Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
  

Mac Studio Ultra Benchmarking

  
 
jhapeman
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Mac Studio Ultra Benchmarking


seaSharp wrote:
Any chance to see how DxO's DeepPrime noise reduction performs on the Ultra? That's definitely slow on my 8 core Xeon + Quadro setup - curious how much faster it would be on these systems..


I downloaded a trial version and did a quick comparison. Oddly enough they include support for the Apple Neural Engine on the M1 chips, but the app itself is NOT M1 native--even though last October they mentioned that they were testing it and seeing 20-30% speed increases, so I'm baffled what the hold up is. They also mentioned that the "new" at the time M1 Pro and Max chips should perform nearly as well as just the ANE by using the GPU for acceleration since there are so many more GPU cores. Obviously the Ultras take this to a new level, and unlike a laptop, thermal issues are well, not an issue--so it seems they could optimize things a lot more, but not a peep from them recently on migrating the code. On to the current results:

Ten Sony A1 images, lossless compressed raw files, ran DeepPrime:


  1. 28-Core Mac Pro/Radeon W6800X Duo 2:32
  2. 64-Core AMD TR 3990x RTX6000 (Dual) 3:47
  3. Studio Ultra 64GB 2:41


Again, given the comparative price points of these machines this is just....amazing. All of this talk of Apple being expensive, but the performance per dollar here is amazing, and on top of that it's quiet and cool. The Mac Pros and the Threadripper all have huge 1400 to 1600-Watt power supplies and kick out a lot of heat. At idle the MacPro is over 1080 BTU/h; the base Studio Ultra is a measly 44 BTU/h. That's a significant amount of electricity/energy no longer being wasted to simply generate heat.



Mar 22, 2022 at 01:02 PM
seaSharp
Online

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Mac Studio Ultra Benchmarking


Thanks! Very intriguing results indeed : )


Mar 22, 2022 at 11:40 PM
timgangloff
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Mac Studio Ultra Benchmarking


Crap, just when I had thoroughly convinced myself that using my 16" Macbook Pro m1 Max was as good as using an M1 Max Studio.


Mar 23, 2022 at 11:08 AM
jhapeman
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Mac Studio Ultra Benchmarking


timgangloff wrote:
Crap, just when I had thoroughly convinced myself that using my 16" Macbook Pro m1 Max was as good as using an M1 Max Studio.


. Well for a lot of tasks it really is. But big batch imports and exports it is not. If you need to do those fast then the Ultra is probably worth it. If not, then it really isn't.

I look a this way: Do you need portability in a single package? Then get a MBP. Otherwise you can get the same or better horsepower for less with the Studio and you get to choose the monitor you prefer without paying for a built-in screen. The other use case where the Studio is the better choice is when you have a use/need for the power of the Ultra vs. just the Max version. Those use cases are going to be more limited though.



Mar 23, 2022 at 11:16 AM
Hillrg`
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Mac Studio Ultra Benchmarking


@jhapeman Thanks very much for this very informative post. I have a M1 Ultra on order - no idea when I'll take delivery. I tried your test: 10 A1 in PureRaw2 using my 2015 PC ( i7-6700K CPU @ 4.00GHz), nVidia 1050. Took 30:40, over 11 times slower than your Mac Studio.


Mar 23, 2022 at 01:51 PM
mcbroomf
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Mac Studio Ultra Benchmarking


I ran a set of tests recently on my 14" MBP M1 Max, a friends MBP and a couple of PCs (in another thread). I sent the files to Jeff and he kindly ran them on his systems. Link and table below (the table may not show up if you don't have a gmail account, so use the link).

The tests were in LRC, all files from a Sony A1, uncompressed RAWs. Times shown; eg. 0.12 / 0.30 means it took 12 secs to show the Preview then a total of 30 secs to complete (ie not an additional 30 secs).

Jeff has a good summary and set of observations from the data which he'll post.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/BNVtXvVkUUGNGNBk9

MBP tests 4 by Mike Broomfield, on Flickr

Edit : switched table image to Flickr and updated with latest results

Edited on Mar 25, 2022 at 10:12 AM · View previous versions



Mar 23, 2022 at 04:16 PM
jhapeman
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Mac Studio Ultra Benchmarking


OK, so thanks to Mike for uploading his files and letting me run the same tests. Here's some observations we can draw from some of the results and from my observations on CPU and memory utilization while processes were running:

1) Many tasks remain unoptimized for multiprocessing. Its been known for some years that there is a cap on the number of cores that Lightroom and Photoshop can/will use. It's no doubt tied to some of the libraries they use in the application and they can be improved in the future. For example, in recent years some tasks have been updated and now scale very linearly with core count--rendering previews, imports, exports. You can see that in my graphs on the first page. Creating both HDR files and panoramas in Lightroom requires both RAM and core counts, but right now its very clear that Lightroom is only using 6 cores to do all of this work. The rest just sit idle, no matter how there are available. I expect to see this change sooner rather than later as across the board all of the major processors are moving to more and more cores, not just Apple Silicon.

2) In part due to the above point, the pure speed of each core can give a performance boost. The fastest computers above all have the fastest single-core speed/highest GHz speed. The Apple Silicon machines also get an extra boost that my belief comes from the SoC architecture that gives them incredibly fast access to memory.

3) If you're looking to buy a Mac Studio or MacBook Pro, you can make a choice that doesn't compromise speed on the laptop side, at least for most tasks. This is truly unique IMO. Since not long after the dawn of the modern PC age, laptops have always been crippled in terms of power so they can use battery power, and are often dramatically crippled when on battery vs plugged in. Even then, battery life has always been marginal. The "workstation" laptops you can buy today with Intel processors and Nvidia GPUs typically last only a few hours at most. The new M1 MacBook Pros can last all day with almost no noticeable or measurable drop in performance while on battery.

4) Right now only certain tasks will benefit from the extra performance provide by the M1 Ultra vs. the M1 Max--namely those tasks that are well-optimized for multiple cores. I will skip commenting on the benefits for those doing video editing as these tests didn't focus on that--in those cases the Ultra will have some additional benefits though at least if you use ProRes and/or HEVC. If you are doing large batch imports and exports, the Ultra will be faster, and a Mac Studio will be faster than a MBP, where there is clearly some thermal throttling going on. That's to be expected in a laptop. The weight and height on the Studio is for a massive heatsink, and that has benefits.

5) Memory is an interesting topic. Yes, you can get away with less on the M1 architecture, but I don't recommend it if you don't need to scrimp for some reason. If you're just doing basic photo editing then 32GB should fine. If you do panoramas and HDR merges you are also fine unless you start getting into larger file sets. Given that its unified memory, I would suggest that if you plan on running multiple high-dpi displays you should consider more RAM vs. less as some will get used to push the displays.

We are just seeing the tip of the iceberg with this new processor architecture. While many apps are now Apple Silicon native, that's just the very beginning. There's lots of optimization yet to be done by many vendors--and that also really applies to other processors, too as better multi-processing capabilities will be beneficial when using AMD processors or the higher-end Intel processors. In the next few years we'll see performance gains from better-optimized software and of course the next generations of these processors that Apple releases.



Mar 23, 2022 at 05:18 PM
amv8
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Mac Studio Ultra Benchmarking


Again, very helpful Jeff. I've wondered about LR not completely utilizing available cores. On my Intel iMac, overall CPU utilization is much lower than what I would expect when doing photo merges. Hopefully, we'll see additional optimizations as you suggested.

If you still want to do some other real world tests, how about trying Smart Sharpen on a Smart Object with one of your A1 files?



Mar 23, 2022 at 07:22 PM
Fboss
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Mac Studio Ultra Benchmarking


A very good summary, thanks for doing all these tests.
Trying to decide between the Ultra (64GB/1TB) and Max (32GB/1TB), and the graphs in this post are very informative.




Mar 24, 2022 at 09:06 AM
jhapeman
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Mac Studio Ultra Benchmarking


Fboss wrote:
A very good summary, thanks for doing all these tests.
Trying to decide between the Ultra (64GB/1TB) and Max (32GB/1TB), and the graphs in this post are very informative.



I actually got a base model Studio today with 32GB of RAM for one of my office staff so we could ditch her old Windows PC (I am LOVING these machines!) and still use her two 30" monitors. I can repeat the tests on her machine, possibly tomorrow as she is planning on taking the day off. My guess is that it will have performance similar to the 16" M1 Max for most tasks, but who knows?



Mar 24, 2022 at 12:15 PM
 


Search in Used Dept. 

arbitrage
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Mac Studio Ultra Benchmarking


timgangloff wrote:
Crap, just when I had thoroughly convinced myself that using my 16" Macbook Pro m1 Max was as good as using an M1 Max Studio.


But he didn't test an M1 Max Studio...only the Ultra. This video from Art is showing that the M1Max MBP and Studio are basically identical. He even found some tendency for the laptop to slightly best the Studio.

If you want better performance than the M1Max MBP you will need an Ultra. But you don't need to envy the Max Studio



Edited on Mar 24, 2022 at 01:56 PM · View previous versions



Mar 24, 2022 at 12:56 PM
jhapeman
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · Mac Studio Ultra Benchmarking


arbitrage wrote:
But he didn't test an M1 Max Studio...only the Ultra. This video from Art is showing that the M1Max MBP and Studio are basically identical. He even found some tendency for the laptop to slightly best the Studio.

If you want better performance than the M1Max MBP you will need an Ultra. But you don't need to envy the Max Studio


There's the Studio Max and Studio Ultra. Honestly, I wouldn't expect the Max to ever do much better than the Max versions of the MacBook Pro with the exception of heavy sustained loads. I am going to test out the regular Max version of the Studio tomorrow to verify this. When you look at most of the tests I ran there's nearly a perfect linear scaling of performance between the 16" M1 Max MBP and the Ultra, matching the linear increase in core count (at least those tests that can utilize all of the cores, that is). There was a slight difference for generating the 1:1 previews and the fans were noticeably spinning up not the MBP. I suspect that slight difference is due to thermal throttling in the laptop.

Honestly, if you have a Max version of the MBP, then there's no reason to get the Max version of the Studio unless you simply want a desktop and don't want to spend for the Ultra. Right now IMO the use cases for the Ultra are more limited because the software hasn't caught up. If you're doing tasks that can really use a lot of cores often, there's a benefit to the Ultra, but even that is still limited by a lot of software. With the huge volume of photos we shoot for my business, it will save valuable time, so its worth it but for the majority of hobbyists it won't matter, although if you've got the cash, then why not.

The amount of power for the price point is crazy. The Ultra right now is outpeforming a $15K AMD Threadripper workstation and the $24K 2019 Mac Pro, and for half the price of the AMD. When you factor in how small it is in comparison and the lack of heat and fan noise generated, it's really an amazing little machine for an office.



Mar 24, 2022 at 01:08 PM
memzinla
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · Mac Studio Ultra Benchmarking


Is the Mac Studio Ultra a good replacement for the iMac Pro?
I have the 10 core with 1tb and 64gb ram.



Mar 24, 2022 at 02:06 PM
palmor
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · Mac Studio Ultra Benchmarking


So I just tried this out on my 2019 iMac with the following specs:

3.6 GHz Intel i9 (8 core)
40GB Memory
Radeon Pro Vega 48 8GB.

Something seems wrong for the export though, I wonder if there was some other param you had set during the export that I did not (for example I did not have sharpening). I would not expect this to be faster then the max chip.


Export A1 to JPG: 22:03 (1451 files)
Export 10 A1 files to Topaz Denoise: 39s
Process 10 A1 files from Denoise: 3:21



Mar 24, 2022 at 07:29 PM
bobby350z
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · Mac Studio Ultra Benchmarking


Good info. Since I am just a hobbyist and can use a break while importing/exporting, I have decided to go with the MAX Studio base with 64GB RAM and 1 TB drive. Going to put the order tomorrow.


Mar 24, 2022 at 11:03 PM
mcbroomf
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · Mac Studio Ultra Benchmarking


bobby350z wrote:
Good info. Since I am just a hobbyist and can use a break while importing/exporting, I have decided to go with the MAX Studio base with 64GB RAM and 1 TB drive. Going to put the order tomorrow.


There is a $400 discount on the Ultra version of that config here (it was linked from Apple Insider)
https://store.simplymac.com/collections/a-new-mac-studio/products/mac-studio?variant=39623982809186

I also saw another link on Apple Insider that with a coupon you could get Apple Care for $1. Not sure if you can get both
https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/03/23/deal-alert-add-applecare-to-any-mac-studio-for-only-1



Mar 25, 2022 at 03:37 AM
arbitrage
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · Mac Studio Ultra Benchmarking




memzinla wrote:
Is the Mac Studio Ultra a good replacement for the iMac Pro?
I have the 10 core with 1tb and 64gb ram.


In this video it is beating a highly speced MacPro so yeah it should vastly outperform an iMacPro





Mar 25, 2022 at 07:26 AM
jhapeman
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · Mac Studio Ultra Benchmarking


arbitrage wrote:
In this video it is beating a highly speced MacPro so yeah it should vastly outperform an iMacPro




100%. On virtually every task it easily beats my top-spec 28-core 2019 Mac Pro. The only place the Mac Pro is winning right now is with huge stacks of images in HeliconFocus, but that's because the OpenCL acceleration in Helicon is currently not functional. I would guess it will improve with that being fixed.



Mar 25, 2022 at 09:01 AM
mcbroomf
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · Mac Studio Ultra Benchmarking


As Jeff mentioned above he bought a base model Studio; M1 Max / 24 GPU cores / 32GB. He ran the same HDR / Pano tests on the images I'd sent him before so here's the updated table, and I added in the GPU core count on each Studio model.

It's also now on Flickr so everyone should see it (if I posted it right)

MBP tests 4 by Mike Broomfield, on Flickr



Mar 25, 2022 at 10:11 AM
jhapeman
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · Mac Studio Ultra Benchmarking


mcbroomf wrote:
As Jeff mentioned above he bought a base model Studio; M1 Max / 24 GPU cores / 32GB. He ran the same HDR / Pano tests on the images I'd sent him before so here's the updated table, and I added in the GPU core count on each Studio model.

It's also now on Flickr so everyone should see it (if I posted it right)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51960997625_60625c019c_o.jpgMBP tests 4 by Mike Broomfield, on Flickr


Thanks again Mike! IMO, what this tells me is for basic run-of-the-mill photography work the regular base model Studio is a great value and will be perfectly fine. Upgrade it to 64GB of RAM and maybe more internal storage to future-proof it to some extent, but external TB drives are now extremely fast. I have no doubt that with further software optimization the delta between the Ultras and the regular Max versions will get bigger, but not for every task--not all tasks can be parallelized to use more cores. I don't do much video at all, but I suspect for video the Ultras will make more sense, and if you are regularly doing massive batch imports and exports you will see a time savings that may or may not make economic sense depending on your business use case/economics.

I feel like for the first time since I can remember--and I've been using computers for 35+ years now--we have more power available than most software can really use. This isn't just limited to the Apple Silicon, BTW--even on the Intel processors many of the cores are going to waste. The move towards a mix of efficiency and performance cores across the board (Intel is now implementing this as well, not just Apple) reflects this, as well as the addition of things like specialized Neural Engine processors, etc, but its going to take a number of years for the software to catch up in many cases as rewriting massive old code bases like Photoshop, Lightroom and CaptureOne is not a trivial task. This is opening up room for smaller players who are newer to market--while none of them have wooed me yet there are some very interesting competitors out there these days like Affinity Photo and ON1 and they are really on top of new technologies.



Mar 25, 2022 at 10:34 AM
1      
2
       3       end






FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username      Reset password