Do we really need the Mac Studio M1 Ultra chip even for the most heavy orchestral template?

[Gate 13]

Hi folks,
After the shocking release (in a positive and crazy way) of the new Mac Studio I have an important question.


Using DP and orchestral templates (a lot of samples), would it be enough to stay with the:
Apple M1 Max with 10-core CPU, 24-core GPU, 16-core Neural Engine and 64GB unified memory
OR for another $1300(!) to go with the:
Apple M1 Ultra with 20-core CPU, 48-core GPU, 32-core Neural Engine (64GB unified memory)

I mean of course anybody would love to have the new chip (Ultra) but does it really matter? Do the cores (10V S 20) matter (DP wise)?
Is the Ultra referring mostly to the more cores and more available memory?
Any advice is greatly appreciated!

[Gate 13]

I wish there will soon be an audio professional with the same needs as mine (or most of full orchestra template composers) to share their experience on a 64 GB memory M1 Max new Mac Studio...
I also wish there was some type of reference/comparison chart that you can consult in order to choose the right model/right number of cores and memory based on your needs...

[bdr]

Hi Gate -

The Ultra chip is basically 2 of the Max chips joined together. I think we will have to wait a little for reports of how it works for orchestral templates, or at least longer than a few hours . I would check on vi-control where a lot of media composers will be discussing this.

[James Steele]

One thing I wonder about, is never underestimate the ability of developers, especially plug-in developers to seize upon this new power to then create increasingly complex plug-in algorithms that will start chipping away at all that power.

[bdr]

One thing I wonder about, is never underestimate the ability of developers, especially plug-in developers to seize upon this new power to then create increasingly complex plug-in algorithms that will start chipping away at all that power.

Great post James, that's actually one of the first things I thought of. I'm still using a 2012 MacPro and its been an amazing machine. It was damn expensive when I first bought it - but I've got 10 years of use. So now I'm thinking of getting a Mac Studio - but if I do I'll want to get one that will last.

[nk_e]

One thing I wonder about, is never underestimate the ability of developers, especially plug-in developers to seize upon this new power to then create increasingly complex plug-in algorithms that will start chipping away at all that power.

Great post James, that's actually one of the first things I thought of. I'm still using a 2012 MacPro and its been an amazing machine. It was damn expensive when I first bought it - but I've got 10 years of use. So now I'm thinking of getting a Mac Studio - but if I do I'll want to get one that will last.

Someone once gave me advice about buying a new machine: Either go cheap (within reason given your needs) or go high end (or the highest you can afford). With cheap, the investment is minimized and you can flip the thing often to keep current. High end and it will last a long time letting you recoup the investment.

The worst place was the middle because it doesn’t have the staying power of the high end and costs more than the low end.

I’m sure I’m butchering it somehow, but I’ve found this to be really true. My “high end” macs have lasted a decade. When I do purchase a new Mac sometime next year. It’s going to be the beefiest thing I can afford.

[Gate 13]

One thing I wonder about, is never underestimate the ability of developers, especially plug-in developers to seize upon this new power to then create increasingly complex plug-in algorithms that will start chipping away at all that power.

Hey James, it is always so nice to hear from you. I am not sure though if I understand your point. Do you mean that you think we will always have issues with the performance due to increasingly sophisticated developing of plug ins no matter what?
Thank you!

[mikehalloran]

One thing I wonder about, is never underestimate the ability of developers, especially plug-in developers to seize upon this new power to then create increasingly complex plug-in algorithms that will start chipping away at all that power.

Hey James, it is always so nice to hear from you. I am not sure though if I understand your point. Do you mean that you think we will always have issues with the performance due to increasingly sophisticated developing of plug ins no matter what?
Thank you!

You mean as opposed to the last 38 years of Macintosh history? I believe that we can count on James being right.

When I replaced the hard drive in my 2010 iMac with an SSD, bounce to disk was so fast in DP 5.13 that I thought it wasn't happening — but there were those bounced tracks, pretty as you please and perfect. I don't ever expect to see that kind of speed again, even if I get the M1 Ultra but I can dream, right?

Yea, I was able to keep 5.13 working through Yosemite and 7.24 going through Sierra. Why? Because I could, I suppose. I only fired them up for testing after I went to DP 8 in the 64bit kernal — many of my plugs were incompatible with 32 bit by then.

[Michael Canavan]

I wish there will soon be an audio professional with the same needs as mine (or most of full orchestra template composers) to share their experience on a 64 GB memory M1 Max new Mac Studio...
I also wish there was some type of reference/comparison chart that you can consult in order to choose the right model/right number of cores and memory based on your needs...

IMO there's a ratio that you're going to run into with orchestral work. The correct answer is always the most powerful computer you can buy, we all know that. The rational answer is what part of DP clogs up for you currently? Personally most of my sample libraries are not CPU hogs, but one of them is, so that's a partial consideration. All of them take a long time to load on startup, and I can see that at least 64GB of memory is a safe amount, 128 of course would be fantastic but I'm not sure that DP with 128GB of samples loaded into it all native not on VEP is a solid bet? That's to be determined.

Basically GPU wise you're fine, CPU wise it's a tossup, it's possible that in large template the Ultra runs that much smoother, but IMO the real issue is load times so if I were doing orchestral work mainly I would sacrifice CPU for 8TB 7000MB/s ultra fast library load times, and I would imagine zero streaming issues.

So Mostly if you're not rendering videos on the side, no reason to mess withe GPU, if you're not using a ton of plug ins on top of your template, then the 10 core is probably good enough, if you're not running every library you own at once then 64GB is probably good enough, and IMO if you want the fastest load times get the largest drive you can. (the other benefit of a large SSD is these drives literally last longer the larger the capacity)