Mark Aceto

Tim Apple (in his best Don Draper voice): That's what the M2 is for!

What was the VW task in that screenshot? BTW there are som other column options in Activity Monitor that might be useful:

I think I got threads mixed up because there's a Venn diagram of the same handful of people complaining about the same handful of things in a handful of slightly differently places. Just spend your life savings on a Mac, and everything will work great. It's like we're all sitting around the monolith at The Dawn of Mac: (And we know what happened to HAL's memory.) Moving on...

Well, that's a lie:

Doubling the low end from 16 to 32 would make a big difference. Adding 16 to the high end would not be noticeable for most users, myself included. I feel like a broken record but: Look at the Intel MBP in my signature: 32 + 8 (40 total; not 32) So 32 is really more like 24 + 8 if we're comparing ARM's to Intels I've never run out of memory with 128gb, and I'm usually sitting somewhere between 25 and 50% (32 to 64gb) If 32gb shared memory is in one's budget, it's a no-brainer for 2023 and beyond. If a power user is concerned about running out of memory, and has the budget, I can vouch for the Studio not disappointing. I complain a lot. I've never complained about running out of memory.

That's fair but I think you had some good news about VW 2023 memory management vs VW 2022.

A lot of contextual relativity to unpack here... First of all, I've never run out of memory with 128gb, so yes, more memory helps. If @Christiaanor @zenowould like to share one of their mega drawing sets with hundreds of section viewports, I'd be happy to test if I could peg this machine. It's defeatist to say more memory won't help but there is a diminishing ROI at some threshold for every user. BTW their feedback directly helped the memory management improvements in VW 2023. That said, a lot of the initial feedback was regarding VW 2021 and 2022. Keep in mind, the M1 Mini was released over two years ago at the end of 2020 (shortly after VW 2021 was released). And VW 2021 ran in Rosetta 2, so VW 2022 was the first version that ran natively on ARM, so of course it wasn't as optimized as it is now (or will continue to be in the future). Whenever Apple change architecture, we all go all along for the ride (growing pains). 140 to 190gb on a 64gb machine? Those are some Activity Monitor funny numbers... If I could summarize everything: VW 2023 is more efficient with shared memory than VW 2022 M2 Mac Mini offers double the shared memory (from 16gb to 32gb) of the M1 Mac Mini M2 single core is ~20% faster M2 Pro is the fastest single core Mac right now M2 multicore is ~20% faster (has 20% more cores) M2 Pro is the 4th fastest multicore Mac right now *** M2 graphics are ~30% improved In other words, the user experience of running VW 2023 on a maxed out M2 Mini should be noticably better than running VW 2021 or 2022 on a maxed out M2 Mini. *** For the heavy RW users, these are the Cinebench scores: 75,671 AMD Threadripper 3990X 41,012 Intel i9 13900K 21,740 Apple M1 Ultra (M2 Pro is presumably 2/3 the M1 Ultra) So, it seems Apple have painted themselves into another corner with ARM.

What really grates my gears is that Apple doesn’t offer a 48gb or 64gb shared memory upgrade option for the M2 Mini because they want to force users into a Studio or MBP. For context, the 5-year old Intel Mini offered up to 64gb RAM + 1.5gb VRAM (65.5gb total) and was eGPU compatible. But, you know, then they’d sell a lot less Studios and MBP’s… I’ll use a Mac as my daily driver until the bitter end but post-Jobs Apple is pure greed and subscription “services.”

Not leaking / holding onto as much memory. Not aware of any RAM improvements here in VW (RW is typically a CPU bottleneck and barely touches the GPU / VRAM). I wish more RAM or VRAM would solve this problem. Sadly, this has never been a hardware bottleneck. They’re interested in finding a solution though. @Christiaan you wanna take this one? I can summarize my experience. Once I hit a certain threshold, memory was no longer the bottleneck. Today on M2, that would be about 32gb (shared). At the moment, on M1 Ultra 128gb, I have more memory than I’ve ever needed. It’s never been pegged (aside from UE/TM). I’m regularly hovering in the 25-50% range with a few exceptions, so that would be 32-64gb (shared). That’s a roundabout way of saying the sweet spot for shared memory on ARM is 32-64gb (for me). Less than 32gb (shared), and I’d be hating life. More than 64gb (shared), there’s not much of a return. Over 96gb (shared), I don’t even notice it. Btw I think Apple improved thermal cooling in the M2 Mini, right? That would be another benefit compared to the M1.

I'm not going to pretend to know how 90% of VW users use VW. Nor am I going to define or label who is or isn't a power user. However, as someone who's been using a Mac since at least 1987 (Mac SE) with the exception of 1999–2003, here's what I objectively know from experience, and professionally recommended to my friends and colleagues here in the forum: Single core performance - From top to bottom, this is a level playing field, so it's not even a consideration. The cheapest M2 machine is faster than the most expensive M1 machine (and the $50,000 Intel Mac Pro because it's a stupid Xeon instead of a 13900) and always will be. This will not be the bottleneck. Multicore performance - Beyond 12 cores will mostly be utilized by Renderworks (the Cinema engine will use every core you throw at it). However, most everything else in VW on either a design or sheet layer won't really benefit from more than 12 cores. This is another no-brainer for most users; don't waste your money here. This will not be the bottleneck. GPU - GPU's are the new CPU's. However, in the context of the Mac Mini, it's not a factor. You'll get what you'll get, and you'll like it. This will not be the bottleneck. Shared Memory (RAM + VRAM) - Let's start with the painful truth: even though a Mini is a desktop, it cannot be upgraded. Therefore, you want to get more than you think you'll need a few years from now. Give yourself some headroom for having an Adobe app open at the same time as VW. If you're backing into a budget, this is the upgrade choice in 2023 that will determine everything else. This could be the bottleneck, so the recommendation is 32gb. Storage - Desktops, laptops, iPads, iPhones... this is where Apple really stick it to their customers, it also cannot be upgraded, and we're always filling it up. Cloud storage and external hard drives can certainly help with savings here. Thermals - Fortunately, this is no longer the bottleneck in 2023 but it's worth mentioning after everything we suffered through during Sir Jony Ive's thin and light reign. There's a very good reason the new MacBook Pro's are thiccer than a sticker. As computers get bigger and badder hardware, developers' apps become more resource hungry. Everything is relative. Developers are still optimizing for ARM. When I hop on my 2019 and even 2014 MBP, they just feel like rock solid machines. They were the most refined iterations of their generations (RIP Nvidia GPU's and drivers). We don't draw in a vacuum. We have other apps open. Some of them, like the free Twinmotion with an Easy-Bake Oven interface that a toddler could master, require a minimum of 38gb combined memory (76gb is recommended) Some of those that cut corners are the same that complain loudest... about the way things "should be" "All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again." See you all when the M3 is announced...

I just priced out the cheapest 14" MacBook Pro that I could configure with >32gb shared memory, and I was SHOCKED at how overpriced it is. I completely understand the choice to pay $2500 for a Mac Mini vs $3500 for a MBP. That pricing is CRIMINAL. I honestly thought there were some mid grade options between $2500 and $3500 but, if I'm not mistaken, they're all capped at 32gb shared memory, so they force you into paying more for that "trim" option. Elon must have given Tim some pointers on how to bleed customers when he visited the spaceship.

VW 2023 is significantly more optimized for ARM and RAM than 2021 and 2022, so that helps. Other apps? It really depends, and they're sharing the same resources as VW. The new M2 Mini offers double the RAM upgrade, so in that regard, the maxed out M2 Mini is significantly better than the maxed out M1 Mini. So that's kind of a double win for memory in 2023. BTW we're on SP3 now, so at least VW is stable (can't speak for Ventura). VW 2023 will also take full advantage of the GPU improvements in Shaded mode. MacBook Pro's are currently filling in the midrange configurations. BTW here are the apps on my machine that are still running on Rosetta 2:

Sure but I would never recommend a low end Mac to a colleague for use in a production environment. There are lots of options in the midrange that are more suitable for delivering work to our clients. EDIT: I can't strikethrough the comment above but $2,500 is not a low end machine. The maxed out M2 Mini appears to be the midrange model in the first half of 2023. Also, for whoever is reading this, 16gb on M-series is absolutely not suitable. First of all, it's SHARED memory, so that's combined RAM and VRAM (GPU). In other words, more like 12gb RAM + 4gb VRAM. Second, it's apples and oranges. 16gb RAM + 4gb RAM on an Intel Mac a few years ago, was a minimum (and also 20gb total). For anyone in this forum, 32 is the new 16gb in 2023. Here's what I'm using right now without VW even open (Safari is 1 window with 13 tabs):

Nah, I'll bet 🌮🌮🌮 that Gurman is all kinds of wrong about the new Mac Pro (we're gonna see some version of a larger "Extreme" die with more guts): https://www.apple.com/macbook-pro-14-and-16/

I don't trust Gurman's prognostications anymore but let's assume he's correct about them canceling the Jade C-Die (the mythical "Extreme" quad layout)... For context, I've never heard the fan in my Studio. So if the M2 MacGurman Pro and the M2 Studio are both ARMed with M2 Ultra chips with equal RAM, GPU... Why would anyone buy the MacGurman Pro? Well, Apple could supply more power to the Ultra SOC in the MacGurman Pro, and then substantially cool it to avoid thermal throttling. More watts, more power, more cooling. BTW in the M2 MBP presentation, I noticed what appear to be 4x 24gb memory sticks around the outside of the die, so maybe they could increase the shared memory from 256gb (and possibly a mid-tier option): A quick Google search, seems to verify that: First M2 Pro Die Shot Analysis Reveals Apple’s Latest SoC Uses Older RAM Standard, No Locked GPU Cores, More Anyway, without hardware accelerated ray tracing in the Mac Pro, that thing is dead in the water.

Same. I need to see all the cards on the table to make an informed decision. That's part of the reason I suspect Apple has been hedging their bets with the Mac Pro. As soon as we see what direction they take, it will be relatively easy to predict the roadmap... roughly 25% improvements year over year. But I'm sick of looking into my crystal ball, and making uneducated guesses about wild cards.

OK, so not the 5700XT which was a monster. That's stills 128 + 8 = 136gb memory though, so that's 136 apples - 96 oranges... My POV of a M2 MBP migration would be: Single core - mind bogglingly fast Multi core - noticeable improvement Memory / Graphics - honestly hard to say (apples and oranges), so within an order of magnitude of what you currently have Therefore, it comes down to: FOMO - what will the next Studio offer? HDM1 2.1 and other improvements we saw in the M2 MBP? Who knows with Tim Apple recycling every component as long as he can bleed us dry? Future proof / long term value - being that nothing is user serviceable / upgradeable like your iMacs (even in a Studio), you kinda have to "skate to where the puck is going to be" Comparing laptops to laptops, the M2 MBP seems solid for at least 3 years Comparing laptops to desktops, might wanna wait for the M2 Studio Speaking from experience, I decided to go with the M1 Studio because for an extra $1,000 I got double the multicore performance of the next closest thing, M1 MBP. Today, the M2 MBP is about 2/3 instead of 1/2. But it'll be 1/2 again when the M2 Studio is released. Couple other considerations for context: Section SLVP mostly render single core, so not sure how much the extra cores will help More memory should help a lot though I keep hoping for hardware accelerated ray tracing, so TM / UE will finally be fully functional on a Mac (that's not an Intel Mac Pro) but we know that the MBP won't have that until the next gen (M3?) at the earliest Who knows with the Mac Pro? All I want to do is through a 13900 and 4080 in a Mac Pro case, so I can run macOS with the best hardware but hell will freeze over before we can have the best of both worlds If you're working with a team, maybe start upgrading the MBP's? At least for now, it seems like Apple's upgrade path for iMac / Pro is the Studio lineup, so maybe wait as long as you can for the M2 Studio (knowing there could be supply chain issues that might delay that until late this year or worse).

More than most entertainment users but fewer than you. Coming from an iMac (with what GPU?), you might wanna wait for the M2 Studio bump. I would try to talk you out of a Studio Display but I doubt I would succeed. That said, when monitoring (ahem) external display performance, it seems like a 4K display uses 1–2gb VRAM just by being plugged in and turned on, so that shouldn’t be a factor at all with a M2 MBP with 96gb shared memory. You’ll also be using a TB4 connection for a 5K display, so it (or any other monitor with power delivery) will act as “one cable to rule them all” (power, signal, data) which is some kind of wonderful (compared to the dark ages of Dongletown).

14” MacBook Pro

That’s also maybe the salient point: after a certain threshold, the only noticeable ROI is rendering. So, if you’re not concerned with rendering bottlenecks… Single core performance is nearly identical with all M1’s and all M2’s respectively, so there’s no return there. The cheapest is same speed as most expensive (M1 vs M1 Ultra). ROI for more than 12 cores (with Mac silicon) is almost exclusively limited to RW. The old rule of thumb with Macs was, “Buy the most expensive CPU within your budget” (because that was the bottleneck). The 2023 version is, “Buy as much shared memory as you can afford.” And, like trim packages with new cars, that choice will force you into one CPU package or another.

TL;DR 64gb is the new 32gb I can safely say as someone who’s been using a maxed out M1 Ultra with 128gb shared memory for the past 7 months, I could get by with 96gb 96% of the time. I have headroom. I’ve never pegged the RAM or GPU outside of UE/TM (which will always peg any GPU). However, if you look at the specs for Twinmotion, they recommend 64gb RAM minimum; 128 for more powerful stuff (that Mac’s can’t do anyway because they lack the GPU hardwares necessary). Keep in mind, those specs are not for shared memory. So, if you draw / design / model / render in a vacuum, using only VW, with all other apps, browser tabs, PDF’s closed… then, yeah, you could go with lower specs. But everyone in this forum has a different use case, workflows, needs… And there are still apps like UE and TM that run on Rosetta 2 because they’re not ARM-native yet. Or maybe you used Parallels, and want to set up a virtual machine with as much RAM/VRAM as possible… VW has led the way with optimizing for ARM but other apps… they’re all over the place. Based oj my experience: 32gb is minimum 48gb is OK 64gb is good (Here’s the sweet spot) 96gb is great 128gb is best (and you know who you are if you need it; FQRW, TM, UE) Personally / professionally, I’m waiting to see what happens later this year but I’m leaning toward replacing the Studio with a M2 MBP (as andaily driver and for taking onsite) and a Windows desktop (13900 + 4080 for heavy lifting and Windows-only apps). The messed up thing is that Windows desktop (from Puget) costs the same as my Studio and would absolutely destroy it in both CPU and GPU rendering.

So you click OK, ignore the errors, save the custom workspace, and you're still not seeing them? And you're in the new custom workspace (not one of the stock workspaces)? Do you have any more info, screenshots, screen recording?

If you really wanna have some fun, search Stream Deck on Etsy (lots of DIY risers, mounts, and doodads): https://www.etsy.com/search?q=streamdeck

A time-saving workflow for the LED screen tool (and many other plugins): let's say you frequently use Roe CB5 tiles, so you're referencing the cut sheet spec's, and entering the data in the OIP. Save that plugin object to your user library as a red symbol. Then, on future projects, you just drag that red symbol from the Resource Manager to the design layer, and edit the array size as necessary (vs reinventing the wheel every time). That's possible because you can enter the weight, watts, etc for each individual tile. Speaking of watts, the Landru tool calcs the total watts (from memory the stock tool does not). Also, best in class built-in text display... BTW both developers are very responsive (or so I've heard 😜).