Mac Studio Max vs Ultra question - worth a quarter more?

[strathglass]

I am wondering if it is worth the premium to go for Ultra over Max configuration:

Mac Studio: Max (10/32/16 cores), 64GB RAM, 8TB SSD, Studio Display/Kybd/Trackpad

Mac Studio: Ultra (20/48/32 cores), 128GB RAM, 8TB SSD, Studio Display/Kybd/Trackpad

In Canada the configurations above are such that I pay 28% extra for the Ultra.
(Without the accessories so you compare just the Mac Studio itself, it is almost a 39% premium, but I need the accessories, so to me it only makes sense to compare the total system costs.)

I am mainly using Capture One, Affinity Photo, Topaz tools, and Helicon Focus for Nikon D850 raw files (Z9 soon).

Now based on the DPReview review, I would normally stick with the Max. But when I load up with SSD etc, and when I don't max out the cores on the Ultra configuration, it is "only" 28% extra as noted.

Given the s/w tools I use noted above, I am wondering if it is likely I will eventually see a notable performance difference that makes the Ultra cost premium of 28% worthwhile.

Opinions?

 

[robgendreau]

I am wondering if it is worth the premium to go for Ultra over Max configuration:

Mac Studio: Max (10/32/16 cores), 64GB RAM, 8TB SSD, Studio Display/Kybd/Trackpad

Mac Studio: Ultra (20/48/32 cores), 128GB RAM, 8TB SSD, Studio Display/Kybd/Trackpad

In Canada the configurations above are such that I pay 28% extra for the Ultra.
(Without the accessories so you compare just the Mac Studio itself, it is almost a 39% premium, but I need the accessories, so to me it only makes sense to compare the total system costs.)

I am mainly using Capture One, Affinity Photo, Topaz tools, and Helicon Focus for Nikon D850 raw files (Z9 soon).

Now based on the DPReview review, I would normally stick with the Max. But when I load up with SSD etc, and when I don't max out the cores on the Ultra configuration, it is "only" 28% extra as noted.

Given the s/w tools I use noted above, I am wondering if it is likely I will eventually see a notable performance difference that makes the Ultra cost premium of 28% worthwhile.

Opinions?

For those applications? I'd say no. But it depends on how much money you have. It's just that the Ultra probably won't speed up your work 28% faster in the real world even if a few things might be twice as fast. The Ultra is made for more intense work.

 

[strathglass]

For those applications? I'd say no. But it depends on how much money you have. It's just that the Ultra probably won't speed up your work 28% faster in the real world even if a few things might be twice as fast. The Ultra is made for more intense work.

I am leaning the same way: the Max configuration.

But just trying to learn if the Ultra w/ 128GB somehow could be worth it.

 

[lightandaprayer]

IMO, including the "accessories" does not make any sense unless you are mainly trying to talk yourself into getting the more expensive option.

From all that I have read, many if not most still photographers do not need anything close to a maxed-out Studio Mac. They are Macs that mainly hard-core videographers benefit from the most.

Since you asked the question, I would say that you should spend additional time researching what you really need going forward instead of looking for rationalizations for why you should spend a small fortune on a Mac.

In my experience this forum is a great place to obtain opinions from folks who love spending other photographers' money. Fortunately, there are some people here who can provide valuable Real World advice but it is up to you to figure out who they are.

 

[Tom_N]

IMO, including the "accessories" does not make any sense unless you are mainly trying to talk yourself into getting the more expensive option.

One question the OP should ask himself is whether he really needs 8 GB of internal SSD storage.

The first upgrade step (from 512 GB to 1 TB) gets you double the internal SSD space, and only costs $250 CDN. But going from 512 GB to 8 TB costs $3000 CDN. If you're going to fill a lot of those 8 TB with files that don't really need the speed of the internal SSD, there are a lot of cheaper options.

Once you trim the internal SSD size down to 1 or 2 TB, I suspect there will be more than a 28% price difference between the 64 GB Max and the 128 GB Ultra.

 

[JT26]

It is all workflow dependant. A 50mp image on its own without layers, is a tiny file that the M1 from last year will tear through. Do you batch process a wedding shoot? Or similar. Do you work on 16bit images with several (I mean 20) layers, on a regular basis?

If so, then you'll see a relatively small performance boost, if that's worth the cost then great. If you edit without layers, you're wasting a lot of money.

 

[kelpdiver]

IMO, including the "accessories" does not make any sense unless you are mainly trying to talk yourself into getting the more expensive option.

One question the OP should ask himself is whether he really needs 8 GB of internal SSD storage.

if the cost of the 8tb upgrade didn't terrify, I think the OP could split hairs and buy the Ultra with 2tb and then buy an external ssd for far less.

That memory upgrade from 64 also seems a bit on the low return side, but that one you can't fix with external later.

 

[MoreCowbell]

I had to make the same choice about a week ago. I selected the base spec version with the new Apple monitor and think it was the right choice for ME.

I store my images on external drives, don't do video, shoot tethered some, use Photoshop, Lightroom, Capture One, PortratePro, Silver Efex Pro, couple of other programs.

Most of my stuff is either Nikon D850 images or Fuji GFX 100 images. I don't have a need for lightening fast imports or exports I just use the time to make another cup of tea

I'm pretty sure the additional capabilities of an upgraded version would not be fully taken advantage of in my application.

My rationalization is that by purchasing the base spec version over the Ultra upgrade I got the monitor for free

--
https://www.castle-explorers.com

 

[Eric]

I would say stick with the Max, as not all the current software knows what do to with all those additional cores.

I feel like the Ultra is a chip made for video or rendering work, not so much photography, sure LR can scale up, but cost of chip vs time saved is still a huge difference in cost.

 

[robgendreau]

BTW, if one does decide to buy an Ultra over a Max of some type look at this video:

As I said before, I don't think the OP would see huge differences with the faster machine. But a big caveat is that if one bought one and if one switched from C1P to LrC one could see a very big jump in performance in some tasks. See at about 16 mins in the video.

C1P didn't seem to benefit as much from the Ultra's speed.

And even in LrC the speed gains were in import and export; he tests some huge HDR and pano merges and the difference between machines isn't as apparent there either.

Finally, note that more RAM can make a difference. Also, I saw that a spec'd up MBP 16 might also be faster...maybe that's worth considering.

 

[hac48]

I personally find that the performance comparisons of the Studio Max with the Studio Ultra for photography are not particularly useful for me and I suspect many others. They focus on importing and exporting large numbers of files. My focus is on photo editing, and the specific programs I use day to day to edit my images that are slow. I generally don't care if a task takes four seconds instead of 2 seconds, but I do care if it takes a minute v. 2 minutes. I use Gigapixel AI, Sharpen AI and Helicon Focus and d o panorama merges with 50-80MP files. I have tested the AI programs with the Ultra and compared the performance against my 2013 Mac Pro, and the differences were just astonishing, both in terms of processing the file to a TFF (e.g., 40 seconds v. 8 minutes!) or the updating of the previews. However, I don't know how much of a difference there would be between the Max and the Ultra configurations.

 

[lightandaprayer]

BTW, if one does decide to buy an Ultra over a Max of some type look at this video:

As I said before, I don't think the OP would see huge differences with the faster machine. But a big caveat is that if one bought one and if one switched from C1P to LrC one could see a very big jump in performance in some tasks. See at about 16 mins in the video.

C1P didn't seem to benefit as much from the Ultra's speed.

And even in LrC the speed gains were in import and export; he tests some huge HDR and pano merges and the difference between machines isn't as apparent there either.

Finally, note that more RAM can make a difference. Also, I saw that a spec'd up MBP 16 might also be faster...maybe that's worth considering.

Many thanks for the link Rob. I've only had time to read some of the comments and yet so far some have added valuable info to the video results (including comments from ArtisRight). If I was in the market for a Studio Mac I would take the time to scan all of the comments to find the most helpful insights relevant for me.

If I already had a Mac that was getting the job done for now, I would wait a while for more image editing tests like Barefeats and see how the software makers I rely on respond to the capabilities of the new hardware. I'm not inclined to rush in and buy hardware so soon after it has been released.

I tend to keep my fave Macs for a long time and at almost 68 years old, a Studio Mac might be the last Mac I ever own. So I would want it to be as close to Just Right as possible without spending more than I really need, even though I can afford a top of the line Ultra (if I actually needed one, which I don't by a Country Mile LOL ;-) )

 

[tapirek]

I am wondering if it is worth the premium to go for Ultra over Max configuration:

Mac Studio: Max (10/32/16 cores), 64GB RAM, 8TB SSD, Studio Display/Kybd/Trackpad

Mac Studio: Ultra (20/48/32 cores), 128GB RAM, 8TB SSD, Studio Display/Kybd/Trackpad

In Canada the configurations above are such that I pay 28% extra for the Ultra.
(Without the accessories so you compare just the Mac Studio itself, it is almost a 39% premium, but I need the accessories, so to me it only makes sense to compare the total system costs.)

I am mainly using Capture One, Affinity Photo, Topaz tools, and Helicon Focus for Nikon D850 raw files (Z9 soon).

Now based on the DPReview review, I would normally stick with the Max. But when I load up with SSD etc, and when I don't max out the cores on the Ultra configuration, it is "only" 28% extra as noted.

Given the s/w tools I use noted above, I am wondering if it is likely I will eventually see a notable performance difference that makes the Ultra cost premium of 28% worthwhile.

Opinions?

I am using M1 Max laptop (14") with 32GB of Ram and it's already almost an overkill - I use LR Classic, Affinity Photo and Exposure X6. Sometimes Luminar AI. Most recently I edit a lot of Leica Q2 files which are almost 50MPx. Sometimes I merge panoramas (usually from 5-7 images or HDRs from 3 - 7 images). All applications are smooth and I have never saw any performance issue - UI is responsive, import/export goes fast.

Ultra is a beast but I think it's targeted more for video people and professional graphic designers etc. who frequently work with 8GB+ files.