4 ms·

A similarly priced Windows PC is expandable and upgradeable while also being faster than a Mac Studio.

brookst 4y ago
. . . and much louder, and much bigger, and running Windows. Macs have never been about highest possible performance at any price point. But there is a niche where people want a very fast computer that is quit and not too ugly (and who can find their apps on macOS).
- JohnTHaller 4y ago
  Sorry, I don't think I was clear earlier. I blame post-Covid fatigue. I meant it more as a comparison to the Mac Pro (based on parent/grand parent comments). The Pro is expandable and upgradeable. And it - at least when introduced - was always basically the most desktop workstation you could buy short of sticking a server farm under your desk. The Studio is none of those things. So, while an equivalent Windows machine in the same pricing on a Studio can easily trounce a Studio, when thinking of what the next Mac Pro would theoretically deliver, there would be no equivalently priced Windows machine to trounce it. More like equal it but on Windows.
  - zitterbewegung 4y ago
    The Mac Studio is what the Trashcan Mac Pro tried to do. Only through efficiency will you get something that almost gets everything right of what the trashcan tried to do. Putting two GPUS in a tight spot and the limitations of the time basically doomed it to failure but now we have much better data rates and better iGPUs.
  - gumby 4y ago
    Given that TB3 and TB4 provide PCIe, Apple has retained their strategy of expansion that way as opposed to add-in cards. That was the approach of the trashcan and it's been retained in the Studio. It's a valid approach in theory but it seems pretty clear that the market hasn't embraced it. The most recent Mac Pro recognized that people weren't embracing it, but really, are there many (or any?) 3P cards that can be plugged into a Mac Pro?
- goosedragons 4y ago
  Maybe much louder and maybe much bigger. Mac Pro's aren't exactly small either. You can build/get quiet PCs too. Theres a whole PC accessory company called be quiet! even. And there's some very nice IMO cases that look better than the Mac Studio or Pro...
philistine 4y ago
I'm not sure about faster anymore. You'll have to get your reactionary opinions up-to-date.
- JohnTHaller 4y ago
  I screwed up and forgot to mention that this was more about the Mac Studio vs the Mac Pro and how they compare differently to the Windows side: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34222220 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34222220 My comparison is up to date as the top end chips from Intel and AMD and the top-end Nvidia GPUs handily outpeform the top-end silicon in the Mac Studio's highest end configuration. And for a lower cost. The Studio is a solid machine, but it doesn't have the same 'this is about as good as you can get without a server farm' performance of the top-end Mac Pro when it launched.

. . . and much louder, and much bigger, and running Windows. Macs have never been about highest possible performance at any price point. But there is a niche where people want a very fast computer that is quit and not too ugly (and who can find their apps on macOS).

JohnTHaller 4y ago
Sorry, I don't think I was clear earlier. I blame post-Covid fatigue. I meant it more as a comparison to the Mac Pro (based on parent/grand parent comments). The Pro is expandable and upgradeable. And it - at least when introduced - was always basically the most desktop workstation you could buy short of sticking a server farm under your desk. The Studio is none of those things. So, while an equivalent Windows machine in the same pricing on a Studio can easily trounce a Studio, when thinking of what the next Mac Pro would theoretically deliver, there would be no equivalently priced Windows machine to trounce it. More like equal it but on Windows.
- zitterbewegung 4y ago
  The Mac Studio is what the Trashcan Mac Pro tried to do. Only through efficiency will you get something that almost gets everything right of what the trashcan tried to do. Putting two GPUS in a tight spot and the limitations of the time basically doomed it to failure but now we have much better data rates and better iGPUs.
- gumby 4y ago
  Given that TB3 and TB4 provide PCIe, Apple has retained their strategy of expansion that way as opposed to add-in cards. That was the approach of the trashcan and it's been retained in the Studio. It's a valid approach in theory but it seems pretty clear that the market hasn't embraced it. The most recent Mac Pro recognized that people weren't embracing it, but really, are there many (or any?) 3P cards that can be plugged into a Mac Pro?
goosedragons 4y ago
Maybe much louder and maybe much bigger. Mac Pro's aren't exactly small either. You can build/get quiet PCs too. Theres a whole PC accessory company called be quiet! even. And there's some very nice IMO cases that look better than the Mac Studio or Pro...

philistine 4y ago

I'm not sure about faster anymore. You'll have to get your reactionary opinions up-to-date.

JohnTHaller 4y ago
I screwed up and forgot to mention that this was more about the Mac Studio vs the Mac Pro and how they compare differently to the Windows side: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34222220 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34222220 My comparison is up to date as the top end chips from Intel and AMD and the top-end Nvidia GPUs handily outpeform the top-end silicon in the Mac Studio's highest end configuration. And for a lower cost. The Studio is a solid machine, but it doesn't have the same 'this is about as good as you can get without a server farm' performance of the top-end Mac Pro when it launched.