Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Computers & Peripherals => Topic started by: vjbelle on March 09, 2022, 01:01:24 pm
-
I contacted Apple to see if Mac Studio was user upgradeable and was told that it wasn't - including the SSD. It is unlikely I would need more memory than 64GB and the 1TB SSD is more than necessary to run the operating system with lots of room to spare. With four TB ports expansion should be easy and very fast.
Any thoughts from those knowledgeable?
Victor B.
-
64GB memory and 1TB SSD are probably fine for most still photo use (although I put a 2TB SSD into my 14" M1 Max MacBook Pro). The big question with the Mac Studio is if you want/need to buy the second set of graphics cores, which I believe cost $1000? We need to see some real world reviews and data to know how much value those graphics cores provide for still photo work.
-
This might help:
https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/03/09/which-upgrades-are-worth-it-for-the-mac-studio?utm_medium=rss
-
I'm certainly not knowledgeable. As a twenty year Windows user, this will be my first Mac.
I went with 1TB internal storage and 64GB of RAM. It's important to note that you can never upgrade these specs.
My Apple friends advised me that the "internal storage" spec is not really relevant. External SSDs and Thunderbolt are very very fast. The internal storage is mainly for the OS and programs.
I edit 4K video, DAW and dabble in CGI. Photoshop and Lightroom are a largely irrelevant workload for this powerhouse, IMHO.
Delivery is within two weeks, so says Apple. It'll be here by my birthday. I'll report back.
-
It is unlikely I would need more memory than 64GB and the 1TB SSD is more than necessary to run the operating system with lots of room to spare. With four TB ports expansion should be easy and very fast. . . . Any thoughts from those knowledgeable?
"All generalizations are false, including this one."
Having said that, UNIX systems typically exploit all their available main memory—"RAM"—quite efficiently, and the more you have, the better. (MacOS is a variant of UNIX.) Especially on a highly-parallelized machine with many cores, the amount of hardware memory that is available will influence how rapidly simultaneously coactive processes will complete. So, as a general rule (but see above), I am inclined to max out the RAM on any new UNIX machine I purchase.
Not only that, but the new Apple hardware architecture shares main memory among three subsystems: the primary computing cores, the graphics accelerator cores, and something Apple calls the "neural engine." Apple doesn't precisely explain that third compute subsystem as far as I have been able to determine, but it seems to be some sort of specialized processor for matrix operations. However the fact that the primary memory is shared among the three functions would reinforce my view that it is worth paying for as much as the particular platform will support, especially because field upgrades reportedly are not feasible on the new Mac Studio products.
Secondary storage, such as solid-state drives, rarely are as performance-sensitive. As long as you have enough primary storage to cache the files that are constantly in use, everything else—for example, raw captures from still or video cameras—probably can comfortably be consigned to an external storage medium without any significant performance degradation. A channel-attached drive or network-attached server should work well—at least, as long as the latter is available through a 100 megabit or faster network connection.
-
Really appreciate the replies.
Peter.... I really think that you have hit the sweet spot and that would more than likely be the configuration I would get. You didn't mention which processor you ordered. I actually don't know if I would need a double M1 Max. Large PS files from my 100s or 4150 are the only real work that computer would see. Just received my 14" M1 Pro (not Max) computer and am amazed at the speed. Numerous YouTube videos convinced me that I wouldn't need a Max for my needs and I really wanted long battery life.
My thinking is that an M1 Max 32 core GPU may be the sweet spot for me. As MDL_SD posted some real world testing is needed to see what is really needed. I don't know if the Neural is going to be worth the money for my needs.
Chris..... always appreciate your valuable input.
Andrew..... as always thanks for the links and your input.
Victor B.
Edit: B&H will have these with delivery time the same as Apple. I mention this because the sales tax can be saved using their branded credit card.
-
ArsTechnica published an Apple roadmap, with the introduction of the new chips last November.
So far it seems to be spot on.
I've excerpted it below
- Apple has already finalized the second generation of Mac processors, and the third generation is expected to be made with a new 3-nanometer process, according to a report in The Information citing people with direct knowledge of the plans.
- The second-generation chips will use an "upgraded version" of the 5-nanometer process used for the M1, M1 Pro, and M1 Max found in recent Apple Silicon Macs. But unlike those first-generation chips ...
- ...some of the second-generation chips will have two dies instead of one, allowing for more processor cores. The next Mac Pro's processor would be part of the generation that began with the M1. Code-named Jade, it will be based on the high-end MacBook Pro's M1 Max, but it will have two dies instead of one.
- On the other hand, the MacBook Pro will feature more powerful second-generation chips code-named Rhodes. The second-generation chips have already been finalized and are ready to enter trial production, according to The Information's sources.
- The more powerful third-generation processors are code-named Ibiza, Lobos, and Palma. Lobos and Palma are destined for the MacBook Pro and "Mac desktops."
- A lower-performance variant code-named Ibiza would head to iPads and the MacBook Air.
- Apple's roadmap projects steady performance improvements over time across all three generations, which are all in active development. But the third generation is said to be a particularly momentous leap.
My personal view is that the base Mac Studio, even w/ 32mb unified memory, is going to be a more than sufficient powerhouse (exlcuding high-end video and audio worklflows) pending the arrival of the 3rd gen chips sometime in 2024.
Listen to diglloyd and you'll get an opposing view
For me, the only choice here is the 20-core CPU M1 Ultra because:
- 20 CPU cores is a huge deal for things like focus stacking, data validation, etc.
- 128GB memory available only with M1 Ultra 20-core CPU (128GB is the bare minimum for my work).
- Double the memory bandwidth with M1 Ultra.
- 48 core GPU instead of 24/32 core.
- 6 Thunderbolt 4 ports instead of only 4 + 2 USB-C. Three Thunderbolt busses matters for lots of peripherals and two displays.
YMMV
-
A heads-up regarding the internal SSDs, claimed by Apple to deliver about 7.4 GB/sec. AFAIK, the fastest internal SSD's have a real-world I/O of about 3.3 GB/sec, and external NVMEs run at about 2.7GB/sec. According to diglloyd, again, macOS has a performance bug that cuts ultra-fast SSD speed in half.
https://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2021/20211022_1830-Apple-MacBookProM1X-SSD.html
https://macperformanceguide.com/MacBookPro2021-SSD.html
Personally, all data is stored on external 2TB pro-SSDs. Internal SSD storage is only for applications and scratch disks. So the value of maxing internal SSD storage, which can't be replaced, for me, is moot.
-
This guy (Artisright) did a lot of pretty good testing on the whole range of M1 silicon laptops. He's just released a video overview of the Studio and describe which one's he's ordered for testing. Worth checking out I think.
Artisright Studio overview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qYu9CAqYK8
I tested (LR only) a pair of 14" MBP's (one Pro and one Max) together with my HP laptop and Puget desktop. Results linked below with a description. I will be replacing my desktop but not for a few years so luckily will have time to read reviews and test and even wait for the next gen;
MBP tests
https://photos.app.goo.gl/BNVtXvVkUUGNGNBk9
Tests of 6 shot HDR, 15 HDR/Pano, 36 shot HDR/Pano and 54 shot HDR/Pano in up to date Lightroom Classic. Times clocked (handheld watch so +/- 5 secs or so) for the final DNG to complete, but time also noted on the way for the Preview window to complete (then Merge pressed immediately), eg 1.17 / 2.34 means 1 min 17 secs for Preview to finish, then a total time (not added) of 2 mins 34 secs for the DNG to finish.
4 different machines tested with configs shown in cols 1,2,3.
All files Sony A1 lossless compressed.
Lightroom run in a variety of ways on the laptops with the catalog on the internal drive as well as an external drive, same with the image files, shown in cols 4 and 5. External drives were a Samsung T7 (2 TB) and on the HP a Sabrent Rocket Thunderbolt 3 drive was also used (8TB).
Some interesting things to note; Lightroom needed restarting 3 times on the M1 MBP and once on the HP laptop as merge previews just failed to run (3 different file sets). On restart LR run as expected though I did get s short time on the Mac after one of the restarts. One instance of a message on the MBP that the DNG failed to import from the external drive. Seems LR needs a refresh sometimes. I've never seen this before but I typically do not throw merge after merge at it, so if it's a memory leak or cache bloat problem it may have time to recover in typical use.
The 54 shot test was 6 shot pano with 9 brackets each, the 36 shot test was 12 shot pano with 3 brackets each, the 15 shot test was a 5 shot pano with 3 brackets each. The projection was changed on each one. To do this I started the HDR/Pano, then switched the projection, then cancelled the test and restarted it (so it started up with the changed projection).
-
I bit the bullet. Ultra 20 core 48 core GPU 64GB Ram 2TB SSD. Can't imagine needing more than this. B&H says shipping starts on the 18th so I'll report back if I get it this month. Will be using an Eizo 4k CS2740 monitor so this should be a good match for the Mac.
Victor B.
-
On Apple's site when a 2TB SSD is added the ship to date extends out to June. The same if ram is increased to 128 GB. So I have decided to max out the ram and stay with the 2TB SSD. Don't need this right now so June will work for me.
Victor B.
-
Mike B.
I had the same issues with the MacBook Pro M1 Max 4 TB, 64GB as far as PS and LR crashing 3-5 times a day with large files so I returned the thing. Back on my 2019 MacBook Pro loaded its been since December that I running PS and LR daily and I think maybe Ive had 1 crash...I will wait for the M2 at this point before upgrading.
-
My M1 is the Pro version not the max with 32GB of memory and I have not had any issues with 4150 files and three or four layers. Very fast without any issues...... so far.
Victor B.
-
Mike B.
I had the same issues with the MacBook Pro M1 Max 4 TB, 64GB as far as PS and LR crashing 3-5 times a day with large files so I returned the thing. Back on my 2019 MacBook Pro loaded its been since December that I running PS and LR daily and I think maybe Ive had 1 crash...I will wait for the M2 at this point before upgrading.
That is interesting. Since I started using mine for normal use I've not had any issues. I have been doing panos and HDR and a few combos, but not set after set as I did with the testing. I can't recall if LR has been updated since I ran these tests but I think so, and will keep testing it of course. Mine it soo late to return now.
-
Everyone's needs are different. I don't shoot focus stacks or multi-row panos with 40 files, or convert 100's of raws to JPEGs. Or, regularly download 500+ files from a card. However, I do regularly use Helicon Focus with 4-6 files and Topaz Gigapixel and Sharpen AI with medium format files of 50-80 MP. I will be looking to see what the real world differences are between the various configurations of the Mac Studio with those tasks in mind before I order. Hopefully, someone will run such tests and publish the results. The Artisright guy did do a video comparing the various configurations of the Macbooks with the M1 Max chip on Gigapixel AI and Sharpen AI. Very interesting results. You can easily blow a lot of money on upgrades that will have little if any advantages in real world applications.
-
According to C-net the basic mac studio has GPU power comparable with an a 2500€ windows laptop like Razer Blade 14 ( 3.3GHz AMD Ryzen 5900HX, Nvidia GeForce RTX 3080)
(and not surprising the same speed as the laptop with the same chip; the MacBook Pro, 16-inch, M1 Max)
They have not tested the Ultra version of the Mac Studio yet.
I wonder how this computer deals with real life GPU intensive tasks like Topaz Denoise.
my computer still takes one minute to work on a 45MP file, far too slow.
https://www.cnet.com/tech/computing/apple-mac-studio-review/
-
Needless to say, a teardown was inevitable. It came a bit earlier than I anticipated, and Vadim Yuryev's presenting style is a bit hyperventilated for my taste, but if you want to know what's really inside the box, it's available here (https://youtu.be/IY0gRMpT4AY).
-
Needless to say, a teardown was inevitable. It came a bit earlier than I anticipated, and Vadim Yuryev's presenting style is a bit hyperventilated for my taste, but if you want to know what's really inside the box, it's available here (https://youtu.be/IY0gRMpT4AY).
That motherboard is impressive small and neat. Huge processor area...
-
hi I am shopping for a Mac Studio to replace my 2010 Mac Pro 2x2.66 6 Core Intel Xeon machine with 128 Gb of memory, a Radeon RX 580 8 GB Graphics Card, and Running Mojave. I replaced the HD last year but do not have an SSD. It works pretty well for both Capture One, Photoshop, and FCPx 4k video. My thought was to replace it with the $2,800 Mac Studio Max 10 Core CPU, 64 gb Ram, 32 Core GPU, 1 TB SSD. My guess is even though I will have less Ram the Mac Studio will at least be slightly faster than my current Mac Pro that seems to be slowing down. I am on a budget of $3k. My question is:
-Is this a sufficient machine to at least slightly upgrade my Mac Pro?
-How will the Graphics card compare? When I replied my Graphics card in the Mac Pro I was surprised how big it was. There is not much room in the Mac Studio for a graphics card, will I be worse off with the Mac Studio?
-
I posted this on another thread ... on the top link Jeff included two 2019 Mac Pros in his testing.
ooooo
Here are a couple of links worth reviewing.
On FM. I have tested 2 versions of the Macbook Pro using HDR/Panos in Lightroom as well as my 2 windows machines. The table is further into the thread. Jeff also ran some benchmarks and the same HDR/Panos using my files as well as other tests on several machines including 3 versions of the Studio. Both are included in this thread.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1748848
On Youtube. This guy Art has a whole series of tests on LRC, PS and C1 going back to the 1st M1 chip in the Mac Mini and has tested an extensive series of MBP's and now 2 versions of the Studio. You don't need to go back to the very 1st test videos as he always shows tables with all his data when he's testing a new machine.
https://www.youtube.com/c/ArtIsRight/videos
Both links include the performance of older Mac machines and in my case my Windows desktop and laptop. As you'll see some tasks just scream with the new Apple silicon, beating even well heeled Mac Pros, tasks that don't use multi-cores as well have less of an improvement but still beat out older Macs.
Hope this helps but ask any questions ...
-
According to C-net the basic mac studio has GPU power comparable with an a 2500€ windows laptop like Razer Blade 14 ( 3.3GHz AMD Ryzen 5900HX, Nvidia GeForce RTX 3080)
(and not surprising the same speed as the laptop with the same chip; the MacBook Pro, 16-inch, M1 Max)
They have not tested the Ultra version of the Mac Studio yet.
I wonder how this computer deals with real life GPU intensive tasks like Topaz Denoise.
my computer still takes one minute to work on a 45MP file, far too slow.
https://www.cnet.com/tech/computing/apple-mac-studio-review/
I posted this on another board:
"I just purchased a Mac Studio Ultra with 64 GB of RAM and 48 GPU Cores, and ran four files through Gigapixel AI and Sharpen AI with the Mac Studio and my 2013 Mac Pro with 32GB of RAM, 6 Cores and AMD FirePro D300 video for comparison. Two files from an 80MP IQ180 P1 back, and two files from a 50MP Hasselblad X1D. These programs, along with Helicon Focus, have been the most significant bottlenecks in my workflow. (Sharpen AI runs natively on Mac Silicon SOCs, but Gigapixel does not yet.)
I enlarged the files to a width of 46" in Gigapixel AI. The two files from the IQ180 took 42" and 47" to process with the Mac Studio, and 9'13" and 7'25" with the Mac Pro. The two X1D files took 27" and 19" with the Mac Studio, and 4'41" and 4'28" with the Mac Pro. To process 4 previews, the Mac Studio took around 2 seconds, and the the Mac Pro 10"-12".
To apply Sharpen AI as a filter in PS, the two IQ180 files in the Mac Studio took 19" and 20", and the Mac Prp took 3'37" in both cases. With the X1D files, the Mac Studio took 10" and 12", and the Mac Pro took 1'58" and 2'14". A preview with the Mac Studio was almost instantaneous, but took around 5 seconds with the Mac Pro. Testing subtle changes in the applicable settings and sharpening models is now seamless.
At least compared to a 2013 Mac Pro, the performance of the Mac Studio Ultra is just astonishing with these two programs. PS and LR also seem so much faster overall. What I can't say is how a Mac Studio Max would stack up. Is the extra $2k or so worth it If it takes 20" to apply Sharpen AI with the Ultra but 30" with the Max? I don't replace my computers every other year. My 2013 Mac Pro has served me well for 9 years. So, I decided to future proof to some degree by purchasing the Ultra."
I also did some testing with Denoise AI on Hasselblad X1D files and Phase IQ180 files. The former took 8-10 seconds to process, the IQ180 files took around 16 seconds. More importantly, the previews were redone in a second or so when I changed the parameters or the selected area that is louped.
-
...
I also did some testing with Denoise AI on Hasselblad X1D files and Phase IQ180 files. The former took 8-10 seconds to process, the IQ180 files took around 16 seconds. More importantly, the previews were redone in a second or so when I changed the parameters or the selected area that is louped.
Thanks that is the info i needed... so my graphic card is a factor 5-6 slower... significant.
Helicon focus runs very well here ..(i don't do 100 layers).
-
I've had my Mac Studio, low-end configuration for about a week. My work involves dealing with 200MB - 1G large format scans in Photoshop. I'm also running PS via Rosetta 2 since I have some plug-ins that require it. All I can say is the low-end version of the Studio handles these files with ease. Far faster than my i5 based Windows machine I thought was pretty good to begin with.
-
i just came across this:
https://eclecticlight.co/2022/04/18/m1-thunderbolt-ports-dont-fully-support-usb-3-1-gen-2/
it seems that Apple has messed up with the thunderboltports in the sense that they do not work as fast as expected with USB3.1 and USB3.2 connected devices...
Most probably a m1 chip problem. a bad thing for a device that needs external storage as a basis.
In summary:
USB 3.1 Gen 2 storage connected direct to a Thunderbolt port on an M1 Mac was limited to 5 Gb/s, giving read rates of about 400 MB/s and write rates of about 430 MB/s.
USB 3.1 Gen 2 storage connected to a USB-C port on the front of a Mac Studio Max using a USB-C cable, or via a USB-C port on a Studio Display, operated at 10 Gb/s, with read and write rates of about 500 and 490 MB/s.
USB 3.2 storage connected direct to a Thunderbolt port on an M1 Mac operated at 10 Gb/s, with read and write rates of about 910 and 970 MB/s.
USB 3.1 Gen 2 storage connected to a USB-C port on the front of a Mac Studio Max using a Thunderbolt 4 cable operated at 10 Gb/s, but read and write speeds were lowest of all, at about 20 and 40 MB/s.
-
Pieter..... thanks for the post. Just amazing that Apple has been silent regarding this as external fast storage is essential for photo/videographers. I'm on the fence to take delivery of my Studio which should arrive by the end of May. I can live with my 14" M1 until the smoke clears.
Victor B.
-
It's been an issue since M1 came to market, unless it's USB4 any other USB type connected to their TB ports will only read at 5 Gbs. A reason why I didn't bother getting the pro version of an external Sandisk SSD. Unfortunately there are very few options of portable fast drives that have a large capacity and use TB or USB4.
-
Pieter..... thanks for the post. Just amazing that Apple has been silent regarding this as external fast storage is essential for photo/videographers. I'm on the fence to take delivery of my Studio which should arrive by the end of May. I can live with my 14" M1 until the smoke clears.
Victor B.
They can’t blame Intel anymore…
The M2 will be solving some mistakes for sure..(and introduce some new…)
I like the Macstudio-concept, except they can and should add the ability to put your own NVME-ssd in.
I guess that is what an upcoming MacPro is .
-
I too am concerned about all the speed issues regarding the USB and Thunderbolt speeds that people are reporting. Question for the more knowledgeable than myself in these matters; do you think the problem is hardware or firmware? I would be inclined to go ahead and take delivery of the Mac Studio if I thought the issue could be resolved with a simple firmware update, but if it's a hardware problem that could only be fixed through a recall, I would cancel my order immediately until it was fixed. Thoughts anyone?
-
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't understand why (1) anyone engaged in imaging production except maybe members of a team that was producing and collaboratively editing massive amounts of commercial-grade video would be particularly concerned about the speed of channel-attached external storage and (2) why anyone or team that actually needed fast channel-attached storage would ever choose USB storage devices over Thunderbolt devices.
-
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't understand why (1) anyone engaged in imaging production except maybe members of a team that was producing and collaboratively editing massive amounts of commercial-grade video would be particularly concerned about the speed of channel-attached external storage and (2) why anyone or team that actually needed fast channel-attached storage would ever choose USB storage devices over Thunderbolt devices.
For my side the answers are:
1) I would like to get a small internal drive and use a fast external drive for everything else, where I could have all my stuff (~ 3.5TB photos so far), not for backup
2) there are few external storages that meet the above and ideally are somehow portable, I think the Sabrent one is really the only option above 4TB. Sandisk only has USB SSDs that would be ok if M1 would access them at 10 Gbs but less so at 5 Gbs.
I too am concerned about all the speed issues regarding the USB and Thunderbolt speeds that people are reporting. Question for the more knowledgeable than myself in these matters; do you think the problem is hardware or firmware? I would be inclined to go ahead and take delivery of the Mac Studio if I thought the issue could be resolved with a simple firmware update, but if it's a hardware problem that could only be fixed through a recall, I would cancel my order immediately until it was fixed. Thoughts anyone?
Keep in mind the Studio does have 2 USB-C front ports that can read at 10 Gbs, only the combo TB/USB from the back are limited to 5 Gbs for USB. The problem I think it's hardware, it's been since M1 was first launched, you would think they would have fixed it by now if it was firmware.
-
1) I would like to get a small internal drive and use a fast external drive for everything else, where I could have all my stuff (~ 3.5TB photos so far), not for backup
I don't know what asset management software you're using, but in my experience with Adobe Lightroom, as long as you maintain the catalog and previews on your local system, storing image files remotely is unlikely to create a performance bottleneck. I suspect even the lower bandwidth available to access network-attached storage compared to channel-attached devices would be unlikely to be a problem—at least assuming a reasonably fast connection.
2) there are few external storages that meet the above and ideally are somehow portable, I think the Sabrent one is really the only option above 4TB. Sandisk only has USB SSDs that would be ok if M1 would access them at 10 Gbs but less so at 5 Gbs.
I've been quite favorably impressed with the Glyph product line (https://www.glyphtech.com/product/atom-pro--external-nvme-ssd). Not inexpensive—inevitably, you need to pay for both storage density and the Thunderbolt protocol—but they provide capacities up to 8 TB. I haven't bothered to research other options, but I'm sure they're out there.
-
The problem that I see with the Glyph is that the 8TB is almost as expensive as an upgrade to the internal 8TB while being cache limited (similar to Sabrent) and slower. It's more appealing to just upgrade to the internal 8TB and use a cheap large external HDD for local backup.
-
I’m going to be replacing my 2020 Mini with one of the Studios. The only thing I care about for storage is how fast Photoshop writes to it. Is there some way to test that or does anyone know? My current external drive writes about 1,400 GBS. Would Photoshop write files faster than that if the drive was capable? I could just max out the storage in the Studio and use that as it’s quite a bit faster but there’s no point if Photoshop couldn’t use the extra speed.
-
My photoshop writes about 1500mb/sec at maximum while my sorage can do 2500-7000 mb/sec... so i suspect not.
Hope you saw my post earlier here about the external ports of the max studio...
-
My photoshop writes about 1500mb/sec at maximum while my sorage can do 2500-7000 mb/sec... so i suspect not.
Hope you saw my post earlier here about the external ports of the max studio...
Can you tell me how you determined that? I’d like to test that with my current external drive to see if it would be helpful to change to a faster drive when I change computers. If your numbers are accurate I could just keep the one I’m using now. Thanks.
-
i am on a mac..
an app made to see what video you can use... Blackmagic Disk Speed Test.
i have a Raid-0 of 4 nvme...
Photoshop writes layers and some information so it is slower... (i have compression off always.)
-
This might help:
https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/03/09/which-upgrades-are-worth-it-for-the-mac-studio?utm_medium=rss
Thanks for sharing this.