The reason for 2x increase was apple added a controller chip make use for all the cores for load balancing unlike the M1 ultra which required the ram to max out before it used it 😊
Yea, so if you had tested the M1 Ultra by doing 100 different things at the same time, it would have looked a lot faster then the Max. It just wasn't good at doing 1 thing faster. The M2 Ultra should be better at this.
Can we … spend more time talking about this please? It's super interesting and I wish I understood. (Is this different to the M1 Ultra needing 128 GB to reach full speed?)
I not sure I can find the clip, but Apple them selfs indicated this was a change they made from the M1 Ultra stating that it was crazy good if you wanted to do 100 parallel tasks, but if you wanted scaling on a single task it would not do it, part of this is to do with the scaling logic, it required the memory within the chip to large enough to distribute the work load, so this is why you saw very different results from task to task, and why for example a game would get one result and another would get a different one all about memory buffer size. of course of this was also to do with software venders being lazy and not scaling their tasks properly as well, but from an architecture point of view Its two M1 Max joined together with massive buffers and huge pipe lanes connecting them. so it took a lot to use the other half or the chip, which is why many results show it slightly faster then an M1 Max. Enter the M2 ultra again its a M2 Max combined, but the difference is the software stack, and the new integrated memory and management controller helps use all the cores and threads for better allrounded tasks not just the ones that max the memory buffer. So yes their is a performance boost from M1 to M2 but not a huge one as you see on the single purpose chips, add a proper task scaler, and bam, you get double the performance on the M2 Ultra as its not waiting to use the other half of the chip. my guess if you could max out the M1 Ultra and did the same with the M2 ultra the results would be closer to 10% - 20% increase in performance between the two chips, but it goes to show you can have all the power in the world if you can not use it, makes it pointless. Hope that helps make it a little clearer why they showing up now as almost 50% increase in results, still the scaling is impressive, and a 20% increase is nothing to be scoffed at, especially if your coming form an older Mac, from last years M1 to this years M2 less of an upgrade generally speaking, its more spec bump performance you would expect year on year.
@@jonathanboice "this was also to do with software venders being lazy and not scaling their tasks properly as well" - Lazy? Depending on software involved, that can be either very hard (including massive re-writes and testing) or impossible. Some tasks simply cannot be split.
@@MichaelGGarry Sure in some cases depending on how you have your software core coded, and which tool chains you used can be extremely hard to do, but if you are a true native Mac developer its no less easy but apple provide a number of API's and tools and allow for better segmenting of code blocks for better scaling on multi core CPU's, maybe the word "lazy" was not correct but you get my point, its more to point out the discrepancies between bench marks, and program to program. And there is of course reasons and justifications for why developers choose to approach their build of their software the way they do. I should know I built enough of them at this stage, but I hope it's all making sense, not trying to attack anyone where, just point out the reasons between the two processor results.
Another reason to love the M2 lineup: Mac Pro 2019 prices are tanking and I just picked one up way lower than average price on eBay this week 😅 I can now say bye to multiple machines 🎉
I just bought a 2019, 16" MacBook Pro for just over $950, as a way to wait out for lower prices and better options on the M chips and it's been great. I had been wanting to get the larger screen on the M1 but the prices are just too much. Now the new Mac Studio or even the new 15" MacBook Air are good options. But now I can wait it out even longer, I'm pretty happy so far with the 2019, 16".
I COMPLETELY hear you @Luke Miani, but... As a UA-cam content creator @Transportevolved and someone who films in 6k raw, (we do a lot of car stuff), I'm looking at the Pro as an upgrade from my 2017 iMac Pro 128GB/2TB/10-core for several big reasons. First, I have a LOT of external hard drives on my desk for personal stuff, some of which is now fast-approaching 12 years old. Being able to remove the clutter on my desk and put them inside the Mac Pro will certainly free up space. Second, we have a 10GBe network, and being able to set up a machine to direct connect at 20 Gbps to our 450 TB video server (again, because we're automotive we have to use a LOT of library footage and a LOT of previous video footage) is very tempting. Third, we do audio processing and third-party video production too. That puts a LOT of strain on hard disks, and being able to add third-party SSDs internally as scratch volumes sounds like a great idea (our Final Cut Pro and Davinci edit sessions are often slowed down by full cache drives, as are our Pro Tools sessions). I know I'm probably putting the pro into Pro, and yes, I think the studio would be a great upgrade form our existing iMac Pro and all the cables hanging off it (three SSDs and four spinning drives) but honestly, I am also really excited to see how much faster I can make the M2 Ultra if everything is internal fast (even though I know the PCIe lanes are awkwardly shared) Looking forward to your review ;)
None of those things need the pro just use up to date solutions and data transfer over Thunderbolt connection. The rest is your lack of organization and ability to condense history into a forgivable medium that’s not clutter. Disposable profit/income on the other hand makes these non issues I suppose and it’s much easier to pull the trigger on the pro in your case so I guess that’s made for you after all. Cheers
@@frostgodx Actually, disposable income isn't big. I just like to invest in solutions that will be elegant and reliable. And yeah, we need to concatenate our drives (most of these are ones that have been inherited over the years). But with a half petabyte of storage for the company over 10GBe, I'd prefer not to have huge numbers of thunderbolt drives hanging off any replacement machine. The Mac Pro felt like an elegant solution to get everything in one place for my personal stuff (leaving the server for server stuff)
The M2 sub architecture is quite different than M1, it is not THAT minor upgrade from M1. In some tests maybe are equal bit the M2 ultra was made to scale better on video demanding than M1 ultra
Yeah the whole “it’s just upclocked” is overblown. The efficiency cores are different. The media engine is different. There’s more GPU cores. I think the memory bandwidth is increased as well.
@@barcigian kind of…the family is the same but the sub architecture is not. They made a few changes on caches and some logic integers to obtain the desire scalability that the M1 ultra could not achieve
Yeah . . . it appears that it is some combination of both hardware and software (firmware, specifically). Unclear if the hardware is only the increased cache. In the end, the encoders across both M2 Max halves of the M2 Ultra seem to be operating as one would hope . . . in parallel on a single encode task/flow. As opposed to having to set things up so that you are running two encodes at the same time, which is what you had to do with the M1 Ultra to get the best usage.
@@siryoda8145 Apple knew the M1 ultra was not scaling as it should, even with app optimizations. Yes firmware polishing across, more sub-caches as well. For me it seems they are paving a good way for the upcoming M3 variants.
Impressive as hell! I bought an M2 Pro Mac Mini (binned chip), instead of the M1 Max Studio back in March. For my needs, I don't regret not waiting, and for the money I paid and performance I need, I'm satisfied with the 2 grand I spent.
DDR5 slots + Unified built-in memory and compute modules for the PCIe slots would make the Mac Pro worth it. It has a 1.28kW power supply, Apple might as well use it to it's full extent
@@TheStopwatchGod whoever gets this mac pro version gona get screwed cuz I'm pretty sure next version should be much better. It seems like they released it just to get it done and over with since it was over due.
@@Tvj_films8452 that's what leakers are saying, because if this was how the Mac Pro would have always stayed, then they would have taken some of the equipment out like the monster power supply and the gigantic motherboard. apple probably released it to get it done like u said and is waiting for m3
@@Malc180s The unified memory in this approach would get used first, then it would use the DDR5 memory as swap. It's not as great as having more unified memory, but it's better than using SSD as swap, and the SSDs will last longer
It’s able to export so much faster because last years encode/decode cores ran in parallel so they could not both be used simultaneously. This generations chip can now use both chips simultaneously on one task instead of spilt over multi tasks.
I've got an M1 Max Studio and still can't push it all the way, can't imagine how fast this thing is! Well beyond my current needs. If they can do this with the M2 Ultra imagine what the M3 will be like?!?!?!
@@riazulrahil That will take time, as most developers find it easy to optimise for nvidia optix and all, and also apple needs to convince and put the work in to convince the developers for metal accelerators and all so that the gpu performance increases, it will be like 2 yrs after which we might see some competition
I purchased the M2 Max Studio. I don't see myself buying another desktop for 10 years. I imagine Ultra would keep me most from buying another desktop for 15 years!
Where the Mac Pro would make sense is if you need a bunch of internal storage. Mac Studio can only go up to 8TB but with the Mac Pro you can just buy pcie to nvme adapters and throw some nvme drives in there. You can put like around 128TB of nvme storage to that.
Also live tv broadcasting… having the ability to take and encode 24 streams of 4k in real time using one computer would be really useful. Especially if broadcasting “on the road”
Thank you for testing the Final Cut export times! I just ordered one today and have been hoping that I made the right choice. I create videos that are 35-55 minutes long with effects, color grading, etc and the exports on my M1 Max Macbook Pro can be long. Catching an error can be absolutely devastating if I need to re-render and I recently had to do so three times for one video (hours and hours of rendering). This sounds like it's going to solve my biggest problem, so money well spent! Curious about your specs, though - did I miss it?
@@DavidJBradshaw I have CS on my Mac for quick pictures and the like, but it runs so poorly in comparison to PC, that I don't really use it for anything more. I don't know anything more than you, but I'm going to speculate that they're holding off on a Mac port until the proton-like conversion layer is ready for primetime. The CEO said all versions of the game are the same this time around, so bringing in Aspyr for a conversion isn't the route they're aiming for. Again, all speculation, but I think it could be why nothing has been said regarding a Mac release. I have seen probably a hundred comments on my videos recently asking about Mac support. I'll compile these and send to my contacts as CO/Paradox. Idk if it'll help, but it can't hurt.
I've got a 2019 Mac Pro, and I'm going to upgrade to either a new Mac Pro or Mac Studio. At first, considering the computing power is the same, the Mac Studio looked like the obvious choice. But, I'm going to be using it in my recording studio, and I need quiet. I also need a LOT of NVMe storage. I've been doing a lot of looking around, and I'm not finding good NVMe enclosures for multiple sticks that are quiet. The OWC 4M2 and Mercury U.2 are reviewed as being very loud. OWC DOES have the silent Thunder Blade Thunderbolt drives, but they are VERY expensive, and only Thunderbolt 3. If instead, I buy some of the OWC PCIe 4 NVMe cards with the big heat sink, I can save a lot of money. And, I'll get better than Thunderbolt 3 speeds. Also, I currently have one of those two 3.5" mechanical drive SATA carriers in my Mac Pro for long-term archival storage and Time Machine (two WD 18Tb drives). Those work great, and I can't hear them (and, I've already bought them, and the carrier). The fans and cooling design in the Mac Pro is top notch. With the Apple Silicon running cooler than Intel, the fans should be even better. So, adding up the expense of enclosures and cabling I'd need for a Mac Studio, and the hassle of fan noise in external cases, not to mention the clutter of cabling and wall warts, the extra $3k for the Mac Pro isn't looking that bad. 32Tb of SSD on a Thunder Blade would cost $5,500. 32Tb of Crucial P3 + 4Tb chips, and two OWC 4 NVMe cards would only cost $2,358 (and they'd be faster inside the Mac Pro). A couple of extra Thunderbolt ports, and an additional HDMI port is frosting on the cake. If you need a lot of SSD, and you need quiet, the Mac Pro might save you money, and be a cleaner solution. I'm sure the Mac Studio is quiet, but dealing with noisy external drive fans is a PITA, and you really can't get a Thunderbolt cable long enough to put them far away.
Great video but it's so rare to find anybody that tests the actual CPUs... it's always testing the GPU and the Pro Res media engines. I use Logic X so can't see how much more grunt this would give me over an M1 Ultra. I'm also just bitter because I have an M1 Ultra Studio 😂 Apparently the FCPX speeds are because the Pro Res engines can work on a single file rather than just in parallel.
There are lots of professional environments where PCIE slots are a must have. And 3k to have those is nothing for the operations that need them. Like some large recording studios. That Mac is probably one of the least expensive things in the room. Although I wish they had turned up the clocks for the Mac Pro, since it has so much cooling headroom.
Strange you haven't heard the coil whine before. My M1 Max 16" MBP did it already and my M2 Max 16" does it again. Happens every time the GPU is loaded intensely, especially with benchmarks running offscreen tests on it.
Hey there Luke! Long time subscriber of yours here. Good content, however, as a video/film editor I gotta say the tests should also include the application of effects to 4K, 6K and even 8K timelines - camera files can be found through Blackmagic and RED sites. With M1 macs I found out the hard way that they are good at just editing (even in 12K) but as soon as you begin doing color, motion tracking, masking etc the "entry level" models (M1 16, 32) bottle neck very fast and you need an external SSD if you're caching for optimization's sake, because internal one will fill very fast even a terabyte one. So a lot of the tests paint M1/M2 macs as these "miracle machines" without ever mentioning the real world conditions when if you're making a feature or even a 10 minute + short film you have much more than a couple of b rolls with color grade applied.
@Needcreative Well yea, basically, I've been staying on 4K recording for a while because anything higher in resolution aspects bottle necks my M1 Pro, and at the end of the day, the content is being watched on a phone or a 1080p screen at best. Any benefit of higher resolution is obliterated because most of our screens can handle 4K max. On my LG ultra fine display the difference stops being visible past the 4K timeline setting. But it's still interesting to push the limits and see where they're at with any gear you end up using )
I think Apple originally wanted the Mac Studio to be the new Mac Pro. But if they had called it Mac Pro people would have hated it. It would have been like the failed PowerMac G4 Cube or Trashcan Mac Pro all over again. So they did something clever and gave it a new name without ever really replacing the big Mac Pro. One day they might just discontinue the Mac Pro and leave it at that.
With the release of the M2 Studio Ultra the new Mac Pro is going to be a really hard sell. With that huge price difference it's going to appeal to a very select few.
There was a design issue with the M1 ultra. For the GPU, there apparently wasn't enough buffer memory to keep all of the GPUs fed. It scaled pretty well up to about 40 cores, but not much beyond that. The extra buffer memory seems to have resolved that issue well. As for the encoders, if you set up batch encoding to run simultaneously, you could leverage both sets of encoders. However, if you were encoding just 1 file, only 1 of the sets of encoders would be used. With the M2 series, they now apply encoders from both half of the chip together on the same task to provide 1.8x acceleration (not completely linear).
3:57 Let me tell you how they did it: The E-cores in the M2 generation are improved more than the P-cores are (at least when it comes to the core itself, the P-cores have 33% higher L2 cache while the E-cores have the same amount), they're clocked 20% higher (2.05GHz vs. 2.5GHz) and in contrast to the P-cores the IPC of the E-cores are improved a little bit as well, for a total of about 25% perf. improvement. Compare that to the P-cores, which are unchanged in terms of the core architecture and clocked 8.3-14% higher (depending on how many of the are active, when 1 is active on the M2 Pro/Max/Ultra the P-core boosts to 3.68GHz while if more than 1 is active they boost to ~3.3-3.5GHz, while on the base M2 the max P-core boost clock is 3.5GHz). So don't belittle the inclusion of 2-4 more E-cores (without more E-cores, the faster P and E-cores on the base M2 has achieved 15-18% perf. improvement, but the P/E-core ratio is different on the base M2).
Hi Luke! I've been digging your vids for quite a while now I am a music professional(sometimes video editor) that had a slower experience transitioning to the M series chips (did try out a M1 Macbook Air for portable) due to music plugin compatibilities that was critical for work. hence the music industry isn't the most flourished in budgets, I loved how you showed us how to mod or upgrade macs with less cost/guide to buy used in the past. in 2018 I've purchased an intel mac mini with an egpu(6corei7 vega64 8gb stock 8to64gb ram) and felt some lag when it comes to 4K footage(braw davinci resolve)with fusion text and effects/multiple footage simultaneously(1080 timeline was fine). I upgraded the egpu to a 6800xt16gb in March2022. that was an awesome leap in editing smoothness. Then in Decemer 2022 I bought a used iMac Pro(vega6416gb 10core 4tbssd 128gb ram). With the egpu6800xt plugged in, dual gpu vega64 and 6800xt didn't work so efficiently as I thought it would in Resolve. I expected Resolve would handle dual gpus with equal 16gbvram better. My question is that with your imac pro and an egu(if you have one), how does the performance look like compared to the Mac studio line up? and how do you observe the importance when it comes to RAM/VRAM for effects and color grading? sorry to be so specific, now that the music plugins are adjusting to ARM chips, I am thinking of going to a Mac Studio, or upgrading my imac pro to 18core/7900ish(if a newer OS allows it) If you feel like you have the time to justify the experiment, it will be very appreciated. thx!!
I have the new M2 Max Studio and can say the GPU performance is more acceptable than the M1 Ultra I had previously, but still not perfect. There seems to be a wall when pushing more than 2.5K pixels that may be a memory cache or bandwidth problem. Previous M1 Ultra had bad stuttering issues at 2K; the M2 Max handles 2K (2560x1440) just fine, and I can even get to about 3200x1333 on an ultrawide monitor before performance starts to stutter and tank like the M1 Ultra did with real-time 3D rendering. Sometimes playing with your refresh rate helps, newer monitor works fine with variable framerate while older UltraWide had to be locked at 60hz to provide smooth rendering. I'm much more happier with the M2 Max Studio than the previous M1 Ultra. Also glad I didn't spend more money on the M2 Ultra, as your Rise Of The Tomb Raider benchmarks shows little performance increase, which is what I was fearing with a real time rendering scenario. I think Apple is encountering a situation similar to SLI on the PC side, where apps and drivers have to be tweaked to properly use that secondary (GPU) chip. Sure looks like it's not doing much good with older Rosetta based software.
Hello. Should I buy the new MacbookPro M3 Max or the Mac Studio M2 Ultra for general use with Blender 3D and Xcode? In some Geekbench tests, I've read that the new M3 achieves similar results to the M2 Ultra. What makes more sense at the moment? Portability doesn't matter, speed and performance are crucial. I'm looking forward to your recommendations. Thank you.
The new Mac Pro is such a bummer. I love the design and was really rooting for it to be an interesting machine once the transition started. But there’s no point lol. I wish they would have included GPU support at the very least
@lukemiani did you rerun the M1 Ultra tests with the current version of Final Cut and Mac OS or did you pull your results from last year? Just curious if software improvements accounted for the crazy gains.
Because of the cache redesign and some other micro architecture improvements. M2 is actually able to beat M1 Pro in some real software tests which benchmarks do not show or even show M1 Pro is significantly faster. Plus even though M2 needs more power under maximum load, but the entire consumption curve is MASSIVELY improved. M2 really isn’t a small upgrade like what the benchmarks would suggest. Because of the micro architecture improvements, scalability is also much better. M1 ultra showed problems in GPU cores controller, m2 fixed it.
Is it … i/o bandwidth? On the export especially. Or memory bandwidth? E.g. dual channel or single channel bandwidth. Also, maybe Apple is using an improved version of TSMC’s fabric on the silicon dies with the interconnects on the ultra. If there’s a new upgrade fabric, then that suggests at least part of the reason the performance is scaling linearly on the m2 ultra over the m1 ultra. And that sort of thing might also explain part of the performance edge that the m2 max has over the m1 ultra too (better comms inside the die and between between it and the peripherals).
Because Mac doesn’t allow upgradability, I am going to sadly say goodbye to them. If they were still using Intel CPU’s, I could keep going by taking a PC and turning it into a FrankinMac but the “M chip set” means that Intel chips will not work the same.
The reason for the pro is simply for those that need the specialized cards. There actually is a large market, it is just a small percentage of the market. Still a lot of units but, small percentage. The only problem is that market needs a lot more RAM and 192 GB is low for that market. For most of us, 192 is more than enough. I have worked in the market that actually NEEDS all the power and RAM. So, the current Pro is a disappointment. The Studio is amazing though. Most of us don’t need the specialized cards nor more 192 GB of RAM.
For the life of me, I can't understand why Apple can't integrate raytracing on its machines already, ridiculous. I hope they do that in the next M iteration or so.
Luke, you're right, the experience you have will depend on what you're using it for (naturally). I find the M2 Max is still sluggish in DaVinci Resolve Fusion. Perhaps Resolve isn't quite as optimised yet for Apple Silicon. Perhaps the Ultra provides the extra GPU performance needed to smoothly run VFX in Fusion. Serious work demands serious investment..nothing new there either.
7:33 if Apple keeps this up they might be able to match high end GPU performance with 2-4 years. It’s really the one area where they still underperform, but once they figure it out these Mac’s actually present a really good value for money.
I'm still using an iMac Retina 5K, 27-inch, 2017 16 GB 2400 MHz DDR4, so any M series Apple will be a HUGE upgrade this year ! I don't do any video editing / programing so my needs are lower. So for the best bang for my bucks is looking like the new M2 Mac Mini, maybe better processor and more ram. Buy external HD storage cheaper. Possibly use Luna to connect Mac Mini to iMac !
The Mac Pro is not for living room editing. It's meant for live media applications in the entertainment industry and broadcasting where PCI extentions are going to be needed.
Considering the difference in scaling performance between the M1 Ultra and the M2 Ultra, this is what I can say; The M1 Ultra had many cores but wasn't optimized to use all of them for one application. So most applications would only see a minor improvement over the M1 Max. But, those many cores enabled it to handle multiple different tasks at about the same speed as the M1 Max. So you don't get double the speed but instead you get double the number of tasks that can be done simultaneously. The M2 Ultra seems to be more optimized and can throw all the cores at one application getting you double the speed while also having the M1 Ultra's advantage of double the tasks.
I believe there was something like a bus transfer issue on the M1 chips that led to throttling. That issue was removed with the M2 I am buying an M2 Max. I am shocked and SUPER happy that Apple released this M2 upgrade. I thought they would cripple the Mac Studio this year so that we don't get the same chip as the Mac Pro but Apple didn't do that! I am so surprised and happy! Likely getting an M1 Max with 3 Studio Displays (or ViewFinity S9s lol)
I’m still rocking a 2017 27in i5 iMac that I put 2TB SSD into and 40G RAM. I’m absolutely blown away by the speed when my Wife asks me to help her with her M1 MacBook Air. Insane how much faster her laptop is
I've just picked up an M2 Mac mini (base except for 16GB RAM) and I can't get over the performance difference of M2 vs M1 in terms of graphics performance. Single core went up by about 200 points, multicore by about 1500 points but Metal and OpenCL were nuts. I have no clue what is inside Apple Silicon but man I'm excited.
The wheezing sound! I have been getting it! In a very specific case and on the M1 Max 16' Macbook. I've been developing a game using Godot and not capping fps to 120 resulted in this wheezing sound that would come out only when the the game window isn't in focus. Not made by speakers. Doesn't seem to be fans. Super perplexing.
We JUST bought and have decided to KEEP an M1 Ultra Mac Studio at work because we couldn't get Avid Nexis to work under Ventura (Monterey is fine) despite Avid's support-team attempting to resolve it. So all this talk about the M2 Ultra being so much better.. please no, quiet! :D I do like the way all twenty CPU-cores fire up when we render out 4K DNxHR from Resolve, though. Means at least that scales.
It’s more of a dig on how terribly unoptimized the scaling for the M1 Ultra is. This would be just a minor spec bump if it scaled as well as it was supposed to.
I see videos like yours and I'm like, maybe I shouldn't wait for a new iMac, then I add the computer and remember, i now need a monitor, which ends up making it way more expensive, and continue to wait -_-
So are you keeping this or sticking to last years model cause at this point in the m processors they’re overkill for people like you and most UA-camrs unless they’re 3d modeling, etc. what’s your main computer I’m genuinely curious
8:08 You should test games at higher resolutions if you want to ensure you have as few CPU bottlenecks as possible to properly saturate the GPU. Test it at 5K, the display you're testing it on's native resolution, it doesn't matter if the game gets sub-60 or 30 fps, the whole point is to stress the GPU.
You would expect graphics (especially benchmarks) to have near linear scaling based on gpu cores - that is the way the 3D graphics maths works - independent matrix multiplication on each vertex. More cores, more speed. This is why CPU's have a few cores, but GPUs have thousands of cores.
Here in the U.K. you are lucky if they broadcast in 720 I kid you not how backward is that no point getting a fancy tv if they don’t record and broadcast in 4K most programs were recorded 20 year ago.
Hmmm... you can't understand why Apple built the 2023 Mac Pro. That's ok, they didn't build it for you. Many AV pros will want the extra ports and PCIe slots even if you don't see the need.
I love that UA-cam says 'processing 4K' when it's not even showing 1080p. That's fun
360p is all I need
Seems like youtube's servers need some M2 Ultras
ye watching in 360p is amazing
yeah its killing me, i thought something was wrong on my end
@@HOMEWORKJONES nah it's yt skill issue
The reason for 2x increase was apple added a controller chip make use for all the cores for load balancing unlike the M1 ultra which required the ram to max out before it used it 😊
Yea, so if you had tested the M1 Ultra by doing 100 different things at the same time, it would have looked a lot faster then the Max. It just wasn't good at doing 1 thing faster. The M2 Ultra should be better at this.
Can we … spend more time talking about this please? It's super interesting and I wish I understood. (Is this different to the M1 Ultra needing 128 GB to reach full speed?)
I not sure I can find the clip, but Apple them selfs indicated this was a change they made from the M1 Ultra stating that it was crazy good if you wanted to do 100 parallel tasks, but if you wanted scaling on a single task it would not do it, part of this is to do with the scaling logic, it required the memory within the chip to large enough to distribute the work load, so this is why you saw very different results from task to task, and why for example a game would get one result and another would get a different one all about memory buffer size. of course of this was also to do with software venders being lazy and not scaling their tasks properly as well, but from an architecture point of view Its two M1 Max joined together with massive buffers and huge pipe lanes connecting them. so it took a lot to use the other half or the chip, which is why many results show it slightly faster then an M1 Max. Enter the M2 ultra again its a M2 Max combined, but the difference is the software stack, and the new integrated memory and management controller helps use all the cores and threads for better allrounded tasks not just the ones that max the memory buffer. So yes their is a performance boost from M1 to M2 but not a huge one as you see on the single purpose chips, add a proper task scaler, and bam, you get double the performance on the M2 Ultra as its not waiting to use the other half of the chip. my guess if you could max out the M1 Ultra and did the same with the M2 ultra the results would be closer to 10% - 20% increase in performance between the two chips, but it goes to show you can have all the power in the world if you can not use it, makes it pointless.
Hope that helps make it a little clearer why they showing up now as almost 50% increase in results, still the scaling is impressive, and a 20% increase is nothing to be scoffed at, especially if your coming form an older Mac, from last years M1 to this years M2 less of an upgrade generally speaking, its more spec bump performance you would expect year on year.
@@jonathanboice "this was also to do with software venders being lazy and not scaling their tasks properly as well" - Lazy? Depending on software involved, that can be either very hard (including massive re-writes and testing) or impossible. Some tasks simply cannot be split.
@@MichaelGGarry Sure in some cases depending on how you have your software core coded, and which tool chains you used can be extremely hard to do, but if you are a true native Mac developer its no less easy but apple provide a number of API's and tools and allow for better segmenting of code blocks for better scaling on multi core CPU's, maybe the word "lazy" was not correct but you get my point, its more to point out the discrepancies between bench marks, and program to program. And there is of course reasons and justifications for why developers choose to approach their build of their software the way they do. I should know I built enough of them at this stage, but I hope it's all making sense, not trying to attack anyone where, just point out the reasons between the two processor results.
Another reason to love the M2 lineup: Mac Pro 2019 prices are tanking and I just picked one up way lower than average price on eBay this week 😅 I can now say bye to multiple machines 🎉
I just bought a 2019, 16" MacBook Pro for just over $950, as a way to wait out for lower prices and better options on the M chips and it's been great. I had been wanting to get the larger screen on the M1 but the prices are just too much. Now the new Mac Studio or even the new 15" MacBook Air are good options. But now I can wait it out even longer, I'm pretty happy so far with the 2019, 16".
I COMPLETELY hear you @Luke Miani, but...
As a UA-cam content creator @Transportevolved and someone who films in 6k raw, (we do a lot of car stuff), I'm looking at the Pro as an upgrade from my 2017 iMac Pro 128GB/2TB/10-core for several big reasons.
First, I have a LOT of external hard drives on my desk for personal stuff, some of which is now fast-approaching 12 years old. Being able to remove the clutter on my desk and put them inside the Mac Pro will certainly free up space.
Second, we have a 10GBe network, and being able to set up a machine to direct connect at 20 Gbps to our 450 TB video server (again, because we're automotive we have to use a LOT of library footage and a LOT of previous video footage) is very tempting.
Third, we do audio processing and third-party video production too. That puts a LOT of strain on hard disks, and being able to add third-party SSDs internally as scratch volumes sounds like a great idea (our Final Cut Pro and Davinci edit sessions are often slowed down by full cache drives, as are our Pro Tools sessions).
I know I'm probably putting the pro into Pro, and yes, I think the studio would be a great upgrade form our existing iMac Pro and all the cables hanging off it (three SSDs and four spinning drives) but honestly, I am also really excited to see how much faster I can make the M2 Ultra if everything is internal fast (even though I know the PCIe lanes are awkwardly shared)
Looking forward to your review ;)
Interesting to hear about your use case. Also love your channel ❤
None of those things need the pro just use up to date solutions and data transfer over Thunderbolt connection. The rest is your lack of organization and ability to condense history into a forgivable medium that’s not clutter. Disposable profit/income on the other hand makes these non issues I suppose and it’s much easier to pull the trigger on the pro in your case so I guess that’s made for you after all. Cheers
@@frostgodx Actually, disposable income isn't big. I just like to invest in solutions that will be elegant and reliable. And yeah, we need to concatenate our drives (most of these are ones that have been inherited over the years). But with a half petabyte of storage for the company over 10GBe, I'd prefer not to have huge numbers of thunderbolt drives hanging off any replacement machine. The Mac Pro felt like an elegant solution to get everything in one place for my personal stuff (leaving the server for server stuff)
@@aminorjourney that makes sense. It is in fact a good business investment in your case.
The M2 sub architecture is quite different than M1, it is not THAT minor upgrade from M1. In some tests maybe are equal bit the M2 ultra was made to scale better on video demanding than M1 ultra
M2 is M1 on steroids, basically. It carries out the same project.
Yeah the whole “it’s just upclocked” is overblown. The efficiency cores are different. The media engine is different. There’s more GPU cores. I think the memory bandwidth is increased as well.
@@barcigian kind of…the family is the same but the sub architecture is not. They made a few changes on caches and some logic integers to obtain the desire scalability that the M1 ultra could not achieve
Yeah . . . it appears that it is some combination of both hardware and software (firmware, specifically). Unclear if the hardware is only the increased cache. In the end, the encoders across both M2 Max halves of the M2 Ultra seem to be operating as one would hope . . . in parallel on a single encode task/flow. As opposed to having to set things up so that you are running two encodes at the same time, which is what you had to do with the M1 Ultra to get the best usage.
@@siryoda8145 Apple knew the M1 ultra was not scaling as it should, even with app optimizations. Yes firmware polishing across, more sub-caches as well. For me it seems they are paving a good way for the upcoming M3 variants.
Hearing that coil whine, I could only take one thing. Dell is making the mac studio motherboards.
With time and dust that Coil Whine will exponentialy get louder.
So true 😂 Still, it is “only” an acoustic issue, does not impact function in any way
@@petrzurek5713 i consider silent operation a feature of Apple Silicon, this is a no go :/
@@JohnSmith-pn2vl He did say tho, it didn't happen again. Maybe it was just warming up for the first time lol
I have multiple Dell computers (like 8) and none of them have coil whine 🤷♀
What I heard was the M1 Ultra would only use 1 Media Encoder chip per stream, but now the M2 Ultra will use both encoders on one stream.
Impressive as hell! I bought an M2 Pro Mac Mini (binned chip), instead of the M1 Max Studio back in March. For my needs, I don't regret not waiting, and for the money I paid and performance I need, I'm satisfied with the 2 grand I spent.
The only thing that would make the Mac Pro justify the cost is if they sell the SoC as an upgradeable board in a few years.
DDR5 slots + Unified built-in memory and compute modules for the PCIe slots would make the Mac Pro worth it. It has a 1.28kW power supply, Apple might as well use it to it's full extent
@@TheStopwatchGod whoever gets this mac pro version gona get screwed cuz I'm pretty sure next version should be much better. It seems like they released it just to get it done and over with since it was over due.
@@Tvj_films8452 that's what leakers are saying, because if this was how the Mac Pro would have always stayed, then they would have taken some of the equipment out like the monster power supply and the gigantic motherboard. apple probably released it to get it done like u said and is waiting for m3
@@TheStopwatchGod Slower memory wouldn't help.
@@Malc180s The unified memory in this approach would get used first, then it would use the DDR5 memory as swap. It's not as great as having more unified memory, but it's better than using SSD as swap, and the SSDs will last longer
Did you retest the M1 Ultra or use last years figures? Just wondering if the improvements are in part down to driver updates for the Ultra.
Wow. Good comment.
Great point. Curious about this just testing current m1 and pro chips against old and new drivers too
Good point, I did ask them to compare them a couple days ago, and they replied and said that video is in the works so I’m hoping we’ll get it soon.
It’s able to export so much faster because last years encode/decode cores ran in parallel so they could not both be used simultaneously. This generations chip can now use both chips simultaneously on one task instead of spilt over multi tasks.
WHY IS IT STUCK AT 360p?!!
Glad I waited until now to get the Studio M2 Ultra (for 8K editing) now for real thunderbolt usb NVME SSD external drive cases!
Not fomo this time? 😂
I dunno Fomo, my 4090 pc is devouring footage, and I edit pretty complex footage. Hope it works well for you!
I've got an M1 Max Studio and still can't push it all the way, can't imagine how fast this thing is! Well beyond my current needs. If they can do this with the M2 Ultra imagine what the M3 will be like?!?!?!
In some areas it's still slow like 3D rendering. Apple needs to catch up Nvidia.
Same here, and I've got the base model Studio Max. I don't see upgrading for a long time.
@@bryans8656 My base model Studio Max chews up and spits out everything I can throw at it.
@@riazulrahil That will take time, as most developers find it easy to optimise for nvidia optix and all, and also apple needs to convince and put the work in to convince the developers for metal accelerators and all so that the gpu performance increases, it will be like 2 yrs after which we might see some competition
I purchased the M2 Max Studio. I don't see myself buying another desktop for 10 years. I imagine Ultra would keep me most from buying another desktop for 15 years!
M2 max !!?
Luke, which Mac Studio Ultra did you test? Base 24-core CPU/60-core GPU or upgraded 24-core CPU/76-core GPU?
I’m wondering the same thing… is it worth the extra $1K for the extra GPU cores?
I also have the exact same question!
I seem to remember hearing the M1 Ultra had a problem with a buffer that was too small between chips which they fixed on the M2 Ultra
Where the Mac Pro would make sense is if you need a bunch of internal storage.
Mac Studio can only go up to 8TB but with the Mac Pro you can just buy pcie to nvme adapters and throw some nvme drives in there. You can put like around 128TB of nvme storage to that.
Also live tv broadcasting… having the ability to take and encode 24 streams of 4k in real time using one computer would be really useful. Especially if broadcasting “on the road”
Thank you for testing the Final Cut export times! I just ordered one today and have been hoping that I made the right choice. I create videos that are 35-55 minutes long with effects, color grading, etc and the exports on my M1 Max Macbook Pro can be long. Catching an error can be absolutely devastating if I need to re-render and I recently had to do so three times for one video (hours and hours of rendering). This sounds like it's going to solve my biggest problem, so money well spent! Curious about your specs, though - did I miss it?
I’m wondering now if your also playing Skylines on a Mac as well? It seems CS2 has no Mac support when it comes out in October.
@@DavidJBradshaw I have CS on my Mac for quick pictures and the like, but it runs so poorly in comparison to PC, that I don't really use it for anything more.
I don't know anything more than you, but I'm going to speculate that they're holding off on a Mac port until the proton-like conversion layer is ready for primetime. The CEO said all versions of the game are the same this time around, so bringing in Aspyr for a conversion isn't the route they're aiming for. Again, all speculation, but I think it could be why nothing has been said regarding a Mac release.
I have seen probably a hundred comments on my videos recently asking about Mac support. I'll compile these and send to my contacts as CO/Paradox. Idk if it'll help, but it can't hurt.
Thanks for doing the Blender comparisons. The M2 Ultra makes my Intel Core-i5 Mac Mini look like a bucket of bolts!
I've got a 2019 Mac Pro, and I'm going to upgrade to either a new Mac Pro or Mac Studio. At first, considering the computing power is the same, the Mac Studio looked like the obvious choice. But, I'm going to be using it in my recording studio, and I need quiet. I also need a LOT of NVMe storage. I've been doing a lot of looking around, and I'm not finding good NVMe enclosures for multiple sticks that are quiet. The OWC 4M2 and Mercury U.2 are reviewed as being very loud. OWC DOES have the silent Thunder Blade Thunderbolt drives, but they are VERY expensive, and only Thunderbolt 3. If instead, I buy some of the OWC PCIe 4 NVMe cards with the big heat sink, I can save a lot of money. And, I'll get better than Thunderbolt 3 speeds. Also, I currently have one of those two 3.5" mechanical drive SATA carriers in my Mac Pro for long-term archival storage and Time Machine (two WD 18Tb drives). Those work great, and I can't hear them (and, I've already bought them, and the carrier). The fans and cooling design in the Mac Pro is top notch. With the Apple Silicon running cooler than Intel, the fans should be even better.
So, adding up the expense of enclosures and cabling I'd need for a Mac Studio, and the hassle of fan noise in external cases, not to mention the clutter of cabling and wall warts, the extra $3k for the Mac Pro isn't looking that bad. 32Tb of SSD on a Thunder Blade would cost $5,500. 32Tb of Crucial P3 + 4Tb chips, and two OWC 4 NVMe cards would only cost $2,358 (and they'd be faster inside the Mac Pro). A couple of extra Thunderbolt ports, and an additional HDMI port is frosting on the cake.
If you need a lot of SSD, and you need quiet, the Mac Pro might save you money, and be a cleaner solution. I'm sure the Mac Studio is quiet, but dealing with noisy external drive fans is a PITA, and you really can't get a Thunderbolt cable long enough to put them far away.
Great video but it's so rare to find anybody that tests the actual CPUs... it's always testing the GPU and the Pro Res media engines. I use Logic X so can't see how much more grunt this would give me over an M1 Ultra. I'm also just bitter because I have an M1 Ultra Studio 😂 Apparently the FCPX speeds are because the Pro Res engines can work on a single file rather than just in parallel.
There are lots of professional environments where PCIE slots are a must have. And 3k to have those is nothing for the operations that need them. Like some large recording studios. That Mac is probably one of the least expensive things in the room. Although I wish they had turned up the clocks for the Mac Pro, since it has so much cooling headroom.
Strange you haven't heard the coil whine before. My M1 Max 16" MBP did it already and my M2 Max 16" does it again. Happens every time the GPU is loaded intensely, especially with benchmarks running offscreen tests on it.
just a heads up this appears to only be available in 360p
Finally a Cinebench & Blender benchmarking for comparison with M1 and RTX
Hey there Luke! Long time subscriber of yours here. Good content, however, as a video/film editor I gotta say the tests should also include the application of effects to 4K, 6K and even 8K timelines - camera files can be found through Blackmagic and RED sites. With M1 macs I found out the hard way that they are good at just editing (even in 12K) but as soon as you begin doing color, motion tracking, masking etc the "entry level" models (M1 16, 32) bottle neck very fast and you need an external SSD if you're caching for optimization's sake, because internal one will fill very fast even a terabyte one. So a lot of the tests paint M1/M2 macs as these "miracle machines" without ever mentioning the real world conditions when if you're making a feature or even a 10 minute + short film you have much more than a couple of b rolls with color grade applied.
@Needcreative Well yea, basically, I've been staying on 4K recording for a while because anything higher in resolution aspects bottle necks my M1 Pro, and at the end of the day, the content is being watched on a phone or a 1080p screen at best. Any benefit of higher resolution is obliterated because most of our screens can handle 4K max. On my LG ultra fine display the difference stops being visible past the 4K timeline setting. But it's still interesting to push the limits and see where they're at with any gear you end up using )
Who's watching in 360p?
Me
Me
360p gang reporting in
That is the only option for me
Me
I think Apple originally wanted the Mac Studio to be the new Mac Pro. But if they had called it Mac Pro people would have hated it. It would have been like the failed PowerMac G4 Cube or Trashcan Mac Pro all over again. So they did something clever and gave it a new name without ever really replacing the big Mac Pro. One day they might just discontinue the Mac Pro and leave it at that.
Wait, what’s the difference between render and export in Final Cut? I don’t use Final Cut so apologies if this is an obvious question.
I am using Studio with M1 Ultra. I'll wait for M3 Mac Pro to upgrade.
If you are not maxing out your M1 ULTRA, you can probably miss M3 too
With the release of the M2 Studio Ultra the new Mac Pro is going to be a really hard sell. With that huge price difference it's going to appeal to a very select few.
Some will buy it just to flex 🙂
Do you think those PCI slots can be used to add GPUs? Or is that something that is supposedly not possible? Apple wasn't very clear on that...
@@creativestudio101 I don't see how it will be possible on Apple silicon, but they might surprise us.
@@bryans8656 I hope so, it's about damn time Apple gets serious about fully supporting 3D stuff... Geez
why is it in 360p?
Hey Luke, how about going from an M1 Max Mac Studio to an M2 Max… probably not worth the upgrade either, right?
Are the M2 Max & M2 Ultra tested here the 30 or 38-core variant variant for the M2 Max and 60 or 76-core variant for the M2 Ultra?
There was a design issue with the M1 ultra. For the GPU, there apparently wasn't enough buffer memory to keep all of the GPUs fed. It scaled pretty well up to about 40 cores, but not much beyond that. The extra buffer memory seems to have resolved that issue well.
As for the encoders, if you set up batch encoding to run simultaneously, you could leverage both sets of encoders. However, if you were encoding just 1 file, only 1 of the sets of encoders would be used. With the M2 series, they now apply encoders from both half of the chip together on the same task to provide 1.8x acceleration (not completely linear).
3:57 Let me tell you how they did it: The E-cores in the M2 generation are improved more than the P-cores are (at least when it comes to the core itself, the P-cores have 33% higher L2 cache while the E-cores have the same amount), they're clocked 20% higher (2.05GHz vs. 2.5GHz) and in contrast to the P-cores the IPC of the E-cores are improved a little bit as well, for a total of about 25% perf. improvement. Compare that to the P-cores, which are unchanged in terms of the core architecture and clocked 8.3-14% higher (depending on how many of the are active, when 1 is active on the M2 Pro/Max/Ultra the P-core boosts to 3.68GHz while if more than 1 is active they boost to ~3.3-3.5GHz, while on the base M2 the max P-core boost clock is 3.5GHz). So don't belittle the inclusion of 2-4 more E-cores (without more E-cores, the faster P and E-cores on the base M2 has achieved 15-18% perf. improvement, but the P/E-core ratio is different on the base M2).
Hi Luke! I've been digging your vids for quite a while now
I am a music professional(sometimes video editor) that had a slower experience transitioning to the M series chips (did try out a M1 Macbook Air for portable) due to music plugin compatibilities that was critical for work.
hence the music industry isn't the most flourished in budgets, I loved how you showed us how to mod or upgrade macs with less cost/guide to buy used in the past.
in 2018 I've purchased an intel mac mini with an egpu(6corei7 vega64 8gb stock 8to64gb ram) and felt some lag when it comes to 4K footage(braw davinci resolve)with fusion text and effects/multiple footage simultaneously(1080 timeline was fine).
I upgraded the egpu to a 6800xt16gb in March2022. that was an awesome leap in editing smoothness.
Then in Decemer 2022 I bought a used iMac Pro(vega6416gb 10core 4tbssd 128gb ram). With the egpu6800xt plugged in, dual gpu vega64 and 6800xt didn't work so efficiently as I thought it would in Resolve. I expected Resolve would handle dual gpus with equal 16gbvram better.
My question is that with your imac pro and an egu(if you have one), how does the performance look like compared to the Mac studio line up? and how do you observe the importance when it comes to RAM/VRAM for effects and color grading?
sorry to be so specific, now that the music plugins are adjusting to ARM chips, I am thinking of going to a Mac Studio, or upgrading my imac pro to 18core/7900ish(if a newer OS allows it)
If you feel like you have the time to justify the experiment, it will be very appreciated. thx!!
I have the new M2 Max Studio and can say the GPU performance is more acceptable than the M1 Ultra I had previously, but still not perfect. There seems to be a wall when pushing more than 2.5K pixels that may be a memory cache or bandwidth problem. Previous M1 Ultra had bad stuttering issues at 2K; the M2 Max handles 2K (2560x1440) just fine, and I can even get to about 3200x1333 on an ultrawide monitor before performance starts to stutter and tank like the M1 Ultra did with real-time 3D rendering. Sometimes playing with your refresh rate helps, newer monitor works fine with variable framerate while older UltraWide had to be locked at 60hz to provide smooth rendering. I'm much more happier with the M2 Max Studio than the previous M1 Ultra. Also glad I didn't spend more money on the M2 Ultra, as your Rise Of The Tomb Raider benchmarks shows little performance increase, which is what I was fearing with a real time rendering scenario. I think Apple is encountering a situation similar to SLI on the PC side, where apps and drivers have to be tweaked to properly use that secondary (GPU) chip. Sure looks like it's not doing much good with older Rosetta based software.
You could always buy an external pcie slot if u need it
Hello. Should I buy the new MacbookPro M3 Max or the Mac Studio M2 Ultra for general use with Blender 3D and Xcode? In some Geekbench tests, I've read that the new M3 achieves similar results to the M2 Ultra. What makes more sense at the moment? Portability doesn't matter, speed and performance are crucial. I'm looking forward to your recommendations. Thank you.
Why is it still in 360p help 💀
A video that highlights super graphics, is in 360P? . . . THAT Blew My Mind!
youtube hasnt finished processing it yet
@@gregstus I was wondering🤣
How does it compete against i9 13900k or R9 7900x?
what are the specs on these? Ram, Gpu, cpu etc, are these the base models..?
Just bought my M2 ultra today and can’t wait to put it together this weekend
The new Mac Pro is such a bummer. I love the design and was really rooting for it to be an interesting machine once the transition started. But there’s no point lol. I wish they would have included GPU support at the very least
@lukemiani did you rerun the M1 Ultra tests with the current version of Final Cut and Mac OS or did you pull your results from last year? Just curious if software improvements accounted for the crazy gains.
Because of the cache redesign and some other micro architecture improvements. M2 is actually able to beat M1 Pro in some real software tests which benchmarks do not show or even show M1 Pro is significantly faster. Plus even though M2 needs more power under maximum load, but the entire consumption curve is MASSIVELY improved. M2 really isn’t a small upgrade like what the benchmarks would suggest. Because of the micro architecture improvements, scalability is also much better. M1 ultra showed problems in GPU cores controller, m2 fixed it.
Is it … i/o bandwidth? On the export especially. Or memory bandwidth? E.g. dual channel or single channel bandwidth. Also, maybe Apple is using an improved version of TSMC’s fabric on the silicon dies with the interconnects on the ultra. If there’s a new upgrade fabric, then that suggests at least part of the reason the performance is scaling linearly on the m2 ultra over the m1 ultra. And that sort of thing might also explain part of the performance edge that the m2 max has over the m1 ultra too (better comms inside the die and between between it and the peripherals).
Because Mac doesn’t allow upgradability, I am going to sadly say goodbye to them. If they were still using Intel CPU’s, I could keep going by taking a PC and turning it into a FrankinMac but the “M chip set” means that Intel chips will not work the same.
I am thinking of M2 ultra for Machine Learning and databases. Lots of GPU, CPU and RAM. Amazing machine.
The reason for the pro is simply for those that need the specialized cards. There actually is a large market, it is just a small percentage of the market. Still a lot of units but, small percentage. The only problem is that market needs a lot more RAM and 192 GB is low for that market. For most of us, 192 is more than enough. I have worked in the market that actually NEEDS all the power and RAM. So, the current Pro is a disappointment. The Studio is amazing though. Most of us don’t need the specialized cards nor more 192 GB of RAM.
Very nice. Once the M3 or M4 lineups introduce hardware raytracing, it'll be interesting to see how it performs against Nvidia's best in Blender.
I'll be interesting to see Nvidia 5nm chips too that's all we need to see.
For the life of me, I can't understand why Apple can't integrate raytracing on its machines already, ridiculous. I hope they do that in the next M iteration or so.
Beautiful this is the most high res video ever recorded on UA-cam! I'm so impressed 😮
Had to wait for the resolution to arrive but we here now
Ah, they still haven’t fixed the noise from the M1 Mac Studio.
The noise on yours will come back. Return it while you can.
Had the same noise on the Mac Studio M1 Max, returned it. Can not belive they have not fixed it!
Wow. These are some truly remarkable advancements-in just a year's time! 👏
Luke, you're right, the experience you have will depend on what you're using it for (naturally). I find the M2 Max is still sluggish in DaVinci Resolve Fusion. Perhaps Resolve isn't quite as optimised yet for Apple Silicon. Perhaps the Ultra provides the extra GPU performance needed to smoothly run VFX in Fusion. Serious work demands serious investment..nothing new there either.
7:33 if Apple keeps this up they might be able to match high end GPU performance with 2-4 years. It’s really the one area where they still underperform, but once they figure it out these Mac’s actually present a really good value for money.
I'm still using an iMac Retina 5K, 27-inch, 2017 16 GB 2400 MHz DDR4, so any M series Apple will be a HUGE upgrade this year ! I don't do any video editing / programing so my needs are lower. So for the best bang for my bucks is looking like the new M2 Mac Mini, maybe better processor and more ram. Buy external HD storage cheaper. Possibly use Luna to connect Mac Mini to iMac !
The Mac Pro is not for living room editing. It's meant for live media applications in the entertainment industry and broadcasting where PCI extentions are going to be needed.
They need to make this baby in Midnight finish.
Just bought the M2 MacStudio hopefully it can meet the MacPro requirements.
Was the M1 Ultra not using both decoder’s?
Strange... Mine at work (M1 max) is totally silent... Even with all day long Motion Design sessions.
Considering the difference in scaling performance between the M1 Ultra and the M2 Ultra, this is what I can say;
The M1 Ultra had many cores but wasn't optimized to use all of them for one application. So most applications would only see a minor improvement over the M1 Max. But, those many cores enabled it to handle multiple different tasks at about the same speed as the M1 Max. So you don't get double the speed but instead you get double the number of tasks that can be done simultaneously.
The M2 Ultra seems to be more optimized and can throw all the cores at one application getting you double the speed while also having the M1 Ultra's advantage of double the tasks.
How far away do you think we are from a Mac taking the place of my PC setup for Blender?
I believe there was something like a bus transfer issue on the M1 chips that led to throttling. That issue was removed with the M2
I am buying an M2 Max. I am shocked and SUPER happy that Apple released this M2 upgrade. I thought they would cripple the Mac Studio this year so that we don't get the same chip as the Mac Pro but Apple didn't do that! I am so surprised and happy!
Likely getting an M1 Max with 3 Studio Displays (or ViewFinity S9s lol)
I wish they'd rotate the front USB-C ports horizontally, it would look much better.
Hands down, my favorite tech show! Keep ‘em coming!
I’m still rocking a 2017 27in i5 iMac that I put 2TB SSD into and 40G RAM. I’m absolutely blown away by the speed when my Wife asks me to help her with her M1 MacBook Air. Insane how much faster her laptop is
I saw you said the project is a 10bit 4k one, did you export it to a 10bit 4k hevc file or did you export it to an sdr file?
Good question!
I gladly paid the extra 3k to get the M2 ultra Mac Pro, being able to add more storage is the reason i got the Mac Pro.
Oooof
I've just picked up an M2 Mac mini (base except for 16GB RAM) and I can't get over the performance difference of M2 vs M1 in terms of graphics performance. Single core went up by about 200 points, multicore by about 1500 points but Metal and OpenCL were nuts. I have no clue what is inside Apple Silicon but man I'm excited.
I can totally see Luke will return the Mac Pro as soon as the video review is filmed.
Any Luke Miani video is a great video...always on point.
Shout out everyone who can built a PC that beats the coil whining silver box
This certainly makes me excited for my M3 Upgrade from my 2018 Mac mini next year 😅
The wheezing sound! I have been getting it! In a very specific case and on the M1 Max 16' Macbook. I've been developing a game using Godot and not capping fps to 120 resulted in this wheezing sound that would come out only when the the game window isn't in focus. Not made by speakers. Doesn't seem to be fans. Super perplexing.
Is this a known issue with the wheezing? I'm concerned.
Could be the actual logic board over volting?
@@ghost-user559 I'm not sure, sorry. Maybe Luke can let us know ?
@@asafblasbergvideographer I only get it in this specific case, after a year of use. Also, Luke's video is the second time i've heard it - or of it.
We JUST bought and have decided to KEEP an M1 Ultra Mac Studio at work because we couldn't get Avid Nexis to work under Ventura (Monterey is fine) despite Avid's support-team attempting to resolve it. So all this talk about the M2 Ultra being so much better.. please no, quiet! :D
I do like the way all twenty CPU-cores fire up when we render out 4K DNxHR from Resolve, though. Means at least that scales.
Are these scores based on the same software/OS versions? Perhaps the software just got better?
It’s more of a dig on how terribly unoptimized the scaling for the M1 Ultra is. This would be just a minor spec bump if it scaled as well as it was supposed to.
I see videos like yours and I'm like, maybe I shouldn't wait for a new iMac, then I add the computer and remember, i now need a monitor, which ends up making it way more expensive, and continue to wait -_-
Why are videos in 360p ??? Is there a upload problem or something???
Really thought that my eyesight is getting worse but then it's actually 360P.
So are you keeping this or sticking to last years model cause at this point in the m processors they’re overkill for people like you and most UA-camrs unless they’re 3d modeling, etc. what’s your main computer I’m genuinely curious
8:08 You should test games at higher resolutions if you want to ensure you have as few CPU bottlenecks as possible to properly saturate the GPU. Test it at 5K, the display you're testing it on's native resolution, it doesn't matter if the game gets sub-60 or 30 fps, the whole point is to stress the GPU.
446, 000 subscribers and he doesn't wait until it gets rendered in HD to release it....
what are the specs on the ultra, kind of missed that?
SCP-M2: the weird noise...
Can you make a comparison of m2 ultra against any intel mac? I’m curious to see how heaven and hell different it will be.
You would expect graphics (especially benchmarks) to have near linear scaling based on gpu cores - that is the way the 3D graphics maths works - independent matrix multiplication on each vertex. More cores, more speed. This is why CPU's have a few cores, but GPUs have thousands of cores.
Dude love your videos on upgrading old MacBooks and desktop computers
Here in the U.K. you are lucky if they broadcast in 720 I kid you not how backward is that no point getting a fancy tv if they don’t record and broadcast in 4K most programs were recorded 20 year ago.
Thank you Luke for putting in more effort in testing M2 Ultra Mac Studio then Max Tech who put out their usual click bait early review.
I was not expecting that Overwatch reference, but I love it!
Hmmm... you can't understand why Apple built the 2023 Mac Pro. That's ok, they didn't build it for you. Many AV pros will want the extra ports and PCIe slots even if you don't see the need.
I'd like to know if it makes sense to get the M2 Max
Looks great in 360p 😂