201–210 of 734 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. I’m running on a 512Gb MBP 14” and have 310Gb free so no point in this for me.
Start editing high res video, and those TB's will quickly fill up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seriously. If Apple supported gaming more I'd be able to drop this PC. Could be the sort of thing that could cause an avalanche of switchers. You'd also pull over the entire games industry into the Apple space. Right now we code on PCs. As Apple silicon gets better, it's gonna be more and more painful to not be able to make use of that.
> If Apple supported gaming more You mean if gaming supported Apple more, right? The industry's reliance on DirectX and the frameworks that build on it are largely what keep gaming so PC-centric. If we saw AAA studios embrace macOS-compatible (or better yet Open Source) graphics architecture, the need to have separate gaming PCs (and the insanely expensive GPUs associated therewith) would evaporate.
The 2TB option is an extra $400. That's $200/TB. The 4TB option is $250/TB. The 8TB option is $275/TB. That looks like planned obsolescence to me. A customer with 1TB will likely want to upgrade sooner than a customer with 8TB, so this pricing strategy discourages people from buying the more future-proof options. Other SSDs on the market tend to be cheaper per TB as you go up in size, but Apple's seem to be completel…
Mac Pro with 28 Core, 96GB RAM, 1TB SSD = $14,199
Mac Studio with M1 Ultra (48GPU Cores), 128GB RAM, 1TB SSD = $4,800
Also it looks like they compared their CPU performance with the latest intel generation in their demo.
> "16-core PC desktop CPU performance data from testing Core i9-12900K with DDR5 memory" https://www.apple.com/mac-studio/#footnote
It's kinda scary how monster of a company Apple has become lately. Their product line-up in compute is now unmatched.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only that... > 20-Core CPU > 48-Core GPU > 32-Core Neural Engine for $3,999 is that kind of like... a bargain?
I have a 10-core CPU with a performance advantage of 23% over an M1 Max in Cinebench R23 (AMD 5800x) and a 1,280 CUDA core GPU (GTX 1060 6GB) that cost a little over $1,000 US total. UPDATE - Sorry, I originally listed this as a 5900x by accident. I need more sleep.
More and more I see the M1 chips and I wish Mac worked seriously well for gaming. Would love too see something like Proton but for Mac (given up hopes for native support). I hate that I have my gaming PC and then my Mac for everything else. I have to wonder though what their plan is for the M2. Are they laying the groundwork for when the M2 comes out all of these variants will be ready at the same time? Or a gradual…
There is a lot of support for M1. See these lists. Please note though that "playable" does not mean "on par with other platforms", ie, Windows and Xbox / Playstation. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1er-NivvuIheDmIKBVRu3... https://applesilicongames.com/
Valheim - not in database
ARK: Survival Evolved - "game won't launch"
Conan: Exiles - not in database
Grounded - not in database
Civ V and Civ VI - each shows one record and seems it ran for that person (30-60 fps - for comparison, both run 144 fps on my $1000 Lenovo laptop.)
It Takes Two - not in database
That's all anecdotal, i.e. the games this one person likes to play are not supported, or don't play very well, and some of them are 5+ years old.
Overall the point being, it's hard to shell out all that money for a device that won't play your games. (If this sort of gaming is part of your computer use case). So to that original comment's point "I wish Mac worked seriously well for gaming."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not really geared towards 'all'. You can see that on the presentation and who they had talking.
You missed the "ten years from now". I will happily pay $300-#400 for this machine 10 years from now to use as a random streaming box sat in a closet.
Whatever it is, I've become much less trusting of Apple hardware that is that old.
I would like to highlight just how much Apple is focusing on their customers and use cases right now. It seems that they're targeting products to what their professional customers actually want. And in this case, it's a 3.7" little thing that can process 18 streams of 8k video (fully specced out). That's kinda crazy, and they're doing it at a price point that's competitive compared to all of the companies out there.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You also have to consider thermals and how the air would flow over components. It's not just as simple as adding more holes
Fake grills have existed for years. More airflow is usually , but not always, better. All I'm saying is the current design doesn't look good to me, and some more work could've been done to not just make it look like a weird, tall Mac Mini.
That's not what you said. Here's what you actually said, which is ridiculously hyberbolic, hence this discussion.
> I think from a design perspective, this is the most disappointing Apple release so far.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm actually curious about memory. Since they're 2 distinct chips, will a single chip be able to handle 128GB? Not sure how the interconnect works.
Yes, as all NUMA machines do, one CPU can access all memory, both local (to the CPU) and global (through the interconnect). The problem is that there is a significant latency cost when a CPU accesses non-local memory (limitations of the interconnect). So the HPC people writing their algorithms make sure that this happens at a minimal amount, by enforcing that the data each CPU is using is allocated locally as possibl…
The way Apple presented it sounded more like the chips talked at a lower layer, much like if it was all built as one physical chip, than when you have two normal chips with an interconnect fabric.
Someone will figure it out with benchmarks or something.