MP 7,1 Is it true that M1 is faster than Mac Pro?

[smckenzie]

I tried the "external solutions" idea with my 5K iMac via two external gpu enclosures. Apart from the performance loss the noise was ridiculous, not to mention I now have to big boxes and 4 additional wires to deal with.

The Studio is a great machine I'm sure, but soon as you have to add external everything to get it to do want you want what's the point? At least with my 7,1 it's all contained in a single box and whisper quiet.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

I tried the "external solutions" idea with my 5K iMac via two external gpu enclosures. Apart from the performance loss the noise was ridiculous, not to mention I now have to big boxes and 4 additional wires to deal with.

The Studio is a great machine I'm sure, but soon as you have to add external everything to get it to do want you want what's the point? At least with my 7,1 it's all contained in a single box and whisper quiet.

Studio = Mac mini + - (minus after the plus because it’s even less upgradable, plus for the extra cpu grunt)

 

[smckenzie]

I would be curious about a Studio if it had a really high cpu count, like 32 or 64 cores to use with Arnold render as Autodesk finally after 2 years released an update with native AS compatabillity.
.

 

[MacBH928]

I can think of two main reasons:

1. GPU power. If you're using something like Resolve, the extra power really helps.

2. You already bought one before the Pro/Max/Ultra were available, so that was your only option if wanting to stay on Macs.

The equation has shifted since then and as a result Apple probably aren't selling all that many Mac Pros. They'd probably rather sell you a Studio to show that the transition has been a success for them.

There is the expandability argument with the Mac Pro, which I believe is a bit overstated, as there will never be a better processor you can use over the 28 Core model offered at launch. You can add more RAM (but how much will the software actually use?). I've added a lot of SSD storage, but I'm sure I could come up with an external solution if I had to.

This is a really thin market. People who want Mac Pro are people who work in GPU intensive tasks and willing to pay a higher price just so they do not use Windows?

Windows 11 Pro for workstations has been running perfectly on my Mac Pro 7,1.

The surprise was actually how quickly it runs. It lacks a lot of macOS convenience features (in only the modern MacOS versions) but it seems quite stable.

How you find a Windows machine working compared to Mac ? is it worth the price difference to keep using MacOS and their hardware?

Your statement on overstating is overstated, as people who do 3D work need better GPUs, not cpus. The studio cannot even run a single 8K screen. Your “external “solution” was the trashcan rats nest of cables that was an ADMITTED failure by apple. People here have both, myself included, I have a maxed out ultra. It is in effect a Mac mini plus, but worse, since it’s less expandable. Not a serious machine.

Expandability wise it is a mac mini and while I do not know how it compares to GPU intensive tasks, I am willing to guess those who are dedicated to such apps for a living might opt for a Windows machine. Its a limit less world over there and prices are more efficient.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

Expandability wise it is a mac mini and while I do not know how it compares to GPU intensive tasks, I am willing to guess those who are dedicated to such apps for a living might opt for a Windows machine. Its a limit less world over there and prices are more efficient.

That's not as much an answer as it is an admission of defeat.

Apple may well do the same, but I'm hoping there is a little more fight in them to not become the next Sony/IBM and remember that actually doing cool things is important to being something other than marginalizing yourself to insignificance in the world.

 

[m1maverick]

How you find a Windows machine working compared to Mac ? is it worth the price difference to keep using MacOS and their hardware?

It's been my experience Windows, on good hardware, is no more troublesome than Macs and it has been this way for quite some time. I think which platform to choose should be based on if the applications you want to run are available for it and how well those applications run on it. With that out of the way cost, availability of suitable hardware, and even personal preference come into play. What should not come into play if "fanboyism", a lot of the criticism I see against Windows is really dated and no longer applicable.

 

[avro707]

How you find a Windows machine working compared to Mac ? is it worth the price difference to keep using MacOS and their hardware?

It's down to the quality of the Windows machine. I'm using Windows on a Mac Pro 7,1 so it runs very well for what I need it to do. And a few minutes later the same machine is back running MacOS Ventura. Maximum usefulness for me.

If you ask me about a regular windows machine then no, they don't stack up and they shouldn't either - big difference in cost and how they are designed.

Sorry for not buying into the platform-v-platform and the Apple Silicon-v-Intel arguments. I just want the one computer that natively runs Windows and MacOS well.

 

[MacBH928]

That's not as much an answer as it is an admission of defeat.

Apple may well do the same, but I'm hoping there is a little more fight in them to not become the next Sony/IBM and remember that actually doing cool things is important to being something other than marginalizing yourself to insignificance in the world.

I think Apple is quitting that market. IBM quit on PCs. Each company takes what they are most profitable at and concentrate on it and make it their own little corner. Apple is not even considering to compete with IBM in corporate servers and such. They even quit on the educational market which was important to them.

It's been my experience Windows, on good hardware, is no more troublesome than Macs and it has been this way for quite some time. I think which platform to choose should be based on if the applications you want to run are available for it and how well those applications run on it. With that out of the way cost, availability of suitable hardware, and even personal preference come into play. What should not come into play if "fanboyism", a lot of the criticism I see against Windows is really dated and no longer applicable.

Are there any applications for MacOS that people want to use that are not on Windows other than Final Cut Pro and Logic for Audio?

I think the only ones are the ones who are iOS specific and have a MacOS version, so if you are into that then I guess yes some apps are MacOS only but I am sure a good alternative does exist on Windows.

It's down to the quality of the Windows machine. I'm using Windows on a Mac Pro 7,1 so it runs very well for what I need it to do. And a few minutes later the same machine is back running MacOS Ventura. Maximum usefulness for me.

If you ask me about a regular windows machine then no, they don't stack up and they shouldn't either - big difference in cost and how they are designed.

Sorry for not buying into the platform-v-platform and the Apple Silicon-v-Intel arguments. I just want the one computer that natively runs Windows and MacOS well.

Those days are over unless Windows ARM becomes as good as the x86 version

 

[TobiasT]

MP7.1 was a fiasco.

 

[MarkC426]

MP7.1 was a fiasco.

In what way.....?
It is the only Mac that is 100% upgradeable.

 

[m1maverick]

Are there any applications for MacOS that people want to use that are not on Windows other than Final Cut Pro and Logic for Audio?

I think the only ones are the ones who are iOS specific and have a MacOS version, so if you are into that then I guess yes some apps are MacOS only but I am sure a good alternative does exist on Windows.

I don't know as the software library is quite large on the Macintosh. I also don't believe that someone should seek Windows alternatives if they're perfectly happy with the Macintosh.

I like Macs, I own plenty of them (most current is a base Ultra Studio). I wanted to buy a Mac Pro 7,1 but I am concerned about Apple's lock in. Therefore, I opted for a Z840 instead.

 

[avro707]

In what way.....?
It is the only Mac that is 100% upgradeable.

Search and you'll understand his post: https://forums.macrumors.com/search/3844137/

He has been trash-talking the 7,1 for a long time. Maybe if Apple had made it in a black colour for him or looking more like the 6,1 things might have been different.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

I think Apple is quitting that market. IBM quit on PCs. Each company takes what they are most profitable at and concentrate on it and make it their own little corner. Apple is not even considering to compete with IBM in corporate servers and such. They even quit on the educational market which was important to them.

Thanks for making my point. IBM used a 'greedy' algorirthm searching for short term maximization and now they are in the toilet. They make nearly nothing. "Consulting" hasn't gone on how they thought it would, and considering they make nothing, their 'consulting' value has gone further in the toilet. The company is a sliver and shadow of its former self. This is not a road to success, but rather, into insignificance.

 

[theorist9]

so I am looking at reviews and everyone seems to say that M1 is faster than the Mac Pro chips multiple times over. The least expensive Mac Pro is $6K or so. Who would buy a Mac Pro then? Am I missing something? I doubt "upgradability" is the reason since buying a completely new M chip computer in few years would be cheaper than the initial investment + upgrade price.

Is it because the Mac Pro has graphics cards that are faster? Feels like a very thin market share since they probably can get get cheaper PCs for the same specs I am guessing of course.

A lot of complicated answers here but no one's given you a clear and direct one. The M1 is not faster than the 2019 MP "multiple times over". It has about 50% faster single-threaded (ST) CPU speeds, and possibly a faster built-in SSD. That's it.

But then the MP was never built for ST performance—my 2019 iMac beats it there as well. Instead, the MP is faster than the M1 for multi-threaded tasks*, and you can outfit it with far more RAM (up to 1.5 TB) and a much more powerful GPU. It also has vastly more connectivity/expandability than the M1. E.g., the M1 can drive two external displays; the MP (with the top GPU option) can drive eight

Having said that, the single biggest determinant of computer responsiveness for day-to-day computing is ST CPU performance (assuming you're not bottlenecked by slow storage, which doesn't apply to any modern Mac). So in that sense an M1 Mac might feel more responsive than a MP if you don't need heavy GPU or multi-thread CPU computing.

*The M1 Ultra beats the top MP for multi-threaded CPU performance, and its GPU's are in about the same class, but that's a very different beast from the M1 (and far more expensive). And even the Ultra doesn't have the MP's expandability and connectivity -- which is presumably why Apple is building an AS version of the MP.

Connectivity, for many pros, includes being able to plug in their various PCIe cards. Here's one with a host of different audio cards:

 

[MacBH928]

A lot of complicated answers here but no one's given you a clear and direct one. The M1 is not faster than the 2019 MP "multiple times over". It has about 50% faster single-threaded (ST) CPU speeds, and possibly a faster built-in SSD. That's it.

But then the MP was never built for ST performance—my 2019 iMac beats it there as well. Instead, the MP is faster than the M1 for multi-threaded tasks*, and you can outfit it with far more RAM (up to 1.5 TB) and a much more powerful GPU. It also has vastly more connectivity/expandability than the M1. E.g., the M1 can drive two external displays; the MP (with the top GPU option) can drive eight

Having said that, the single biggest determinant of computer responsiveness for day-to-day computing is ST CPU performance (assuming you're not bottlenecked by slow storage, which doesn't apply to any modern Mac). So in that sense an M1 Mac might feel more responsive than a MP if you don't need heavy GPU or multi-thread CPU computing.

*The M1 Ultra beats the top MP for multi-threaded CPU performance, and its GPU's are in about the same class, but that's a very different beast from the M1 (and far more expensive). And even the Ultra doesn't have the MP's expandability and connectivity -- which is presumably why Apple is building an AS version of the MP.

Connectivity, for many pros, includes being able to plug in their various PCIe cards. Here's one with a host of different audio cards:

View attachment 2135798

My question is who needs 8 displays and that much expandability, and if they really do, doesn't it make more financial sense to build your own PC to your liking instead of staying with the Mac's restrictions? The market seems very very thin especially considered those MPro purchasers are not going to buy another one for a really long time. So Apple looks like they are slowly withdrawing from this market that they hardly make any profit from.

 

[prefuse07]

 

[theorist9]

My question is who needs 8 displays and that much expandability, and if they really do, doesn't it make more financial sense to build your own PC to your liking instead of staying with the Mac's restrictions? The market seems very very thin especially considered those MPro purchasers are not going to buy another one for a really long time. So Apple looks like they are slowly withdrawing from this market that they hardly make any profit from.

Wrong. That was not your question at all. It was, as the title says: "Is it true that M1 is faster than Mac Pro?" I did the work to provide you a clear, direct, and detailed answer, which was upvoted by six people.

Now, instead of at least having the grace to say "thank you", you're saying that wasn't your question at all, and instead what you were really wondering is why people buy MacPro's instead of building their own PC's. Why jerk us around by not being straightfoward about what you really wanted to ask? I'm done.

 

[prefuse07]

Seriously, OP, it's clear that you don't understand the user-base for a Mac Pro, and don't even want to try to understand, even after answers as clear as day are provided by multiple people throughout this thread.

So, instead of trolling, please feel free to visit the Mac Studio forum -- It's pretty obvious that you will be much happier there.

 

[avro707]

Seriously, OP, it's clear that you don't understand the user-base for a Mac Pro, and don't even want to try to understand, even after answers as clear as day are provided by multiple people throughout this thread.

So, instead of trolling, please feel free to visit the Mac Studio forum -- It's pretty obvious that you will be much happier there.

Amen to that. Will they realise for some of us that the Studio wouldn't do the job. I could have purchased the top spec Studio - but it just wouldn't do. if Apple does withdraw from the market then a lot of us won't just go to the Studio, we will regrettably go over to a PC workstation.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

My question is who needs 8 displays and that much expandability, and if they really do, doesn't it make more financial sense to build your own PC to your liking instead of staying with the Mac's restrictions? The market seems very very thin especially considered those MPro purchasers are not going to buy another one for a really long time. So Apple looks like they are slowly withdrawing from this market that they hardly make any profit from.

I had 10 screens on a lowly 5,1. I need it. Are we really doing that ‘nobody needs more than 640k’ thing? And should we really live by tyranny of the lowest common denominator, of what someone else decides we should be 'ok' with?

Pass.

 

[Macsonic]

Some companies and clients put more weight on the user’s software skillsets and not much on the computer model. I know that both the 2019 7,1 Mac Pro and the Mac Studio have their own market niche depending on the user's needs. I would get the 7,1 2019 Mac Pro regardless if it was slower than the M1 Mac Studio. I need the PCIe slots and internal storage flexibility for my workflow.

I have a M1 iMac and I have a client who would let me bring home and use their M1 Mac Studio. Though, most of the time I would still use the 2010 5,1 Mac Pro. It’s slower but it’s a good fit for my workflow needs and managing multiple files. Some of the digital work I do is based on precision and not on speed. With the M1 Macs, there’s a clutter of hubs and external drives.

There’s also an influx of browser-based softwares that are not dependent on high-powered computers. Like designerr, artlist, createstudio pro, Visme, Descript and so on. We have a co-worker who still uses an old 2014 iMac and an 8 year old Dell PC Windows. The client likes to work with him as he is skilled in managing people, a “problem-solver” and can juggle multiple video clips as he is good with software tweaks.

 

[MacBH928]

Wrong. That was not your question at all. It was, as the title says: "Is it true that M1 is faster than Mac Pro?" I did the work to provide you a clear, direct, and detailed answer, which was upvoted by six people.

Now, instead of at least having the grace to say "thank you", you're saying that wasn't your question at all, and instead what you were really wondering is why people buy MacPro's instead of building their own PC's. Why jerk us around by not being straightfoward about what you really wanted to ask? I'm done.

Seriously, OP, it's clear that you don't understand the user-base for a Mac Pro, and don't even want to try to understand, even after answers as clear as day are provided by multiple people throughout this thread.

So, instead of trolling, please feel free to visit the Mac Studio forum -- It's pretty obvious that you will be much happier there.

Amen to that. Will they realise for some of us that the Studio wouldn't do the job. I could have purchased the top spec Studio - but it just wouldn't do. if Apple does withdraw from the market then a lot of us won't just go to the Studio, we will regrettably go over to a PC workstation.

I do not understand the attack. Indeed my question was "is the M1 faster" and all the replies said that if you are doing adobe suite kind of thing the Studio will be great (which is what I thought why would people buy MacPro) and the answer was Mac Pro is better at GPU intensive tasks and expandability. Thank you.

Further talk made me wonder what software use case(who) beyond Adobe suite and and FCP needs 8 displays and so much expandibility?

I am sorry I asked an honest question

I had 10 screens on a lowly 5,1. I need it. Are we really doing that ‘nobody needs more than 640k’ thing? And should we really live by tyranny of the lowest common denominator, of what someone else decides we should be 'ok' with?

Pass.

You can have 100 displays on your desk if you want, I am just asking an honest question on what use case that is. If asking is a crime then I am sorry for my crime. The only use case for 3+ displays I know is stock market monitoring.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

You can have 100 displays on your desk if you want, I am just asking an honest question on what use case that is. If asking is a crime then I am sorry for my crime. The only use case for 3+ displays I know is stock market monitoring.

Youre asking your 'honest' question with a lot of judginess/tone behind it. That the only use case you know of for 3+ displays is the stock market, tells us a lot.

So perhaps instead of acting so put-aback for 'just' asking your 'honest questions' full of counter-arguments for fields youve just admitted youre completely unaware of, instead, you might try a touch more humility and open-mindedness in considering the information from pro/enthusiasts trying to answer your questions.

Furthermore, what's wrong with also supplying wall street types. They dont care about price and need what they need. Not a bad market. One NeXT used to sell to with relative success.

 

[m1maverick]

I had 10 screens on a lowly 5,1. I need it. Are we really doing that ‘nobody needs more than 640k’ thing? And should we really live by tyranny of the lowest common denominator, of what someone else decides we should be 'ok' with?

Pass.

Someone is using more than 640KB? Blasphemy!

 

[Matt2012]

It's been my experience Windows, on good hardware, is no more troublesome than Macs and it has been this way for quite some time. I think which platform to choose should be based on if the applications you want to run are available for it and how well those applications run on it. With that out of the way cost, availability of suitable hardware, and even personal preference come into play. What should not come into play if "fanboyism", a lot of the criticism I see against Windows is really dated and no longer applicable.

Totally agree with this and Windows is pretty decent now where I find Apple is going the other way now.
For multiple open windows and apps, MAC OS feels slooowwww with its click to activate any window (click-through) compared to Windows where things are far faster and snappier.
My wait for a new Mac Pro is now all but but over - I can't keep waiting for Apple when trying to run a business and the 4090 cards are very good and a big leap over the 3090.
I still use my Studio but the performance seems much less so now compared with the 4090 doing the same tasks on a dedicated PC.