Apple M2 Ultra Mac Studio: same body, more firepower (2023)

"That's the endMoving to Apple silicon,” noted John Ternus, senior vice president of hardware engineering, at last week's WWDC keynote. Apple never promised that the process would happen overnight.

Speaking at the 2020 event, CEO Tim Cook said atransitional period of two years. The company missed the deadline by a year, but a lot has happened in that time, not least the global supply chain coming to a standstill. This will adjust a timeline or two.

Apple has officially crossed the finish line with the launch of theMac pro, which has long been the odd one out. Problems with the "garbage can" model led to a complete internal rethink. The lovingly designed "cheese grater" launched in late 2019 with a starting price of $6,000. In the middle of the next year, however, everything changed.

The long-awaited introduction of Apple silicon marked a major change for the entire product line. Suddenly, the lowest-priced Macs were posting really impressive numbers. In March last year, a new contender emerged.by mac-studiosits at the top of the line, replacing the short-lived iMac Pro and ostensibly the Mac Pro as well.

Most importantly, the system resembles a grown-up Mac Mini, replacing the iMac's all-in-one design with a more classic PC/monitor setup. Apple also marked the occasion by introducing a $1,599 Studio Display. Themodel I testedLast March there was an M2 Max chip. It outperformed the rest of our benchmark Mac systems and wasn't even top-shelf.

Like Mathijsnoted in his pieceon the executive decisions that led to the development of the new desktop: "The configured Mac Studio will cost you about $3,200." Only about $20,000 cheaper than the Mac Pro I used to run this test in 2020. rekindled his love for creative professionals - a bond that had somewhat foundered in recent years.

You might assume this was the nail in the Mac Pro's coffin. In the end, however, the company returned to the well. As for why, we can answer it in one word: workflows. As much as Apple would love to be part of the creative world (who wouldn't?), inviting it into a truly professional workplace requires some concessions, namely modularity. You don't really achieve that with a compact body.

While the company noted that the studio was based on customer feedback, it was no doubt clear that much of the market was untapped. Audio and video editors, among others, rely on cards and plug-ins that require expansion slots. The Pro's significantly larger footprint makes this possible. It also provides a clearer path to upgradeability than breaking up the studio.

Company quote:

The new Mac Pro brings PCIe expansion to Apple chips for professionals who want the performance of the M2 Ultra and need internal expansion for their workflows. Mac Pro has seven PCIe expansion slots, including six open expansion slots that support Gen 4, which is 2x faster than before, allowing users to customize Mac Pro with essential cards. From audio professionals requiring digital signal processing (DSP) cards, to video professionals requiring serial digital interface (SDI) I/O cards to connect to professional cameras and monitors, to users requiring additional networking and storage capabilities, with Mac Pro, professionals can customize and expand their systems as they push the boundaries of their most demanding workflows.

Then where is the studio? It's the much more compact option of the two. It also offers a significantly lower barrier to entry. The system starts at $1,999. The Mac Pro starts at $6,999. Of course, that's not a fair comparison. First, the Studio has an M2 Max option and the Pro only has Ultra. The Pro also starts with higher specs, such as 64GB of RAM (versus 32GB on the Studio M2 Max) and 1TB of storage (versus 512GB).

If we configure the Studio to be more comparable, it costs $3,999 - that's two thousand more than the entry-level model, but still well below the Pro. A fully loaded Studio (M2 Ultra with a 76-core GPU, 192 GB of memory and 8 TB of storage) costs $8,800. Top off the Mac Pro with similar specs and you're in the five-figure $11,800 range. Barriers to entry are relative.

Apple sent an almost completely dismantled studio. The configured model costs $6,800. This includes the M2 Ultra (24-core CPU/76-core GPU) with 128 GB of RAM and 4 TB of storage. It's important to note that the studio the company sent to test last year had the M1 Max, not the Ultra. While last week's keynote was light on chip discussions (allegedly due to supply chain issues), the M2 Ultra had its highlight. After all, you can't upgrade the Mac Pro without boosting the computing power again.

So what's better than an M2 Max, you ask? Just. Two M2 Maxs. The Ultra is actually a pair of M2 Max chips combined through a process the company aptly calls UltraFusion (see the GIF above). So the 12-core CPU and 38-core GPU now have 24 and 76 cores, respectively (a 60-core GPU is also available).

Pro Apple:

• M2 Ultra features a 32-core Neural Engine that delivers 31.6 trillion operations per second, which is 40 percent faster than M1 Ultra.
• The powerful media engine has twice the power of M2 Max and further accelerates video processing. It features dedicated, hardware-enabled H.264, HEVC, and ProRes encoding and decoding, enabling the M2 Ultra to play up to 22 streams of 8K ProRes 422 video - far more than any PC chip can handle.
• The display engine supports up to six Pro Display XDRs and powers more than 100 million pixels.
• The latest Secure Enclave offers best-in-class security along with hardware-verified Secure Boot and runtime anti-exploit technologies.

Of course, at $6,800, we're well above what most people would reasonably pay for a desktop system. The good news for them is that the Mac Mini and iMac are much more accessible and, like the MacBook Air, pack more than enough firepower for everyday tasks (gaming is the one major exception - though Apple still has plenty). the work that lies before us in this world). My answer is pretty much the same as the Air vs. Pro discussion: Unless your job regularly involves labor-intensive tasks, you'll probably be fine with an entry-level device. Apple Silicon has significantly increased the lower performance limit across the board.

Physically, the new studio is indistinguishable from last year's model. It's a hollowed-out piece of machined metal, brushed with the usual Mac gloss. Even the reflective Apple logo at the top borrows straight from the MacBook range. At 3.7 inches, it's just under three times the height of the Mini (the Pro is nearly two feet tall), and 0.2 inches longer and wider than the Mini at 7.75 inches. In addition to the components, the larger size provides the necessary airflow, yet is small enough to fit under your studio screen. It's quite compact, weighing 5.9 pounds versus the Mini's 2.6 pounds. The Pro is in a weight class of its own at 37.2 pounds.

The front has holes for two USB-C/Thunderbolt 4 ports and an SD slot. Keeping the system on your desk - which most will - makes it easily accessible to photographers. That's a nice improvement over fiddling around the back of the system like the iMac. The Mac Pro is more likely to hit the ground, but luckily it's backward compatible withthe extreme apple wheels.

On the right side of the studio hangs a small round light that glows white when the device is on. On the back you'll find four more USB-C ports, a pair of USB-As, an HDMI port, the power plug, a headphone jack and Ethernet. There's also a small power button that sits flush with the case. Moving that forward would have made things a little easier, but I suspect the decision was - in part - an aesthetic one. The computer sits atop a circular vent that draws in cool air and expels heated air through the large grille that runs the length of the back panel. I moved from an old studio to get the desk ready for the newer model and discovered that a thick ring of dust had collected on the edge. If your space has a tendency to get dusty (mine does because a rabbit sheds all year round), consider cleaning the area on a semi-regular basis. First, it gets pretty dirty, and second, you don't want to clog up your computer's fan.

The system has a single built-in speaker, while the Studio Display has six speakers. The sound is disappointing and it seems clear that the company (correctly) assumes that most people who buy the system will rely on external speakers. It goes without saying that if you edit audio or video professionally - or even as an amateur - this unit should not be used as an audio monitor.

The Studio Display itself has not been updated. That's usually fine. Displays generally have a much longer refresh cycle than computers, which get a new chip about every year. The biggest problem with last year's model was the appalling webcam quality. Apple improved it with a firmware upgrade, but I still rely on an external webcam. The camera on a 27-inch 5K screen for $1,599 really should be better in the age of conference calls. If you really want to splurge, there's the 32-inch 6K Pro Display XDR for $4,999, though this model doesn't have the camera at all.

The M2 Max model supports up to five simultaneous displays, including four 6K displays via the rear Thunderbolt ports and one 4K display via HDMI. The Ultra offers up to eight screens in total, including:

• Eight screens with a resolution of up to 4K at 60 Hz
• Six screens with a resolution of up to 6K at 60 Hz
• Three screens with a resolution of up to 8K at 60 Hz

In my previous benchmarking, the performance figures were impressive. The M2 Ultra Mac Studio averaged 2,054 points in single-core and 28,813 points in multi-core in Geekbench 5; Compare that to the 1790 and 12,851 in our M1 Max Mac Studio tests last year.

In GeekBench 6, we averaged 2,819 points for single-core and 21,507 points for multi-core. That's the average of 2,379 and 17,579 for the M1 Ultra system in the GeekBench archive. It also roughly matches the 20% speed increase the company promised in its promotional materials. It's also about twice the score of the top Intel Macs. Notably, Apple largely compares its profits to those of its own machines. The Intel comparisons will likely be discontinued at some point.

As for the 76-core GPU, running the Metal test in GeekBench 6 gave an average score of 221,340. That's a significant increase from the M1 Ultra's average of 150,407. According to the figure, the M2 Ultra sits between the NVIDIA RTX 4070 and 4080. High-end GPUs like the RTX 4090 continue to outperform the system graphically, but Apple has come a long way in a short amount of time, as measured by its own performance. Since these systems are designed for creative workflows and energy efficiency, comparisons to companies like NVIDIA and AMD are somewhat ambiguous.

However, the increasing focus on gaming will inevitably and understandably lead to such comparisons. NVIDIA and AMD have built extremely powerful graphics cards that Apple won't be able to match any time soon. But gaming isn't destined to become Apple's desktop mainstay either, though it's a nice and much-needed addition as Apple ramps up its gaming graphics.

Gaming has been a problem for the company for decades. Steve Jobs was notoriously not a fan of them - or even comics ("I Hate Her More Than Video Games"). Apple long ago ceded the market to Windows in favor of a simpler market approach. However, in a world where gaming has eclipsed all other forms of media, industry support is central to a full computing experience.

The company has done a great job of conquering the mobile market, but desktop PCs have proven to be an uphill battle. Taking your eyes off that particular ball has given Windows a ten-year head start. Gaming was largely left behind while Apple focused on other elements. But as with other key elements, in-house silicon provides a powerful foundation from which to begin rebuilding.

“As Capcom releases Resident Evil and other titles come out, I think the AAA community is starting to wake up and see the opportunity,” said Bob Borchers, vice president of global product marketingsaid Matthew in February. “Because what we have now with our portfolio of M-series Macs is a range of incredibly powerful machines and a growing audience of people who own these incredibly powerful systems, all of which can be addressed with a single codebase residing in the evolved over time." ."

Along with developer tools like Metal and the launch of Steam in 2010, it set the stage for a comeback of sorts. But the results are undoubtedly coming slower than Apple would like. I played some No Man's Sky this morning. The game has just been released on Steam and will soon be available on the Mac App Store. Aside from a little stutter during warm-up, it was a smooth experience. With the M2 Ultra you can increase the resolution to 3840 x 2160 (check out the new one).Metall-Performance-HUDin the GIF above).

It runs smoothly and the alien wildlife looks brilliant on display. The 76-core GPU handles the game superbly (the Studio feels warm, but not hot). It's a clear indication of where it's going, and in future generations this performance will eventually trickle down to cheaper machines (again, this configuration is very expensive for most).

But it was one of two recommended titles - the other being Resident Evil Village. There aren't many titles on Macs right now that you could call "current." No Man's Sky came to Windows seven years ago. The Resident Evil title is much newer, coming to macOS and Switch just over seven months after its Windows/Xbox/PlayStation debut. Apple's clear goal is simultaneous release dates. Providing developers with easy-to-use tools is an important part of this, but so is convincing studios and publishers that the audience is there.

Customization will also be a sticking point for gamers. An important part of Apple's approach to removing user friction is its "It Just Works" design philosophy. That means customizing your system at checkout with components designed specifically for Apple systems. But many gamers like to build. They like the benefit and experience that comes with installing a new graphics card. The Mac Pro offers more customization options, but again, it's primarily a device designed for creative professionals.

At last week's WWDC keynote, we were introduced to three new Macs: the 15-inch Air, the Mac Studio, and the Mac Pro. The trio formed an intriguing little microcosm as Apple finally got over its lengthy transition to first-party silicon. The15 inches of air(along with its 13-inch brother) represents the false bottom for the line. These entry-level systems represent impressive processing gains for the company on the lower end. They are also the MacBooks I would recommend for most users.

Mac Studio and Mac Pro, on the other hand, represent the current ceilings for the line. The M2 Ultra powering the systems is - quite literally - two M2 Max chips fused together. The performance numbers are correspondingly impressive and represent a company that, after what felt like years in the wilderness, has rekindled its love for creative professionals. Given the company's current chip update frequency, it's exciting to see where it goes.

The graphical progress is also impressive, but the company still has a lot to do in terms of gaming. This is currently a content issue, just like everything else. The move to first-party silicon didn't happen overnight, and that's even more true on the gaming side. Apple has never been known for humility, but I suspect even the company would admit that there's still a long way to go in this regard.

As with the Air on the front of the laptop, the iMac or Mac Mini (depending on your monitor situation) will be more than enough for most users for most tasks. If you're into audio and video production or 3D rendering, the studio is a serious consideration. If you regularly have to work with 8K video or production music with hundreds of tracks, you need a lot of firepower.

The Mac Pro, on the other hand, is an interesting case study. It's an artifact of the understanding that true attraction to industry professionals doesn't happen in a vacuum. It's a return to the modular desktop and a tacit admission that cards and existing workflows mean a shiny new Mac Studio doesn't always fit as neatly as hoped.

Those who need PCIe expansion slots, extra ports, and expandable storage will have to shell out a few thousand dollars more for the Pro. For the majority of those who need something more powerful than a mini, the Studio is a considerably simpler - and less expensive - choice.