Mac Studio

[jamcat]

That's not quite how I remember it when Apple was trying to convince everyone that the PowerPC macs were faster than intel computers, they weren't.

https://lowendmac.com/2006/twice-as-fas ... ts-truths/

Funny, because if you read the article it's actually all about how Intel was making less efficient CPU that ran at higher clock rates in order to market Pentium 4s as "faster." So the villain of the story is once again Intel, not Apple.

You're moving the goalposts. You stated that Apple didn't misrepresent benchmarks, yes they did. They chose the ones that made their product look better. Jobs ran Photoshop to leverage Altivec which made it seem that the PowerPC was faster, again, across broader applications, it wasn't.

So there's a difference. Apple showcased areas where there was a clear difference in performance. That difference wasn't made up. It merely showed the PowerPC in the best light, which is standard marketing practice.

Also, you should consider the fact that Apple put the performance power where Mac users would most want it: in running graphics software like Photoshop and other creative applications. Because that's Apple's userbase. So Apple made the PowerPC excel in the areas most relevant to Mac users, then showcased those areas of interest to their customer base. What's wrong with that? Should they have instead advertised how PowerPC's were "about as fast" as Pentiums at playing Doom, creating Excel spreadsheets and running TurboTax? Are those the tasks that Apple's userbase cares about?

Now compare that to what Intel did: inventing bullshit benchmarks out of wholecloth that landed them in court, paying out undisclosed millions in damages. And also running broken, outdated benchmark software that misreported their competition's performance. In both of these cases Intel didn't merely showcase their strongest attributes. They rigged the benchmarks and knowingly published lies.

For the record, I didn't have an Apple computer at that time. I was building my own Windows DAWs and was an avowed Apple-hater. A Wintel true-believer. Perhaps even moreso than BONES now.

[FapFilter]

Out of interest: what benchmarks did Intel invent?

[BONES]

You guys are absolutely f**king hilarious. Of course Intel lie. Of course Microsoft lie. Everybody knows that. What you guys don't seem to get is that Apple lie, too. In fact, I'd suggest they set the benchmark (pun intended) when it comes to bullshitting customers, without telling outright porkies that could get them into trouble with regulators. Cluster-f**ks like Intel and Microsoft are rank amateurs by comparison.

You mean because there’s actual data that exists right now that could refute their claims?

Really? Then where are your links to it? All I've seen so far is someone quoting Apple and searching uncovers nothing but Apple's own claims, which contain absolutely no detail whatsoever and are, therefore, next to useless.

why do you care? people use macs. people who use macs do so for whatever reason. so, a new line of macs comes out.. people are interested in that.. not so interested in you coming in to shit on it for whatever reason you do things. you're the constant contrarian even when it doesn't concern you. it beggars belief.

If people were genuinely interested, they'd want to hear the good and the bad, not just have their preconceived notions reinforced. For myself, I am genuinely interested but my interest is in reality, not some marketing fantasy.

it's compulsive behavior and no one cares about your opinion.

And you think I am going to care about yours, should you ever happen to unwittingly present one? I only care about facts because I live in the real world.

... computer specs and comparing that to your system which works well for you and anyone who uses anything else is an idiot.

Well, of course, given that I put a lot of effort into researching this stuff before I make a decision and don't box myself in by limiting my options. So unless you do the same, then it stands to reason that you're an idiot, doesn't it?

just don't know what goes on in your head and why you have come in and shit on things when it's totally irrelevant to your life.

It's not irrelevant to me at all. I've used Macs at work for most of the last 20 years and they still get used a lot in the industry in which I work. As a professional, I try to keep up to date across everything related to my job and if there was a compelling case to buy a Mac, I hope I would do so. Trouble is, there is no compelling case, despite what Apple might want you to believe. If that should change, I'd want to be the first to know.

I just know that my projects choke on my 8-core Intel machine, but not on my M1 MacBook Pro.

And how new is your Intel machine? 7th gen? 8th? Even the difference between an 11th gen and the new 12th gen is greater than the difference between an M1 and M1 Max. Unless they are both current gen machines, Moore's Law makes any comparison pointless.

Funny also that you harp on about taking Apple at their word when it's Intel that has been caught using rigged benchmarks

I don't trust Intel or Microsoft or anyone else with skin in the game because they all do it. You'd have to be a complete idiot to trust any of them. I trust a consensus of third party testers like Anandtech and Tom's Hardware to give us the real numbers from retail machines we can actually buy. And every single one of those kinds of tests I've seen has shown that there is nothing really special about Apple's silicon in comparison to Intel or AMD. They are definitely competitive but I've only seen a couple of benchmarks where they have actually had the best score and in both cases there was only about 1% in it. OTOH, I've seen benchmarks where AMD and Intel have beaten Apple's CPU by 50% and I've linked to them in at least half-a-dozen previous threads, yet you people continue to stick your fingers in your ears and sing la-la-la-la like little children who don't want to brush their teeth before bed. Here is another comparison for you to ignore.

[DrGonzo]

Of course Intel lie. Of course Microsoft lie. Everybody knows that. What you guys don't seem to get is that Apple lie, too.

When I was a tech writer for a computer magazine and I was doing lots of tests on processors. The biggest benchmark program at that time, clearly benefited Intels processors over AMDs. And strangely enough - Intel was one of the sponsors of the development of that software, and AMD was not.

Yeah - everybody lies. And not just in benchmarks.

[FapFilter]

You guys are absolutely f**king hilarious. Of course Intel lie. Of course Microsoft lie. Everybody knows that. What you guys don't seem to get is that Apple lie, too. In fact, I'd suggest they set the benchmark (pun intended) when it comes to bullshitting customers

Indeed. Apple always claims to have the world's “most advanced OS“, while it is way behind in several areas.
I'm on Mac now, and i like it, but… come on.

Also in their latest marketing blurb yesterday they always showcased, how the new Mac Studio is xx % faster than their Mac Pro's “most popular config“ and not something like “ most powerful config“

[jamcat]

OTOH, I've seen benchmarks where AMD and Intel have beaten Apple's CPU by 50%

And now Apple has the M1 Ultra which beats the M1 Max by 50%.

But notice, that's the M1 Max. That benchmark you are touting is against a 13" MacBook Pro, which uses the older M1 CPU, which is a year old, not the newer M1 Pro or M1 Max. And the M1 Pro nearly doubles the performance of the older M1 in certain benchmarks.

So how does the 12th generation Intel stack up against the M1 Max?
If it's not greater than 50% faster, it's not going to beat the M1 Ultra.

And Apple hasn't even gotten to the M2 yet.

[FapFilter]

In Cinebench, which is way more close to real world's performance than let's say geekbench, Intel's newest chip is about twice as fast as a Max in multi core performance.
In Geekbench, the gap is way closer though

[jamcat]

Out of interest: what benchmarks did Intel invent?

This was the claim in 2000 that Intel's processor was superior to AMD's Athlon Thunderbird, which was found by the court to be a false claim. Apparently they just made up their benchmarks.

"The suit hinges on the fact that Intel 'misrepresented' the performance of the Pentium 4 processor, by inventing benchmarks that claimed to show its processor was superior to the rival AMD Athlon Thunderbird."

https://gizmodo.com/disgruntled-pentium ... 1653167130

[FapFilter]

Ok, but i'm sure if somebody actually tried to sue Apple for false claims, they'd succeed aswell easily… at least they should, since of course Apple has good lawyers, which will probably prevent this, no matter how true such accusations were.

[DrGonzo]

In Cinebench, which is way more close to real world's performance than let's say geekbench, Intel's newest chip is about twice as fast as a Max in multi core performance.
In Geekbench, the gap is way closer though

Yeah, this is it. You got to listen to more than one source of information to know the whole truth. I think the PWM Guy at Sonicstate said it perfectly when he reviewed the first M1 laptop, that it was well past the point of power most people would ever need. And yet, here I am having a crazy desire for a M1 Ultra

[FapFilter]

Indeed today's top of the line CPUs are just crazy fast and a lot more powerful than most people actually need.
I'm so happy with my M1 Pro that i just bought an MBA yesterday for everyday duties and travel as it's also still f**king powerful (and dead silent)

I'm thankfully no desktop guy, so no GAS for an Ultra at all.
For me it would just be total overkill (and ugly). If i was into desktops i'd actually opt for the Mini (which also happens to be $600 vs 2000, or 4000 for the Studio base models)

[jamcat]

I need enough power to run 100 instances of SWAM with an instance of virtual sound stage on each.

[SLiC]

Two grand for matching monitor as well…..I paid less than a third of that for a 32 inch 4K, in the case of DAWS I think size matters and 4K is more than good enough….I guess if your using your MAC for visual work then a very expensive very high resolution monitor may be required, but I suspect many people will use none Apple monitors.

[RugerioDelStereo]

Odd to see price harped on. The latter generations give much more bang for the buck than say 2019.

Only if you live inside Apple's walled garden and you can't see out into the rest of the world. Just look at this thread - everyone taking Apple at their word, nobody questioning how it might stack-up in the real world, where most of Apple's claims fall well short in independent testing. Apple are the absolute kings of spin and you guys just eat it up as though they'd never, ever exaggerated anything, when the reality is that they exaggerate pretty much everything. Honestly, it's like a f**king cult, it beggars belief.

You seem to have started the cult of Apple bashing. It's quite a boring cult too. Can you not be happy with progress and just see where things go?

[FapFilter]

Two grand for matching monitor as well…..I paid less than a third of that for a 32 inch 4K, in the case of DAWS I think size matters and 4K is more than good enough….I guess if your using your MAC for visual work then a very expensive very high resolution monitor may be required, but I suspect many people will use none Apple monitors.

Most Apple stuff is on the expensive side.
Some are just insanely overpriced into silly levels though, especially in maxed out settings.
And don't get me started about $600 for the roller stands for Mac Pro, or $1000 for their reference monitor stand