Which high performance setup should I buy? MBP M3 Max or Mac Studio M2 Ultra?

[ohneagency]

Hi all,

I'm a fairly new professional in photography and videography, and my current setup doesn't cut it anymore. I use photoshop, lightroom, and, most importantly, final cut pro with various plugins. I am often using multiple overlays and effects in my exports.

I need a new setup and considering one of the following:

• Macbook Pro 14" M3 Max, 16‑core CPU, 40‑core GPU. 64 GB ram, SSD at 2 TB ~ 6000$
• Mac Studio M2 Ultra, 24‑core CPU, 60‑core GPU, 128 GB ram, SSD at 2 TB ~ 7200$

If I choose the studio option I would also need to purchase a monitor, so adding up to a rather hefty expense.... 2000$ extra.


Now, would you experts think it is worth the extra money to buy the Mac Studio with more ram and better CPU+GPU, but with an "outdated" M2 ultra chip?

I usually edit on 4k, 10bit raw-files in final cut pro, but occasionally also some 8k, 10bit raw (S-log3).

Hope you all can point me in an efficient direction.

//Jon

 

[Andrey84]

Some questions please.

Do you need the mobility of a laptop, or do you work from home 99% of the time?

Also, won't you need an external monitor anyway, even for the MacBook Pro? I assume 16" is not nearly enough for photo- and video-editing. If you already have an external monitor, why are you not considering to use it with the Mac Studio?

 

[ohneagency]

Thanks for the reply! My current work is very mixed, but I can be home around 60% of the time. So I could see having dedicated location days 1-2 days a week (for shoots/meetings/whatever), and rather dedicated office days 3-4 days a week.

Ideally I would like a powerful stationary work station (at least for the mental division of labor, if that makes sense). But unless I'm missing something, it looks as if a maxed out macbook pro M3 max pretty much performs the same as a buff Mac Studio, even with the M2 ultra.

If the Mac Studio was currently running on an M3 chip (or if I could wait), I would definitely buy that. But given that the latest Macbook outperforms the Studio on many benchmarks (while still being cheaper up front!), I'm a bit confused...

And yes – in the long run I certainly need an external monitor anyway, but currently don't have one.

 

[Andrey84]

Ok, so it sounds like you don’t need to take your main machine to the photoshoots with you? May I ask why?

You are correct that M3 Max and M2 Ultra have similar performance. I’m just trying to understand why you don’t see having a laptop as an advantage for your workflow which is a mix and home and away.

For me it seems obvious: if you pay less money for the laptop and get similar performance to the Studio, but in addition you’re also getting the portability and a display. MBP seems a much better deal. But maybe I’m missing something.

In terms of memory, I just came out of a 125-message thread about that. My understanding is that 64GB vs 128GB might not be much different. Hopefully you will get an answer from someone who has a similar workflow though.

 

[ohneagency]

I shoot a lot of sports – but in a more editorial than documentary way, so I don't need to deliver within an hour of an event. I also shoot a lot personal stories of athletes/models. In these cases it's often on location and in a very personal setting, so there is no client to look over my shoulder and direct/approve on the go. I'm (currently) never shooting in a studio. A recent job was in the italian mountains where we had to hike a lot between locations, so I only carried my camera and lenses and then I edited from home the following days.

And I agree – currently it looks rather obvious to go with the laptop. However, I've seen some reviews about heating problems and fans kicking in to make a lot of noice + I'm don't know if I'll need the extra cores in the CPU and GPU or if it's even relevant for my kind of work.

 

[Andrey84]

Ok, makes sense.
Extra CPU cores clearly don't make any difference, as the benchmarks show that multi-core performance is the same.
Extra GPU cores, noise - I don't know, hopefully someone else can answer!
On RAM - 64GB vs 128GB, I found this video by MaxTech where with 64GB Memory Pressure is green using Final Cut Pro with a 8K video, which probably means you don't need to worry about getting just 64GB.

However, do test your memory pressure at a high load on the current machine as suggested below.

 

[okkibs]

The performance of the Ultra chips doesn't necessarily scale 1:1 with the additional cores in all apps and there is only so much apps can run in parallel on the CPU. So whereas graphics performance tends to scale more linearly with the amount of GPU cores on Apple Silicon it highly depends on the app/workload if it will even use the 12 cores let alone anywhere close to 24. The latest gen cores are always a few percent faster, so the as long as your apps are happy with 12 cores these 12 cores will perform a bit better than the older gen cores on the Studio. So the latest gen has the best single core performance.

Since the Ultra always appears last before a new generation is released it will always feel like it's that overly expensive yet already "old" chip. What is your old setup? Unless that's a M1 Ultra already the M3 Max will be a noticeable upgrade anyways, and for many workloads the mentioned better single performance will actually make apps run faster in CPU workloads on the M3 Max than on the M2 Ultra.

What will hold you back on the Macbook is half the memory. Even the fastest Mac will grind to a halt eventually if it runs out of memory. If you need anywhere close to 64GiB now or might already be able to make use of more then I strongly suggest to go up to 128GiB directly. If the Studio is within the budget then this shouldn't be an issue. And spend the remaining money on AC+ as you really don't want a 1 year warranty on a fully maxed out $6k Mac. The extra cost is at this point a very small percentage of the device cost.

If you don't know if you'll need more than 64GiB check your memory usage on your current Mac if that's what you got now. Work a project like usual and then in the middle of intense work open Activity Monitor on the memory tab and look at the memory pressure color at the bottom left color. Unless it remains green all the time, if it turns yellow or even red then the current amount of memory in that Mac isn't sufficient. This can give you a hint how much memory you'll need.

If your workload even warrants thinking about going for an Ultra chip then certainly it's not worth saving a couple hundred bucks on memory. Although if you currently have 32GiB and it's totally fine then 64GiB will likely suffice in the future. Lightroom eats a lot of memory and I assume you'd be running your apps simultaneously so your workload might benefit from more memory.

I've seen some reviews about heating problems and fans kicking in to make a lot of noice + I'm don't know if I'll need the extra cores in the CPU and GPU or if it's even relevant for my kind of work.

The M3 models seem to be a bit noisier than M1/M2. But as the previous models mostly remain dead quiet it merely means you'll hear the fans some of the time. And if you stress the device then the fans get annoying on the M1/M2 models too, the crazy good performance creates heat that needs to go somewhere. You'll always have that issue on any laptop. If you cannot tolerate fan noise a Studio might be better, but then the Studio with no noise won't help you on the go when a laptop's needed.

You could also get a M2 Max Studio and a cheaper Macbook Air to have the best of both worlds, a dead quiet desktop workstation and a silent Macbook with lots of battery on the go.

I like quiet Macbooks and wouldn't worry too much here, you might want to get a third party app that lets you adjust the fan speed to set it on a higher default where you can hear it a little bit most of the time but it will drop the temperatures a bit so that the fans don't spin up annoyingly for shorter workload burts in between. The fans are not bothering me on a lower constant setting. If you really get to it you will get fans running near 100% nonstop though, so for intense work headphones might be a necessity. Just the drawbacks of being able to carry a tiny workstation with you.

 

[Andrey84]

It's funny how in this forum, if it's an emotional topic, like how much RAM should someone get, you get 125 replies and 12K views.

Here, for a genuine interesting question, literally just two people answered, and one of them (me) doesn't even do any video/photo editing at all. The jury (us two) is still out on RAM and there is no clarity if extra GPU cores of the Studio will make a noticeable difference in your workflow, and it's not clear how much more noise will M3 Max MBP make.

@ohneagency if you haven't decided yet, let's keep bumping this thread up, hope someone whom you actually expected to answer will do so.

 

[ignatius345]

Hi all,

I'm a fairly new professional in photography and videography, and my current setup doesn't cut it anymore. I use photoshop, lightroom, and, most importantly, final cut pro with various plugins. I am often using multiple overlays and effects in my exports.

I need a new setup and considering one of the following:

• Macbook Pro 14" M3 Max, 16‑core CPU, 40‑core GPU. 64 GB ram, SSD at 2 TB ~ 6000$
• Mac Studio M2 Ultra, 24‑core CPU, 60‑core GPU, 128 GB ram, SSD at 2 TB ~ 7200$

If I choose the studio option I would also need to purchase a monitor, so adding up to a rather hefty expense.... 2000$ extra.


Now, would you experts think it is worth the extra money to buy the Mac Studio with more ram and better CPU+GPU, but with an "outdated" M2 ultra chip?

I usually edit on 4k, 10bit raw-files in final cut pro, but occasionally also some 8k, 10bit raw (S-log3).

Hope you all can point me in an efficient direction.

//Jon

This all sounds like pretty demanding work, and you'll be needing to do at least some of it in on location. Sounds to me like the MacBook Pro is the obvious choice here. You're already spending the money on demanding (and billable) work, so why not just aim high with the specs and know that you'll be covered? You haven't said what kind of machine you're using to do your work now, so that might shed some light on what you'll need to get out of a new one.

You probably already have this accounted for with your other equipment, but I'd make sure that expensive laptop is well insured.

 

[MRxROBOT]

It's funny how in this forum, if it's an emotional topic, like how much RAM should someone get, you get 125 replies and 12K views.

Here, for a genuine interesting question, literally just two people answered, and one of them (me) doesn't even do any video/photo editing at all. The jury (us two) is still out on RAM and there is no clarity if extra GPU cores of the Studio will make a noticeable difference in your workflow, and it's not clear how much more noise will M3 Max MBP make.

@ohneagency if you haven't decided yet, let's keep bumping this thread up, hope someone whom you actually expected to answer will do so.

I think “the why” is pretty obvious and in my opinion has little to do with emotions as you put it. The amount users with experience across all Mac devices with RAM, having not enough or too much is pretty vast. Lots of folks just don’t have the experience with the flagship MacBook Pros and flagship Studio devices. It’s going to be a small subset of people that can tell from their experience which will be better suited in the intended use case.

 

[InvertedGoldfish]

Price to specs wise, do you need to show expenses on your taxes or something?

 

[TechnoMonk]

I would make it 128 GB RAM 16 inch M3 Max MBP. Gives you ability to travel with Laptop, better specs than M2 Ultra(except less cores).

 

[Mr.Fox]

Hi all,

I'm a fairly new professional in photography and videography, and my current setup doesn't cut it anymore. I use photoshop, lightroom, and, most importantly, final cut pro with various plugins. I am often using multiple overlays and effects in my exports.

I need a new setup and considering one of the following:

• Macbook Pro 14" M3 Max, 16‑core CPU, 40‑core GPU. 64 GB ram, SSD at 2 TB ~ 6000$
• Mac Studio M2 Ultra, 24‑core CPU, 60‑core GPU, 128 GB ram, SSD at 2 TB ~ 7200$

If I choose the studio option I would also need to purchase a monitor, so adding up to a rather hefty expense.... 2000$ extra.


Now, would you experts think it is worth the extra money to buy the Mac Studio with more ram and better CPU+GPU, but with an "outdated" M2 ultra chip?

I usually edit on 4k, 10bit raw-files in final cut pro, but occasionally also some 8k, 10bit raw (S-log3).

Hope you all can point me in an efficient direction.

//Jon

Processing photos or videos on a laptop is eye breaking only . You need a monitor for that. Laptops are out of the question.
Mac Studio M2 Ultra, 24-core processor, 60-core GPU, 128 GB of RAM, 2 TB SSD - will be more or less normal configuration, unless you process 8K RAW with Arri or Red. Then Mac Studio will be glitchy as well. If a simple camera -Nikon/Canon/Sony/Fujifilm, it is suitable in terms of power.

 

[ChrisA]

You are going to want the Sudio with at least one large monitor or more likely two large monitors. I can't see how anyone would even think about using a 14" screen for FCP.

That said, I'd think you also might want a notebook too so you can show clients soe edits and maybe look at footage before you go home. But you don't need a high-end setup for that. Even an iPad Pro could work.

On the Mac Studio, you are going to need a ton of storage and it would have to be external. Then you need 3X that much storage for backups. (some of it can be a cloud service). I'd imagine if you do 8K video you have many TB of data to hold onto. A mid-range NAS might be in order. I think you might find that your storage and backup storage will cost as much as the Mac Studio. Think ahead to the amount of data you will have in 2 or 3 years.

As for cost. Think of capital equipment expense as a fraction of yearly gross income. That is usually how we think, in ratios, not in absolute numbers. Having half a year's income tied up in capital equipment is not much for a profesional. and it turns over in 3 to 5 years

I'd think you'd want a desktop with two calibrated monitors and some large external storage and then a portable device for use on site.

Video is rough because clients will not hire you if you have "out of data" cameras so you have to keep upgrading. Apple computers last perhaps 5 years and so can write them off on a 5-year schedule. SO make up a program based on net receipts that keeps your gear 3 to 5 years old and ties up perhaps 50% of yearly income. Assuming that, buying a new high-spec'dMac Studio should be within budget.

The question is actually harder for a hobbyist/enthusiast because then it is coming out of an entertainment budget and is purely subjective.

 

[Andrey84]

You need a monitor for that. Laptops are out of the question.

I can't see how anyone would even think about using a 14" screen for FCP

You probably know this, but the MacBook Pro supports external displays - in the same way as Mac Studio does.

"MacBook Pro (16-inch, 2023) model with the M2 Max or M3 Max chip supports up to four external displays simultaneously, based on the resolution (up to 8K) and refresh rate (up to 240 Hz) of each external display." (source)

 

[ChrisA]

You probably know this, but the MacBook Pro supports external displays - in the same way as Mac Studio does.

"MacBook Pro (16-inch, 2023) model with the M2 Max or M3 Max chip supports up to four external displays simultaneously, based on the resolution (up to 8K) and refresh rate (up to 240 Hz) of each external display." (source)

That was exactly my point. You ARE going to need a monitor.

 

[okkibs]

The jury (us two) is still out on RAM and there is no clarity if extra GPU cores of the Studio will make a noticeable difference in your workflow, and it's not clear how much more noise will M3 Max MBP make.

The issue with that is that it really depends on the individual workflow and could range from making barely any difference to a quite noticeable one. For the memory you gotta look at what your current Mac uses in the Activity Monitor app and go from there. For the GPU it's even harder as there is no similar simple way to check in the first place. And for the noise, well, generally all M3 models seem to be noisier than the previous generations but how am I supposed to qualify that further without going out and purchasing at least one entire Macbook to compare it to my current one? And even that would ignore that one device has brand new fans and my own device from 2021 might have noisier fans due to mechanical wear. I can read reviews, but so can you. I asked OP about the old setup and got no reply on that either.

How exactly are we supposed to give better advice then? I don't feel comfortable recommending to spend much more on the Ultra unless I am convinced it would be money well spent. For many users it simply won't be, since as I said before the additional performance of that chip doesn't scale 1:1 for each and every app. Sadly it again depends.

One way around all this would be to get the cheaper Max model, and exchange it for a beefier one within 2 weeks if necessary. Not like Apple allows to upgrade these devices later, and they'll certainly not mind returning a cheaper Mac for a more expensive one.

 

[Andrey84]

The issue with that is that it really depends on the individual workflow and could range from making barely any difference to a quite noticeable one. For the memory you gotta look at what your current Mac uses in the Activity Monitor app and go from there. For the GPU it's even harder as there is no similar simple way to check in the first place. And for the noise, well, generally all M3 models seem to be noisier than the previous generations but how am I supposed to qualify that further without going out and purchasing at least one entire Macbook to compare it to my current one? And even that would ignore that one device has brand new fans and my own device from 2021 might have noisier fans due to mechanical wear. I can read reviews, but so can you. I asked OP about the old setup and got no reply on that either.

How exactly are we supposed to give better advice then? I don't feel comfortable recommending to spend much more on the Ultra unless I am convinced it would be money well spent. For many users it simply won't be, since as I said before the additional performance of that chip doesn't scale 1:1 for each and every app. Sadly it again depends.

One way around all this would be to get the cheaper Max model, and exchange it for a beefier one within 2 weeks if necessary. Not like Apple allows to upgrade these devices later, and they'll certainly not mind returning a cheaper Mac for a more expensive one.

I didn’t mean you! You did advise and did it well.