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.
Would you upgrade your Mac Studio if Apple released an M2 version?
- Thread starter Cromulent
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
nope. should be good to at least M5 since that's the low end of my normal planned replacement cycle
No, I don't have any need to upgrade. I don't upgrade just because something faster comes out. I upgrade when I need to upgrade.
Nope. Happy with the Retail Studio Ultra. M2 will be a small bump. The only game changer on the horizon will be TB5 with 80GB/s speed and we will be lucky to see that on M3. The Ultra GPU is also under powered - augmenting it with an external GPU is needed and would be a welcome upgrade. That probably isn't happening on the M2.
I will if it means the GPU scales like it did with the base M2, so we are looking at a 32-core or 40-core GPU in the M2 Max. Up to 48% performance uplift in GPU performance would be great compared to M1 Max.
That also puts the M2 Max 40-core GPU (14.4 TFlops) nearly within the same performance as the base M1 Ultra 48-core GPU (15.9 TFlops) and hopefully less power limited as it appears in the current M1 Ultra.
That means going from the base M1 Max 24-core GPU to the M2 Max 40-core GPU would net you an 86% performance increase if performance scales linearly in the applications you use.
That also puts the M2 Max 40-core GPU (14.4 TFlops) nearly within the same performance as the base M1 Ultra 48-core GPU (15.9 TFlops) and hopefully less power limited as it appears in the current M1 Ultra.
That means going from the base M1 Max 24-core GPU to the M2 Max 40-core GPU would net you an 86% performance increase if performance scales linearly in the applications you use.
Last edited:
No, I expect to have my Mac Studio until the M6 or M7 chip is released (assuming annual refreshes).
No. It would be a complete waste of money for me. The processing power of the M1 Max is more than what I need. Like my 2011 27" iMac before it, the thing that will eventually make me upgrade will never be how underpowered it feels for my needs, it will be obsolescence: when the computer can no longer run a current OS (probably MacOS 18/19), the security patches have all dried up for the latest OS it can run (probably MacOS 17), and so current apps won't run on it.
No, I love this thing and it is perfect!!!
No, I usually upgrade when there is a significant increase in performance or when there is a needed feature change.
Likely a feature change will happen, but not until the 2nd or 3rd generation AR/VR headset pushes a tech leap to the other devices.
The performance increase of near 100% will be needed to make the purchase worthwhile, but I think upgrade will likely end up around the time the Mac Studio is deemed vintage or obsolete.
Likely a feature change will happen, but not until the 2nd or 3rd generation AR/VR headset pushes a tech leap to the other devices.
The performance increase of near 100% will be needed to make the purchase worthwhile, but I think upgrade will likely end up around the time the Mac Studio is deemed vintage or obsolete.
The max studio was overkill for me however wanted the ProRes support in media engine so mini was a non starter.
No need for a laptop so those also a non starter.
I went with the 512 storage and don’t regret for a minute.
instead of a sonnet enclosure with a highpoint 4 x ssd card.
sits next to the studio with the blu ray burner on top.
cables tidly at the back out of site, no sprawling spaghetti on the desk.
when replace then as ProRes now in the m2 then I would imagine that will replace with a mini when Apple no longer provide updates and cannot update fcp x.
No need for a laptop so those also a non starter.
I went with the 512 storage and don’t regret for a minute.
instead of a sonnet enclosure with a highpoint 4 x ssd card.
sits next to the studio with the blu ray burner on top.
cables tidly at the back out of site, no sprawling spaghetti on the desk.
when replace then as ProRes now in the m2 then I would imagine that will replace with a mini when Apple no longer provide updates and cannot update fcp x.
I wouldn’t expect to upgrade a machine like the Studio every year anyway (even if Apple deigned to update it that often). I’d guess most buyers would be expecting to get at least 3 years out of it, unless they were pushing at the bleeding edge of performance.
The main purpose of any “M2 bump” would be to keep the product fresh for new buyers. In the case of the MacBook Air, the bump has come with a major new case design and new display - but what are they going to do with the Studio - change the colour? Make the lid plastic?
Anyway, it’s a bit too early to call: we don’t know what the “M2 Max” and “Ultra” are actually going to be - especially bearing in mind that some of the “new” M2 features vs. the regular M1 - LPDDR5, the extra hardware codecs - are already in the M1 Max/Ultra. The slightly faster CPU and GPU performance would be nice, but probably not compelling. On the other hand, if there’s a significant increase in the number of cores, that could tempt some people. Plus, whereas the rumoured MBP update (if it even happens this year) is probably going to be 5nm the Studio isn’t even 1 year old until next spring, by which time 3nm chips might be in play, which might make a more compelling upgrade.
Also, anybody currently hitting the performance limits of the Ultra is probably going to be waiting for the Mythical Mac Pro - although I have a wild theory that the new MP will turn out to be, effectively, a M? Studio Ultra in a 1U rack mount case (Want more power? Cluster them! Put 6 of them in the space occupied by an Intel MP).
The main purpose of any “M2 bump” would be to keep the product fresh for new buyers. In the case of the MacBook Air, the bump has come with a major new case design and new display - but what are they going to do with the Studio - change the colour? Make the lid plastic?
Anyway, it’s a bit too early to call: we don’t know what the “M2 Max” and “Ultra” are actually going to be - especially bearing in mind that some of the “new” M2 features vs. the regular M1 - LPDDR5, the extra hardware codecs - are already in the M1 Max/Ultra. The slightly faster CPU and GPU performance would be nice, but probably not compelling. On the other hand, if there’s a significant increase in the number of cores, that could tempt some people. Plus, whereas the rumoured MBP update (if it even happens this year) is probably going to be 5nm the Studio isn’t even 1 year old until next spring, by which time 3nm chips might be in play, which might make a more compelling upgrade.
Also, anybody currently hitting the performance limits of the Ultra is probably going to be waiting for the Mythical Mac Pro - although I have a wild theory that the new MP will turn out to be, effectively, a M? Studio Ultra in a 1U rack mount case (Want more power? Cluster them! Put 6 of them in the space occupied by an Intel MP).
There was a time about 20 years ago when I was enamored with the latest and greatest and would upgrade every two years at the least.
But at some point, computers became fast enough that upgrades were only warranted every 5 or 6 years if you're a pro user, probably longer for consumer level users. There are exceptions, of course. But I certainly don't see the M2 Max or Ultra to be worth upgrading to after a year.
But at some point, computers became fast enough that upgrades were only warranted every 5 or 6 years if you're a pro user, probably longer for consumer level users. There are exceptions, of course. But I certainly don't see the M2 Max or Ultra to be worth upgrading to after a year.
No. No upgrade for me for several years. Unless PSCC and filters develop to the point where a lot more processing power is needed.
Great thread to read as I am considering a Studio. I feel like it will give me years of use and this thread sure makes me more convinced.
Does anyone think it helps "future proof" it by paying for 64GB of RAM? I will use it for light duties - productivity, web, e-mail so it is overkill already.
Does anyone think it helps "future proof" it by paying for 64GB of RAM? I will use it for light duties - productivity, web, e-mail so it is overkill already.
No. Unlike some other Apple products the basic 32GB on the Studio is pretty reasonable. Unless you feel you might suddenly get the urge to do some very serious video or graphics work, or load a large orchestra of samples into Logic - and even then, 32GB is plenty to let you dabble.
There are good reasons why some people need a lot more RAM for their work, but, generally, I'd say that before you go above 16GB you need to have a specific reason in mind as to why you might need that much.
The only possible justification is that if you want to re-sell it after a few years, it will be easier to shift a 64GB model in a market flooded with base models. I'd file that under "long shot".
Nothing wrong with overkill provided you've got your eyes open, but really, it sounds like you need a Mac Mini - unless you need the extra display support and I/O you get with a Studio. The other performance benefits of the Studio don't really cut in unless you're running heavily multi-threaded or GPU-heavy jobs If you're not in a hurry it might be worth waiting to see if a M2 Mini emerges this year.
Thank you for the detailed response. I too felt that 32GB was plenty.
The current mini doesn't support my monitor preferences and I kind of doubt the new on will either. Moot point right now as there aren't any refurb studios for sale. I'll continue waiting and if it gets closer to the Oct event, then I'll just wait for that as well. I'm not in a huge rush - currently using my MBP14 with the two ASD.