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

331–340 of 734 posts

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#331

Post by mhh__ »

ggreg84 wrote: post #154
yewenjie wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, how and why did Apple suddenly become cost-effective?

When the M1 was released... a year ago... You could buy a 900$ laptop with a better CPU than any laptop out there. 20 hours battery life (almost 3x any other laptop out there). Silent (no fans). With a great screen, a great keyboard, lightweight, well built, etc. Basically a machine that was more than 2x cheaper of competing laptops at 2500 $ or more, yet had more than 2x of everything.

2x of everything apart from storage, ram, available software, ability to upgrade, ability to repair.

It was a fantastic product launch sure but it's not really fair to say it was 2x better on all metrics at a given price.

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#332

Post by mhh__ »

jachee wrote: post #87
Tiktaalik wrote: post #52

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.

Why would you spend a huge chunk of your R&D money supporting a platform with users who don't game built by a company that won't spend a tiny amount of their R&D budget supporting industry standard technology that's been established for years.

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#333

Post by cududa »

unfocussed_mike wrote: post #196
yurishimo wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They released a new Mac Pro in 2019. I think there is a strong possibility for a revision late this year or next year.

OK but to what end? Looking at the Mac Studio... what would an M1-based, drop-in Mac Pro replacement offer on top? That sounds like a tail-end product. It's not like 2022 Apple is the kind of business that announces deep partnerships with graphics card makers. It feels more to me like we're going to see either something that is half-rack-half-Mac, or something with major developments in neural engine hardware, or som…

CGI, CAD, rendering, driving huge screens, running live sporting events, scientific workloads, massive simultaneous automated app testing, etc. Just because you can’t imagine why someone would need that much compute doesn’t mean the use cases don’t exist.

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#334

Post by kjagiello »

drorco wrote: post #287
brailsafe wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I haven't yet seen screens with USB-C support that have refresh rates higher than 60hz, unfortunately.

Check out Gigabyte M28U/M32U. 4k & 144 Hz. DisplayPort over USB-C. Supports alt-mode.

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#335

Post by goosedragons »

throwanem wrote: post #284
adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

A terabyte of dead-slow and flaky SSD costs a hundred bucks, sure. But it doesn't matter much because, in the kinds of professional workflows this machine is targeting, local storage is more like swap space than anything. It needs to be fast more than it needs to be big.

A 1TB Samsung 980 Pro is $150 retail and arguably overpriced. 512GB in a $2000 computer is a joke in 2022.

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#336

Post by yborg »

brailsafe wrote: post #289
gigatexal wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No, it's a $200-400 gumstick that you can get off the shelf https://www.newegg.com/seagate-2tb-firecuda-530/p/N82E168202...

The Apple upgrade cost to 1TB is also $200.

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#337

Post by fastball »

cpuguy83 wrote: post #292
unfocussed_mike wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I simply forgot that they made it. I forgot a lot of stuff in 2020 and 2021, like most people. But by extension I certainly don't remember it being "super well received", or I'd probably have remembered it at all. Either way: look at it. It's a tower PC. Do you think the current Apple trajectory has any meaningful room for that? What are people going to really be putting in it except disks?

"I forgot about it so it must not be great". It's an amazing machine. It's an incredibly expensive machine, but still amazing. > Do you think the current Apple trajectory has any meaningful room for that? Are you upset that you think Apple is going to stop making something that you forgot they made, except there is absolutely 0 evidence that they will stop making it? We know for a fact that they are going to release…

They've been very pragmatic ever since Jony Ive left.

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#338

Post by goosedragons »

gigatexal wrote: post #260
efficax wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No post body was provided.

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#339

Post by yborg »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #184
MuffinFlavored wrote: post #108

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.

Your setup is also probably 5x larger and uses 100W more power. It's a question of priorities.

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#340

Post by neogodless »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #184
MuffinFlavored wrote: post #108

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.

The 5800X is 8-core, while the 5900X is 12-core.

You may have misread the number of cores on the box when you bought it!

If you go into task manager, how many logical threads are there?

Post reply on HN