Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Mac Studio

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 734 posts

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#251

Post by rpmisms »

alberth wrote: post #105

Mac Pro scale up? How is this going to scale up to a Mac Pro, especially related to RAM? The Ultra caps at 128 GB of RAM (which isn't much for video editing, especially given that the GPU uses the system RAM). Today's Mac Pro goes up to 1.5TB (and has dedicated video RAM above this). If the Mac Pro is say, 4 Ultra's stacked together - that means the new Mac Pro will be capped at 512GB of RAM. Would Apple stack 12 Ult…

Production houses working on massive projects will get the Pro. Anyone else will get the Studio and use proxy clips.

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#252

Post by ilamont »

rconti wrote: post #61
areoform wrote: post #22

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.…

It's insane how boldly (for Apple) they focused on ports and cables. I can't remember a previous demo video that showed so many ugly cables hanging out the back of the machine. They've finally realized it's a selling point!

My jaw hit the floor when I saw USB A ports. If only it had multiple HDMI ...

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#253

Post by JAlexoid »

yurishimo wrote: post #153
borodi wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So 3090 price for 3060 performance, doesn't sound very promising. I wish we could exploit those gpus easier for compute, but compute with metal is simply not there, at least for now.

It's not priced like a 3090 though? There's an entire computer there and the CPU performance is no slouch, even if the GPU may be lacking for what gamers want today.

You're right, it's priced higher than RTX3090. Because HP sells the whole system with RTX3090 at $2909 right now.

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#254

Post by rfoo »

nextos wrote: post #136
areoform wrote: post #22

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.…

This is very interesting because PC workstations have been stagnating for quite long! It'd be cool to be able to bring medium-sized tasks back from clouds to personal computers. The CPU performance is impressive but I wonder how well it'd fare against say an AMD ThreadRipper or a dual socket system with an equivalent price? It'd be also interesting to see a deep learning benchmark against Nvidia. Branding and RAM lim…

Depending on your use case. Assuming no video editing (since this is HN), for equivalent performance I guess they can't beat their rivals on price. Different story for power tho.

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#255

Post by mynameisvlad »

MBCook wrote: post #224
mynameisvlad wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, the height (3.7") is just above a 2U (3.5") rack. It's also not a multiple of a Mac Mini height (1.4") which means you'll have some leftover space if you're replacing 3 Minis with one of these.

But most rack mounted Mac minis seem to be placed on their sides with space between each individual machine. Perhaps it still works in that orientation, just fewer per rack?

I was thinking that as well, but I believe they still use some sort of support to keep them propped in place, so not being an exact multiple means modifying them would be harder than, for instance, just cutting some of the vertical supports off to fit a 3xMini.

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#256

Post by cehrlich »

bogwog wrote: post #155

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…

Depends on what you compare it to.

A basic 8TB SSD is about $500, but it's also more than 10x slower than what's in the Mac. A fast 8TB SSD from Sabrent, which is still slower than what's in the Mac, is about $1800.

Of course not everyone needs a blazing fast SSD for all their stuff. But that's why it has USB ports in the back.

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#257

Post by duskwuff »

gzer0 wrote: post #62
ejb999 wrote: post #42

I'd buy one in a second if only it would support running vmware fusion - I still have to have one foot in Windows world, and not being able to spin-up and old windows vm is a deal breaker for me. (M1 chips won't support it). Sure hope my latest macbookpro with intel chip lasts a while, I fear it may be one of the last ones they make.

Have you tried Parallels? It works incredibly well on the M1 macs. https://www.parallels.com/

ARM versions of Parallels can only run ARM VMs. They can't run x86 VMs.

Parallels' marketing site does not make this very clear.

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#258

Post by brailsafe »

ilamont wrote: post #252
rconti wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's insane how boldly (for Apple) they focused on ports and cables. I can't remember a previous demo video that showed so many ugly cables hanging out the back of the machine. They've finally realized it's a selling point!

My jaw hit the floor when I saw USB A ports. If only it had multiple HDMI ...

What would you use multiple HDMI ports for? Do you exclusively use HDMI only screens/tv?

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#259

Post by gigatexal »

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #242
cj wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> $8k for 128GB RAM, 8 TB solid state storage Maybe not, but 32GB RAM + 512GB SSD for $2k is a pretty competitive price point.

a 512 gb ssd is kinda inexcusable in a machine that costs more than $1000 1tb of ssd is only around $100.

But ssd is not 100 usd gumstick from of the shelf it’s integrated and sports speeds of 7.4GB/s at the top end. Shrug

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#260

Post by gigatexal »

efficax wrote: post #244
NorwegianDude wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$8k for 128GB RAM, 8 TB solid state storage and 22 trillion ops/sec isn't exactly a bargain. I do however image that the performance per watt will be really good.

Try and price out a PC with those specs, it will come in around $6k minimum, but much more power intensive and very very loud

Don’t feed the “but I can build a pc for less” crowd. They can’t see the apples to oranges comparison they’re making: a Mac is not a PC. They have different use-cases and run different software.
Post reply on HN