Mac Studio vs. Macbook Pro

[freddiefivefingers]

I'm shopping for Mac devices and I'm down to the Macbook Pro vs. Studio. From what I can tell, performance is similar when the two devices are spec'd similarly. The main differences I can see are price and ports. Macbook costs more but I only need to buy 1 display while for the studio I'd need 2 displays, a mouse, and a keyboard. And for ports, I understand a hub will solve that.

Is there a real performance difference between the two devices?

Also, is M2 worth it? If it's only graphics related I don't care because I'm only doing music.

[Guido3]

If you want portability, get a Macbook Pro. If it's not going to be moved around, go for the Studio. Something to bear in mind is the screen on the Macbook Pro is gorgeous, so to buy 2 similar external panels to use with the Studio would be expensive.

Can't comment on M1 vs M2. I have a base spec 14" M1 Pro MBP and it's plenty quick enough for everything I can throw at it.

As I have mentioned in previous posts, the only thing I would change with hindsight, is more onboard SSD storage. Mine has 512GB, I should have got 1TB.

[Johnny Stecchino]

As I have mentioned in previous posts, the only thing I would change with hindsight, is more onboard SSD storage. Mine has 512GB, I should have got 1TB.

Ciao Guido,
is it for having more space or because the 1TB version is faster?
I’m in the hunt for a new mac too (got MBP 2012...)
Thanks!

[RichardT]

I'm shopping for Mac devices and I'm down to the Macbook Pro vs. Studio. From what I can tell, performance is similar when the two devices are spec'd similarly. The main differences I can see are price and ports. Macbook costs more but I only need to buy 1 display while for the studio I'd need 2 displays, a mouse, and a keyboard. And for ports, I understand a hub will solve that.

Is there a real performance difference between the two devices?

Also, is M2 worth it? If it's only graphics related I don't care because I'm only doing music.

There's supposed to be about a 20% improvement in multiprocessor scores for the M2 Studio vs the M1, but I'm not sure there are many actual benchmarks available yet.

I have a MBP in the Studio and although the display is nice it's not equivalent to a full sized panel in terms of how useful it is.

[BigRedX]

If you need the portability then get the laptop. Otherwise if you don't already have suitable ones, you may need to also factor in the cost of displays and a keyboard.

And while it is possible to use the built-in display of the MacBook Pro along with an external monitor I find I forever getting my mouse pointer "stuck" at the point where the higher resolution screen joins the lower resolution one. Something you don't need to worry about if all your displays are the same resolution.

[Luke W]

I went for a Mac Studio for my studio machine as I never want/need to take it out and about. As others have said, the main benefit is portability. My work/home setup is based around a MBP with some external displays, and that was a choice I made based on being able to pick up the computer and take it with me when I need to.

As for M1 vs M2, I've not used any of the new M2-equipped computers myself, but whilst there are performance differences, I don't think they're hugely significant to be honest. My home laptop is the base model with an M1 Pro, I do a bit of light audio and video stuff on it with no trouble at all.

As for the Studio, I went with an M1 Ultra model and it's a absolute monster. When I first got it up and running I did an (unscientific) test where I kept loading up tracks and plug-ins in an attempt to make it fall over, I got to around 500 audio tracks and well over 1500 plug-ins before getting bored and giving up, and it wasn't even breaking a sweat. And that was with the DAW and plug-ins all running via Rosetta.

I think you'd need to be doing some really serious work for any of the current MacBook Pro or Mac Studio offerings to cause you any performance troubles. A RAM/SSD upgrade on the base laptop models would never hurt, but in terms of processing power they're incredibly capable.

[paul tha other]

I went for a Mac Studio for my studio machine as I never want/need to take it out and about. As others have said, the main benefit is portability. My work/home setup is based around a MBP with some external displays, and that was a choice I made based on being able to pick up the computer and take it with me when I need to.

As for M1 vs M2, I've not used any of the new M2-equipped computers myself, but whilst there are performance differences, I don't think they're hugely significant to be honest. My home laptop is the base model with an M1 Pro, I do a bit of light audio and video stuff on it with no trouble at all.

As for the Studio, I went with an M1 Ultra model and it's a absolute monster. When I first got it up and running I did an (unscientific) test where I kept loading up tracks and plug-ins in an attempt to make it fall over, I got to around 500 audio tracks and well over 1500 plug-ins before getting bored and giving up, and it wasn't even breaking a sweat. And that was with the DAW and plug-ins all running via Rosetta.

I think you'd need to be doing some really serious work for any of the current MacBook Pro or Mac Studio offerings to cause you any performance troubles. A RAM/SSD upgrade on the base laptop models would never hurt, but in terms of processing power they're incredibly capable.

I did a very similar thing when I got my Mac Studio and gave up trying to make it fall over like you did

the only thing that gives it a spiny beach ball is when try to close down a logic project when have the multi-meter open..it causes the Mac to almost crash..I have to wait about 30secs to a minute to close

[IAA]

the only thing that gives it a spiny beach ball is when try to close down a logic project when have the multi-meter open..it causes the Mac to almost crash..

I thinks this is fixed in latest update?

[muzines]

Yep, it is.

[paul tha other]

ha!... so they have

awesome

[themarqueeyears]

I went for a Mac Studio for my studio machine as I never want/need to take it out and about. As others have said, the main benefit is portability. My work/home setup is based around a MBP with some external displays, and that was a choice I made based on being able to pick up the computer and take it with me when I need to.

As for M1 vs M2, I've not used any of the new M2-equipped computers myself, but whilst there are performance differences, I don't think they're hugely significant to be honest. My home laptop is the base model with an M1 Pro, I do a bit of light audio and video stuff on it with no trouble at all.

As for the Studio, I went with an M1 Ultra model and it's a absolute monster. When I first got it up and running I did an (unscientific) test where I kept loading up tracks and plug-ins in an attempt to make it fall over, I got to around 500 audio tracks and well over 1500 plug-ins before getting bored and giving up, and it wasn't even breaking a sweat. And that was with the DAW and plug-ins all running via Rosetta.

I think you'd need to be doing some really serious work for any of the current MacBook Pro or Mac Studio offerings to cause you any performance troubles. A RAM/SSD upgrade on the base laptop models would never hurt, but in terms of processing power they're incredibly capable.

You made me smile, 500 tracks - 1500 plugins then got bored trying to make it fall over.

Thing is .... (deep breath) I imagine that's using Logic X and stock plugins?

I love the look of the new Mac Studio M2 Ultra.

But I want to use it with Cubase Pro 12 running it at 48KHz 24 bit and low buffers, preferably 32 buffers with an RME interface for low latency playing large sample libraries. CPU intensive software synths like U-he Repro 5 and CPU intensive plugins DMG Equilibrium, Savant Audio Quantum 2772 Evolution room emulator etc etc.

Will the Studio M2 Ultra handle this kind of load without falling over?

I hope so, but I'm waiting for some real world reports before I consider making a purchase.

[muzines]

But I want to use it with Cubase Pro 12 running it at 48KHz 24 bit and low buffers, preferably 32 buffers with an RME interface for low latency playing large sample libraries. CPU intensive software synths like U-he Repro 5 and CPU intensive plugins DMG Equilibrium, Savant Audio Quantum 2772 Evolution room emulator etc etc.

Will the Studio M2 Ultra handle this kind of load without falling over?

I don't know about Cubase's performance on Apple silicon, or the audio drivers of the RME, and whether they run natively etc - you'll need to get feedback of people running those systems for that.

But Logic for me will easily handle those things, at a 32 buffer, and I'm on an M1 Pro MBP, which has somewhat less power than an M2 Ultra (mine is probably about 40% the speed of the Ultra).

Apple silicon is pretty amazing - especially for a basically fanless, cool laptop. It doesn't break a sweat for my typical workloads, and doesn't even turn the fan on.

[RichardT]

@themarqueeyears, It really depends on the track count!

[Luke W]

You made me smile, 500 tracks - 1500 plugins then got bored trying to make it fall over.

Thing is .... (deep breath) I imagine that's using Logic X and stock plugins?

I love the look of the new Mac Studio M2 Ultra.

But I want to use it with Cubase Pro 12 running it at 48KHz 24 bit and low buffers, preferably 32 buffers with an RME interface for low latency playing large sample libraries. CPU intensive software synths like U-he Repro 5 and CPU intensive plugins DMG Equilibrium, Savant Audio Quantum 2772 Evolution room emulator etc etc.

Will the Studio M2 Ultra handle this kind of load without falling over?

I hope so, but I'm waiting for some real world reports before I consider making a purchase.

It was Pro Tools, and one of the 2022 builds before the native M1/M2 support was introduced, so the DAW itself and all of the plug-ins were running via Rosetta.

I changed my interface at the same time as installing the Mac Studio, so I've been doing more testing, installing, and building of templates etc than I have actual work. But for what it's worth, everything I've seen so far leads me to believe that it'll handle more than I'm ever likely to throw at it.

[ore_terra]

You made me smile, 500 tracks - 1500 plugins then got bored trying to make it fall over.

Thing is .... (deep breath) I imagine that's using Logic X and stock plugins?

I love the look of the new Mac Studio M2 Ultra.

But I want to use it with Cubase Pro 12 running it at 48KHz 24 bit and low buffers, preferably 32 buffers with an RME interface for low latency playing large sample libraries. CPU intensivsoftware synths like U-he Repro 5 and CPU intensive plugins DMG Equilibrium, Savant Audio Quantum 2772 Evolution room emulator etc etc.

Will the Studio M2 Ultra handle this kind of load without falling over?

I hope so, but I'm waiting for some real world reports before I consider making a purchase.

I dont use libraries, and not sure either if this will be of any use for you, but here’s my experience. MBP 16 M1 Pro, tracking live sessions (20-24 tracks) monitoring through Cubase with and SSL channelstrip as insert in almost every channel, a couple IR loaders on guitar amp (DI) tracks, ToneX amp sim in bass DI track and a couple of tracking reverbs.

32 samples with a Presonus Quantum 4848 at 48kHz 24 bits. With 64 samples latency is equally imperceptible with this interface (even did 128 with my previous computer and it’s still usable… have I said that I love this interface? ), but these first sessions with the new Mac I’m also trying how hard can I push it.

Performance bar not even reaching half way.

[themarqueeyears]

Thanks everyone for your replies and personal experiences.

I’m torn between a new Mac Studio M2 Ultra (stock) £4K and a new Scan 3XS system with an Intel 24 core i9 13th gen 64 GB ram and 10TB internal SSD’s for £3K.

So there’s £1K price difference and with the Mac I’ll get a 1TB internal ssd and with the Scan system I’ll get 5 drives totalling 10TB.

On the face of it for Cubase and large libraries the Scan workstation is looking to be better value for money, plus my current RME digital connectivity is PCIe as is my UAD2 card.

So it’s going to be a bigger bill to change back to running a Mac but equally I do like the Apple environment.

Tough call.

[Drongoloid]

.... around 500 audio tracks and well over 1500 plug-ins .....

I use that on my vocal alone and it still sounds rubbish..

[RichardT]

Thanks everyone for your replies and personal experiences.

I’m torn between a new Mac Studio M2 Ultra (stock) £4K and a new Scan 3XS system with an Intel 24 core i9 13th gen 64 GB ram and 10TB internal SSD’s for £3K.

So there’s £1K price difference and with the Mac I’ll get a 1TB internal ssd and with the Scan system I’ll get 5 drives totalling 10TB.

On the face of it for Cubase and large libraries the Scan workstation is looking to be better value for money, plus my current RME digital connectivity is PCIe as is my UAD2 card.

So it’s going to be a bigger bill to change back to running a Mac but equally I do like the Apple environment.

Tough call.

Something you could look at is the comparative electricity costs for the two options. Over the lifetime of a system that can be a substantial factor.

I’m honestly not sure you need that much power unless you’re running hundreds of Kontakt (etc) tracks.

[themarqueeyears]

I’m not worried about the power bill, it’s not a deciding factor for my circumstances.

I run at low buffer settings, 24/48 high track count, and a whole slew of high end CPU intensive VI’s and plug-ins using high voice counts. All at the lowest possible buffer settings - ideally 32. Not going to happen of course.

I expect an M2 Ultra or i9 13th gen to still require the usual compromises of larger buffer settings, freezing very intensive VI’s and not running at 24/96 (which would be my preference if such a computer existed)

The question for me, is which machine will allow the least compromises using Cubase 12 Pro as opposed to Logic X. If I was working in Logic X (as I used too) then there’s no decision to make.

[RichardT]

If they benchmark on standard benchmarks at about the same I would go for the Scan machine because of the extra storage and upgradeability (and I say that as a Mac user who will be migrating to the Studio some point reasonably soon).

I doubt you'll find consistent Cubase-specific benchmarks for the two machines.

[themarqueeyears]

If they benchmark on standard benchmarks at about the same I would go for the Scan machine because of the extra storage and upgradeability (and I say that as a Mac user who will be migrating to the Studio some point reasonably soon).

I doubt you'll find consistent Cubase-specific benchmarks for the two machines.

Good points, thanks.

I suppose, removing any emotive thoughts, the logical decision would be, as you point out, to go for the Scan workstation.

[Guido3]

As I have mentioned in previous posts, the only thing I would change with hindsight, is more onboard SSD storage. Mine has 512GB, I should have got 1TB.

Ciao Guido,
is it for having more space or because the 1TB version is faster?
I’m in the hunt for a new mac too (got MBP 2012...)
Thanks!

It's a space issue. 512GB runs out very quickly. I have all my sample libraries on external SSD (3 x 1TB SSD) to allow my system disc to remain uncluttered. I have heard that on certain machines the basic 256GB drive does run slower so it might be worth avoiding one with the smallest drive.

[johnny h]

Thanks everyone for your replies and personal experiences.

I’m torn between a new Mac Studio M2 Ultra (stock) £4K and a new Scan 3XS system with an Intel 24 core i9 13th gen 64 GB ram and 10TB internal SSD’s for £3K.

So there’s £1K price difference and with the Mac I’ll get a 1TB internal ssd and with the Scan system I’ll get 5 drives totalling 10TB.

On the face of it for Cubase and large libraries the Scan workstation is looking to be better value for money, plus my current RME digital connectivity is PCIe as is my UAD2 card.

So it’s going to be a bigger bill to change back to running a Mac but equally I do like the Apple environment.

Tough call.

Don't do it! I went back to PC a few years ago and it was an absolute nightmare. Good performing in parts but so many little niggles and driver issues. Windows is still an awful OS even now.

I replaced my massive beefy PC with a MacBook Pro 16 M1 Pro and external SSD. It absolutely destroys the PC for performance while being completely portable, has the best screen I've ever seen and, now plugin manufacturers have made almost everything Apple Silicon native, just works.

I'd also ditch the UAD2 card. Good plugins for their time but running on absolutely archaic DSP chips.

[tea for two]

Something you could look at is the comparative electricity costs for the two options. Over the lifetime of a system that can be a substantial factor.

^^

When this march I got a 2017 imac27 i5 3.5Ghz it drew still draws approx 60p extra a day idle compared to my previous 2013 imac27 3.2Ghz.