Testing of DAW performance on all 3 Mac M processors.

[machinesworking]

You mean a 2009 Mac Pro?

When M1 hit the market, we were on 12th Gen Intel and 3rd Gen Ryzen. There were 6-8 Core Intel Chips that could outperform that Mac Pro, which was probably hampered more by TDP than the compute potential of the CPU in it (as is the case with most Intel Macs - laptops being most egregious).

PCs didn't have that issue. Put them in a ventilated case with an AIO Cooler of adequate size and they flew. It's why so many people kept those old Intel PC builds in commission for so long. PC laptops also didn't shove i9 CPUs into Ultrabook formfactors, as it makes no sense and just causes the machine to slowly kill itself.

Upgraded, I still own it, 12 x 3.34ghx Xeon, 96GB RAM, 2 m.2 ssds installed, one as boot. It's no slouch for what it is. The point wasn't to brag about power though, rather the opposite, that the 24 core M2 Ultra is of course overkill, and performance tests are more about getting the best out of machines like the M1 Air or older PCs like the Mac Pro etc.

[Dewdman42]

But decreasing Performance Cores in the "Pro" line is ... "very Apple."

I don't think "Pro" means the same to them as it does to us, though.

Yea I hear you, but just consider that they are reducing the performance cores in order to increase the number of efficiency cores. For a lot of people that actually don't even need performance cores that will be a speed improvement for them in the Pro line. You have some users that literally just surf the web and watch you tube. Ok...they don't need Pro. Next level up will be people that do a bit more than that, perhaps have 6 productivity apps running at once, plus surf the web and watch you tube. Their stuff can run on the efficiency cores just fine, with more battery life...especially if there are a few extra efficiency cores in the newer chip models. So this is actually an improvement for them. They can get by with just a couple performance cores, and have better battery life.

We DAW users are a special bunch, because we are not necessarily video editing (some are), we aren't playing games etc. we don't need all the GPU improvements. But our particular application is very very taxing on CPU. we in fact do need more performance cores and for the most part we couldn't give a crap about battery life, though power consumption does affect heat and we do care about that. But also this test is a test involving many tracks and trying to push the system to an extreme limit, not even all DAW users need that many performance cores...but many of us do. But we are a releatively small group. The Pro line is not designed specifically for our use case, simple as that. And the only way we are going to be covered in the future is going to likely be in the Max line, which is overkill for us in the GPU department, and for some of us its overkill in the RAM dept also, but its where we need to be with performance cores. Could apple make a model that appeals to us? A group that doesn't care as much about battery life but just if we could have it we might opt the M1Pro configuration....well Apple has decided there is not enough market to justify that particular configuration, at least for now. Its not necessarily a bad decision on their part. Unfortunately for us, it will kick many of us into the Max category for more money. I wanted more ram anyway, so for me it doesn't really matter but I know some DAW users won't like it. But on the other hand, I bet a lot of lesser power DAW users can get by with an M3Pro just fine in actual practical use, as opposed to the test that is testing the ceiling.

Lastly, the M1 Pro machines are already quite expensive, so this is probably done to draw a closer line for people to cross before they give up and just give them the extra money for a Max model.

I personally don't think Apple is trying to get our little niche group to unfairly pay more than we need to as you are putting it that way. They are trying to make the M3Pro more appealing to a wider audience of people out there, that simply want their typical office type work to be snappy and run really nice, beyond a bare bones basic M3 model. Our group of people is too small of a group, they are just not going to provide the perfect economical solution for us that is for sure, but there is the max option and we can do that.

[Dewdman42]

(dupe)

[syntonica]

As music types, we need lots of CPU. Graphic artists, gamers and video people mostly need lots of GPU. Unfortunately, we're going to lose out as CPU power starts to stagnate in favor of massive GPU improvements.

It'll be interesting to see if GPU audio processing actually becomes a thing or not as there's quite a bit of potential latency involved. Maybe that's where Logic is headed? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[machinesworking]

Mostly the reality is for me I ended up making a bit more money off a job than I thought I would and bought the M2 Ultra Studio, the thing is total overkill for what I normally do. I think most people are not hurting at all with even the least powerful CPU M3 Macbook. Pretty much any mid range PC or Mac in the last 4 years is more than enough for most of what people do audio wise.

Plus if you're doing orchestral work and mocking up big templates etc. you're likely doing this for video at this point, so a bit of power in the graphics department isn't a bad thing.

The other direction is to get a decent Macbook Pro, and VEP with a slave PC. That's what I was going to do, but the opportunity came up to put it all in one machine so I went with it.

[wintoid]

I'm headed to the studio I'll check and edit this post with the results. My guess is it does better than Live, Bitwig in the past did better with Diva than other plugins like Reaktor etc.

[edit]
Scratch my first edit, I had Bitwig at a buffer of 64, at 128 like the rest it gets 96 instances on my system, does not use the efficiency cores etc.

Thanks, I'm much obliged.

[wintoid]

Pretty much any mid range PC or Mac in the last 4 years is more than enough for most of what people do audio wise.

I think you're right, and of course that's what we all want.

[Dewdman42]

the other group of people that need a machine with as much cpu juice as we do are developers that compile a lot.

[Trensharo]

But decreasing Performance Cores in the "Pro" line is ... "very Apple."

I don't think "Pro" means the same to them as it does to us, though.

Yea I hear you, but just consider that they are reducing the performance cores in order to increase the number of efficiency cores. For a lot of people that actually don't even need performance cores that will be a speed improvement for them in the Pro line. You have some users that literally just surf the web and watch you tube. Ok...they don't need Pro. Next level up will be people that do a bit more than that, perhaps have 6 productivity apps running at once, plus surf the web and watch you tube. Their stuff can run on the efficiency cores just fine, with more battery life...especially if there are a few extra efficiency cores in the newer chip models. So this is actually an improvement for them. They can get by with just a couple performance cores, and have better battery life.

We DAW users are a special bunch, because we are not necessarily video editing (some are), we aren't playing games etc. we don't need all the GPU improvements. But our particular application is very very taxing on CPU. we in fact do need more performance cores and for the most part we couldn't give a crap about battery life, though power consumption does affect heat and we do care about that. But also this test is a test involving many tracks and trying to push the system to an extreme limit, not even all DAW users need that many performance cores...but many of us do. But we are a releatively small group. The Pro line is not designed specifically for our use case, simple as that. And the only way we are going to be covered in the future is going to likely be in the Max line, which is overkill for us in the GPU department, and for some of us its overkill in the RAM dept also, but its where we need to be with performance cores. Could apple make a model that appeals to us? A group that doesn't care as much about battery life but just if we could have it we might opt the M1Pro configuration....well Apple has decided there is not enough market to justify that particular configuration, at least for now. Its not necessarily a bad decision on their part. Unfortunately for us, it will kick many of us into the Max category for more money. I wanted more ram anyway, so for me it doesn't really matter but I know some DAW users won't like it. But on the other hand, I bet a lot of lesser power DAW users can get by with an M3Pro just fine in actual practical use, as opposed to the test that is testing the ceiling.

Lastly, the M1 Pro machines are already quite expensive, so this is probably done to draw a closer line for people to cross before they give up and just give them the extra money for a Max model.

I personally don't think Apple is trying to get our little niche group to unfairly pay more than we need to as you are putting it that way. They are trying to make the M3Pro more appealing to a wider audience of people out there, that simply want their typical office type work to be snappy and run really nice, beyond a bare bones basic M3 model. Our group of people is too small of a group, they are just not going to provide the perfect economical solution for us that is for sure, but there is the max option and we can do that.

You don't need any recent computer to do that. 4th-7th Gen Intel Laptops already do that with ease and they can be had for a couple/few hundred off eBay.

The only reason to do this is to push people who need more over the edge so that they pay considerably more for a higher model.

If you want an M1 Pro with 64GB RAM, you basically have to pay over $1K instantly and go all the way up to the top M1 Max... just to get 64GB RAM Capacity.

The way the spec packages/configurations are designed is predatory and designed specifically to milk more money out of Pro users who actually need more than a base M1 machine... or any X64 machine from the past 8-10 years if going by your market segment example.

[Dewdman42]

Apple is not focused on you. they are focused on the larger market share of people that will appreciate more efficiency cores.

but yes, you will probably have to go Max or higher for DAW work from here rolling forward...the Pro line will likely not be enough for most of us.

[machinesworking]

Apple is not focused on you. they are focused on the larger market share of people that will appreciate more efficiency cores.

but yes, you will probably have to go Max or higher for DAW work from here rolling forward...the Pro line will likely not be enough for most of us.

It's not really any different than it ever was. the core count was always bad until you got to mid high or above. RAM required a good tower, now it requires an upfront purchase. Barring any issues with builds the other nice advantage is these new machines should last for a very very long time. You can now get full Apple Care for $59 a year. So hopefully I don't have to get another machine for ten years, and having 128GB RAM at home, I can get a mid range laptop in the future if I want etc.