RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.3 #6 · MacMini vs MacStudio for photography: worth the pain? | |
gdanmitchell wrote:
My fundamental point is that chasing The Best Specs is often not cost-effective, nor does it een produce meaningful performance improvements.
For those who always believe that way over-spec’ing their systems pays off in faster systems, there’s a kind of confirmation bias at work. “Look, I just bought this super-high-end system with 128GB RAM and a 8TB SSD and more cores than you can throw a stick at, plus a TB5 external mult-SSD enclosure and Lightroom really runs fast!”
Yes. it does. Of course.
But it also runs quite fast on something less expensive.
I believed in the “must have the most expensive system” mantra for years. OK, for decades. Back in the previous millennium I was doing a lot of computer audio/music work, and it really did require rather high-end gear of that time to make it work. So early on I had some fairly high-end computers available to me, including when I began doing image processing at the beginning of the 2000s. (It helped that I had a professional relationship with the fruit-named computer company that gave me access to a lot of fancy stuff.)
I think that the realization that you can do quite high-end work with more modest modern computers came with some of the more advanced iMacs. There was a time when we regarded the early iMacs (with some justification) as machines for low end work like word processing, email, web browsing. We could never have considered them for “serious,” demanding computing asks.
The point where things shifted for me was with the later Intel 27” iMacs. For example, at a time when a few folks I knew were paying a lot of money for the Pro Macs, I got one of the last i9 27” iMacs, equipped with plenty of memory and a good sized SSD, and it was a very effective machine for Bridge/ACR/Photoshop use. Whatever tiny increment of real world performance improvement that I would have obtained by getting a high-end Pro machine was so small as to be meaningless in real world use.
What has changed is that current computers are, in general, extremely powerful. Things that used to require high end, expensive systems no longer do. I’d be willing to bet that if I sat down a typical photography user of Lightroom and/or ACR/Bridge/Photoshop in front of two screens with the actual computers hidden from view, where one was the fastest Studio you can buy and the other was the mini M4 Pro and asked them to determine which was which… they probably could not, at least not without getting out a stop watch and conducting some specific tests to actually measure the small differences.
That is not to say that the Studio models are not great computers — they are actually pretty remarkable — nor that no one should get them. If you are regularly mass-processing huge numbers of files or, even more, if you are doing a lot of high-end video work, they can certainly make a lot of sense. Or if money is no object.
But a whole lot of folks using Macs for photography purposes will find that a suitably equipped mini is a very powerful tool for their work.
I know that not everyone will be convinced, but I encourage people to take a good hard look at the well-equipped mini. It is really a pretty remarkable little machine.
YMMV....Show more →
I don't disagree that a low level use will not differentiate between a good Pro model vs. a maxed out Studio model.
But, I will stand by my point that you CAN experience the difference between a Pro model with only 2X modules and 1/2 the memory bandwidth of the Max model with 4X modules. When you get into heavy brushwork, pano stitching, uprezzing and other reasonably routine operations ... yeah, you can feel the difference. Is it obvious for the simple stuff ... no, not so much. But, when you do ask it to do more ... the diff's can reveal themselves.
I'm not suggesting all folks need to maximize a Studio with 128GB ... never went there. I've always maintained that the break point (imo) is Max (4X modules, memory bandwidth) and 32GB (or more to budget / temperament) is where you'll notice a difference. Beyond that, it gets tougher to notice a difference unless you are really pushing things (i.e. video, etc.).
I'm simply saying that for folks trying to decide where to "draw the line" on bang / buck territory ... Max configuration (not to be confused with "maximum" configuration, denoting the capital "M" to mean Max 4x modules vs. the Pro 2X modules) and 32GB is where I place that line.
Think of it like driving down a one lane road ... you can drive fast, but if another car comes, you gotta slow down so each other can get by.
On a two lane road, you can go fast, and you can pass a car in front of you, but you gotta "pick your spots" to make sure it's okay to pass.
On a four lane road, you can still go the same speed as the others, but when it comes time to make a pass, you've got an open lane to make the pass, and you don't have to worry about oncoming traffic ... it's just a matter of keep on going at your own pace, without concern for other operations (traveling your direction, traveling opposite your direction). Sharing your memory with OS overhead, CPU / GPU ops ... having more lanes of travel for memory just makes for a smoother experience, imo.
Base Model = 1X
Pro Model = 2X
Max Model = 4X
Ultra Model = 8X
Cruising along the Max Model is (imo) a nice place to be. I don't need 8X, but it sure is nice to not get choked in 1X or 2X when I do ask it to put the pedal down. 
|
Could someone tell me if Mac Mini M4 PRO or Mac Studio has an optional button for changing from 110 to 220 V? ( like some equipment has )