Apple introduces M2 Ultra

[machinesworking]

I guess the reason why I rant about Apple is because I want to like them , but I just don't. I'm happy for folks that like them and can afford them . I wanted an m1 n m2 macmini , but once I added up the 16gb ram and 1 tb SSD I was like I'll just build a PC ... I was not even planning on running Logic on it either lolz ... My wife has iphone 12 she used to have the iphone 6S plus ,I bought her both. She liked the 6s+ better. I should a got her iphone12promax ... I guess I was trying to be thrifty....I'll get her the 15promax when ever that comes out. She NEVER updates iOS ? She also doesn't back up her iphone either hilarious . I guess I have a live n hate with Apple .

I rarely rant about Microsoft and PCs, because I think they're great. Yes I could go off about having to reinstall Windows completely on my roommates machine because some weird memory swapping I'm guessing bug rendered her laptop useless reading at 99% full when she had maybe 10% used on the drive, or any number of other anecdotal stories that paint Windows out to be terrible but it's mostly just football team loyalty. There is little difference after you buy the audio software, set up your system, and get your music into the machine. No one has ever been given a brownie button for saving money on a PC or a special ribbon for writing the song on a Mac. You use what you use.

I just spent 2K pre ordering the Push 3 stand alone with a massively underpowered i3 in it. The actual form of the thing is going to be super useful to me considering I travel a lot, and get sick of setting up portable rigs. I'm sure to a lot of people spending the extra $1,000 on an i3 is crazy, but the use case overrides the rest for me.

[donkey tugger]

It won't keep up with the 13900k.
Run Cinebench R23 multi-core test.
That'll tell you where the M2 Ultra stands vs a "workstation" type CPU.

I can't find any verified results (Cinebench R23 MultiCore) yet. What is the new Apple M2 Ultra chip lacking in architecture? Why exactly the M2 Ultra can't compete with Intel 13900k, Jim?

Of course we don't know yet in the absence of any verified tests. I'd say it's therefore unlikely to do so, if speed has only improved by Apple's own blurb that it's 20% faster then the M1 Ultra. This doesn't bode well for besting the Intel chip based on current results;

https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_c ... _i9_13900k

Passmark is similar. The M1Ultra is around 40000 for CPU mark, the i9 13900k around 60000;

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/desktop.html

Of course a verified reflection will need to wait, but if I were a betting man.....

[vurt]

seriously, why are you all concentrating on the computer? we've all got one.
have you missed the bloody mask???

where's the gifs ffs!!!?

[machinesworking]

It won't keep up with the 13900k.
Run Cinebench R23 multi-core test.
That'll tell you where the M2 Ultra stands vs a "workstation" type CPU.

I can't find any verified results (Cinebench R23 MultiCore) yet. What is the new Apple M2 Ultra chip lacking in architecture? Why exactly the M2 Ultra can't compete with Intel 13900k, Jim?

You might notice, Jim sells custom PCs, it doesn't take much logic to decipher that objectivity is statistically near impossible for him.

Actually I find his comments the fairest... and I imagine he is basing it on what is currently out there for mac and using apple's own faster than info https://www.apple.com/mac-studio/. I think PC's are faster but as he points out the mac's advantage architecture wise is ability for speed in small spaces with less requirements for heat dissipation.

Unlike what someone else said here, most of the applications I use anyway are both on mac and pc, so for me it usually boils down to which OS I prefer, and I prefer the mac os (been using a mac since 1988, and owned one since 1989) about One Billion Times more than the PC and I have both and when I was an IT consultant, 99% of my clients were PC based.

I have long accepted I don't choose a mac because it is faster than a PC, but 1) I much rather the OS 2) for me they give less issues (see the for me part?) 3) I can get it back up and running so much quicker if I have issues (between time machine and or cloning) 4) when I buy a new mac I can transfer everything much more seamlessly.

And yes my next PC like my present one will most likely be bought from Jim.

My two cents.

rsp

Cinebench right now with M1 chips in their list proves the hyperbole of what he said. Yes, what with Intel and AMD going for a much much larger market, the fastest chips out there will likely always be intel or AMDs, no that doesn't matter much, we're talking expensive top of the line chips with heavy fan use etc. It's all good to point out that if you really need power AMD and intel will provide, but the fact is they aren't coming at some premium discount anymore, and we're starting to live in the golden age of audio tech IMO, I have the M1 Macbook Air and the only complaint is the graphics being underpowered. I'm running USB3 HDMI from Pluggable to get another monitor and I really really have to push the machine for it to be a problem at all.

Anyway I don't expect anything less from KVR than hyperbole so.

[machinesworking]

It won't keep up with the 13900k.
Run Cinebench R23 multi-core test.
That'll tell you where the M2 Ultra stands vs a "workstation" type CPU.

I can't find any verified results (Cinebench R23 MultiCore) yet. What is the new Apple M2 Ultra chip lacking in architecture? Why exactly the M2 Ultra can't compete with Intel 13900k, Jim?

Of course we don't know yet in the absence of any verified tests. I'd say it's therefore unlikely to do so, if speed has only improved by Apple's own blurb that it's 20% faster then the M1 Ultra. This doesn't bode well for besting the Intel chip based on current results;

https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_c ... _i9_13900k

Passmark is similar. The M1Ultra is around 40000 for CPU mark, the i9 13900k around 60000;

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/desktop.html

Of course a verified reflection will need to wait, but if I were a betting man.....

Your own link says that the M1 chip in multi core CPU benchmarks is faster than the i9.
So where will that put the M2?
I mean, that's the main thing we should care about, everything else is redundant.

[donkey tugger]

It won't keep up with the 13900k.
Run Cinebench R23 multi-core test.
That'll tell you where the M2 Ultra stands vs a "workstation" type CPU.

I can't find any verified results (Cinebench R23 MultiCore) yet. What is the new Apple M2 Ultra chip lacking in architecture? Why exactly the M2 Ultra can't compete with Intel 13900k, Jim?

You might notice, Jim sells custom PCs, it doesn't take much logic to decipher that objectivity is statistically near impossible for him.

Actually I find his comments the fairest... and I imagine he is basing it on what is currently out there for mac and using apple's own faster than info https://www.apple.com/mac-studio/. I think PC's are faster but as he points out the mac's advantage architecture wise is ability for speed in small spaces with less requirements for heat dissipation.

Unlike what someone else said here, most of the applications I use anyway are both on mac and pc, so for me it usually boils down to which OS I prefer, and I prefer the mac os (been using a mac since 1988, and owned one since 1989) about One Billion Times more than the PC and I have both and when I was an IT consultant, 99% of my clients were PC based.

I have long accepted I don't choose a mac because it is faster than a PC, but 1) I much rather the OS 2) for me they give less issues (see the for me part?) 3) I can get it back up and running so much quicker if I have issues (between time machine and or cloning) 4) when I buy a new mac I can transfer everything much more seamlessly.

And yes my next PC like my present one will most likely be bought from Jim.

My two cents.

rsp

Cinebench right now with M1 chips in their list proves the hyperbole of what he said. Yes, what with Intel and AMD going for a much much larger market, the fastest chips out there will likely always be intel or AMDs, no that doesn't matter much, we're talking expensive top of the line chips with heavy fan use etc. It's all good to point out that if you really need power AMD and intel will provide, but the fact is they aren't coming at some premium discount anymore, and we're starting to live in the golden age of audio tech IMO, I have the M1 Macbook Air and the only complaint is the graphics being underpowered. I'm running USB3 HDMI from Pluggable to get another monitor and I really really have to push the machine for it to be a problem at all.

Anyway I don't expect anything less from KVR than hyperbole so.

Well, the context was that he basically was only commenting on the speed, in response to another comment, and did include qualifiers about other aspects, so I'd also say that what he wrote was balanced. Think you're being a tad unfair there.

[donkey tugger]

It won't keep up with the 13900k.
Run Cinebench R23 multi-core test.
That'll tell you where the M2 Ultra stands vs a "workstation" type CPU.

I can't find any verified results (Cinebench R23 MultiCore) yet. What is the new Apple M2 Ultra chip lacking in architecture? Why exactly the M2 Ultra can't compete with Intel 13900k, Jim?

Of course we don't know yet in the absence of any verified tests. I'd say it's therefore unlikely to do so, if speed has only improved by Apple's own blurb that it's 20% faster then the M1 Ultra. This doesn't bode well for besting the Intel chip based on current results;

https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_c ... _i9_13900k

Passmark is similar. The M1Ultra is around 40000 for CPU mark, the i9 13900k around 60000;

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/desktop.html

Of course a verified reflection will need to wait, but if I were a betting man.....

Your own link says that the M1 chip in multi core CPU benchmarks is faster than the i9.
So where will that put the M2?
I mean, that's the main thing we should care about, everything else is redundant.

Where does it say that?

I see this;

r23.jpg

...and this;

passmark.jpg

[PAK]

It won't keep up with the 13900k.
Run Cinebench R23 multi-core test.

Hmm.. Cinebench is Video / 3D, which tends to have an easier time buffering so all cores are fully utilized. Real-time audio is a different proposition, and the more you lower the latency the less buffer available. So Cinebench isn't an ideal reference point, and shouldn't be used as a basis for DAW decisions.. IMO

Further, additional core types add more complexity to a hosts load balancing. Performance can (and does) vary greatly between hosts, and Cubase (what I use) is well known for various issues regarding core usage on Windows. I don't know how much they've "fixed" things, with the newest Intel CPU's, after its problems. But I'd still tend towards processors, with single core types, for Cubase under Windows. It's an example of a variable which mean certain choices might not be the best, regardless of what benchmarks like Cinebench say.

That'll tell you where the M2 Ultra stands vs a "workstation" type CPU.

It depends what you mean by "workstation". Many of Intel's Xeon's are silly money because they're not aimed at consumers. For DAW usage the M1 Ultra was competitive with the 12900k on launch. That's not just my opinion - DAWBench did limited cross-platform benchmarks which showed it beating the 12900k. M2 is only an incremental update to M1. It should gain a bit versus the latest Intel, but the real performance gains will come with the M3, which I'd expect (the Ultra) will beat the 13900k for DAW performance. Though, even if that's the case, the relative value for money is less - Apple would have to price the Ultra more like the Max to compete better there.

[machinesworking]

Well, the context was that he basically was only commenting on the speed, in response to another comment, and did include qualifiers about other aspects, so I'd also say that what he wrote was balanced. Think you're being a tad unfair there.

You yourself have chimed in with benchmarks that you must not have examined too closely, because the M1 in multi core CPU benchmarks according to your link is faster, yet you said it wasn't, and I'm being unfair? [edit] you're looking at Cinebench, the Geekbench score shows the exact opposite, the i9 at 85%, and I would argue a suite of CPU tests VS 3d rendering is going to be more accurate for plug in counts etc. [/edit]

Some of the "results" are windows specific applications, so the M1 scores 0.. christ?

Look, I have no doubt that intel and AMD will make a faster, bigger chip than what Apple will do, it's an economy of scale, Apple only sell their chip to themselves, so it's not cost effective to market a chip that has a limited audience, AMD and intel sell to anyone who needs their product. But to say that these chips are poorly performing, especially for what we do in audio plug ins etc. that eat CPU specifically, is nonsense selective reasoning.

But I've said my piece and if anything is true, KVR loves to roast apples.

[donkey tugger]

Well, the context was that he basically was only commenting on the speed, in response to another comment, and did include qualifiers about other aspects, so I'd also say that what he wrote was balanced. Think you're being a tad unfair there.

You yourself have chimed in with benchmarks that you must not have examined too closely, because the M1 in multi core CPU benchmarks according to your link is faster, yet you said it wasn't, and I'm being unfair? [edit] you're looking at Cinebench, the Geekbench score shows the exact opposite, the i9 at 85%, and I would argue a suite of CPU tests VS 3d rendering is going to be more accurate for plug in counts etc. [/edit]

Some of the "results" are windows specific applications, so the M1 scores 0.. christ?

Look, I have no doubt that intel and AMD will make a faster, bigger chip than what Apple will do, it's an economy of scale, Apple only sell their chip to themselves, so it's not cost effective to market a chip that has a limited audience, AMD and intel sell to anyone who needs their product. But to say that these chips are poorly performing, especially for what we do in audio plug ins etc. that eat CPU specifically, is nonsense selective reasoning.

But I've said my piece and if anything is true, KVR loves to roast apples.

Bit of a strawman there. Where did I say the M1 etc were 'poorly performing'? My point was that the 'hyperbole' has come from Apple with the "fastest" claim, and that the R23 tests (see below) were likely to favour Intel.

For context, again, I was of course replying to two previous posts which directly referenced the R23 tests. I therefore of course based my reply upon those tests to directly address the contention made.

The 'unfair' comment is again taken out of context. If you read again, it was in response to your characterisation of bias in Jim's reply, which I found to be balanced, giving credit to Apple for the very things (such as efficiency etc) others have often extolled.

On a more general note, I always think that the Passmark CPUMark is a good indicator of performance, given that it measures a whole slew of tests, and over time from a large number of real world users.

[machinesworking]

Well, the context was that he basically was only commenting on the speed, in response to another comment, and did include qualifiers about other aspects, so I'd also say that what he wrote was balanced. Think you're being a tad unfair there.

You yourself have chimed in with benchmarks that you must not have examined too closely, because the M1 in multi core CPU benchmarks according to your link is faster, yet you said it wasn't, and I'm being unfair? [edit] you're looking at Cinebench, the Geekbench score shows the exact opposite, the i9 at 85%, and I would argue a suite of CPU tests VS 3d rendering is going to be more accurate for plug in counts etc. [/edit]

Some of the "results" are windows specific applications, so the M1 scores 0.. christ?

Look, I have no doubt that intel and AMD will make a faster, bigger chip than what Apple will do, it's an economy of scale, Apple only sell their chip to themselves, so it's not cost effective to market a chip that has a limited audience, AMD and intel sell to anyone who needs their product. But to say that these chips are poorly performing, especially for what we do in audio plug ins etc. that eat CPU specifically, is nonsense selective reasoning.

But I've said my piece and if anything is true, KVR loves to roast apples.

Bit of a strawman there. Where did I say the M1 etc were 'poorly performing'? My point was that the 'hyperbole' has come from Apple with the "fastest" claim, and that the R23 tests (see below) were likely to favour Intel.

For context, again, I was of course replying to two previous posts which directly referenced the R23 tests. I therefore of course based my reply upon those tests to directly address the contention made.

The 'unfair' comment is again taken out of context. If you read again, it was in response to your characterisation of bias in Jim's reply, which I found to be balanced, giving credit to Apple for the very things (such as efficiency etc) others have often extolled.

On a more general note, I always think that the Passmark CPUMark is a good indicator of performance, given that it measures a whole slew of tests, and over time from a large number of real world users.

No straw man, the context was speed, the Cinebench test is a 3D render, and intel is faster, the Geekbench test is a suite of CPU specific tests, and the M1 is faster.

It’s near impossible for someone selling PCs to pop on a board and say that the combined speed of the last generation of Apple Silicon multi core chips is impressive, so he did not, and it’s not some sort of mystery why.

I don’t really have skin in this game, it doesn’t bother me at all that for most uses the intel chip is better, it’s just weird to act like the AS chips are sub par in any way shape or form, and that’s what’s going on here.

[donkey tugger]

Well, the context was that he basically was only commenting on the speed, in response to another comment, and did include qualifiers about other aspects, so I'd also say that what he wrote was balanced. Think you're being a tad unfair there.

You yourself have chimed in with benchmarks that you must not have examined too closely, because the M1 in multi core CPU benchmarks according to your link is faster, yet you said it wasn't, and I'm being unfair? [edit] you're looking at Cinebench, the Geekbench score shows the exact opposite, the i9 at 85%, and I would argue a suite of CPU tests VS 3d rendering is going to be more accurate for plug in counts etc. [/edit]

Some of the "results" are windows specific applications, so the M1 scores 0.. christ?

Look, I have no doubt that intel and AMD will make a faster, bigger chip than what Apple will do, it's an economy of scale, Apple only sell their chip to themselves, so it's not cost effective to market a chip that has a limited audience, AMD and intel sell to anyone who needs their product. But to say that these chips are poorly performing, especially for what we do in audio plug ins etc. that eat CPU specifically, is nonsense selective reasoning.

But I've said my piece and if anything is true, KVR loves to roast apples.

Bit of a strawman there. Where did I say the M1 etc were 'poorly performing'? My point was that the 'hyperbole' has come from Apple with the "fastest" claim, and that the R23 tests (see below) were likely to favour Intel.

For context, again, I was of course replying to two previous posts which directly referenced the R23 tests. I therefore of course based my reply upon those tests to directly address the contention made.

The 'unfair' comment is again taken out of context. If you read again, it was in response to your characterisation of bias in Jim's reply, which I found to be balanced, giving credit to Apple for the very things (such as efficiency etc) others have often extolled.

On a more general note, I always think that the Passmark CPUMark is a good indicator of performance, given that it measures a whole slew of tests, and over time from a large number of real world users.

No straw man, the context was speed, the Cinebench test is a 3D render, and intel is faster, the Geekbench test is a suite of CPU specific tests, and the M1 is faster.

It’s near impossible for someone selling PCs to pop on a board and say that the combined speed of the last generation of Apple Silicon multi core chips is impressive, so he did not, and it’s not some sort of mystery why.

I don’t really have skin in this game, it doesn’t bother me at all that for most uses the intel chip is better, it’s just weird to act like the AS chips are sub par in any way shape or form, and that’s what’s going on here.

Again, with respect, I'd rather you didn't mischaracterise what I actually wrote - the strawman in question being, "But to say that these chips are poorly performing, especially for what we do in audio plug ins etc. that eat CPU specifically, is nonsense selective reasoning. " I'll ask again; where have I said this?

[revvy]

You didn’t. PC salesman did (not in so many words). I think you’re just posting benchmarks in this thread.

[donkey tugger]

Well, for the avoidance of all doubt, I'll say that I think the speed of the Apple processors is impressive, given the speed of the tugger analytical engine, and would indeed be total overkill for what I do, . Here's another benchmark for you;

3740qm1.jpg

[revvy]

Cool.

Can't beat reading endless PC benchmarks in a yet-to-be-released-Apple-M2-Ultra thread