1
00:00:00,160 --> 00:00:06,319
this is the most powerful computer you can buy

2
00:00:04,240 --> 00:00:12,240
for four thousand dollars or so apple would have you believe could

3
00:00:08,160 --> 00:00:14,400
this tiny box basically two mac minis

4
00:00:12,240 --> 00:00:19,359
stacked on top of each other really be more powerful than a core i9 or an rtx

5
00:00:16,720 --> 00:00:23,680
3090 from the pc world or is apple cherry picking their data again come

6
00:00:21,600 --> 00:00:29,119
along for the ride because it's more difficult than you'd think to find out

7
00:00:26,720 --> 00:00:34,399
but it's easy to talk about our sponsor jackery the explorer 1500 power station

8
00:00:31,760 --> 00:00:39,040
provides 1500 watt hour capacity allowing up to seven devices to charge

9
00:00:36,800 --> 00:00:42,879
at the same time only four hours are needed to recharge from zero up to

10
00:00:41,040 --> 00:00:47,600
eighty percent and you can get ten percent off with code Linus tech tips at

11
00:00:45,040 --> 00:00:47,600
the link below

12
00:00:54,960 --> 00:01:00,480
we've got both the m1 max and m1 ultra

13
00:00:58,320 --> 00:01:05,760
max studios here along with the 16 inch m1 max macbook pro and a pc bench to

14
00:01:03,440 --> 00:01:10,720
compare against for reference that pc bench runs a little more with shipping

15
00:01:07,920 --> 00:01:16,000
than a base spec m1 ultra while our ultra as specked costs about 1800 more i

16
00:01:14,080 --> 00:01:21,680
want to start off with gaming this time because it highlights exactly why it's

17
00:01:18,720 --> 00:01:26,640
so difficult to benchmark apple silicon dolphin a native gamecube emulator that

18
00:01:23,920 --> 00:01:30,159
i've tested extensively with m1 chips was struggling to reach frame rates

19
00:01:28,080 --> 00:01:33,360
above 120 when i know it should be capable of much more because i can crank

20
00:01:32,000 --> 00:01:38,240
the resolution without losing much performance that indicates that we're hitting a CPU

21
00:01:36,560 --> 00:01:42,320
bottleneck since it only uses a few cores at once

22
00:01:39,759 --> 00:01:45,840
we are off to a bad start here the rest of the games in our typical lineup use

23
00:01:44,159 --> 00:01:50,399
the rosetta compatibility layer to translate Intel native apps because

24
00:01:48,240 --> 00:01:55,280
native apple silicon ports are few and far between civ 6 is such a mess that i

25
00:01:53,439 --> 00:01:59,119
don't even want to talk about it thoraxis really needs to get on a native

26
00:01:57,520 --> 00:02:03,520
port maybe bundle it with some nice expansion packs if they need to

27
00:02:01,680 --> 00:02:08,560
m1 ultra doesn't perform very well at all in cs go either with a measly 95 FPS

28
00:02:06,719 --> 00:02:13,200
average and a healthy dose of stuttering to go along with it thanks to that

29
00:02:10,399 --> 00:02:16,959
game's use of the opengl API long ago deprecated on macOS

30
00:02:15,200 --> 00:02:21,040
feral interactive's port of shadow of the tomb raider does a little bit better

31
00:02:18,640 --> 00:02:26,800
thanks to using apple's modern metal 2 API but remember we're running at 1080p

32
00:02:24,400 --> 00:02:31,599
here the frame rate simply does not compare to the pc bench

33
00:02:28,800 --> 00:02:36,239
and this clearly isn't indicative of m1 ultra's performance potential the same

34
00:02:33,680 --> 00:02:40,239
is true of total war warhammer 3 a game that straight up requires apple silicon

35
00:02:39,360 --> 00:02:45,519
but runs through rosetta anyway yeah they say that there's no

36
00:02:43,920 --> 00:02:50,080
performance penalty and they're doing it because they need certain features only

37
00:02:47,200 --> 00:02:53,200
found on Intel max what a mess

38
00:02:51,280 --> 00:02:57,440
the m1 ultra for its part breaks the 60fps barrier at nearly double the

39
00:02:55,120 --> 00:03:02,879
performance of the m1 max but lags to about half the performance

40
00:02:59,200 --> 00:03:05,599
of the pc bench so a win of the loss

41
00:03:02,879 --> 00:03:10,000
gaming on m1 is such a minefield that the only two games that are fully native

42
00:03:08,159 --> 00:03:14,000
to apple silicon are massively multiplayer

43
00:03:11,200 --> 00:03:18,400
world of warcraft and eve online i've never played eve and i honestly have no

44
00:03:16,159 --> 00:03:22,239
idea how it would benchmark it as for wow

45
00:03:19,440 --> 00:03:26,400
last time my lack of game knowledge made our previous benchmark pointless

46
00:03:24,239 --> 00:03:30,080
thankfully i do know someone who still plays wow and she threw together a

47
00:03:28,159 --> 00:03:34,799
simple lua script that longs the current frame rate at regular intervals letting

48
00:03:32,480 --> 00:03:38,720
us for the first time truly get something close to frame data out of a

49
00:03:36,720 --> 00:03:43,680
mac without pulling a digital foundry and analyzing video capture

50
00:03:41,120 --> 00:03:47,599
this is its own minefield within the minefield however

51
00:03:45,280 --> 00:03:51,760
even local multiplayer games introduced two machines worth of uncertainty

52
00:03:49,360 --> 00:03:56,480
instead of just one let alone an mmo with other players and server instances

53
00:03:54,000 --> 00:04:00,239
to deal with so we made the script also output the current location and the

54
00:03:58,319 --> 00:04:04,080
number of players in the vicinity into csv format which should let us sanitize

55
00:04:03,040 --> 00:04:08,000
our data for our testing we dragged a heal shaman

56
00:04:06,319 --> 00:04:11,360
through the same area a total of four times across each of our test systems

57
00:04:09,680 --> 00:04:15,840
and average the results before we talk numbers though check this

58
00:04:13,439 --> 00:04:19,120
out the m1 ultra exhibited some visual artifacting with assets blinking in and

59
00:04:17,680 --> 00:04:24,000
out of existence this didn't affect stability but it was

60
00:04:21,759 --> 00:04:30,160
definitely a thing clearly they didn't have the m1 ultra in mind when they made

61
00:04:26,080 --> 00:04:32,639
this native port now the numbers the m1

62
00:04:30,160 --> 00:04:38,560
ultra impressively captures between 70 and 88 percent of the rtx 3090 pc bench

63
00:04:35,680 --> 00:04:43,280
and doesn't dip below 60 FPS meanwhile the m1 max doesn't do so hot

64
00:04:41,280 --> 00:04:47,520
which indicates that wow is able to utilize either those extra CPU cores or

65
00:04:46,240 --> 00:04:51,360
the additional memory bandwidth available on m1 ultra

66
00:04:49,520 --> 00:04:56,479
since this test skews heavily towards the GPU at 4k max settings my money is

67
00:04:54,560 --> 00:05:00,720
on memory bandwidth interestingly the max studio loses less

68
00:04:58,880 --> 00:05:04,720
performance than the pc bench does with a consistent 25 players compared to runs

69
00:05:02,880 --> 00:05:09,520
where the players dropped out this could just be run to run variants

70
00:05:07,280 --> 00:05:12,560
but the fact that it held across both of our mac studios is a pattern worth

71
00:05:11,440 --> 00:05:16,000
bringing up but productivity not gaming is what

72
00:05:14,639 --> 00:05:19,759
apple was talking about when they said that this was the most powerful desktop

73
00:05:17,680 --> 00:05:23,680
you can buy for four thousand dollars and to be fair to them it's where most

74
00:05:21,919 --> 00:05:27,919
potential buyers will spend their time with a mac studio but there are

75
00:05:25,840 --> 00:05:32,960
inconsistencies here too and we'll go through them one by one

76
00:05:29,520 --> 00:05:35,120
cinebench and cinema 4d in general isn't

77
00:05:32,960 --> 00:05:39,680
fully ready for apple silicon but multi-threaded CPU performance isn't

78
00:05:37,520 --> 00:05:44,720
far off from the core i9 which is frankly amazing it's basically what we'd

79
00:05:42,720 --> 00:05:48,560
expect at double the performance of our m1 max

80
00:05:46,320 --> 00:05:52,639
geekbench is another test that's not fully optimized CPU usage doesn't quite

81
00:05:50,720 --> 00:05:57,280
max out for some reason but it's not far off per thread and it

82
00:05:55,039 --> 00:06:01,840
does surpass the core i9's multi-threaded performance that is

83
00:05:59,600 --> 00:06:05,600
impressive though it does slip when we move over to the GPU test which is

84
00:06:03,840 --> 00:06:09,280
obviously not correct with double the GPU cores we'd expect a

85
00:06:07,680 --> 00:06:14,319
linear improvement unless we're limited somewhere else but m1 ultra is only

86
00:06:11,360 --> 00:06:18,560
about 60 faster than the m1 max here way behind the rtx 3090

87
00:06:16,800 --> 00:06:22,560
let's move away from synthetics and into the real world starting with blender's

88
00:06:20,160 --> 00:06:26,639
CPU rendering we're looking at a worse showing than our core i9 from both apple

89
00:06:24,720 --> 00:06:31,840
machines albeit with roughly correct scaling between the m1 ultra and m1 max

90
00:06:29,680 --> 00:06:36,080
this tells me that perhaps there's some optimizations still left to be done here

91
00:06:34,000 --> 00:06:42,960
and that's definitely the case with the GPU renderer which is still quite early

92
00:06:39,360 --> 00:06:44,560
and falls well behind our rtx 3090 which

93
00:06:42,960 --> 00:06:49,039
we tested with the traditional cuda renderer not the ray accelerated optics

94
00:06:46,960 --> 00:06:52,560
renderer another major category for prospective apple customers is

95
00:06:50,560 --> 00:06:57,440
development compile time isn't everything but with the mac studio

96
00:06:54,800 --> 00:07:02,400
coming with a minimum of 32 gigs of RAM to take care of most other aspects of

97
00:06:59,120 --> 00:07:04,319
devwork compile time is likely to be the

98
00:07:02,400 --> 00:07:09,919
limited factor so we grabbed the chromium source code and compiled it m1

99
00:07:06,960 --> 00:07:16,160
ultra is twice as fast as the m1 max and nearly 5 minutes ahead of the 12 900k

100
00:07:13,199 --> 00:07:19,360
that's more than 20 percent faster i'm not sure that platform differences alone

101
00:07:18,000 --> 00:07:23,599
would really make that much of a difference but devs can feel free to

102
00:07:21,680 --> 00:07:26,720
correct me if i'm wrong here i can picture them now just typing out angry

103
00:07:25,120 --> 00:07:31,759
comments and their wan hoodies and dad hats from

104
00:07:28,840 --> 00:07:36,880
lt2store.com majestic now for apple silicon's bread and butter video editing

105
00:07:34,639 --> 00:07:43,520
final cut pro allows for timelines with up to 24 simultaneous raw streams on m1

106
00:07:41,599 --> 00:07:47,680
ultra before any frames drop in our multi-cam test

107
00:07:44,880 --> 00:07:51,440
which is such ludicrous performance that it's tough to imagine how you would even

108
00:07:49,840 --> 00:07:54,479
fully utilize it that's the magic of fixed function

109
00:07:53,440 --> 00:07:58,160
hardware what's more our davinci resolve timeline

110
00:07:56,639 --> 00:08:02,319
rendered out in a little under five and a half minutes on the m1 ultra which

111
00:08:00,720 --> 00:08:08,879
while not quite double the performance of m1 max is still a huge improvement

112
00:08:05,280 --> 00:08:12,720
it's over 25 ahead of our pc bench here

113
00:08:08,879 --> 00:08:14,879
video and coding however is rough thanks

114
00:08:12,720 --> 00:08:18,080
to the magic of that fixed function hardware

115
00:08:16,080 --> 00:08:23,280
see on Floatplane you can download videos directly and when i did that with

116
00:08:20,639 --> 00:08:28,000
our mac studio unboxing on ShortCircuit both apple's own compressor and the

117
00:08:25,440 --> 00:08:33,200
third-party app handbrake failed but only while encoding the h.264 codec

118
00:08:31,199 --> 00:08:37,360
compressor falls back to the CPU without a word and takes forever while handbrake

119
00:08:35,440 --> 00:08:41,919
just errors out it turns out that apple's h264 compression engine and

120
00:08:39,680 --> 00:08:46,640
NVIDIA's end bank to be fair doesn't support our 2 1 aspect ratio if i scale

121
00:08:44,720 --> 00:08:50,640
the consumer 4k during the transcode instead it works just fine

122
00:08:49,120 --> 00:08:55,040
performance wise this is worse than a straight trans code

123
00:08:52,720 --> 00:08:59,360
but it is still somewhat favorable against NVIDIA

124
00:08:56,560 --> 00:09:05,120
what's really a head scratcher for me is that the cheaper m1 max pulls ahead in

125
00:09:02,080 --> 00:09:08,880
both h.264 and h.265 encoding for

126
00:09:05,120 --> 00:09:12,000
reasons i struggle to comprehend i

127
00:09:08,880 --> 00:09:13,200
retested this at least a dozen times and

128
00:09:12,000 --> 00:09:17,839
here we are to apple's credit prores is probably a

129
00:09:15,920 --> 00:09:22,320
more common target for transcodes from raw especially given the timeline

130
00:09:19,839 --> 00:09:28,240
performance we saw in final cut but prores encoding time isn't materially

131
00:09:25,839 --> 00:09:33,040
better between any of our macs wait what no m1 ultra is clearly several

132
00:09:31,440 --> 00:09:39,120
seconds faster than the max what am i talking about well

133
00:09:35,200 --> 00:09:41,279
okay prores is more limited by how fast

134
00:09:39,120 --> 00:09:44,720
the SSD can write than how fast the encoder is

135
00:09:42,640 --> 00:09:49,920
our ultra equipped mac studio and our macbook pro both have one terabyte of

136
00:09:47,279 --> 00:09:53,440
storage while our base model m1 max equipped studio

137
00:09:51,360 --> 00:09:57,680
has a 512 gig module the bigger ssds boast much better write

138
00:09:55,920 --> 00:10:00,880
performance in most scenarios and the difference in prores encoding

139
00:09:59,040 --> 00:10:04,880
performance roughly corresponds to the difference in write speeds across

140
00:10:02,320 --> 00:10:08,480
amorphous disc mark moral of the story avoid the base tier storage option if

141
00:10:06,640 --> 00:10:12,080
you want the best possible performance out of your mac studio

142
00:10:10,080 --> 00:10:16,000
there's a reason why the m1 ultra comes with a terabyte by default

143
00:10:14,079 --> 00:10:19,279
moving on to creative cloud while most of puget bench can run natively on apple

144
00:10:18,240 --> 00:10:23,600
silicon the photoshop plugin needs to run via

145
00:10:21,279 --> 00:10:27,760
rosetta accordingly we get overall poor performance in photoshop here but

146
00:10:25,680 --> 00:10:32,160
after effects and especially premiere are way better like they're they're out

147
00:10:30,320 --> 00:10:37,760
ahead of the pc bench to pull one of the highest scores that i have ever seen

148
00:10:35,279 --> 00:10:41,200
in fact even the m1 max is out of head in this test too which tells me that

149
00:10:39,519 --> 00:10:45,040
apple's decoders are doing a lot of heavy lifting here

150
00:10:42,880 --> 00:10:49,519
now we need to talk thermals the cooler design of the max studio differs between

151
00:10:47,120 --> 00:10:52,880
the m1 max and m1 ultra with the lander getting a copper rather than aluminum

152
00:10:51,120 --> 00:10:56,720
heatsink a difference that makes the ultra two pounds heavier

153
00:10:54,880 --> 00:11:00,560
in both cases the heatsink is attached to the same thermal module that handles

154
00:10:58,560 --> 00:11:04,320
cooling for the entire machine testing thermals turned out to be

155
00:11:02,240 --> 00:11:09,120
another difficult task blender alone wasn't cutting it so

156
00:11:06,480 --> 00:11:12,880
instead i turned to stress ng a cross-platform stress test suite that

157
00:11:11,200 --> 00:11:17,440
has native apple silicon support through brew these are the parameters that i

158
00:11:15,120 --> 00:11:21,680
found stress to CPU the most add in gooseberry at 3 000 samples to hit the

159
00:11:19,760 --> 00:11:25,360
GPU as well and you've got yourself an apple cooker

160
00:11:23,279 --> 00:11:29,440
i'm not sure if anyone outside of apple has pushed m1 ultra to quite these

161
00:11:27,120 --> 00:11:34,720
temperatures before this is a mostly synthetic and highly unreasonable load

162
00:11:32,399 --> 00:11:38,880
but the copper cooler design is more than capable of handling it yes the

163
00:11:36,880 --> 00:11:43,680
hottest CPU cores are in the mid to high 90s but the hottest GPU clusters and

164
00:11:41,519 --> 00:11:48,079
memory sensors are nowhere near that meaning the soc itself is comfortable

165
00:11:46,000 --> 00:11:51,519
not only that but the fans only ever ramped up to around 50 percent

166
00:11:49,760 --> 00:11:54,880
throughout the entire run not bad though i bet we could push the

167
00:11:53,440 --> 00:11:57,839
GPU a little harder if we had a dedicated apple silicon native stress

168
00:11:56,800 --> 00:12:02,000
test the m1 max by comparison fares a bit

169
00:12:00,000 --> 00:12:06,360
better in terms of raw heat output but we knew that already

170
00:12:03,839 --> 00:12:11,120
while the hottest core sensor does slowly creep up past the 90 degree mark

171
00:12:09,440 --> 00:12:15,120
that aluminum heatsink is more than adequate sensors elsewhere in the

172
00:12:13,120 --> 00:12:18,560
package showed downright cool thermals by pc standards and

173
00:12:16,720 --> 00:12:21,760
this time the fans never spun up much faster than they did

174
00:12:20,480 --> 00:12:26,399
at idle with results like that like how much power could they possibly be drawing

175
00:12:25,120 --> 00:12:30,480
with this load to get a good idea we're using a power

176
00:12:28,240 --> 00:12:33,519
meter at the wall it's worth noting that we've seen at least three different

177
00:12:31,839 --> 00:12:37,760
power supply designs from apple at this point which means efficiency will differ

178
00:12:35,519 --> 00:12:42,560
very slightly between each design is there a best one

179
00:12:40,320 --> 00:12:46,880
that's a question for ltd Labs later for now we can see the idle consumption for

180
00:12:44,160 --> 00:12:50,720
the m1 ultra is a measly 10.8 watts with the m1 max at 8.7

181
00:12:48,959 --> 00:12:55,440
just a little more than an led light bulb this is why the idle thermal output

182
00:12:53,200 --> 00:12:59,920
for both models is incredibly low and makes max studio actually a pretty good

183
00:12:57,920 --> 00:13:03,200
fit for hotter climates it's worth putting into perspective how little

184
00:13:01,600 --> 00:13:09,200
power is being used here despite the load i hit them with the idle wattage of

185
00:13:06,000 --> 00:13:12,160
our Intel bench was just two-thirds of

186
00:13:09,200 --> 00:13:16,399
the full load reading on the m1 max at full bore it pulled 10

187
00:13:15,040 --> 00:13:21,200
times that with CPU cores at 100 degrees under our

188
00:13:18,880 --> 00:13:26,160
knock Noctua nhd15s true even apple's best GPU doesn't come

189
00:13:24,240 --> 00:13:31,279
near the raw performance of this top end pc hardware but the m1 ultra racked up

190
00:13:29,279 --> 00:13:37,040
over 80 percent of the pc bench's performance in overall productivity

191
00:13:33,680 --> 00:13:39,839
at 34 of the power draw at full load

192
00:13:37,040 --> 00:13:44,880
m1 max is even more efficient at 57 of the pc's performance while drawing just

193
00:13:41,760 --> 00:13:46,720
15 of the power under full load

194
00:13:44,880 --> 00:13:51,680
in a world where pc power consumption just creeps ever upward

195
00:13:48,959 --> 00:13:54,880
this is a breath of fresh air fresh

196
00:13:52,880 --> 00:14:00,079
smogless air all this in a machine

197
00:13:57,440 --> 00:14:05,920
with the same footprint as the mac mini only about twice as tall admit it that's

198
00:14:03,360 --> 00:14:10,240
impressive for such a small boy and it's not all for cooling and power

199
00:14:08,000 --> 00:14:13,760
either the addition of front i o was a welcome mom when i unboxed the mac

200
00:14:11,760 --> 00:14:18,079
studio on ShortCircuit and with those type c ports doubling as Thunderbolt 4

201
00:14:15,760 --> 00:14:21,120
ports on the m1 ultra there's a frankly ridiculous amount of Thunderbolt on

202
00:14:19,680 --> 00:14:25,040
display here meanwhile tangie Ethernet as standard

203
00:14:23,120 --> 00:14:30,639
doesn't need anything special to work and this tells me that apple knows what

204
00:14:27,279 --> 00:14:32,720
their professional customers need but

205
00:14:30,639 --> 00:14:35,120
apple has always been hesitant to provide their customers with what they

206
00:14:34,160 --> 00:14:40,560
want and it's finally time to talk expansion and repairability

207
00:14:38,720 --> 00:14:44,720
or lack thereof we know by now that getting into the mac

208
00:14:42,399 --> 00:14:48,079
studio is a bit painful that ring on the bottom will probably never look the same

209
00:14:46,399 --> 00:14:53,279
again unless you're careful but that's not the bad part

210
00:14:51,519 --> 00:14:57,920
it's the SSD you can learn more about our findings in

211
00:14:54,959 --> 00:15:02,480
this previous video but the tldr is that these modules are not ssds in the

212
00:15:00,320 --> 00:15:06,720
traditional sense but rather only contain raw nand chips the storage

213
00:15:04,880 --> 00:15:11,040
controller is integrated into the m1 series socs themselves and is simply

214
00:15:09,199 --> 00:15:14,959
programmed from the factory why can't you just swap or even rearrange them

215
00:15:13,040 --> 00:15:19,760
even with a factory reset well apple has created a de facto allow

216
00:15:17,760 --> 00:15:24,800
list by only supporting the specific combinations they're selling

217
00:15:21,839 --> 00:15:28,079
this because apple says so thing isn't new

218
00:15:25,600 --> 00:15:31,760
i upgraded my 2011 macbook pro with the wi-fi module from the continuity

219
00:15:29,680 --> 00:15:37,120
supporting 2012 model but couldn't use it without a hack

220
00:15:34,320 --> 00:15:41,360
specifically because apple never shipped that configuration with that model it

221
00:15:39,760 --> 00:15:47,199
has the drivers didn't bother loading them it's just

222
00:15:43,360 --> 00:15:48,160
bubble okay you can't you can't use it

223
00:15:47,199 --> 00:15:52,480
but as mad as that makes me consumers have come

224
00:15:50,480 --> 00:15:56,560
to expect this kind of limitation from apple silicon by now so at the end of

225
00:15:54,720 --> 00:16:01,440
the day it all boils down to performance and lasting power

226
00:15:58,480 --> 00:16:06,079
will the max studio and m1 ultra be relevant in the next five to ten years

227
00:16:04,160 --> 00:16:10,959
honestly i'm not so sure the greatest irony with

228
00:16:08,880 --> 00:16:17,360
the m1 ultra is that the one thing that it's really

229
00:16:14,160 --> 00:16:20,160
really good at is also the one thing

230
00:16:17,360 --> 00:16:25,120
that m1 max is already really really good at

231
00:16:22,480 --> 00:16:30,639
video editing unless you absolutely need access to 128 gigs of memory or you do a

232
00:16:28,160 --> 00:16:34,639
lot of vfx work chances are you'll never fully appreciate the extra power that

233
00:16:32,399 --> 00:16:38,880
affords you until it's already obsolete if your use cases are covered by the few

234
00:16:36,480 --> 00:16:43,040
exceptions like compilation and resolve then m1 ultra is great otherwise

235
00:16:41,600 --> 00:16:47,199
wherever it's not within spinning distance of m1 max

236
00:16:44,880 --> 00:16:51,360
it's still matched or outmatched by pcs that cost the same or less

237
00:16:48,959 --> 00:16:55,759
now this could be a optimization thing that apple will just have to deal with

238
00:16:53,120 --> 00:16:59,600
in the future with additional updates to swift and

239
00:16:57,040 --> 00:17:04,799
xcode but for now that's just the reality as for the mac studio itself

240
00:17:03,199 --> 00:17:10,400
like m1 ultra it's impressive but as excited as i was

241
00:17:07,280 --> 00:17:12,400
when it was announced thank you apple

242
00:17:10,400 --> 00:17:16,000
now i'm not sure i get the point it lacks peripherals and a display and it

243
00:17:14,400 --> 00:17:19,919
shares many of apple silicon's current limitations like the lack of 48 gigabits

244
00:17:17,919 --> 00:17:24,640
per second HDMI output if you buy apple's matching peripherals

245
00:17:22,000 --> 00:17:29,120
the cost of owning even the base model works out to be more than a macbook pro

246
00:17:26,880 --> 00:17:32,080
with the same specs and anchors it to a desk

247
00:17:30,080 --> 00:17:35,919
a macbook pro with the same soc can drive the same studio display has the

248
00:17:33,679 --> 00:17:40,240
same HDMI output and has the same card reader you can bring a macbook's i o up

249
00:17:37,919 --> 00:17:43,760
to speed with a dock too this one not only provides more connectivity than the

250
00:17:42,000 --> 00:17:48,480
mac studio would have with a studio display but it costs 400 and also

251
00:17:46,240 --> 00:17:52,320
supports audio video bridging something that i'm told apple silicon's lan ports

252
00:17:50,640 --> 00:17:55,200
dropped support for but is critically important for broadcast

253
00:17:54,320 --> 00:18:01,200
work the total cost of a macbook pro with this dock remains well below that of the

254
00:17:58,640 --> 00:18:05,120
studio setup even if you got the 16 inch model

255
00:18:02,559 --> 00:18:09,120
max studio's only saving grace is that you don't have to buy the studio display

256
00:18:07,440 --> 00:18:13,520
or magic peripherals apple just expects you to we'll have

257
00:18:11,039 --> 00:18:17,679
them linked down below just in case and this really is the overall theme

258
00:18:15,200 --> 00:18:22,720
here apple expects you to want the m1 ultra you probably don't

259
00:18:20,480 --> 00:18:28,559
apple expects you to think that the mac studio is a good value it's really not

260
00:18:26,080 --> 00:18:31,440
what it is is a uniquely compact efficient and surprisingly powerful

261
00:18:30,480 --> 00:18:38,320
machine but with a price tag to match and without matching the pc competition in

262
00:18:35,360 --> 00:18:42,240
terms of performance in most workloads if it aligns with your priorities then

263
00:18:40,000 --> 00:18:45,919
great i can't tell you not to shell out for it

264
00:18:43,120 --> 00:18:49,520
if your priority is value then apple has trapped themselves into a corner with

265
00:18:47,280 --> 00:18:53,039
how ludicrously good the 2021 macbook pros already are

266
00:18:51,039 --> 00:18:56,880
and those even come with magsafe just like this video it comes with a segue to

267
00:18:54,320 --> 00:19:00,559
our sponsor nord security if you keep up with the tech news you know that hackers

268
00:18:58,880 --> 00:19:06,080
are always looking for new ways to compromise everything from tech giant

269
00:19:02,960 --> 00:19:08,000
servers to grandma's computer thankfully

270
00:19:06,080 --> 00:19:12,000
nord security's well-rounded protection package is there to help protect your

271
00:19:09,760 --> 00:19:16,720
files devices and your personal data online like nordpass a password manager

272
00:19:14,799 --> 00:19:21,679
that helps you generate unique passwords across your devices and browsers or nord

273
00:19:19,440 --> 00:19:25,440
locker a powerful file encryption and sharing service that's a great

274
00:19:23,039 --> 00:19:28,559
alternative to google drive cyber crime is everywhere these days so make sure

275
00:19:27,120 --> 00:19:32,640
you're taking the right precautions when you surf the web right now you can get

276
00:19:30,320 --> 00:19:37,440
one month free on all nord products when you go to nordsecurity.com

277
00:19:34,799 --> 00:19:41,760
Linus that's 30 days to see for yourself all the ways that nord can help protect

278
00:19:39,120 --> 00:19:45,520
you online risk free so don't wait go to nordsecurity.com

279
00:19:43,360 --> 00:19:49,200
Linus or click the link down below thanks for watching guys go check out

280
00:19:46,960 --> 00:19:52,960
our investigation on the mac studios ssds for a little more context into

281
00:19:51,440 --> 00:19:59,760
what's going on there apple silicon really is a new frontier

282
00:19:56,080 --> 00:19:59,760
for better or for worse