Apple introduces M2 Ultra

[donkey tugger]

I shall attempt to tone down the empiricism for you.

[revvy]

No, no, please carry on.

If I'm ever wondering to myself which (PC) CPU delivers what power, I'll know where to come.

[donkey tugger]

Good, good. Right then, rather than posting them within the context of a specific discussion (this being a discussion forum and that) I'll start just putting them in randomly, to help and stuff.

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cp ... 2B&id=1549

[revvy]

Night night, mate. Sweet dreams.

[keyman_sam]

Oh gosh, when did this turn into a PC vs. Mac thread.

Honestly, I can't imagine I'll run out of power for my audio needs with my OLD Mac mini i7 (chomps through 300+ tracks with various instruments and plugins at 256 buffer size). If I upgrade it'll be only to reduce the buffer size.

The M2 Ultra would do 3x more tracks than my OLD i7. At some point we gotta stop and ask ourselves what the goal is. Is it to brag about the MOST powerful DAW, in which case I'm sure you can assemble an Intel PC to blow the Mac outta the water.

Or is it to get the most bang for the buck audio workstation, in which case the M2 lineup is a very solid contender. Keep in mind to get the M2 ultra power you'd have had to fork out 2-4x previously, so I'd still call this a great deal.

For those 1000 track templates, I'm sure you can replace a tons of VEP racks with fewer Mac mini Pros and not skip a beat.

[machinesworking]

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?

You never said that, you said this:

donkey tugger wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 10:44 am
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.

So you essentially denied that someone else had said that, and they in fact did say that, or implied it. Which is a good business move if you build music PCs.

[machinesworking]

Oh gosh, when did this turn into a PC vs. Mac thread.

Honestly, I can't imagine I'll run out of power for my audio needs with my OLD Mac mini i7 (chomps through 300+ tracks with various instruments and plugins at 256 buffer size). If I upgrade it'll be only to reduce the buffer size.

The M2 Ultra would do 3x more tracks than my OLD i7. At some point we gotta stop and ask ourselves what the goal is. Is it to brag about the MOST powerful DAW, in which case I'm sure you can assemble an Intel PC to blow the Mac outta the water.

Or is it to get the most bang for the buck audio workstation, in which case the M2 lineup is a very solid contender. Keep in mind to get the M2 ultra power you'd have had to fork out 2-4x previously, so I'd still call this a great deal.

For those 1000 track templates, I'm sure you can replace a tons of VEP racks with fewer Mac mini Pros and not skip a beat.

Exactly.

I normally don't need 96GB RAM for sample libraries, in case I do the old Mac Pro isn't going anywhere soon. I mean I'm able to run a 27" Slate Raven and a 32" LG with the least powerful M1, the 16GB essentially 5 core Air, I rarely have any issues and if I did I would use VEP and the Mac Pro as a slave and be good with it.

At some point when the 09 Mac pro is not capable of running the latest sample libraries there will be a slew of cheap PCs and Macs to choose from that will be more than capable. We crossed the barrier IMO when 12 core desktops became common.

[Uncle E]

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

Buy used. The hardware holds up amazingly well and people are constantly selling so they can get the latest and greatest. I got my 2019 for under $600, it's the nearly maxed out version that originally sold for $2,799.

[keyman_sam]

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

Buy used. The hardware holds up amazingly well and people are constantly selling so they can get the latest and greatest. I got my 2019 for under $600, it's the nearly maxed out version that originally sold for $2,799.

THIS! It's frustrating for current owners of Intel Macs like myself as I'll only get peanuts compared to the price I paid for my decked out i7 Mac mini. Still, it's only a problem if I sell it. I can only imagine the frustration of the Intel Mac Pro owners.

If and when I do sell it, it's a damn good bargain for whoever buys it. Even 5 years from now my 2018 will be a smokin' machine. I've got 2 DAW PCs that are unsellable but the Mac mini replaced them both. Currently my config goes for ~700 USD on CL (<1/3rd of what I paid for it ) but I suspect it'll take a while to sell since it's only particularly attractive to audio folks. That's the price of progress, I suppose.

[jamcat]

Windows machines with Intel/AMD can send more simultaneous emails at once.

Macs with Apple Silicon can run more simultaneous audio plugins at once.

Which one is “faster” all depends on your priorities.

[Jim Roseberry]

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.

And you might notice that Jim said to run Cinebench R23 multi-core benchmark.
The results of which aren't Jim's opinion/bias.
The reason Cinebench exists is to gauge performance for Cinema 4D (3D modeling/animation).
If a CPU scores 28k, it's not the equal of a CPU that scores 40k.
Doesn't matter of your talking PC vs PC... or PC vs. Mac.

[revvy]

If only somebody would share some benchmarks. They seem sadly lacking in this thread

[Jim Roseberry]

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.

I use Cinebench as an example... because it's a quick/easy way to gauge both single-core and multi-core performance... and it's available for both platforms.
ie: If you look at multi-core scores for 12900ks (28k) vs 13900k (40k), you have a fairly accurate idea of DAW performance expectation. Certainly more relevant than synthetic benchmarks (Passmark/etc).

If you want to talk about less than ideal multi-core scenarios (especially at super low latency), that's where single-core high clock-speed will be a major factor.
You can gauge this by having a look at Cinebench R23 single-core results.

When I say "workstation" type CPU, I'm referring to a high-performance CPU... designed specifically for that purpose... knowing that it requires substantial cooling/space/etc.
I'm well-aware that Xeon CPUs are terrible for DAW purposes. That's due to low clock-speed.

The M3 may well best the 13900k... but I doubt AMD and Intel will be standing still.
AMD's next offering will likely leap-frog the 13900k (as did the 7950x vs the 12900k).
Rinse and Repeat.

The laws of thermodynamics are at play.
High clock-speed equates to high heat.
High IPC can mitigate that... to a point.
Right now, 7950x has slightly higher IPC vs 13900k.
13900k is slightly faster (overall) because it can achieve higher clock-speed... across more cores.
Both the 7950x and 13900k require substantial cooling.
Folks running them are choosing maximum performance over small-form-factor or convenience.
If Apple decides to push the performance curve, it won't be in a 10"x10"x6" form-factor.

Every week, I talk to Mac users who are essentially forced away (from Apple) because they can't get the performance/configuration they need to work (often composers for TV/Film).
Granted, this isn't a general-purpose computer user.
It's someone who needs ultimate high-performance... and maximum configuration flexibility.
I don't think Apple will get back into the highest-performance market... for the reason I said previously. They know small/sleek machines will sell far more to the general public.
DAW users are a tiny niche group. General-purpose computer users are a massively larger market.

[wvshpr]

[PAK]

I use Cinebench as an example... because it's a quick/easy way to gauge both single-core and multi-core performance... and it's available for both platforms.

Ok, and as I pointed out.. it's pretty much USELESS for knowing much of anything about DAW performance. There are many variables which make this so.

I already mentioned the M1 Ultra beat the 12900k in DAWBench's test. (I'm using them as the example because most wouldn't exactly argue they're biased towards Apple!) (See here)

What I didn't point out, and you'll see on those benchmarks, is the M1 Ultra also HAMMERED the 13900k for Kontakt performance with a 128 buffer (4880 Vs 4160). Can you guess what will happen with an M2 Ultra?

The bottom line is, if someone uses a lot of Kontakt, and (for some reason) goes by Cinebench scores for a purchase decisions, then they're going to be badly mislead. Even DAWBench is far from ideal, although will give you a much better idea than something like Cinebench.

My main gripe, about the M2 Ultra, is the price - not least when Apple charges £3k more for a Mac Pro case, whilst offering the same performance as the Studio.