Apple is an existential threat to the PC

[Albuquerque]

When talking MSRP (where were going again), you could build a system with 2x 3090 (or 2x 3080Ti if your not in PAL regions) and a 5950x/128gb ddr4 for the price of a 64 core Studio.

Lmao, what are you smoking. There’s no way, with current prices, to build 2 * 3090, 5950X, and 128GB of RAM (plus storage and cooling) for the price of a Studio.

Since you both seem to be arguing this same perspective, let's put it to rest. I see PSman talking about the top-end Apple M1 Ultra with the 64-core GPU and 128GB of ram, compared to a 5950x and a pair of either 3090's or 3080Ti's. Storage isn't specified here, but if we're going to buy a $5000 machine, let's assume you didn't go bargain-basement on storage. Howabout we say 2TB SSD as a minimum entry? I think that's fair, tell me if you disagree.

I've configured my Mac Studio - Apple to have the 64-core GPU, 128GB of ram, and a 2TB SSD. The USD MSRP on this configuration is $6149. There's our Apple pricetag.

Let's hit Amazon up for:
AMD Ryzen 9 5950X 16-core, 32-Thread Unlocked Desktop Processor for $590 USD (this is where I bought mine)
Noctua NH-D15 chromax.Black for $110 (it's arguably the all-around best air cooler you can buy)
GIGABYTE X570 AORUS Elite Wi-Fi Gaming Motherboard for $190 USD (PCIe 4x, 128GB ram support, 2.5GbE, a well rated good quality board)
Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro SL 128GB DDR4 3200 C16 1.35V for $605 (this is what I would buy if I were upgrading my 64GB to 128GB)
Samsung 980 PRO SSD 2TB PCIe NVMe Gen 4 for $280 (I have two of these in my own desktop)
2 x EVGA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti XC3 Ultra Gaming for $1500 each / $3000 total (this is the model I have in my own PC, sold by Amazon)
EVGA SuperNOVA 1000 G+, 80 Plus Gold 1000W, Fully Modular, 10 Year Warranty for $200. (absolutely enough for this rig and a quality unit)
Lian Li LANCOOL 215 RGB ATX Gaming Case for $180 (Lian Li has never made a bad PC case)

Arguably there isn't a single part in this shopping list that couldn't be considered among the highest quality options, and it's $5,155 USD.

Not going to overclock? Reduce the cooler size, swap for a B550 board, buy a Sabrent or WD Black 2TB drive, swap for the Zotac-branded 3080Ti's, buy a Corsair RM 850W power supply and a really nice Silverstone ATX case and you can knock another $500 or more out of this pricetag.

Sorry Wesker, PSman has this argument.

 

[wco81]

Apple is gearing to sell Studio's in massive numbers

What are massive numbers? A few hundred thousand units per year? A couple of million?

Just how large is the market where a minimal Studio and Studio Display setup runs $3500?

They'd have to get a lot of people who spent $2000-2500 on the big display iMac to spend up towards $4000, almost double the ASP of iMac 5Ks. Mainly to do email and browsing.

If they still put out a 27-inch iMac with M1 Pro or M1 Max, that's probably going to put a low ceiling on Mac Studio sales.

 

[Entropy]

What are massive numbers? A few hundred thousand units per year? A couple of million?

Just how large is the market where a minimal Studio and Studio Display setup runs $3500?

They'd have to get a lot of people who spent $2000-2500 on the big display iMac to spend up towards $4000, almost double the ASP of iMac 5Ks. Mainly to do email and browsing.

If they still put out a 27-inch iMac with M1 Pro or M1 Max, that's probably going to put a low ceiling on Mac Studio sales.

Subtract the display. The people I know who buy the Studio (not a statistically significant sample size ) are all passing on that lemon. The only thing it has going for it is the resolution.

 

[iroboto]

What is your thesis? Now you're trying to post Chinese benchmarks between a 12900K + 2*3080 Ti workstation vs the Studio? What's that, a 900w TDP system (and at a higher cost) vs a system which consumes 160w at peak max? What exactly are you trying to show?

there should be some convergence on what is being debated here.
Price / Performance good or bad ?
or is it
Performance / Watt good bad ?

If the situation is power constrained, then the M1 Ultra is an ideal machine.
If the situation is price constrained, then you'll go with former instead.

You both don't seem to be agreeing on what is being debated on, at least given what I've read.
There's no good bad really. One has performance at the cost of power and the other has performance at the cost of price. Ultimately each purchaser will need to decide what's more important to them. if you need 50 of these systems side by side, power may actually be a constraint giving each office space can be allotted only so much power.

If your constraint is to obtain the large amount of compute possible, then you're looking at price/performance, but you're going to pay significantly more in power and cooling fees.

 

[PSman1700]

You're not making any sense. You're the one investing stock in Geekbench, but now you're trying to reverse your position...?

I think you have misunderstood me, what i ment is that Geekbench usually favours or better said that Apple Sillicon in the mobile space is almost always outperforming Android counterparts, be it Qualcomm, Exynoss or other mobile phone hardware. It is the most used benchmark for youtubers to gauge mobile cpu performance. I myself dont see geekbench as a very reliable benchmark to gauge mobile cpu performance as it rarely translates to what the user actually is experiencing. Not the differences geekbench 5 shows atleast. Theres probably much more to it.
But when geekbench doesnt show Apple being ahead, its rubbish.

What is your thesis? Now you're trying to post Chinese benchmarks between a 12900K + 2*3080 Ti workstation vs the Studio? What's that, a 900w TDP system (and at a higher cost) vs a system which consumes 160w at peak max? What exactly are you trying to show?

Performance. Thats what i am talking about. Watts? there Apple clearly wins, by quite large margins. And no, the mac studio is going to cost more upfront. You'd have to be running that mac studio for a very long time to make it even (power bills).

What are massive numbers? A few hundred thousand units per year? A couple of million?

I do not think at all that the Studio or Mac pro (when it comes) is going to massively replace x86 workstations, it might shift some, but i'd doubt we'd even notice it. These Apple studio/pro machines are very performant in certain use cases (creation, photo/media etc), but they still do not replace what true x86 workstations do. And then im not talking RTX 3090 and A12900k gaming products. True workstations are not equipped with these hardware parts.

If the situation is power constrained, then the M1 Ultra is an ideal machine.
If the situation is price constrained, then you'll go with former instead.

Personally i am looking at price vs performance, how much performance do i get for what kind of money. Then even for content creation, a gaming pc is doing very, very well. Yes, the Studio is going to be faster in apps that suit the hardware/machine, in special proress etc, but then again, it depends on use-case. Some content creation apps run faster on NV/Intel hardware aswell.

You both don't seem to be agreeing on what is being debated on, at least given what I've read.
There's no good bad really. One has performance at the cost of power and the other has performance at the cost of price. Ultimately each purchaser will need to decide what's more important to them. if you need 50 of these systems side by side, power may actually be a constraint giving each office space can be allotted only so much power.

If your constraint is to obtain the large amount of compute possible, then you're looking at price/performance, but you're going to pay significantly more in power and cooling fees.

I agree with you. Though i have to mention that RTX3090 hardware for example rarely find its ways into workstations in office spaces. There is other (more expensive) hardware for that, which draws much less than a RTX3090, but is as capable if not more than a gaming oriented product.
Your sentiment still remains true though, even consider more pro x86 hardware, but power draw is much better in these products. Also, it can be debated regarding performance vs power, if say a x86 machine is drawing twice that of a Apple mac pro (or extreme whatever they gonna call it), but the X86 finishes much earlier, it has to be used less also....

Imagine what the mac pro will cost btw, we really land into high-cost x86 hardware aswell then, were really far away from 4090 (later this year) products. Another note, i think this whole comparison is strange, the Apple machines arent competing with these x86 products, they suit a whole different market for the most. They are not in the gaming market either which seems to be the most popular topic here.

 

[wco81]

Subtract the display. The people I know who buy the Studio (not a statistically significant sample size ) are all passing on that lemon. The only thing it has going for it is the resolution.

They're going to move a lot because it just plugs in together, looks sleek. The Display is apparently only for Apple Silicon Macs.

The LG Ultrafine 5K is about $1500 so not a lot more for the Studio Display. Some Studio buyers will go for it just because the design matches.

There are also rumors insisting that they're working on a mini LED version for this year as well.

 

[PSman1700]

They're going to move a lot because it just plugs in together, looks sleek. The Display is apparently only for Apple Silicon Macs.

The LG Ultrafine 5K is about $1500 so not a lot more for the Studio Display. Some Studio buyers will go for it just because the design matches.

There are also rumors insisting that they're working on a mini LED version for this year as well.

The Studio display is quite a bad deal compared to whats out there, if you entirely go after what you get for your money spec wise. If you want it for the ecosystem/build quality then yea...

 

[wco81]

True but not all buyers are studying specs and searching out all the reviews.

When they're at the Apple Store, they will buy the Studio and the Studio Display because he or she likes the aesthetics.

 

[PSman1700]

When they're at the Apple Store, they will buy the Studio and the Studio Display because he or she likes the aesthetics.

And Apple knows that

 

[Wesker]

Since you both seem to be arguing this same perspective, let's put it to rest. I see PSman talking about the top-end Apple M1 Ultra with the 64-core GPU and 128GB of ram, compared to a 5950x and a pair of either 3090's or 3080Ti's. Storage isn't specified here, but if we're going to buy a $5000 machine, let's assume you didn't go bargain-basement on storage. Howabout we say 2TB SSD as a minimum entry? I think that's fair, tell me if you disagree.

I've configured my Mac Studio - Apple to have the 64-core GPU, 128GB of ram, and a 2TB SSD. The USD MSRP on this configuration is $6149. There's our Apple pricetag.

[...]

GIGABYTE X570 AORUS Elite Wi-Fi Gaming Motherboard for $190 USD (PCIe 4x, 128GB ram support,
2 x EVGA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti XC3 Ultra Gaming for $1500 each / $3000 total (this is the model I have in

Arguably there isn't a single part in this shopping list that couldn't be considered among the highest quality options, and it's $5,155 USD.

Sorry Wesker, PSman has this argument.

If you're trying to build a gaming PC, sure, PSman1700 has this argument. It's too bad that I'm not arguing about gaming, and I never have argued for the Studio's value for money as a gaming rig.

Couple other points: You can shave $400 off the Studio's price by going with 1TB and using a RAID array over Thunderbolt (or a NAS). On that note: The PC rig doesn't even have a single Thunderbolt port, while the Studio has 6 TB4 ports. Additionally, if you need bigger VRAM buffers you're going to have to go to 3090s at a minimum (hence why I laughed about his "budget" dual 3090 build), or fork over the costs for Quadro -- in which case the cards alone are going to cost more than a Studio.

https://www.amazon.com/PNY-VCNRTXA6000-PB-NVIDIA-RTX-A6000/dp/B09BDH8VZV

there should be some convergence on what is being debated here.
Price / Performance good or bad ?
or is it
Performance / Watt good bad ?

If the situation is power constrained, then the M1 Ultra is an ideal machine.
If the situation is price constrained, then you'll go with former instead.

You both don't seem to be agreeing on what is being debated on, at least given what I've read.
There's no good bad really. One has performance at the cost of power and the other has performance at the cost of price. Ultimately each purchaser will need to decide what's more important to them. if you need 50 of these systems side by side, power may actually be a constraint giving each office space can be allotted only so much power.

If your constraint is to obtain the large amount of compute possible, then you're looking at price/performance, but you're going to pay significantly more in power and cooling fees.

There is no convergence because PSman1700 -- like he does in every non-Nvidia thread he's in -- keeps changing the crux of his argument.

He's now trying to argue against the value-for-money of Mac Studio based on gaming performance.

I think you have misunderstood me, what i ment is that Geekbench usually favours or better said that Apple Sillicon in the mobile space is almost always outperforming Android counterparts, be it Qualcomm, Exynoss or other mobile phone hardware. It is the most used benchmark for youtubers to gauge mobile cpu performance. I myself dont see geekbench as a very reliable benchmark to gauge mobile cpu performance as it rarely translates to what the user actually is experiencing. Not the differences geekbench 5 shows atleast. Theres probably much more to it.
But when geekbench doesnt show Apple being ahead, its rubbish.

How to say you don't know anything about benchmarks without saying you don't know anything about benchmarks.

I do not think at all that the Studio or Mac pro (when it comes) is going to massively replace x86 workstations, it might shift some, but i'd doubt we'd even notice it. These Apple studio/pro machines are very performant in certain use cases (creation, photo/media etc)

Yeah, imagine that. I wonder why during their keynote Apple talked about benefits to creative professionals who work with audio and visual content in a studio. It's almost as if the Mac Studio was tailor made for those pros...

but they still do not replace what true x86 workstations do. And then im not talking RTX 3090 and A12900k gaming products. True workstations are not equipped with these hardware parts.

Mac Pro says "hello".

The Studio display is quite a bad deal compared to whats out there, if you entirely go after what you get for your money spec wise. If you want it for the ecosystem/build quality then yea...

Did you even watch the video, or did you just post it based on its title?

Name me another 5K monitor with factory colour calibration and good build quality for under $999.

 

[Albuquerque]

If you're trying to build a gaming PC, sure, PSman1700 has this argument. It's too bad that I'm not arguing about gaming, and I never have argued for the Studio's value for money as a gaming rig.

I'm not trying to do anything. His position was pretty clear - a 5950x, 128GB of DDR4 ram, and a pair of either 3090's or 3080TIs are going to be cheaper and faster than a Studio Max with the 64-core GPU. Your position was made equally clear: that PC can't possibly be cheaper.

I quoted both of you, in your own words, making exactly those statements. Following precisely the claims made, his was the correct one. He didn't' specify anything about power consumption or efficiency, neither did you.

Couple other points: You can shave $400 off the Studio's price by going with 1TB and using a RAID array over Thunderbolt (or a NAS). On that note: The PC rig doesn't even have a single Thunderbolt port, while the Studio has 6 TB4 ports. Additionally, if you need bigger VRAM buffers you're going to have to go to 3090s at a minimum (hence why I laughed about his "budget" dual 3090 build), or fork over the costs for Quadro -- in which case the cards alone are going to cost more than a Studio.

To what end? You could do all of that to the PC and still save >$1000 over the Studio. Cutting corners to optimize price isn't limited to the Apple solution by far.

There is no convergence because PSman1700 -- like he does in every non-Nvidia thread he's in -- keeps changing the crux of his argument. He's now trying to argue against the value-for-money of Mac Studio based on gaming performance.

You're putting words into his mouth. I quoted what he said, I quoted your rebuttal, I then put data to both of your claims. His was the claim which matched the data.

Look, if you have another argument to make, then make another separate argument. Otherwise, you're now just looking like some sort of Apple apologist, or worse, some sort of shill. It's now YOU who is moving the goalposts, specifically after I quoted exactly your argument (which was: you can't buy that machine for that cheap.)

Next time either of you wants to make a claim, go get some data to back your stance.

 

[PSman1700]

f you're trying to build a gaming PC, sure, PSman1700 has this argument. It's too bad that I'm not arguing about gaming PCs, and I never have argued for the Studio's value for money as a gaming rig.

No, not just gaming. We were talking workstations. And as a workstation, a 3090 setup might offer you better performance depending on which applications you use. For less money. A x86 workstation is faster at not just gaming, there are more scenarios where it is (much) faster. Again, it depends on the given workload. (3d) Rendering is one, Arnold, Optix, Cuda etc.

You can shave $400 off the Studio's price by going with 1TB and using a RAID array over Thunderbolt (or a NAS).

You shave off 2000mb/s of bandwith from the storage aswell, save 400 dollars, and adding a few hundred bucks again when going for a raid array over TB. What was the point there?

There is no convergence because PSman1700 -- like he does in every non-Nvidia thread he's in -- keeps changing the crux of his argument.

He's now trying to argue against the value-for-money of Mac Studio based on gaming performance.

Nope i am not. I am talking as a workstation, you can get one for less money than a mac studio, and depending on workload, you will see either faster or slower performance, and even in the latter case, the differences arent that big.
Also, you need to stop attacking me personally, keep it on-topic, without diving into what i am doing in other topics.

Yeah, imagine that. I wonder why Apple talked about benefits to creative professionals who work with audio and visual content in a studio in their keynote. It's almost as if the Mac Studio was tailor made for these people...

For the use-case, its a very capable product, drawing very little power compared to other solutions. Though, it is not always faster depending on what kind of workload you require, even as a professional content creator. This was obvious from the MKBHD video where he clearly showed his old mac pro was still faster for that kind of work.

ow to say you don't know anything about benchmarks without saying you don't know anything about benchmarks.

Well one thing i know for sure about them, they mostly do not tell me what real world performance is.

Mac Pro says "hello".

Intel Sapphire Rapids and NV quadro say hello.

Did you even watch the video, or did you just post it based on its title?

Name me another 5K monitor with factory colour calibration and good build quality for under $999.

Actually i did watch his video, i watch most of his videos. His conclusion was that the Studio Display was a bad deal, and if you watch the whole video, you know why (theres alternatives out there with the same specs for less money).

One of the many comments in this YT video (go and read the comments yourself).

''Master Bator
1 day ago
This guy gets invited to apple events, gets exclusive interviews with people from apple and still has what it takes to give out genuine impressions about products like these!!! That is why he is my number 1 source for all tech related things!!
182''

Credit where it's due man. I personally think the Mac Studio and the M1 series are quite impressive considering the performance vs power draw. I however, as per the topic (pc/x86 vs apple) do not think it is outperforming the former, neither is it replacing them en masse (a threat). Remember the topic you are in, its all about Apple Sillicon vs its competitor(s).

 

[iroboto]

There is no convergence because PSman1700 -- like he does in every non-Nvidia thread he's in -- keeps changing the crux of his argument.

He's now trying to argue against the value-for-money of Mac Studio based on gaming performance.

Yea.
In your type of situation I would just move on and drop continuing the conversation. I mean, it's just eating up your time, and ultimately your time is precious. Certainly better things to do than to debate this. As long as the conversation stays civil, and you're just being frustrated by debate tactics, then that usually means it's free to move on.

I like Mac studio, it's clear there are some premium margins in there, and some (a lot) people don't like the 'apple tax'. But the apple tax is precisely why Apple survives and other companies don't. And people don't really like expensive things because that creates a space of exclusivity: you can't experience it because you can't afford it. But healthy margins are what allows a company to handle disruption, and businesses that are on a knife's edge for margins fall into bankruptcy because there's no longer any margin left for profit or there is no product to move.

Some people don't like it. But that's fine. As long as Apple continues this trend and people buy their products, that's all that really matters. It's a great product, way out of my price range, but a great product none the less with some really neat performance characteristics not found anywhere in the PC space. And I hope that trend continues. It will be a while before diehards respect that, and that's fine. Each successive generation of M1 Chip will eventually change the narrative.

 

[PSman1700]

In your type of situation I would just move on and drop continuing the conversation. I mean, it's just eating up your time, and ultimately your time is precious. Certainly better things to do than to debate this. As long as the conversation stays civil, and you're just being frustrated by debate tactics, then that usually means it's free to move on.

I am saying that a 3090 system is very capable for non-gaming workloads aswell, even content creation, where it is not far off from a maxed M1 Ultra studio, faster depending on workload. He is on and on again going with this 'only for 3d gaming' which isnt the only strong point of such a setup. The huge advantage comes in wattage where the Mac outshines the 3090 setup by a landslide.
And.... its kinda what the topic is.

 

[iroboto]

I am saying that a 3090 system is very capable for non-gaming workloads aswell, even content creation, where it is not far off from a maxed M1 Ultra studio, faster depending on workload. He is on and on again going with this 'only for 3d gaming' which isnt the only strong point of such a setup. The huge advantage comes in wattage where the Mac outshines the 3090 setup by a landslide.
And.... its kinda what the topic is.

Its fine, it's a discussion forum. Everyone says their piece and then we move on. When we try to win an argument we're at debating and not at discussing. A lot has been said. There's no right or wrong here. People are going to buy what they need or what they want. There are valid points to both sides that are worthy of consideration.

Some people are in a strict mac environment as well, so there's not really a conversation there with a 3090 because no mac software runs on that. That's sort of where things are. Synthetic benchmarks are great, but the real question is how well does this new hardware improve your existing pipelines, workflows and processes. I'm well aware a 3090 could outperform a mac studio especially in some areas. But that doesn't mean the 3090 is going to return the most ROI for a business.

So it's important to just leave it at that, each company will figure out if they need one, and there are options in the PC space. But Mac studio is the _only_ option in the Mac space.

 

[Wesker]

I'm not trying to do anything. His position was pretty clear - a 5950x, 128GB of DDR4 ram, and a pair of either 3090's or 3080TIs are going to be cheaper and faster than a Studio Max with the 64-core GPU. Your position was made equally clear: that PC can't possibly be cheaper.

I quoted both of you, in your own words, making exactly those statements. Following precisely the claims made, his was the correct one. He didn't' specify anything about power consumption or efficiency, neither did you.

To what end? You could do all of that to the PC and still save >$1000 over the Studio. Cutting corners to optimize price isn't limited to the Apple solution by far.


You're putting words into his mouth. I quoted what he said, I quoted your rebuttal, I then put data to both of your claims. His was the claim which matched the data.

Look, if you have another argument to make, then make another separate argument. Otherwise, you're now just looking like some sort of Apple apologist, or worse, some sort of shill. It's now YOU who is moving the goalposts, specifically after I quoted exactly your argument (which was: you can't buy that machine for that cheap.)

Next time either of you wants to make a claim, go get some data to back your stance.

I appreciate you trying to help, but I was very careful with my words. There's a reason why I snorted at his dual 3090 claim: because a professional who needs the VRAM of a 3090 cannot settle for a 3080 Ti. Worst still, if you need even more RAM, then you may even need the A6000 at about $5,000 per card.

Remember, we're not talking about gaming, where the drop from a 3090 to a 3080 Ti is a single digit drop in performance. Once you hit the 12GB buffer limit of a 3080 Ti, you're screwed. You need to cough up the cash for a 3090 or a Quadro/A6000.

In professional work loads you can't just shrug off things like VRAM, Thunderbolt, or reference colour panels. There's no such thing as "oh well I'll just go for this cheaper part for a 5% reduction in performance".

 

[PSman1700]

But that doesn't mean the 3090 is going to return the most ROI for a business.

And the other way around aswell. I have been trying to tell that to him, there is no 'better', they fit different workloads and situations. And (as per the topic) he's saying the Mac is actually better, well, it is, but thats the same for the 3090 setup...
Also, were talking 3090 but there are other solutions for workstations (at a higher cost, less power draw).

Remember, we're not talking about gaming

While it is one of the workloads discussed before, its not just in gaming where a x86 setup might still be more performant. And yes, there are cases where the Mac studio will be more performant (like the ram limitation advantage).
Both systems excell at what they do, both can do excellent content creation workloads, they trade blows depending on workload.

In professional work loads you can't just shrug off things like VRAM, Thunderbolt, or reference colour panels.

So how did professionals fix this pre-mac studio?

 

[Albuquerque]

But Mac studio is the _only_ option in the Mac space.

Bit of a non-sequitor, right? In a sense, it literally doesn't matter how the newest thing performs if it's your only option. No shop who adhered to a strictly "Mac only" policy would even entertain the conversation about moving to a cheaper, faster alternative platform .... right? Other than the part where it might make a whole lot of business sense to get more done in a shorter time with a smaller capital expenditure. Or said another way, I think this statement too is a bit hand-wavey for my taste. But hey, this particular statement is 100% opinion and there will be no empirical data to support or refute it.

The huge advantage comes in wattage where the Mac outshines the 3090 setup by a landslide.

This is a true statement as-stated, however I still feel it's fallacious. It's absolutely true that a Toyota Rav4 is radically more fuel efficient than a Porsche Cayane Turbo S, but why would we be comparing them? This conversation about how a 3090 or even a 3080Ti isn't an efficiency monster misses the actual topic that Wesker keeps trying to remind us of: those are great for top-end gaming cards, they aren't what anyone would buy for a competitor to the Mac Studio.

In a prior post of mine, I went digging and I felt like the available data we had on M1 Ultra GPU performance placed it mostly alongside a 3060. Insofar as I can tell, we still don't have great numbers on the CPU throughput at full-tilt either. For any of this to really be comparable, we need someone to load up one of those Mac Studio devices with a bunch of transcode work, and then do the same on a functionally equipvalent PC, and then plug them both into a proper power metering device.

I'm still sure the Mac will win given the platform, but talking about how big the divide might be is still just guesswork until we have data.

 

[Wesker]

No, not just gaming. We were talking workstations. And as a workstation, a 3090 setup [...]

Just remember this.

You shave off 2000mb/s of bandwith from the storage aswell, save 400 dollars, and adding a few hundred bucks again when going for a raid array over TB. What was the point there?

This is pulled out of thin air. You do not lose 2GB/s going from 4TB to 1TB.

My point is that a professional using the Mac Studio (or Windows PC) is not going to store their stuff locally. Hence why they would use Thunderbolt attached storage or a NAS.

Nope i am not. I am talking as a workstation, [...]

"Workstation"

Well one thing i know for sure about them, they mostly do not tell me what real world performance is.

So now you're back on the Geekbench bandwagon? Interesting.

Intel Sapphire Rapids and NV quadro say hello.

Are we still talking about workstations? SPR is currently going to be offered to servers and supercomputers.

Actually i did watch his video, i watch most of his videos. His conclusion was that the Studio Display was a bad deal, and if you watch the whole video, you know why (theres alternatives out there with the same specs for less money).

I'm still waiting for you to link me a 5K monitor with factory colour calibration and good build quality for less than $999.

Or, answer me this: is a 3080 Ti or 3090 a bad deal?

 

[Wesker]

So how did professionals fix this pre-mac studio?

You cough up the money, of course.