With all the stress-testing that gets done, you wonder why they don't include scrubbing, rendering and exporting editing projects that have many hours of media (minimum 10 hours) from say 4 or more camera types.ĭiscussing the Mac Studio vs new Macbook Pros today a colleague made this exact comment. I know I've certainly found a way to exploit the performance and it is there to be had. Maybe a workflow can be altered slightly to parallelise tasks in the interim until software vendors can alter their code to make use of the additional capabilities. oh and doing all that with sub 80W of power usageĮach person has different requirements for a device, each person has different views as to what is quick. But then, who would expect them to be, it's the same single core and hence speed, but it all works smoothly and faultlessly while encoding h.265 video in the background at > 25x playback speeds. My 3x M1 Mac Minis were certainly cheaper (the aim was to have the Ultra replace all 3) and performance wise it certainly can do, while also allowing a couple of virtuals to run at an acceptable level of performance and also carrying out all the other things a primary workstation is expected to do (Mail, Safari, Messages, Teams, Word, Excel etc) though none of these are really any quicker on the Ultra compared to the Mini. Night and day? not sure, but certainly within the ball park. The same 3x improvement was also obtained using software h.265 encoding. Your definition of "night and day" might be different from mine, but from my own personal testing, the initial impression of my base Ultra was a bit "meh", but changing slightly my h.265 encoding workflow from 1 file to 3 in parallel went from the M1 hardware encode speed of 170ish fps to >520fps, a 3x speed improvement.
From that, I can infer you've not done your own testing and your knowledge of its' performance is based purely on what you've seen online. I see from your previous posts that you don't have a Studio.
0 kommentar(er)
