# Mac mini vs. Mac Studio



## gollum

My iMac needs replacing, as it's old, and it's time.  I'm not sure what the differences are between the mini, studio.  I don't have a laptop nor do I need one, so the Mac Book Pro is not something I'm considering.

Would I be better off with the studio?  My thinking is that the studio will last longer being more powerful.  My iMac is 10 years old, so getting a decade out of my next purchase would be ideal. 

Any red flags or items to be concerned about with the Studio?


----------



## Cmaier

No red flags with the studio, but it’s difficult to suggest a course of action without knowing what you will do with the machine. Given the price difference, you may be better off going with the cheapest possible mini and upgrading every couple of years, depending on how much power you actually need.  That way you would have software support the entire time, and get the benefit of new technologies that come along (new ports, new wireless protocols, more memory, etc.)


----------



## Eric

I went with the Studio because of all the photography and raw file editing needed a beefier machine than my 7 year old Intel iMac, but if it weren't for that I could've lived with it for a couple more years I'm sure. I personally buy for the long haul though, after 10 years it's safe to say everything is pretty much obsolete in computer years but like Cmaier says, it really depends on usage, if one is using basic apps and web browsing then there's no need to go for something so powerful.


----------



## DT

One thing I'd mention is if you decide to go with a Mini, and you've got some time to wait, keep an eye out on the Apple refurb store.  Basically "new" machines, full warranty, can add AC+, at a 14-15% discount.  The trick is catching the config you want in stock (like right now I checked, and there's zero Minis in the refurb store).

I kind of have a hard time recommending an 8GB machine, that's the entry level M1 Mini RAM, I know the M1 is capable, the storage is fast, but it can't be upgraded later, for the $200 add, I'd go with 16GB.  Then it's storage, there's a 256GB and 512GB options (or more), but again, for the $200, I'd go with the 512GB to give you some breathing room.  That's a $1099 machine, or a ~$945 as a refurb, that's ~50% cheaper than a Studio but the latter has 32GB RAM and is an M1 Pro.  I think the cost difference is justified in terms of performance/ports/RAM, it's more of a case of does that extra $1000 buy you anything in terms of your usage.  For many people, the answer is probably no.


----------



## gollum

Cmaier said:


> , but it’s difficult to suggest a course of action without knowing what you will do with the machine.



Oh of course.

Some 3d work, cad stuff.  I'm getting more into 3d printing, so I need some capability there.  Adobe Creative cloud, etc.  Of course the normal minor stuff like email, online krapola and what not.


----------



## gollum

DT said:


> keep an eye out on the Apple refurb store



I'm not familiar with apple refurbs, I may be a bit too nervous about spending a lot of money for someone else's problem


DT said:


> I kind of have a hard time recommending an 8GB machine



I think in this day and age, it is hard to consider 8gb.


----------



## SuperMatt

gollum said:


> Oh of course.
> 
> Some 3d work, cad stuff.  I'm getting more into 3d printing, so I need some capability there.  Adobe Creative cloud, etc.  Of course the normal minor stuff like email, online krapola and what not.



Absolutely the Studio then.


----------



## DT

gollum said:


> I'm not familiar with apple refurbs, I may be a bit too nervous about spending a lot of money for someone else's problem




I've used them for years (for mission critical work), and they're never a concern, they come out of the box like new.  In fact, some folks even suggest they're better, because they go through a second round of QA 

This Mini I'm currently using (I7/32GB/512GB), refurb, added AC+,  no issues, will be 3 years old the end of this year.  I had another Mini (one of the "white whale" quad-core 2012 models), refurb, worked for years until I sold, it have talked with the owner since, still working it's 8+ years old


----------



## Herdfan

gollum said:


> I'm not familiar with apple refurbs, I may be a bit too nervous about spending a lot of money for someone else's problem




My 2011 iMac, which was bought new, went through 2 video cards.  So when the 2nd one failed I decided to get a new machine.  That was a Late 2015 refurbished iMac that I bought in the summer of 2016.  It has been perfect.

Don't hesitate to get a refurb from Apple.  Slap AC on it and go on.


----------



## Roller

SuperMatt said:


> Absolutely the Studio then.



Agree, with one caveat: Apple may yet announce a higher-end Mac mini that may  be sufficient for much of what you do. I'd at least wait until WWDC in June to see what transpires.

I'll also add that while it's certainly possible to get 10 years of useful life out of a Mac, the latest OS won't be supported at some point, and Apple only provides security updates for 1 or 2 prior versions. This isn't just an academic consideration — Apple still hasn't released an update to patch Big Sur against some actively-exploited vulnerabilities. Your current iMac, and several newer iterations, are at risk.


----------



## Colstan

Since I switched to the Mac in late 2005, I've had four Mac minis, and am currently using a 2018 Intel base model that I've since upgraded with an eGPU, 64GB system memory, and an external SSD. I got the base model because the rumors of the transition to ARM were strong, but I decided to prolong its life span by holding it together with "sticks and bubble gum". It has issues, but nothing I can't work around.

I'm a causious person, so I typically wait a couple of revisions before purchasing new tech. Since I'm doing fine with my current mini, I'm going to be waiting for TSMC's 3nm process and I assume what will be an M3. That being said, you're far more in need of a new machine than I am. It depends upon your use case and how demanding the programs you use are.

Since you've waited a decade already, I'd recommend waiting until Apple replaces the high-end Intel Mac mini that still sits in their lineup. Some rumors point to that being replaced with an M2 Pro, which would sit right between the segment occupied by the Studio and the base mini, with a price to match. Assuming that device ever becomes reality, that's perhaps what I would be looking at.


----------



## Nycturne

I’ll also add in my voice for the refurb. Apple and Nintendo in particular are companies I’d absolutely have zero issues buying refurbs from. Apple because they back it with a full warranty and I’ve had no issues with refurbs from them, Nintendo because I happen to know folks who’ve worked in their US repairs dept that handles repairs and refurbs.  

My first refurb was a Power Mac 8600 which lasted 7+ years before it was retired, despite never being supported by OS X, thanks to Linux. I’ve bought other refurbs over the years, and I tend to have worse luck with new when it comes to issues (fan issues being the common one I keep hitting with MBPs right out of the box). 

If the company does their work properly, a refurb has been given a once over replacing any iffy parts and run through QC diagnostics similar to when they come off the line, but no random sampling will be applied to refurbs as may be the case with new. Now, if we are talking about 3rd party refurbished (say, GameStop refurbished console hardware), then things change quite a bit there…


----------



## B01L

DT said:


> I kind of have a hard time recommending an 8GB machine, that's the entry level M1 Mini RAM, I know the M1 is capable, the storage is fast, but it can't be upgraded later, for the $200 add, I'd go with 16GB.  Then it's storage, there's a 256GB and 512GB options (or more), but again, for the $200, I'd go with the 512GB to give you some breathing room.  That's a $1099 machine, or a ~$945 as a refurb, that's ~50% cheaper than a Studio* but the latter has 32GB RAM and is an M1 Pro*.  I think the cost difference is justified in terms of performance/ports/RAM, it's more of a case of does that extra $1000 buy you anything in terms of your usage.  For many people, the answer is probably no.




The "low end" Mac Studio has a M1 Max SoC, not a M1 Pro SoC...


----------



## DT

B01L said:


> The "low end" Mac Studio has a M1 Max SoC, not a M1 Pro SoC...




Oops, yeah, you are correct, I keep forgetting the Studio is either a Max or Ultra, that it doesn't start with a Pro (i.e., there's not 3 starting configs).

That's an important point too because it leaves room for a potentially updated Mini with an M1 Pro.  It would have a better CPU/GPU that the current M1 machine, while slotting in under the "base" Studio, a really stout general purpose machine that's a good choice for developers, easily handles moderate graphic chores, 16GB/512GB OOTB (with applicable upgrade options).


----------



## Cmaier

New Mac mini reference spotted in Studio Display firmware | AppleInsider
					

A reference to an as-yet unannounced new Mac mini has been found, backing up rumors of a revised model being launched soon.




					appleinsider.com


----------



## DT

Cmaier said:


> New Mac mini reference spotted in Studio Display firmware | AppleInsider
> 
> 
> A reference to an as-yet unannounced new Mac mini has been found, backing up rumors of a revised model being launched soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> appleinsider.com




Any ideas about the roadmap for M2?  By that, I mean, if a new, higher performance Mini is shown at WWDC, is it more likely to be M1 Pro or M2[?]


----------



## Cmaier

DT said:


> Any ideas about the roadmap for M2?  By that, I mean, if a new, higher performance Mini is shown at WWDC, is it more likely to be M1 Pro or M2[?]



I think it would have to be M2 based. Those cores have been ready for a very long time. And I think for product differentiation they will keep the minis at the lower core counts and the studios at higher. 

I also think the Mac Pro has to be M2 based for technical reasons, and they will introduce other M2 based machines before or simultaneously with that.


----------



## Runs For Fun

I would definitely go with the Mac Studio. But maybe wait until after WWDC to see if they announce that updated Mini. Otherwise definitely the Studio. Regarding Apple refurbs, I have never owned one personally but I have heard nothing but good things about them. Only Apple refurbished though, I wouldn't trust a refurbished from a third party.


----------



## Renzatic

This is interesting. I recommend you turn on subtitles right away though.


----------



## Yoused

Cmaier said:


> I also think the Mac Pro has to be M2 based for technical reasons



Have you seen any tech info on the M2 P-core μArch yet? I kinda wonder if there might be a no-E-core SoC for some desk-targeted M2s.


----------



## Cmaier

Yoused said:


> Have you seen any tech info on the M2 P-core μArch yet? I kinda wonder if there might be a no-E-core SoC for some desk-targeted M2s.




Nope,. Haven’t seen anything yet. Just the paltry info we have about A15.


----------



## mr_roboto

I've mentioned it over at the other place, but I think there's a good chance that M2 family chips will be built with A16 generation CPU and GPU cores.  Since A10X, Apple has maintained a pattern with alternating years: odd-numbered generations of A-series chips were iPhone / low end iPad only, while even generations also had a second tapeout of the bigger 'X'/'Z' chip for high end iPad.  M1 was really A14X, so if this pattern continues A16X is M2.

Obviously that might have been a temporary thing, but it makes some kind of sense to me that they might want to keep doing it.  Reduces how many tapeouts they have to do, and each Mac can live with a major refresh every 2 years.


----------



## Cmaier

mr_roboto said:


> I've mentioned it over at the other place, but I think there's a good chance that M2 family chips will be built with A16 generation CPU and GPU cores.  Since A10X, Apple has maintained a pattern with alternating years: odd-numbered generations of A-series chips were iPhone / low end iPad only, while even generations also had a second tapeout of the bigger 'X'/'Z' chip for high end iPad.  M1 was really A14X, so if this pattern continues A16X is M2.
> 
> Obviously that might have been a temporary thing, but it makes some kind of sense to me that they might want to keep doing it.  Reduces how many tapeouts they have to do, and each Mac can live with a major refresh every 2 years.



It’s possible. But a lot of the changes to a15 made little sense for the phone but make a lot of sense if your intention is to scale frequency upward (for macs)


----------



## Joelist

I see that it is an iMac being replaced? If yes then perhaps a specced up iMac 24 is a closer match?


----------



## B01L

gollum said:


> My iMac needs replacing...
> My iMac is 10 years old...





Cmaier said:


> ...difficult to suggest a course of action without knowing what you will do with the machine.





gollum said:


> ...3d work, cad stuff.  I'm getting more into 3d printing, so I need some capability there.  Adobe Creative cloud, etc.  Of course the normal minor stuff like email, online krapola and what not.




Mac Studio would be the choice then, but if you can wait until after WWDC, there may be other options, Mn Pro-powered Mac mini perhaps...?



Yoused said:


> Have you seen any tech info on the M2 P-core μArch yet? I kinda wonder if there might be a no-E-core SoC for some desk-targeted M2s.





Cmaier said:


> Nope,. Haven’t seen anything yet. Just the paltry info we have about A15.





Cmaier said:


> It’s possible. But a lot of the changes to a15 made little sense for the phone but make a lot of sense if your intention is to scale frequency upward (for macs)




Higher clocks for desktop models would be a Good Thing...!



Joelist said:


> I see that it is an iMac being replaced? If yes then perhaps a specced up iMac 24 is a closer match?




In form factor only, OP usage requirements (see above) would indicate the Mac Studio a better choice...


----------



## Colstan

Gurman is leaking again, this time with model numbers for Macs that are showing up in third-party logs for programs from the App Store. Relevant to this discussion are the new Mac mini models:

A Mac mini with an M2 chip, codenamed J473. There’s also an "M2 Pro" variation, codenamed J474, in testing. Gurman claims that the standard M2 will have 8 CPU cores, unchanged from the M1, while upping the GPU count from 8 cores to 9 or 10 cores. In a previous article, he said that the M2 Pro would feature 12 CPU cores, up from 10 in the M1 Pro, while the GPU core count would remain unchanged at 16 cores.
Apple is also testing a Mac mini with an M1 Pro chip, the same processor used in the entry-level 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pros today. That machine is codenamed J374. The company has tested an M1 Max version of the Mac mini as well, but the new Mac Studio may make these machines redundant.
This is my own speculation, but I imagine that we have seen the last of the M1 line, so the M2 Mac minis are the models that are of interest. I suggested earlier in this thread that an M2 Pro version might fill the void between the standard Mac mini and the Mac Studio. This model could have a good price/performance ratio. The last remaining Intel Mac mini with a 6-core i5 is currently $1,100. The M2 Pro will likely replace the Intel model and have a price in the same neighborhood, adjusted for inflation, perhaps starting at around $1,200. That fills a hole in the desktop lineup and would be an attractive option.


----------



## Yoused

This is starting to feel a bit like the mid '90s, when a person would buy a PC and it would be nearly obsolete by the time they got the box into the trunk. I want to get one, but not too soon.


----------



## Cmaier

Yoused said:


> This is starting to feel a bit like the mid '90s, when a person would buy a PC and it would be nearly obsolete by the time they got the box into the trunk. I want to get one, but not too soon.



Given that the average M1-based mac is already faster than the vast majority of desktop/laptop computers for most use cases, saying that they are “obsolete” when M2 machines come out is a bit of a stretch.  M2 will likely beat M1 by no more than 15%-20% on a per-core basis.


----------



## Yoused

Cmaier said:


> Given that the average M1-based mac is already faster than the vast majority of desktop/laptop computers for most use cases, saying that they are “obsolete” when M2 machines come out is a bit of a stretch.  M2 will likely beat M1 by no more than 15%-20% on a per-core basis.



Apple will add some sort of ASIC subunit/complex that does some little thing that no one had considered before because the job is so very specific, but when tied into macOS, the performance gain will be impressive. I believe they have people studying these corner strategies for making the overall performance faster by offloading niggling little housework-type things to specialized logic because they are building for a specific OS, something other SoC vendors just cannot really do.


----------



## Colstan

Cmaier said:


> Given that the average M1-based mac is already faster than the vast majority of desktop/laptop computers for most use cases



The Apple Studio Display with an A13 is faster than most PCs currently in use.


Yoused said:


> This is starting to feel a bit like the mid '90s, when a person would buy a PC and it would be nearly obsolete by the time they got the box into the trunk. I want to get one, but not too soon.



This is a good thing, because we had over a half-decade of stagnation because Intel couldn't innovate and nobody was pushing them. My philosophy has always been to use what you have for as long as possible, then when you need something new, get the best computer you can reasonably afford, and then enjoy it to the fullest. I'm currently looking to switch during the theoretical M3 generation. I typically wait for version three of any new technology, which includes TSMC's next major node, most software will have native ARM support, and Apple Silicon Macs will have supplanted x86 systems in total market share. That being said, the first generation has been amazing and I'm really looking forward to how Apple builds upon their early successes.


----------



## Yoused

I kind of wish Apple would go up against Qualcomm and release an SoC to the general market that was _almost_ as good as the M series – like, 2 generations behind but still better than most ARM SoCs out there, just to spur interest in developing for the arch. They could do it "surreptitiously" through a shell company. Just, anything to get the broader community moving off of their x86 addiction. x86 just needs to go the way of the Z800000.


----------



## B01L

I have been going over the numbers for a Mn Pro Mac mini, and I will finally admit defeat...! ;^p

At this point it seems the only logical solution might be for the Mac mini to remain the domain of the base Mn SoC, and the Mn Pro SoC is added as a low-end option for the Mac Studio chassis...?

A Mac Studio with the following specs could be the new entry-level (for the Mac Studio, not overall):

Double-binned M1 Pro SoC
8-core CPU (6P/2E)
14-core GPU
16GB LPDDR5 SDRAM
512GB NVMe SSD
$1099
If Apple were to offer this low-end Mac studio with Gigabit Ethernet (rather than the stock 10GbE, but that $100 upgrade is available!), then the Mac Studio could have three entry tiers:

M1 Pro @ $999
M1 Max @ $1999
M1 Ultra @ $3999


----------



## Nycturne

I guess I remain skeptical here. Does the Mn Pro need the extra heatsink and cooling? Is the Mac Mini going to go with a smaller cooler with a redesign that precludes being able to cool an Mn Pro? Because of the larger size, if you can fit ~two Mac Minis on a palette for every Mac Studio, and the Mac Mini can house an Mn Pro, why use the larger chassis and pay more in unit costs (both material and logistics) if it isn’t necessary? Tim Cook of all people would be well aware of that angle. 

An Mn Pro Mini would also happen to fill a role the 2018 Mac Mini was really good at as being a rack-friendly Mac for the various things you _have_ to do on Apple hardware that Amazon, Mac Stadium and others provide. Maybe Apple wants to carve out a good chunk of that market with Xcode Cloud, but who knows.

I could be wrong, and we will see how this plays out. But I‘m also happy to sit and wait. All I really know is that I’d really appreciate either getting access to Xcode Cloud, or an Mn Pro Mini/Studio as a SOHO server.


----------



## Yoused

Nycturne said:


> if you can fit ~two Mac Minis on a palette for every Mac Studio, and the Mac Mini can house an Mn Pro, why use the larger chassis




The M1 Pro only appears in 14 & 16 MBPs. Studios start with Max, which looks to be just shy twice the size of Pro. Most likely the bulkiness of the Studio is because of a way-over-specced cooling system, in an effort to make them as quiet as possible (and a bit of cya).


----------



## B01L

Yoused said:


> The M1 Pro only appears in 14 & 16 MBPs. Studios start with Max, which looks to be just shy twice the size of Pro. Most likely the bulkiness of the Studio is because of a way-over-specced cooling system, in an effort to make them as quiet as possible (and a bit of cya).




Watch a teardown video of the Mac Studio, it is a dense bit of engineering...

The cooling system is engineered for the M1 Ultra SoC; but the heat sink is different between the M1 Max & M1 Ultra models (aluminum versus copper), the blower fans are the same for either model...

This heat sink / blower fans combo takes up a good portion of the top of the internals in the Mac Studio chassis, probably a Mac mini worth of space... ;^p


----------



## Cmaier

B01L said:


> Watch a teardown video of the Mac Studio, it is a dense bit of engineering...
> 
> The cooling system is engineered for the M1 Ultra SoC; but the heat sink is different between the M1 Max & M1 Ultra models (aluminum versus copper), the blower fans are the same for either model...
> 
> This heat sink / blower fans combo takes up a good portion of the top of the internals in the Mac Studio chassis, probably a Mac mini worth of space... ;^p




Part of the issue with the thermal engineering on the studio is the aspect ratio. Because the width and length of the studio are fairly short, they had to go vertical with the air flow.  If they made the box more of a pizza box (like the old sun workstations), they could have gotten away with the cooling solution taking a smaller proportion of the overall volume, I think.  I think it’s even technically feasible to stick an ultra in something like an iMac Pro (though it would probably have to be moderately thicker than recent iMacs).  

Thermal engineering is really interesting because geometry plays a very important role.  You need to move a sufficient current of air, and the airflow has to be turbulant, not laminar.  You can get the current you need by increasing air volume or increasing air speed, and that choice affects noise.  Fun stuff.


----------



## Yoused

Cmaier said:


> the airflow has to be turbulant, not laminar




So maybe you want the fans to be slightly out of phase with each other – which woud also have the benefit of making what noise the air does produce non-periodic but more randomish.


----------



## Renzatic

Yoused said:


> ...which woud also have the benefit of making what noise the air does produce non-periodic but more randomish.




That could end up being worse. A constant hum has the advantage of turning into background noise you can easily tune out, while a constantly changing pitch will always make itself known.


----------



## Joelist

I have to think the big issue is use case. The M1 Mac Mini gives a VERY performant machine in most normal use cases. The Studio is aimed more at specific use cases.


----------



## Eric

I'll just say that after working with the Mac Studio for the last week it's been awesome to have PS, LR and GarageBand all up and running with no lag whatsoever.


----------



## Citysnaps

Eric said:


> I'll just say that after working with the Mac Studio for the last week it's been awesome to have PS, LR and GarageBand all up and running with no lag whatsoever.




Which configuration do you have? And is there anything about it that you don't like or annoys/bugs you?


----------



## MEJHarrison

Eric said:


> I'll just say that after working with the Mac Studio for the last week it's been awesome to have PS, LR and GarageBand all up and running with no lag whatsoever.




I'm ready to order.  Have been since Friday.  I'm just too on the fence on 1GB vs. 2GB.  I keep going back and forth on the extra $400.  Do I get too much space now to prepare for the future, or do I just get external storage when the time comes?  I'd like to get some external storage for backups anyway.  

I need to hop off the fence and just order the damn thing!


----------



## Eric

citypix said:


> Which configuration do you have? And is there anything about it that you don't like or annoys/bugs you?



The base configuration because if I wanted the 1TB hard drive I would've had to wait but it hasn't really been a problem because I have so much external storage.


It's hard to find anything to complain about with this system as it's exceeding my expectations, as you probably know I live in Adobe LR and like to run other high powered apps at the same time which has so far proven not to be an issue at all. 

A couple of things that are less than adequate are the sound, you'll need speakers, frankly my iPhone puts out more or at least it seems that way. The other is the onboard card reader is super slow compared to my older iMac for some reason (using the same card for both) but neither of these things are deal breakers for me, more trivial than anything.


----------



## Clix Pix

The card reader situation is easy to resolve:  just buy a decent external card reader, which is going to be significantly faster and more up to date than one included in any computer.  I've always used external card readers, never bothered with those included in computers or printers.


----------



## Eric

Clix Pix said:


> The card reader situation is easy to resolve:  just buy a decent external card reader, which is going to be significantly faster and more up to date than one included in any computer.  I've always used external card readers, never bothered with those included in computers or printers.



Yeah that's what I'll probably end up doing.


----------



## MEJHarrison

Eric said:


> ...I have so much external storage.




How do you like that?  Is it quick?  I'm thinking of going with external storage, but I didn't know if I'd notice a difference or not.  It will probably be photo libraries, so I'm thinking I won't even notice.  But if I will, I'd rather just go for internal storage.


----------



## Eric

MEJHarrison said:


> How do you like that?  Is it quick?  I'm thinking of going with external storage, but I didn't know if I'd notice a difference or not.  It will probably be photo libraries, so I'm thinking I won't even notice.  But if I will, I'd rather just go for internal storage.



For me it's a must because of the amount of photos I have and it's worked out great on both my old iMac and the new one alike. When one starts getting close to capacity I just add another, usually one from Costco.


----------



## Clix Pix

I absolutely survive because of external drives to retain most of the images I shoot and other files that I don't need to have right on the computer at all times.   This makes a huge difference!   Having external drives adds flexibility, too, for shuffling things around as needed and yet everything is still right there, ready for quick access if need be.  I do not keep my external drives plugged in;  I only plug them in when I'm ready to add something, retrieve something or make some changes.


----------



## Yoused

I was putting my pictures on the Time Capsule, which was very handy until the '07 Westell dsl modem bought the farm. I got a replacement from the ISP, but it naturally has wifi built in, so the TC has become kind of an orphan.

And, of course, my roommate got into my pictures and decided they needed cute, descriptive names, which pissed me off no end. Plus, somehow he managed to get a raw ":" into one of the names, so that file is no longer accessible and cannot be renamed or even deleted.


----------



## mr_roboto

Clix Pix said:


> The card reader situation is easy to resolve:  just buy a decent external card reader, which is going to be significantly faster and more up to date than one included in any computer.  I've always used external card readers, never bothered with those included in computers or printers.



The Gensys Logic GL9755A card reader chip they've been putting in Apple Silicon Macs with a SD reader seems like it has decent specs, but it hasn't been living up to those specs in practice.  The problem is that while the GL9755A supports Gen 1 (2.5 Gbps) and Gen 2 (5.0 Gbps) PCIe speeds, for some reason in M1 systems the PCIe link frequently only negotiates the Gen 1 link speed even though both ends should be capable of Gen 2.

The theoretical limit of UHS-II is 312 MB/s.  PCIe Gen 1 is 250 MB/s max per lane, actually less in practice.  This is a significant limit, there's a reason why the GL9755A uses Gen2x1.

It's not clear what's going on here and whether Apple can fix it with something like a firmware update.


----------



## Clix Pix

Well, whenever I finally do get around to buying a new M1 14" or 16" MBP or the Mac Studio, the SD slot will remain unused.  I have a Sony dual CFExpress Type A / SD card reader since the A1 uses the CFE cards and/or SD cards and my other cameras all use SD cards.


----------



## Citysnaps

What are these things called SD cards and readers?   Just kidding, and poking a little fun!  

It is nice, though, air-dropping a wad of image files into a LR folder on my Mac.   I may be back if the next gen RX1R is ever released and pretty neat.


----------



## Nycturne

I am reliant on external storage as well, but for me it's been a NAS. Useful little appliance.


----------



## Cmaier

Nycturne said:


> I am reliant on external storage as well, but for me it's been a NAS. Useful little appliance.



Me too. I use a big synology NAS.


----------



## Roller

I’ve been very satisfied with my Mac Studio Ultra. Tomorrow I’ll get to see how it compares to the Max at work. It came in a couple months early.


----------



## throAU

gollum said:


> My iMac needs replacing, as it's old, and it's time.  I'm not sure what the differences are between the mini, studio.  I don't have a laptop nor do I need one, so the Mac Book Pro is not something I'm considering.
> 
> Would I be better off with the studio?  My thinking is that the studio will last longer being more powerful.  My iMac is 10 years old, so getting a decade out of my next purchase would be ideal.
> 
> Any red flags or items to be concerned about with the Studio?




If you're getting by with a 10 year old iMac, clearly performance is not a major concern; buy the mini for 1/4 the price and upgrade it in 5 years instead of 10 to something likely 2x the performance of the current studio at that point in time for half the price - with a refreshed warranty.


----------



## fischersd

+1 on the NAS front - had a Synology DS2413+ when I lived in Onterrible.  Likely going to pull the trigger on that again soon - but likely not the same scale. . Drives are bigger now...hmm....but 4k Atmos files are bigger.  I should do the math on what it would take to replace the 2500+ 1080p movie library I had with 4k. 

Edit:  Oh, and on-topic.  Still waiting for a mini that supports HDMI 2.1 with 120Hz refresh for 4k.  Ludicrous that we're still waiting for Apple to do that.  *sigh*


----------



## Cmaier

fischersd said:


> +1 on the NAS front - had a Synology DS2413+ when I lived in Onterrible.  Likely going to pull the trigger on that again soon - but likely not the same scale. . Drives are bigger now...hmm....but 4k Atmos files are bigger.  I should do the math on what it would take to replace the 2500+ 1080p movie library I had with 4k.
> 
> Edit:  Oh, and on-topic.  Still waiting for a mini that supports HDMI 2.1 with 120Hz refresh for 4k.  Ludicrous that we're still waiting for Apple to do that.  *sigh*




I have two ds3612’s and a ds2419.  Note that there is a big controversy with the ds2422  - it doesn’t fully support drives not on its hardware compatibility list, and with one exception the only drives on its list are drives sold by synology.   SMART functionality is disabled if the drive isn’t on the list.  There is a workaround (ssh into the box and edit a file), but it’s not very clean and needs to be repeated if the software updates (and that loophole may be closed someday).

The good news is that these things last forever (as evidence by the 2012-vintage ds3612’s that still work), but as tech changes (e.g. high capacity hard drives have their mount holes in the wrong place for the sleds in those old boxes, and DSM 7 is not supported on them - though I don’t run that on my 2019 box either), makes me nervous about synology’s high capacity boxes in the future.


----------



## fischersd

Cmaier said:


> I have two ds3612’s and a ds2419.  Note that there is a big controversy with the ds2422  - it doesn’t fully support drives not on its hardware compatibility list, and with one exception the only drives on its list are drives sold by synology.   SMART functionality is disabled if the drive isn’t on the list.  There is a workaround (ssh into the box and edit a file), but it’s not very clean and needs to be repeated if the software updates (and that loophole may be closed someday).
> 
> The good news is that these things last forever (as evidence by the 2012-vintage ds3612’s that still work), but as tech changes (e.g. high capacity hard drives have their mount holes in the wrong place for the sleds in those old boxes, and DSM 7 is not supported on them - though I don’t run that on my 2019 box either), makes me nervous about synology’s high capacity boxes in the future.



Yeah - there were a couple reviews on Amazon on the 2422 that made it clear that Synology is playing some games.  Not in a hurry for the NAS - need the Mac Mini first...and that's a waiting game.  It'll give me the time to see what Synology is up to and look at alternatives.  Never had any issues with the 2413, but if they're going to be pulling some proprietary marketing BS, then I'll make sure they don't get my business.


----------



## Eric

Any of you guys using your NAS for LightRoom Catalog files? Basically, I would like to be able to open the catalog from any computer/device in the house and have all edits synced.


----------



## Cmaier

Eric said:


> Any of you guys using your NAS for LightRoom Catalog files? Basically, I would like to be able to open the catalog from any computer/device in the house and have all edits synced.




No, I keep the catalog, itself, on my mac and the backup goes to the NAS (the photos, themselves, are all on the NAS as well, including the sidecars, etc.)


----------



## Citysnaps

Eric said:


> Any of you guys using your NAS for LightRoom Catalog files? Basically, I would like to be able to open the catalog from any computer/device in the house and have all edits synced.




When the sheetrock was off our walls, I wired up rooms for that possibility with a MacMini in a closet that handles home automation stuff, and an Oyen 5 bay enclosure.  But... from what I've read catalogs must be local on the computer you're editing from (I have a few Macs as does my wife). And thus syncing catalogs would need to be done manually - a bit of a pain. And I'd sure hate to screw that up. Still haven't moved forward on that. But plan to soon.


----------



## Eric

citypix said:


> When the sheetrock was off our walls, I wired up rooms for that possibility with a MacMini in a closet that handles home automation stuff, and an Oyen 5 bay enclosure.  But... from what I've read catalogs must be local on the computer you're editing from (I have a few Macs as does my wife). And thus syncing catalogs would need to be done manually - a bit of a pain. And I'd sure hate to screw that up. Still haven't moved forward on that. But plan to soon.



I have read the same thing, my catalog is on an external drive (which was way easy when swapping to a new computer) but I've only ever accessed it from the computer it's attached to. Not a big deal though, the ability to seamlessly edit in LRC from any device would be my only real motivation for moving to NAS over external drives.


----------



## Citysnaps

Eric said:


> I have read the same thing, my catalog is on an external drive (which was way easy when swapping to a new computer) but I've only ever accessed it from the computer it's attached to. Not a big deal though, the ability to seamlessly edit in LRC from any device would be my only real motivation for moving to NAS over external drives.




Let me know what you end up doing and how you like it. I'm still not ready to get my plan moving.  And am always open to new/different ideas and architectures.

Not sure about using a 5 drive bay external enclosure on a Mini as a poor-man's NAS, rather than a real Synology or QNAP system.  But my needs are very modest - just images I can access from anywhere and a sync'd catalog. And time-machining all computers.

I can say the Mini has not skipped a beat doing HA and camera stuff 24/7 going on three years now.  Maybe I shouldn't be that impressed, but still...


----------



## Nycturne

citypix said:


> Not sure about using a 5 drive bay external enclosure on a Mini as a poor-man's NAS, rather than a real Synology or QNAP system.  But my needs are very modest - just images I can access from anywhere and a sync'd catalog. And time-machining all computers.




As someone who has attempted this, please just go with the Synology or QNAP. Using a Mini as a server is kinda a pain to manage compared to a NAS, so if you just need a file server, buy a file server. Especially if that external enclosure doesn’t have some sort of RAID support, because Apple’s RAID support is meh at best and dangerous at worst, so you’d be looking at SoftRAID or the like which has so far required a kernel extension. When Apple switched to APFS and containers, the ability to nest RAID arrays to create RAID 10 using Apple’s RAID got broken, so you’d need to stick to HFS+ and I’ll be honest, I’m not sure that works. It’s a headache. 

I have a NAS and a Mac Mini. I run VMs and Xcode Server on the Mini to get access to a better CPU for the handful of things that need it, and the NAS does all the file server work (including Plex, Channels DVR, etc).


----------



## Citysnaps

Nycturne said:


> please just go with the Synology or QNAP.




Thanks for you post - appreciate it.     Regarding Synology or QNAP, which do you prefer (and why)?  Any downsides? Ease of use is important for me - would be great if I didn't need to dig to deep into yet another system.  I understand Synology now requires their own blessed drives? 

Would be great if that was something that would sleep or could power down/wake up remotely.


----------



## Cmaier

citypix said:


> Thanks for you post - appreciate it.     Regarding Synology or QNAP, which do you prefer (and why)?  Any downsides? Ease of use is important for me - would be great if I didn't need to dig to deep into yet another system.  I understand Synology now requires their own blessed drives?
> 
> Would be great if that was something that would sleep or could power down/wake up remotely.



Synology is arguably easier-to-use. They only require blessed drives for their high end boxes (I think the 12-bay ones are the only ones right now).  I don’t think QNAP has a 12 bay box (at least not one that takes 12 3.5” disks), if that’s your thing.  I’ve never used QNAP but I hear good things.  No matter which you use, be sure to hook it up to a UPS.


----------



## Nycturne

citypix said:


> Thanks for you post - appreciate it.     Regarding Synology or QNAP, which do you prefer (and why)?  Any downsides?




I've owned both, and recently switched to Synology. QNAP's software is functional, but it has become increasingly user hostile as they try to address security gap. Increasingly intrusive notifications and nagging for updates. Anti-malware (that ties into the intrusive notifications) is not a bad addition, but has been shoehorned in.

I also value ease-of-use and management for a home office, so I'd generally recommend Synology for home office. Performance, especially on 1Gbps networks is going to be comparable, and they both support docker containers for things that aren't pre-packaged. I've been able to hook both up to B2 for off-site backups and they run without me even thinking about it. It really boils down to Synology's software has more polish and is more Apple-like to QNAP's Windows/Linux-like approach to the OS.



citypix said:


> Would be great if that was something that would sleep or could power down/wake up remotely.




I don't use this functionality, so I can't say how it works, unfortunately.

EDIT: I will say one thing that I like about Synology on DSM 7 vs QNAP is permissions management. QNAP's permissions are a bit of a black box and I've run into issues with packages/containers creating files that cannot be deleted by an admin user over SMB who has full access to the share. Whoops. Meanwhile, DSM 7 seems to create dedicated accounts (and shares) for packages, which took me a bit to wrap my head around. That said, once I did, it made a lot of sense from a security perspective.


----------



## Citysnaps

I found this tutorial on syncing LR photos _and catalog_ over multiple computers using a Synology NAS and Synology Drive.

Still soaking it in. And thinking about if the approach makes sense for me, using multiple computers using smart previews and identical sync'd catalogs, and also going on an occasional roadtrip.  It's a little convoluted, but not bad. Wondering if its something I might regret later on due to whatever going haywire. And of course having backups to recover if something does. Or if it just becomes annoying in daily use.

Feel free to share any thoughts.


----------



## MEJHarrison

I finally pulled the trigger.  I ordered the base Studio with 1TB of storage.  I have a June 10-20 delivery date.  So if something tempting does show up at WWDC, I still have some wiggle room to change my mind.


----------



## Cmaier

MEJHarrison said:


> I finally pulled the trigger.  I ordered the base Studio with 1TB of storage.  I have a June 10-20 delivery date.  So if something tempting does show up at WWDC, I still have some wiggle room to change my mind.



Nice. I‘m jealous.


----------



## Roller

MEJHarrison said:


> I finally pulled the trigger.  I ordered the base Studio with 1TB of storage.  I have a June 10-20 delivery date.  So if something tempting does show up at WWDC, I still have some wiggle room to change my mind.



I think you'll like it. I just got one at the office recently, and it's great. Certainly a lot better than than old iMac it replaced. It's also quiet, like the Ultra I have at home.


----------



## MEJHarrison

MEJHarrison said:


> I finally pulled the trigger.  I ordered the base Studio with 1TB of storage.  I have a June 10-20 delivery date.  So if something tempting does show up at WWDC, I still have some wiggle room to change my mind.




Now I have a May 18th delivery date.  The wiggle room is gone if it shows up on time, but I'm ok with that.


----------



## Colstan

According to Ming-Chi Kuo, Apple has halted plans to revamp the Mac mini. The supposed leaks of a new version with a plexiglass top never made much sense. It might have made it easier for Bluetooth/Wifi but stunk for thermals, where aluminum (or aloo-min-ee-um for our British friends) is much more efficient. I'm on my fourth Mac mini, and had two with the plastic tops, and the newer models are much improved. Even though there's now a giant cavity inside the M1 version, along with an over-spec'ed power supply, that allows room for an M2 Pro, if Apple wants to hit a price point between the Mac Studio and the mini. Regardless, if anyone was waiting for a redesign of the Mac mini, then according to Kuo, there's no reason to wait, at least as far as the enclosure is concerned.


----------



## Andropov

Colstan said:


> According to Ming-Chi Kuo, Apple has halted plans to revamp the Mac mini. The supposed leaks of a new version with a plexiglass top never made much sense. It might have made it easier for Bluetooth/Wifi but stunk for thermals, where aluminum (or aloo-min-ee-um for our British friends) is much more efficient.



I would expect the portion of the generated heat that is dissipated by the case itself to be minimal compared to what the internal heatsink + fan can dissipate. The G4 Cube, for example, was a fully acrylic case.


----------



## Nycturne

Colstan said:


> According to Ming-Chi Kuo, Apple has halted plans to revamp the Mac mini. The supposed leaks of a new version with a plexiglass top never made much sense. It might have made it easier for Bluetooth/Wifi but stunk for thermals, where aluminum (or aloo-min-ee-um for our British friends) is much more efficient. I'm on my fourth Mac mini, and had two with the plastic tops, and the newer models are much improved. Even though there's now a giant cavity inside the M1 version, along with an over-spec'ed power supply, that allows room for an M2 Pro, if Apple wants to hit a price point between the Mac Studio and the mini. Regardless, if anyone was waiting for a redesign of the Mac mini, then according to Kuo, there's no reason to wait, at least as far as the enclosure is concerned.




At least in the short term, another advantage to keeping the current chassis is it makes it easier for these Mac mini server farms to rotate out machines if there's a "standard" form factor. Although I don't think folks like Mac Stadium would complain for long if they can fit more minis in a rack, TBH.


----------



## MEJHarrison

Colstan said:


> According to Ming-Chi Kuo, Apple has halted plans to revamp the Mac mini.




I'm fine with it either way.  I ordered hoping my Studio would show up around WWDC time.  So if there was something new announced, I could return it for the better thing.  Since it's coming early, it's coming early.  I was prepared for that.  My thinking was if it comes early, then I end up with the machine I set out to get a couple months back.  No time for regrets.

If something does come out that fits more in my sweet spot at WWDC, then I end up "stuck" with a machine that is a little overpowered for my needs. Not the worst problem ever.  Better than waiting forever for the perfect Mac.


----------



## Yoused

Andropov said:


> The G4 Cube, for example, was a fully acrylic case.



Except that the Cube has a 2"x 4" oval vent in the top, and its logic board, video card and HD are vertical.


----------



## Colstan

MEJHarrison said:


> If something does come out that fits more in my sweet spot at WWDC, then I end up "stuck" with a machine that is a little overpowered for my needs. Not the worst problem ever.  Better than waiting forever for the perfect Mac.



The Mac Studio is an amazing machine, at least from what I have heard. It's the closest thing to the mythical "xMac" that Apple desktop users have wanted for the past two decades. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts on it, once you give it a test drive; please keep us updated. Even if Apple releases an M2 Mac mini, it won't be as powerful as the Mac Studio, and the M2 Pro/Max variant for high-end machines is probably some time off. Right now, Apple can't even fill orders for the current Mac Studios and MacBook Pros. The M2 will likely have some gains in single-core performance, as well as overall efficiency, but I suspect it won't be revolutionary over what the M1 offers.

I'm personally waiting until the M3 series are on the market. We are now starting to see software that is specifically designed for Apple Silicon, and won't work with x86 Macs. Sure, right now those titles apply to games, but according to the Steam survey from April, 39% of Mac gamers are already on Apple Silicon. (I'm not using Steam to represent the overall market, just the trend.) This is happening quicker than I had anticipated.

Whenever I do make the jump, I'll either be looking at the base Mac Studio, or an M(X) Pro version of the Mac mini, so I understand the internal debate that you are going through. There's nothing wrong with having a little too much power, and there's still no guarantee that the Mac mini will ever get a Pro chip. My philosophy has always been to purchase the best you can reasonably afford, enjoy it for as long as possible, and only upgrade when absolutely necessary. I'm still using a base model 2018 Intel Mac mini, and wish I had gotten the more advanced model, so right now I'm holding my Mac together with sticks and bubble gum. I had planned to use it for only two years, but now I'm going try to get at least five or more out of it.

So, I'm envious of your Mac Studio purchase and having a computer with a little extra headroom doesn't hurt, and it will almost certainly best the standard M2 in most tasks.


----------



## MEJHarrison

Colstan said:


> Whenever I do make the jump, I'll either be looking at the base Mac Studio, or an M(X) Pro version of the Mac mini, so I understand the internal debate that you are going through.




What I was really hoping for is a M1 Pro in a Studio form factor.  I like the extra ports on the Studio.  If I got a mini, the first thing I'd need is some hub to plug more stuff in.  I also like that the Studio starts at 32GB of RAM.  So for me an M1 Pro in a mini enclosure isn't as appealing.

But if I'm being completely honest, I do believe the M1 Pro would have been more than enough power for me.  Since I'm getting the Max instead, hopefully it will last me even a little bit longer.


----------



## Andropov

Yoused said:


> Except that the Cube has a 2"x 4" oval vent in the top, and its logic board, video card and HD are vertical.



Yeah, but it didn't even have a fan, the airflow was generated by convection only. Even a tiny low rpm fan can provide more airflow. And the SoC isn't thermally coupled to the case either, it can't possibly get hot enough to dissipate any meaningful amount of heat. This video shows the case reaching about ~30ºC after a CineBench benchmark. That's a ΔT of what, 10ºC vs ambient? In something that doesn't even have fins to get more surface area (the Cube had a massive internal heatsink to compensate for not having a fan, and was designed to use convection)... I don't think the case material matters much, they have enough headroom to make the case of whatever material they want.


----------



## Yoused

Andropov said:


> Yeah, but it didn't even have a fan, the airflow was generated by convection only. Even a tiny low rpm fan can provide more airflow.



Actually, in about '06, I replaced my 450 with a 1.2Ghz and a better graphics card, which allowed me to run Leopard – the upgrade came with a small fan, which was steady and all but completely inaudible.


----------



## Andropov

Yoused said:


> Actually, in about '06, I replaced my 450 with a 1.2Ghz and a better graphics card, which allowed me to run Leopard – the upgrade came with a small fan, which was steady and all but completely inaudible.



Yeah, mine had a fan too. Funny how the Cube shipped with the fan bracket but no fan in there. Mine had a 7447A @ 1.8GHz + Nvidia 6200. Searched for a 7448 for the longest of times, with no luck. Very nice machine. Sadly, the VRM board in mine died, and I haven't replaced it since.


----------



## MEJHarrison

MEJHarrison said:


> Now I have a May 18th delivery date.  The wiggle room is gone if it shows up on time, but I'm ok with that.




First was June 10-20
Then it was May 18th.
Then it go moved to tomorrow for a while.
Then it was moved to yesterday for a couple days.

As of now, it's actually here in Oregon and scheduled to be delivered this afternoon.  I do believe this is the day!


----------



## MEJHarrison

I finally got my Mac Studio yesterday.  But I wasn't able to play with it till this morning due to waiting on the Migration Assistant to finish.  But so far this morning I'm really loving it so far.


----------



## MEJHarrison

I've managed to push the memory pressure to the yellow.  I currently have the following opened:


Messages
Safari with 7 tabs open
Activity Monitor
Slack
VMWare Horizons
Microsoft Teams
Photos
iMovie
Music
Xcode
Notes
Mail
Calendar
Apple TV
Visual Studio Code
Apple Developer
App Store
Discord

In fairness, this is WAY more than I would normally have open.  But I wanted to get some of the bigger items running.  Also, I've got those spread across 10 different desktops.

It's still blowing cold air, no audible fan noise and is cold to the touch.  In comparison, the iMac next to it is running Slack and Teams, it's very warm on the back and the fans are quite noticeable. It's also still as zippy as it was when I had a single application open.

This thing is a beast.  I'm ready for the future.


----------



## fischersd

Heh...there should be a third option on the survey - wait for the mini that you want. 

...which pretty much personifies the "The new Mac mini is most certainly coming..." thread over on MR.

And, yes, I'm one of those waiting.  Not thrilled with Apple currently.  If I had about $18B in funding, I'd buy BlackBerry outright and create a 3rd ecosystem.  (We really do need a secure option that isn't a walled garden) 

My latest beef with Apple is that they wouldn't replace my fiancee's iPhone 13 Pro Max under AC+ (dropped, cracked screen under the glass, frame banged up).  It turns out if the frame is still functional enough that they can effect a screen repair, then that's all they'll do - regardless of your willingness to pay for the replacement.  "AppleCare+ doesn't cover cosmetic damage". Ummm....what?!?!?!
So, we didn't do the screen replacement and now she's running her device naked, until she has a drop that causes enough frame damage that AC+ will do what we want.

And, yes, not buying AC+ again for anything I buy again ever.  That's like not repainting your car after repairing the body work.  

Because, we don't buy Apple devices for how they look, right?  Heh.  I'm more than a little pissed about the whole experience.

(and, yes, I'm biased...8 years and 2 months of my life at BB...). If Mike and Jim would have listened to all of us, this would still be a 3 horse race.  (or Google wouldn't have even gotten out of the gate)


----------



## Andropov

MEJHarrison said:


> I've managed to push the memory pressure to the yellow.



Just checked mine (16" MBP M1 Pro), it's orange. Guess I should've gone with the 32GB version 

It's still snappy though


----------



## MEJHarrison

fischersd said:


> And, yes, not buying AC+ again for anything I buy again ever.




I've never purchased Apple Care.  I've had multiple iPhones starting with the 3G, 3-4 iPads, 2-3 watches, 2 MacBook Pros, 1 iMac, Apple TV, AirPort Extreme, etc.  Out of all those devices, I've needed Apple Care twice.  Once my boss pushed me into a swimming pool with my phone in my pocket.  The other was a broken screen after dropping my XS Max.  I just ended up living with a broken screen for a year. 

All the Apple Care I've _*not*_ purchased over the years probably paid for my Mac Studio.


----------



## Colstan

MEJHarrison said:


> I finally got my Mac Studio yesterday.  But I wasn't able to play with it till this morning due to waiting on the Migration Assistant to finish.  But so far this morning I'm really loving it so far.



That's great to hear, I'm jealous, but can't justify replacing my 2018 Mac mini, just yet. I do have a question, we've heard reports of a slight whining or hissing sound coming from the fans inside of some of the Mac Studios. Those who have reported it have often said that it is more annoying than standard case cooling, others say it doesn't bother them, while some claim to not experience any sound. In your testing thus far, what has your experience been with the cooling solution?


----------



## MEJHarrison

Colstan said:


> That's great to hear, I'm jealous, but can't justify replacing my 2018 Mac mini, just yet. I do have a question, we've heard reports of a slight whining or hissing sound coming from the fans inside of some of the Mac Studios. Those who have reported it have often said that it is more annoying than standard case cooling, others say it doesn't bother them, while some claim to not experience any sound. In your testing thus far, what has your experience been with the cooling solution?




I can't say I've really noticed any noise. Not a problem for me.


----------



## MEJHarrison

MEJHarrison said:


> View attachment 13909




If you look at that original screenshot, there's a process called bird taking 17GB.  It seems that's related to iCloud syncing.  So that was bugging me.  Now that it's had a few days to settle down and get rebooted, I repeated the test with a far different outcome this time.

I'm not going to list everything.  I added a tons of new apps as you can see in the screenshot.  Also, I've got 2 different Xcode projects going.  I have a lot open, but not a lot of "work" is happening, so it's not surprising that the CPU is 71% idle.  

All my apps feel just as responsive, but I will say swiping between desktops is beginning to feel just a touch laggy.  But I have all those apps spread out across 15 different desktops and have 6 full-screens apps going as well.


----------



## Colstan

Now that the Mac Studio has had time to "settle in", how does the general qualitative experience and overall responsiveness feel compared to your old iMac? Which model are you comparing it to? You seem to be enjoying it, now that it has "made itself at home". (That also means that it'll eat all your junk food when you aren't around and invite all the other Macs over for a party while you're on vacation, but such are the sacrifices we take for performance.)


----------



## Roller

Colstan said:


> Now that the Mac Studio has had time to "settle in", how does the general qualitative experience and overall responsiveness feel compared to your old iMac? Which model are you comparing it to? You seem to be enjoying it, now that it has "made itself at home". (That also means that it'll eat all your junk food when you aren't around and invite all the other Macs over for a party while you're on vacation, but such are the sacrifices we take for performance.)



At home, a Mac Studio Ultra replaced my 2017 Core i7 iMac. It's much more responsive and quicker, especially with multiple applications open, and it's made a real difference for video editing in Final Cut Pro, Photoshop, and Lightroom. At work, I got a Studio Max, but it replaced an even older iMac that had become very slow, so the improvement there was even greater. I back up both Macs with external SSDs, so it's convenient to have a couple ports on the front. I will say, though, that disconnecting USB C cables takes a lot more effort than I expected, even compared to my MacBook Pro. I have to hold the Mac Studio in place with one hand while pulling with the other to prevent the computer from sliding around the desk.

Actually, I wouldn't mind if the Mac Studio at home ate some of my junk food — I'd probably be healthier that way. But it's shown restraint so far.


----------



## MEJHarrison

Colstan said:


> Now that the Mac Studio has had time to "settle in", how does the general qualitative experience and overall responsiveness feel compared to your old iMac? Which model are you comparing it to? You seem to be enjoying it, now that it has "made itself at home". (That also means that it'll eat all your junk food when you aren't around and invite all the other Macs over for a party while you're on vacation, but such are the sacrifices we take for performance.)




I'm coming from a 2017 iMac with an i5.  It was basically the entry-level iMac with a 1TB fusion drive.  I added my own memory to bump it up to 16GB.  In some tasks, I don't notice much difference.  Browsing photos for example.  But if I'm playing with something like Xcode, it's a night and day difference.  Much more responsive and fun to play with.  On the old Mac getting a SwiftUI project up and going was a painful process that would include multiple rebuilds before it would preview my pages.  I was trying to get a screenshot a week or two back and after 15 minutes of trying to get the project going, I just gave up.  Obviously the new box has no issues are all with Xcode.  I've been playing with it all week.

One area where I've really noticed a difference is with Photos, and it's a little strange.  When I had Slack, Teams and VMWare open for work, I could take a bunch of photos, but my iMac wouldn't sync them till all that work stuff was shut down.  So it would sit there all day without trying to get photos from the cloud.  If I really wanted them to sync, sometimes either putting the machine to sleep or just a reboot would solve the issue, sometimes not.  The new machine works as expected.  If there are new photos to sync, it syncs them.  It doesn't care what else might be running.  That's actually come in handy.  I can snap pictures of the new computer or whatever and send them to the guys at work over Slack.  I don't need to hop onto another device to do so.  It's a super odd edge case, but there you are.    That one bugged the snot out of me.

I've not taken the time to experiment with Unity yet.  But like Xcode, I would expect a lot of improvements in that area.


----------

