with all M2 products. I think M3 will come at WWDC this year with the MacBook Air and maybe iMac. Later this year or maybe next year they’ll announce M3 Pro/Max/Ultra and bring this to MBP, and the Mac Studio. They may even tease the Mac Pro this year which would be built off M3 too (maybe M3 Extreme??)

TL;DR - it’s not unusual for apple to only update some macs and not others
 

Elwe

macrumors regular
Dec 30, 2006
163
89
I think it's far more strange that they skipped updating the M1 iMac. That seems odd to me. Much more so than not updating a product that is less than a year old.
Possibly. The all-in-ones seem on a different release cadence. Maybe they’ve decided that they don‘t want a 24 inch form factor. It is weird, though—it is the remaining single product of the current generation still shipping with a base M1.
 

lcubed

macrumors 6502a
Nov 19, 2020
540
326
I think it's far more strange that they skipped updating the M1 iMac. That seems odd to me. Much more so than not updating a product that is less than a year old.
the m1 iMac was released even later than the studio. well under 1 year since it's announcement
 

Elwe

macrumors regular
Dec 30, 2006
163
89
I don’t want this to come or as snarky, but do you want a list of products where Apple has done just this? Perhaps if is poor business—but they have done this. Repeatedly. And recently.
 

theluggage

macrumors 604
Jul 29, 2011
7,981
8,394
Could this be apples signal that the studio is over and would be replaced by the rumored Mac Pro update? I hope not. That thing is way to large
I think it's just business as usual for Apple. The 4th largest maker of personal computers in the world worth however-many-trillions can't seem to contrive to upgrade more than 1 or 2 models of computer at a time. I mean, until this week the Mac Mini had obviously been abandoned (again!) and by the same reasoning the Mac Pro has obviously been dead since the last WWDC. There's always a couple of models in their line up that are overdue for an update to already-announced tech. The only "problem" with the current Studio line up is a price/performance collision between the M2 Pro 32GB/12CPU/19GPU Mini and the base 32GB/10CPU/24GPU Studio (I think that means that the base, $2000 24GPU Studio may be "cannibalised" - but the $2200 32 GPU one, plus the 64GB options, still have a clear role).

Speculating - if the new Mac Pro is anything like the 2019 MP, then it's going to be in a whole different price bracket and there will still be a space in the range for M2 Max/Ultra versions of the Studio. Or (since replicating the 2019's expandability, RAM capacity etc. with Apple Silicon isn't trivial) the "new Mac Pro" could effectively be the Studio range upgraded to M2 Max/Ultra (only Apple know whether that's going to lose them enough customers to hurt).

I saw that, only difference was the 19c gpu vs 24c gpu, so i am curious the difference in actual performance
If it's important to you then I'd wait for real-application benchmarks relevant to your actual workload. If the applications you actually use can't use all 19 GPU cores it's not going to use 24 so the faster single-core performance (both for CPU and GPU) might make the difference. But then there's RAM bandwidth....

I somehow doubt the difference is going to be night and day, though, and people shouldn't be rushing to replace their base Studios with Mac Minis. If you know you can use extra GPU cores and you need to choose now I'd ignore both the base Studio with 24 GPU cores and the M2 Pro and pay the extra $200 for the 32 core one (which should be safely faster than the M2 pro for tasks that can max out the GPU cores).
 
  • Like
Reactions: darkus

Pressure

macrumors 603
May 30, 2006
5,166
1,531
Denmark
I would be slightly disappointed if they didn't use some of that cooling headroom available in the Mac Studio compared to the 14" and 16" MacBook Pro chassis.

So I am all for that they clock the chip faster for both CPU and GPU. It's okay to forego power efficiency for more computational power on a desktop computer.

That would also get me interested in upgrading sooner.
 

T'hain Esh Kelch

macrumors 603
Aug 5, 2001
6,447
7,365
Denmark
For some reason the studio did not get the m2 chip update.
The M1 Studio is only 300 days old, and was released 2,5 months after the MBPs in any event. So I find it unsurprising that they are waiting to update it.

That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if they are holding it back simply to make the 2023 Mac Pro the star, when they finally update it. If they release the Mac Pro in spring with the M2 Ultra, and it has the exact same chips as a few months old Studio, I think it would look quite bad. And they'v dragged their feet more than enough with the Mac Pro already.
To me the studio is the perfect form and package and a good spiritual successor to the trash can Mac Pro.
Amen to that.
 

Feek

macrumors 65816
Nov 9, 2009
1,379
2,042
JO01
I expect the M2 Mac Studio launch to be a quiet launch and not until after the Mac Pro.
 
  • Like
Reactions: loby

pers0n

macrumors regular
Mar 5, 2014
246
143
Apple doesnt update everything at once, there are always situations where some device gets a bump and the others take 6 months to 2 yrs to get it also
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.