WEBVTT 00:00:00.160 --> 00:00:06.319 this is the most powerful computer you can buy 00:00:04.240 --> 00:00:12.240 for four thousand dollars or so apple would have you believe could 00:00:08.160 --> 00:00:14.400 this tiny box basically two mac minis 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 00:00:16.720 --> 00:00:23.680 3090 from the pc world or is apple cherry picking their data again come 00:00:21.600 --> 00:00:29.119 along for the ride because it's more difficult than you'd think to find out 00:00:26.720 --> 00:00:34.399 but it's easy to talk about our sponsor jackery the explorer 1500 power station 00:00:31.760 --> 00:00:39.040 provides 1500 watt hour capacity allowing up to seven devices to charge 00:00:36.800 --> 00:00:42.879 at the same time only four hours are needed to recharge from zero up to 00:00:41.040 --> 00:00:47.600 eighty percent and you can get ten percent off with code Linus tech tips at 00:00:45.040 --> 00:00:47.600 the link below 00:00:54.960 --> 00:01:00.480 we've got both the m1 max and m1 ultra 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 00:01:03.440 --> 00:01:10.720 compare against for reference that pc bench runs a little more with shipping 00:01:07.920 --> 00:01:16.000 than a base spec m1 ultra while our ultra as specked costs about 1800 more i 00:01:14.080 --> 00:01:21.680 want to start off with gaming this time because it highlights exactly why it's 00:01:18.720 --> 00:01:26.640 so difficult to benchmark apple silicon dolphin a native gamecube emulator that 00:01:23.920 --> 00:01:30.159 i've tested extensively with m1 chips was struggling to reach frame rates 00:01:28.080 --> 00:01:33.360 above 120 when i know it should be capable of much more because i can crank 00:01:32.000 --> 00:01:38.240 the resolution without losing much performance that indicates that we're hitting a CPU 00:01:36.560 --> 00:01:42.320 bottleneck since it only uses a few cores at once 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 00:01:44.159 --> 00:01:50.399 the rosetta compatibility layer to translate Intel native apps because 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 00:01:53.439 --> 00:01:59.119 don't even want to talk about it thoraxis really needs to get on a native 00:01:57.520 --> 00:02:03.520 port maybe bundle it with some nice expansion packs if they need to 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 00:02:06.719 --> 00:02:13.200 average and a healthy dose of stuttering to go along with it thanks to that 00:02:10.399 --> 00:02:16.959 game's use of the opengl API long ago deprecated on macOS 00:02:15.200 --> 00:02:21.040 feral interactive's port of shadow of the tomb raider does a little bit better 00:02:18.640 --> 00:02:26.800 thanks to using apple's modern metal 2 API but remember we're running at 1080p 00:02:24.400 --> 00:02:31.599 here the frame rate simply does not compare to the pc bench 00:02:28.800 --> 00:02:36.239 and this clearly isn't indicative of m1 ultra's performance potential the same 00:02:33.680 --> 00:02:40.239 is true of total war warhammer 3 a game that straight up requires apple silicon 00:02:39.360 --> 00:02:45.519 but runs through rosetta anyway yeah they say that there's no 00:02:43.920 --> 00:02:50.080 performance penalty and they're doing it because they need certain features only 00:02:47.200 --> 00:02:53.200 found on Intel max what a mess 00:02:51.280 --> 00:02:57.440 the m1 ultra for its part breaks the 60fps barrier at nearly double the 00:02:55.120 --> 00:03:02.879 performance of the m1 max but lags to about half the performance 00:02:59.200 --> 00:03:05.599 of the pc bench so a win of the loss 00:03:02.879 --> 00:03:10.000 gaming on m1 is such a minefield that the only two games that are fully native 00:03:08.159 --> 00:03:14.000 to apple silicon are massively multiplayer 00:03:11.200 --> 00:03:18.400 world of warcraft and eve online i've never played eve and i honestly have no 00:03:16.159 --> 00:03:22.239 idea how it would benchmark it as for wow 00:03:19.440 --> 00:03:26.400 last time my lack of game knowledge made our previous benchmark pointless 00:03:24.239 --> 00:03:30.080 thankfully i do know someone who still plays wow and she threw together a 00:03:28.159 --> 00:03:34.799 simple lua script that longs the current frame rate at regular intervals letting 00:03:32.480 --> 00:03:38.720 us for the first time truly get something close to frame data out of a 00:03:36.720 --> 00:03:43.680 mac without pulling a digital foundry and analyzing video capture 00:03:41.120 --> 00:03:47.599 this is its own minefield within the minefield however 00:03:45.280 --> 00:03:51.760 even local multiplayer games introduced two machines worth of uncertainty 00:03:49.360 --> 00:03:56.480 instead of just one let alone an mmo with other players and server instances 00:03:54.000 --> 00:04:00.239 to deal with so we made the script also output the current location and the 00:03:58.319 --> 00:04:04.080 number of players in the vicinity into csv format which should let us sanitize 00:04:03.040 --> 00:04:08.000 our data for our testing we dragged a heal shaman 00:04:06.319 --> 00:04:11.360 through the same area a total of four times across each of our test systems 00:04:09.680 --> 00:04:15.840 and average the results before we talk numbers though check this 00:04:13.439 --> 00:04:19.120 out the m1 ultra exhibited some visual artifacting with assets blinking in and 00:04:17.680 --> 00:04:24.000 out of existence this didn't affect stability but it was 00:04:21.759 --> 00:04:30.160 definitely a thing clearly they didn't have the m1 ultra in mind when they made 00:04:26.080 --> 00:04:32.639 this native port now the numbers the m1 00:04:30.160 --> 00:04:38.560 ultra impressively captures between 70 and 88 percent of the rtx 3090 pc bench 00:04:35.680 --> 00:04:43.280 and doesn't dip below 60 FPS meanwhile the m1 max doesn't do so hot 00:04:41.280 --> 00:04:47.520 which indicates that wow is able to utilize either those extra CPU cores or 00:04:46.240 --> 00:04:51.360 the additional memory bandwidth available on m1 ultra 00:04:49.520 --> 00:04:56.479 since this test skews heavily towards the GPU at 4k max settings my money is 00:04:54.560 --> 00:05:00.720 on memory bandwidth interestingly the max studio loses less 00:04:58.880 --> 00:05:04.720 performance than the pc bench does with a consistent 25 players compared to runs 00:05:02.880 --> 00:05:09.520 where the players dropped out this could just be run to run variants 00:05:07.280 --> 00:05:12.560 but the fact that it held across both of our mac studios is a pattern worth 00:05:11.440 --> 00:05:16.000 bringing up but productivity not gaming is what 00:05:14.639 --> 00:05:19.759 apple was talking about when they said that this was the most powerful desktop 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 00:05:21.919 --> 00:05:27.919 potential buyers will spend their time with a mac studio but there are 00:05:25.840 --> 00:05:32.960 inconsistencies here too and we'll go through them one by one 00:05:29.520 --> 00:05:35.120 cinebench and cinema 4d in general isn't 00:05:32.960 --> 00:05:39.680 fully ready for apple silicon but multi-threaded CPU performance isn't 00:05:37.520 --> 00:05:44.720 far off from the core i9 which is frankly amazing it's basically what we'd 00:05:42.720 --> 00:05:48.560 expect at double the performance of our m1 max 00:05:46.320 --> 00:05:52.639 geekbench is another test that's not fully optimized CPU usage doesn't quite 00:05:50.720 --> 00:05:57.280 max out for some reason but it's not far off per thread and it 00:05:55.039 --> 00:06:01.840 does surpass the core i9's multi-threaded performance that is 00:05:59.600 --> 00:06:05.600 impressive though it does slip when we move over to the GPU test which is 00:06:03.840 --> 00:06:09.280 obviously not correct with double the GPU cores we'd expect a 00:06:07.680 --> 00:06:14.319 linear improvement unless we're limited somewhere else but m1 ultra is only 00:06:11.360 --> 00:06:18.560 about 60 faster than the m1 max here way behind the rtx 3090 00:06:16.800 --> 00:06:22.560 let's move away from synthetics and into the real world starting with blender's 00:06:20.160 --> 00:06:26.639 CPU rendering we're looking at a worse showing than our core i9 from both apple 00:06:24.720 --> 00:06:31.840 machines albeit with roughly correct scaling between the m1 ultra and m1 max 00:06:29.680 --> 00:06:36.080 this tells me that perhaps there's some optimizations still left to be done here 00:06:34.000 --> 00:06:42.960 and that's definitely the case with the GPU renderer which is still quite early 00:06:39.360 --> 00:06:44.560 and falls well behind our rtx 3090 which 00:06:42.960 --> 00:06:49.039 we tested with the traditional cuda renderer not the ray accelerated optics 00:06:46.960 --> 00:06:52.560 renderer another major category for prospective apple customers is 00:06:50.560 --> 00:06:57.440 development compile time isn't everything but with the mac studio 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 00:06:59.120 --> 00:07:04.319 devwork compile time is likely to be the 00:07:02.400 --> 00:07:09.919 limited factor so we grabbed the chromium source code and compiled it m1 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 00:07:13.199 --> 00:07:19.360 that's more than 20 percent faster i'm not sure that platform differences alone 00:07:18.000 --> 00:07:23.599 would really make that much of a difference but devs can feel free to 00:07:21.680 --> 00:07:26.720 correct me if i'm wrong here i can picture them now just typing out angry 00:07:25.120 --> 00:07:31.759 comments and their wan hoodies and dad hats from 00:07:28.840 --> 00:07:36.880 lt2store.com majestic now for apple silicon's bread and butter video editing 00:07:34.639 --> 00:07:43.520 final cut pro allows for timelines with up to 24 simultaneous raw streams on m1 00:07:41.599 --> 00:07:47.680 ultra before any frames drop in our multi-cam test 00:07:44.880 --> 00:07:51.440 which is such ludicrous performance that it's tough to imagine how you would even 00:07:49.840 --> 00:07:54.479 fully utilize it that's the magic of fixed function 00:07:53.440 --> 00:07:58.160 hardware what's more our davinci resolve timeline 00:07:56.639 --> 00:08:02.319 rendered out in a little under five and a half minutes on the m1 ultra which 00:08:00.720 --> 00:08:08.879 while not quite double the performance of m1 max is still a huge improvement 00:08:05.280 --> 00:08:12.720 it's over 25 ahead of our pc bench here 00:08:08.879 --> 00:08:14.879 video and coding however is rough thanks 00:08:12.720 --> 00:08:18.080 to the magic of that fixed function hardware 00:08:16.080 --> 00:08:23.280 see on Floatplane you can download videos directly and when i did that with 00:08:20.639 --> 00:08:28.000 our mac studio unboxing on ShortCircuit both apple's own compressor and the 00:08:25.440 --> 00:08:33.200 third-party app handbrake failed but only while encoding the h.264 codec 00:08:31.199 --> 00:08:37.360 compressor falls back to the CPU without a word and takes forever while handbrake 00:08:35.440 --> 00:08:41.919 just errors out it turns out that apple's h264 compression engine and 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 00:08:44.720 --> 00:08:50.640 the consumer 4k during the transcode instead it works just fine 00:08:49.120 --> 00:08:55.040 performance wise this is worse than a straight trans code 00:08:52.720 --> 00:08:59.360 but it is still somewhat favorable against NVIDIA 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 00:09:02.080 --> 00:09:08.880 both h.264 and h.265 encoding for 00:09:05.120 --> 00:09:12.000 reasons i struggle to comprehend i 00:09:08.880 --> 00:09:13.200 retested this at least a dozen times and 00:09:12.000 --> 00:09:17.839 here we are to apple's credit prores is probably a 00:09:15.920 --> 00:09:22.320 more common target for transcodes from raw especially given the timeline 00:09:19.839 --> 00:09:28.240 performance we saw in final cut but prores encoding time isn't materially 00:09:25.839 --> 00:09:33.040 better between any of our macs wait what no m1 ultra is clearly several 00:09:31.440 --> 00:09:39.120 seconds faster than the max what am i talking about well 00:09:35.200 --> 00:09:41.279 okay prores is more limited by how fast 00:09:39.120 --> 00:09:44.720 the SSD can write than how fast the encoder is 00:09:42.640 --> 00:09:49.920 our ultra equipped mac studio and our macbook pro both have one terabyte of 00:09:47.279 --> 00:09:53.440 storage while our base model m1 max equipped studio 00:09:51.360 --> 00:09:57.680 has a 512 gig module the bigger ssds boast much better write 00:09:55.920 --> 00:10:00.880 performance in most scenarios and the difference in prores encoding 00:09:59.040 --> 00:10:04.880 performance roughly corresponds to the difference in write speeds across 00:10:02.320 --> 00:10:08.480 amorphous disc mark moral of the story avoid the base tier storage option if 00:10:06.640 --> 00:10:12.080 you want the best possible performance out of your mac studio 00:10:10.080 --> 00:10:16.000 there's a reason why the m1 ultra comes with a terabyte by default 00:10:14.079 --> 00:10:19.279 moving on to creative cloud while most of puget bench can run natively on apple 00:10:18.240 --> 00:10:23.600 silicon the photoshop plugin needs to run via 00:10:21.279 --> 00:10:27.760 rosetta accordingly we get overall poor performance in photoshop here but 00:10:25.680 --> 00:10:32.160 after effects and especially premiere are way better like they're they're out 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 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 00:10:39.519 --> 00:10:45.040 apple's decoders are doing a lot of heavy lifting here 00:10:42.880 --> 00:10:49.519 now we need to talk thermals the cooler design of the max studio differs between 00:10:47.120 --> 00:10:52.880 the m1 max and m1 ultra with the lander getting a copper rather than aluminum 00:10:51.120 --> 00:10:56.720 heatsink a difference that makes the ultra two pounds heavier 00:10:54.880 --> 00:11:00.560 in both cases the heatsink is attached to the same thermal module that handles 00:10:58.560 --> 00:11:04.320 cooling for the entire machine testing thermals turned out to be 00:11:02.240 --> 00:11:09.120 another difficult task blender alone wasn't cutting it so 00:11:06.480 --> 00:11:12.880 instead i turned to stress ng a cross-platform stress test suite that 00:11:11.200 --> 00:11:17.440 has native apple silicon support through brew these are the parameters that i 00:11:15.120 --> 00:11:21.680 found stress to CPU the most add in gooseberry at 3 000 samples to hit the 00:11:19.760 --> 00:11:25.360 GPU as well and you've got yourself an apple cooker 00:11:23.279 --> 00:11:29.440 i'm not sure if anyone outside of apple has pushed m1 ultra to quite these 00:11:27.120 --> 00:11:34.720 temperatures before this is a mostly synthetic and highly unreasonable load 00:11:32.399 --> 00:11:38.880 but the copper cooler design is more than capable of handling it yes the 00:11:36.880 --> 00:11:43.680 hottest CPU cores are in the mid to high 90s but the hottest GPU clusters and 00:11:41.519 --> 00:11:48.079 memory sensors are nowhere near that meaning the soc itself is comfortable 00:11:46.000 --> 00:11:51.519 not only that but the fans only ever ramped up to around 50 percent 00:11:49.760 --> 00:11:54.880 throughout the entire run not bad though i bet we could push the 00:11:53.440 --> 00:11:57.839 GPU a little harder if we had a dedicated apple silicon native stress 00:11:56.800 --> 00:12:02.000 test the m1 max by comparison fares a bit 00:12:00.000 --> 00:12:06.360 better in terms of raw heat output but we knew that already 00:12:03.839 --> 00:12:11.120 while the hottest core sensor does slowly creep up past the 90 degree mark 00:12:09.440 --> 00:12:15.120 that aluminum heatsink is more than adequate sensors elsewhere in the 00:12:13.120 --> 00:12:18.560 package showed downright cool thermals by pc standards and 00:12:16.720 --> 00:12:21.760 this time the fans never spun up much faster than they did 00:12:20.480 --> 00:12:26.399 at idle with results like that like how much power could they possibly be drawing 00:12:25.120 --> 00:12:30.480 with this load to get a good idea we're using a power 00:12:28.240 --> 00:12:33.519 meter at the wall it's worth noting that we've seen at least three different 00:12:31.839 --> 00:12:37.760 power supply designs from apple at this point which means efficiency will differ 00:12:35.519 --> 00:12:42.560 very slightly between each design is there a best one 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 00:12:44.160 --> 00:12:50.720 the m1 ultra is a measly 10.8 watts with the m1 max at 8.7 00:12:48.959 --> 00:12:55.440 just a little more than an led light bulb this is why the idle thermal output 00:12:53.200 --> 00:12:59.920 for both models is incredibly low and makes max studio actually a pretty good 00:12:57.920 --> 00:13:03.200 fit for hotter climates it's worth putting into perspective how little 00:13:01.600 --> 00:13:09.200 power is being used here despite the load i hit them with the idle wattage of 00:13:06.000 --> 00:13:12.160 our Intel bench was just two-thirds of 00:13:09.200 --> 00:13:16.399 the full load reading on the m1 max at full bore it pulled 10 00:13:15.040 --> 00:13:21.200 times that with CPU cores at 100 degrees under our 00:13:18.880 --> 00:13:26.160 knock Noctua nhd15s true even apple's best GPU doesn't come 00:13:24.240 --> 00:13:31.279 near the raw performance of this top end pc hardware but the m1 ultra racked up 00:13:29.279 --> 00:13:37.040 over 80 percent of the pc bench's performance in overall productivity 00:13:33.680 --> 00:13:39.839 at 34 of the power draw at full load 00:13:37.040 --> 00:13:44.880 m1 max is even more efficient at 57 of the pc's performance while drawing just 00:13:41.760 --> 00:13:46.720 15 of the power under full load 00:13:44.880 --> 00:13:51.680 in a world where pc power consumption just creeps ever upward 00:13:48.959 --> 00:13:54.880 this is a breath of fresh air fresh 00:13:52.880 --> 00:14:00.079 smogless air all this in a machine 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 00:14:03.360 --> 00:14:10.240 impressive for such a small boy and it's not all for cooling and power 00:14:08.000 --> 00:14:13.760 either the addition of front i o was a welcome mom when i unboxed the mac 00:14:11.760 --> 00:14:18.079 studio on ShortCircuit and with those type c ports doubling as Thunderbolt 4 00:14:15.760 --> 00:14:21.120 ports on the m1 ultra there's a frankly ridiculous amount of Thunderbolt on 00:14:19.680 --> 00:14:25.040 display here meanwhile tangie Ethernet as standard 00:14:23.120 --> 00:14:30.639 doesn't need anything special to work and this tells me that apple knows what 00:14:27.279 --> 00:14:32.720 their professional customers need but 00:14:30.639 --> 00:14:35.120 apple has always been hesitant to provide their customers with what they 00:14:34.160 --> 00:14:40.560 want and it's finally time to talk expansion and repairability 00:14:38.720 --> 00:14:44.720 or lack thereof we know by now that getting into the mac 00:14:42.399 --> 00:14:48.079 studio is a bit painful that ring on the bottom will probably never look the same 00:14:46.399 --> 00:14:53.279 again unless you're careful but that's not the bad part 00:14:51.519 --> 00:14:57.920 it's the SSD you can learn more about our findings in 00:14:54.959 --> 00:15:02.480 this previous video but the tldr is that these modules are not ssds in the 00:15:00.320 --> 00:15:06.720 traditional sense but rather only contain raw nand chips the storage 00:15:04.880 --> 00:15:11.040 controller is integrated into the m1 series socs themselves and is simply 00:15:09.199 --> 00:15:14.959 programmed from the factory why can't you just swap or even rearrange them 00:15:13.040 --> 00:15:19.760 even with a factory reset well apple has created a de facto allow 00:15:17.760 --> 00:15:24.800 list by only supporting the specific combinations they're selling 00:15:21.839 --> 00:15:28.079 this because apple says so thing isn't new 00:15:25.600 --> 00:15:31.760 i upgraded my 2011 macbook pro with the wi-fi module from the continuity 00:15:29.680 --> 00:15:37.120 supporting 2012 model but couldn't use it without a hack 00:15:34.320 --> 00:15:41.360 specifically because apple never shipped that configuration with that model it 00:15:39.760 --> 00:15:47.199 has the drivers didn't bother loading them it's just 00:15:43.360 --> 00:15:48.160 bubble okay you can't you can't use it 00:15:47.199 --> 00:15:52.480 but as mad as that makes me consumers have come 00:15:50.480 --> 00:15:56.560 to expect this kind of limitation from apple silicon by now so at the end of 00:15:54.720 --> 00:16:01.440 the day it all boils down to performance and lasting power 00:15:58.480 --> 00:16:06.079 will the max studio and m1 ultra be relevant in the next five to ten years 00:16:04.160 --> 00:16:10.959 honestly i'm not so sure the greatest irony with 00:16:08.880 --> 00:16:17.360 the m1 ultra is that the one thing that it's really 00:16:14.160 --> 00:16:20.160 really good at is also the one thing 00:16:17.360 --> 00:16:25.120 that m1 max is already really really good at 00:16:22.480 --> 00:16:30.639 video editing unless you absolutely need access to 128 gigs of memory or you do a 00:16:28.160 --> 00:16:34.639 lot of vfx work chances are you'll never fully appreciate the extra power that 00:16:32.399 --> 00:16:38.880 affords you until it's already obsolete if your use cases are covered by the few 00:16:36.480 --> 00:16:43.040 exceptions like compilation and resolve then m1 ultra is great otherwise 00:16:41.600 --> 00:16:47.199 wherever it's not within spinning distance of m1 max 00:16:44.880 --> 00:16:51.360 it's still matched or outmatched by pcs that cost the same or less 00:16:48.959 --> 00:16:55.759 now this could be a optimization thing that apple will just have to deal with 00:16:53.120 --> 00:16:59.600 in the future with additional updates to swift and 00:16:57.040 --> 00:17:04.799 xcode but for now that's just the reality as for the mac studio itself 00:17:03.199 --> 00:17:10.400 like m1 ultra it's impressive but as excited as i was 00:17:07.280 --> 00:17:12.400 when it was announced thank you apple 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 00:17:14.400 --> 00:17:19.919 shares many of apple silicon's current limitations like the lack of 48 gigabits 00:17:17.919 --> 00:17:24.640 per second HDMI output if you buy apple's matching peripherals 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 00:17:26.880 --> 00:17:32.080 with the same specs and anchors it to a desk 00:17:30.080 --> 00:17:35.919 a macbook pro with the same soc can drive the same studio display has the 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 00:17:37.919 --> 00:17:43.760 to speed with a dock too this one not only provides more connectivity than the 00:17:42.000 --> 00:17:48.480 mac studio would have with a studio display but it costs 400 and also 00:17:46.240 --> 00:17:52.320 supports audio video bridging something that i'm told apple silicon's lan ports 00:17:50.640 --> 00:17:55.200 dropped support for but is critically important for broadcast 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 00:17:58.640 --> 00:18:05.120 studio setup even if you got the 16 inch model 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 00:18:07.440 --> 00:18:13.520 or magic peripherals apple just expects you to we'll have 00:18:11.039 --> 00:18:17.679 them linked down below just in case and this really is the overall theme 00:18:15.200 --> 00:18:22.720 here apple expects you to want the m1 ultra you probably don't 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 00:18:26.080 --> 00:18:31.440 what it is is a uniquely compact efficient and surprisingly powerful 00:18:30.480 --> 00:18:38.320 machine but with a price tag to match and without matching the pc competition in 00:18:35.360 --> 00:18:42.240 terms of performance in most workloads if it aligns with your priorities then 00:18:40.000 --> 00:18:45.919 great i can't tell you not to shell out for it 00:18:43.120 --> 00:18:49.520 if your priority is value then apple has trapped themselves into a corner with 00:18:47.280 --> 00:18:53.039 how ludicrously good the 2021 macbook pros already are 00:18:51.039 --> 00:18:56.880 and those even come with magsafe just like this video it comes with a segue to 00:18:54.320 --> 00:19:00.559 our sponsor nord security if you keep up with the tech news you know that hackers 00:18:58.880 --> 00:19:06.080 are always looking for new ways to compromise everything from tech giant 00:19:02.960 --> 00:19:08.000 servers to grandma's computer thankfully 00:19:06.080 --> 00:19:12.000 nord security's well-rounded protection package is there to help protect your 00:19:09.760 --> 00:19:16.720 files devices and your personal data online like nordpass a password manager 00:19:14.799 --> 00:19:21.679 that helps you generate unique passwords across your devices and browsers or nord 00:19:19.440 --> 00:19:25.440 locker a powerful file encryption and sharing service that's a great 00:19:23.039 --> 00:19:28.559 alternative to google drive cyber crime is everywhere these days so make sure 00:19:27.120 --> 00:19:32.640 you're taking the right precautions when you surf the web right now you can get 00:19:30.320 --> 00:19:37.440 one month free on all nord products when you go to nordsecurity.com 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 00:19:39.120 --> 00:19:45.520 you online risk free so don't wait go to nordsecurity.com 00:19:43.360 --> 00:19:49.200 Linus or click the link down below thanks for watching guys go check out 00:19:46.960 --> 00:19:52.960 our investigation on the mac studios ssds for a little more context into 00:19:51.440 --> 00:19:59.760 what's going on there apple silicon really is a new frontier 00:19:56.080 --> 00:19:59.760 for better or for worse