New "Mac Studio" from Apple

[Eric Lambert]

Originally Posted by kings79

The M1 Ultra, although an amazing machine, is expensive, and geared more towards the video side of our industry.[/I]"

I'm not sure how it's geared toward video. I can see how it might be more attractive for video pros, but that doesn't mean that the Ultra doesn't add anything relevant for audio pros -- it has twice the processing power (more or less) for audio, not just video.

[kings79]

Originally Posted by Eric Lambert

I'm not sure how it's geared toward video. I can see how it might be more attractive for video pros, but that doesn't mean that the Ultra doesn't add anything relevant for audio pros -- it has twice the processing power (more or less) for audio, not just video.

Incorrect Eric. It has twice the multicore score. The single core score is the same. That doesn't necessarily mean you get "twice as much power". We've already seen this proves time and time again in video reviews. The Ultra is most definitely geared towards more high end video with all the extra stuff baked onto the chip. High single core scores is the long-term is what you want.

Anyway let's not get bogged down in the Ultra/Max debate. I just thought that quote might be helpful for some still on the fence. But mostly it's just a really positive article on the Mac Studio in general with real world evidence.

[Michael Carnes]

Originally Posted by kings79

Incorrect Eric. It has twice the multicore score. The single core score is the same. That doesn't necessarily mean you get "twice as much power". We've already seen this proves time and time again in video reviews. The Ultra is most definitely geared towards more high end video with all the extra stuff baked onto the chip. High single core scores is the long-term is what you want.
.

I don't think I agree with that at all. Unless you have a plugin or channel strip that grossly inefficient, the number of cores (and by inference, the multicore score) is the winner. DAW makers don't tell developers a lot of stuff we'd like to know (in my case, former developer). But experiments will generally indicate that all of the processing for a channel runs in a single core. Before you jump up to say I've just proven your point, I'll point out--in this scenario--you'd have fewer cores and could run fewer channels. In reality, quite a few channels will be processed by each core. For example, on an "old" 2019 Mac Pro (16 core) a 1000-track project would have roughly 60 tracks running on each core. When that multicore score goes up, so does your potential channel count.

There are some piggy plugins out there, but these days they're the exception rather than the rule. If you use the real CPU load meter (the one in MacOS rather than the inaccurate one in PT) you can see if there's a single core that has a much greater load than the others. Usually you won't. If you do, that means you might consider sleuthing to see which of your plugs is the offender.

Ideally you'll have both better single-core and multi-core performance. That's what you'll get with the M1. The speed of fetching data from RAM is considerably faster on M1 than on anything Intel. There are some benchmarks that include this consideration, but often they're not written to move massive amounts of data around the machine. In the world of audio, this matters quite a lot.

I'm aware you have a number of video reviews that claim something other than what I'm saying. Be careful about the credence you give to them on something like this. I'm not at all sure that their experiments are always structured in such a way that the point is supported.

[kings79]

Originally Posted by Michael Carnes

I don't think I agree with that at all. Unless you have a plugin or channel strip that grossly inefficient, the number of cores (and by inference, the multicore score) is the winner. DAW makers don't tell developers a lot of stuff we'd like to know (in my case, former developer). But experiments will generally indicate that all of the processing for a channel runs in a single core. Before you jump up to say I've just proven your point, I'll point out--in this scenario--you'd have fewer cores and could run fewer channels. In reality, quite a few channels will be processed by each core. For example, on an "old" 2019 Mac Pro (16 core) a 1000-track project would have roughly 60 tracks running on each core. When that multicore score goes up, so does your potential channel count.

There are some piggy plugins out there, but these days they're the exception rather than the rule. If you use the real CPU load meter (the one in MacOS rather than the inaccurate one in PT) you can see if there's a single core that has a much greater load than the others. Usually you won't. If you do, that means you might consider sleuthing to see which of your plugs is the offender.

Ideally you'll have both better single-core and multi-core performance. That's what you'll get with the M1. The speed of fetching data from RAM is considerably faster on M1 than on anything Intel. There are some benchmarks that include this consideration, but often they're not written to move massive amounts of data around the machine. In the world of audio, this matters quite a lot.

I'm aware you have a number of video reviews that claim something other than what I'm saying. Be careful about the credence you give to them on something like this. I'm not at all sure that their experiments are always structured in such a way that the point is supported.

I don't know about any of that. I'm no coder.

What I do know is you just don't get twice the power. It doesn't equate to that in the real world. Never had. Never will. You might be able to run a lot more apps at once and some improvement to PT but not double like you originally said. So there is a middle ground to get we are both saying.

I'm just talking from real world usage as mixer/user and "turbo charge" & more cores does not (so far) equal double when looking at 10 cores vs 20.

Perhaps in the future when everyone truly harnesses the power of this ARM tech. Perhaps...

But I maintain that the Ultra is mostly overkill at this point for most of us and or we can't utilise its power.

Let's see what M2 brings & PT Native tho...

[K Roche]

Originally Posted by kings79

I don't know about any of that. I'm no coder.

What I do know is you just don't get twice the power. It doesn't equate to that in the real world. Never had. Never will. You might be able to run a lot more apps at once and some improvement to PT but not double like you originally said. So there is a middle ground to get we are both saying.

I'm just talking from real world usage as mixer/user and "turbo charge" & more cores does not (so far) equal double when looking at 10 cores vs 20.

Perhaps in the future when everyone truly harnesses the power of this ARM tech. Perhaps...

But I maintain that the Ultra is mostly overkill at this point for most of us and or we can't utilise its power.

Let's see what M2 brings & PT Native tho...

Humm I am buy no means a computer tech guy so (grain of salt)

But ::
I do remember reading a fairly extensive article on how multi-core is also definitely a factor in overall DAW audio performance (don't remember the particulars but do remember the gist). Which was something about how yes, for a given single audio channel and the plugins on it , was using single core . But when combining all the channels, and all the other DAW functions going on in the DAW it is utilizing multi core aspects also ..??

That said :: I would also guess most of us ( probably 50% or more ) on this forum are home audio recordists and not dealing with huge track counts and VI' and long multi track video etc. or deadlines . And as you say are likely not in need of the most processing power available ,,,but that is an individual decision.

I do remember some reviewers commenting on how many of the bench mark tests are or were not optimized for ARM architecture and thus may not really reflect an accurate result on the current processing potential.

But regardless of that --- I think that achieving "double the processing power" is a subjective criteria for justification. and for many not necessary to appreciate what ever power gains are made,,,, "Double" or not because even just seconds or minutes in rendering for example for a pro can be worthwhile even if not "twice" as fast --juss sayin'

So "overkill" is also a totally subjective assessment.
But to be honest for me personally an M1 Max Studio would be more than enough well into my future..But that is just me

[audiolex1]

Originally Posted by kings79

I don't know about any of that. I'm no coder.

What I do know is you just don't get twice the power. It doesn't equate to that in the real world. Never had. Never will. You might be able to run a lot more apps at once and some improvement to PT but not double like you originally said. So there is a middle ground to get we are both saying.

I'm just talking from real world usage as mixer/user and "turbo charge" & more cores does not (so far) equal double when looking at 10 cores vs 20.

Perhaps in the future when everyone truly harnesses the power of this ARM tech. Perhaps...

But I maintain that the Ultra is mostly overkill at this point for most of us and or we can't utilise its power.

Let's see what M2 brings & PT Native tho...

Well, someone tested it.

Seems like you might be wrong on this.

It isn't all single core with M1. It might be with x86.

Watch for yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8nnKGW-VZI&t=521s

[bradch00]

Just 'cuz, I am sticking my $.02CAD in. I bought an M1 Studio Max (64GB, 1TB Internal Drive), to replace a late 2014 27" i7 iMac (which was a wonderful machine). I run PT Studio and a version of Studio One both under Rosetta, booting from an external SSD and a version of Studio One running native from the internal SSD. Although I was tempted to get an Ultra, I did feel the price tag was high and the potential rewards did not warrant the investment. So far (and I will say up front I don't run large track counts, however I do run some fairly hefty VIs, certain presets on UVI Falcon used to kill my i7 iMac), I am happy running both PT and Studio One under Rosetta, I don't really notice a difference between Studio One native and Rosetta, but I haven't really pushed sessions under either one. So I guess... whatever works for you is the right way to go. I also spent a while on line with Apple discussing requirements (mostly audio) and the machine I got was the one they recommended, although they did want me to take one of those really pricey displays (I declined... the new LG works fab)

[Eric Lambert]

I was hoping to avoid putting semantics under the microscope. The Ultra's CPU has double to "potential." I figured we knew that PT and other audio apps won't take advantage of that immediately when the gates open, and that other factors are involved, and that this will change as Native spreads. This all points to how efficiently we, and developers, use the available power. Reports have shown an incredibly wide range in this regard -- some people seeing immense increases, others suggesting that the new Ultra is slower than their previous machine in practical use. There are many causes for this.

But those reports of sluggishness will begin to fall away, and we, and developers, will begin to optimize the Studio. "Potential," and in particular "future potential," is what I was commenting on.

[Eric Lambert]

Originally Posted by Michael Carnes

I'm not at all sure that their experiments are always structured in such a way that the point is supported.

I've even seen "reviews" clearly designed to artificially highlight weaknesses without regard for real-world applications, and I've seen those videos used as a reference for what an Ultra owner might expect, which isn't helpful.

[kings79]

Originally Posted by audiolex1

Well, someone tested it.

Seems like you might be wrong on this.

It isn't all single core with M1. It might be with x86.

Watch for yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8nnKGW-VZI&t=521s

If some orange headed merican dude yabbering about geekbench scores is enough to quash real world usage experience, then ok. I wave the white flag.

Also man. he did go on to say the Ultra was overkill for most DAW users. Also man. He didn't even have a Max to do any kind of 'test' like you said. Zero tests... Not that I would take what Barry Johns Studio Talk as gospel anyway.

Did you watch the video in full?

ALL I"M SAYING IS: The Ultra DOES NOT automatically give you double the speed in real world usage. Maybe rendering video cause there are chips specifaclly for that on the SOC but you just don't get double the speed for what we do. I NEVER said that Audio was single core ONLY. I just said that is ground zero and where you're basing the whole chip series from.

Anyway. if you wanna spend double your hard earned on the Ultra. Go right ahead.