Mac Studio M4 Max or M3 Ultra...

[Mark Aceto]

7 minutes ago, rDesign said:

 

So are external SSD drives like this one fast enough to use for storing all of your Vw files that you're actively working on? Thx.

 

Short answers: yes, maybe, depends... 

 

I got the one in the photo above after I bought that MBP. Didn't know they existed before I spec'd it, so I'm using for Time Machine. I'm sure there are disk read / write benchmarks out there but my gut says I would use it for non-active projects.

 

It's also especially appealing for the Mini and Studio that are parked at your desk vs traveling with a laptop (and, in my case, potentially losing it somewhere because I'm an idiot). Plus, as I'm sure everyone knows by now, you can buy 2 Mac Mini's for the less than the cost of a storage upgrade in 1 Mac Mini.

[Mark Aceto]

4 minutes ago, Tom W. said:

There are a couple of Thunderbolt 5 external hard drives which are presumably the fastest option...?

 

So the thing about this... the read/write speed is less than T5 (or T4), so it's fantastic future proofing that Apple is offering T5 but the SSD's have some catching up to do before the cable is the bottleneck. But video editors use these things like hotcakes, so they don't suck. And Apple's upgrade cash grabbing is criminal.

[Mark Aceto]

Also, there's a completely unintuitive UI/UX to back up external drives to TM (gee, I wonder why that is... ).

 

Basically you have to add them to the excluded list, and the hit the minus sign (similar to resetting the spotlight index workflow). So you're effectively excluding it from the exclusion. I hate them so much... 

[Pat Stanford]

15 minutes ago, rDesign said:

So are external SSD drives like this one fast enough to use for storing all of your Vw files that you're actively working on? Thx

Be really careful when buying external drives.  I got one a few weeks about that I think was T3, but offered 2000MB/s transfer speed. Other similar drives has transfer speeds as low as 150 MB/s. Even though they said they had the same T3 connection.

 

4GB for about $299 at Staples. But also check the shelf tag. It said the $299. Computer tried to ring it up at $450.  A week later the shelf tag still said $299.  Current Staples prices $236 for 2TB, $410 for 4TB,

 

Lexar LS600. 

USB 3.2 Gen2x2

2000MB/s Read / 2000MB/s write.

 

And it is tiny.  I don't think the box said Mac, but it was easy to reformat using Disk Utility and has worked great. Cloned about 2GB off my 4GB internal drive in about 45 minutes.

 

And it is tiny. To make Mark feel less about about losing things it just took me 10 minutes to find on my desk because it is so little and under so many things.

 

 

[zoomer]

1 hour ago, Tom W. said:

 

Are removable NAND cards a red herring?

 

Likely .....

there were people that ordered the memory from china and soldered it on the Apple SSD tray, which worked. Many people think that third party SSD cards will come at realistic prices soon. (As they came for the Trash Can, basically a non-standard NVME SSD - flash memory without the controler - which is done by the SoC).
But AFAIK only Mac Pro/Studio logic boards have slotted SSDs (No mobiles or Minis (?)

[zoomer]

51 minutes ago, Mark Aceto said:

Also, there's a completely unintuitive UI/UX to back up external drives to TM

 

Yes, not sure how I managed it.
AFAIK when I setup my MBP with Sequoia from scratch, Time Machine already had it setup like I need. External Data SSD automatically integrated, other external backup drives ignored (?)

 

Edited March 7 by zoomer

[zoomer]

1 hour ago, rDesign said:

So are external SSD drives like this one fast enough to use for storing all of your Vw files that you're actively working on? Thx.

 

There are some external TB5 drives with newer NVME insets that are even faster than Apples internal SSD offers.

 

But I am still fine with all my data files on my external TB3(?)/USB-C drive with mere standard SATA SSDs. No problem when saving larger Files here.

But I do keep all my 3D/CAD/BIM Autosave Paths on local SSD.

[Tom W.]

33 minutes ago, zoomer said:

 

Likely .....

there were people that ordered the memory from china and soldered it on the Apple SSD tray, which worked. Many people think that third party SSD cards will come at realistic prices soon. (As they came for the Trash Can, basically a non-standard NVME SSD - flash memory without the controler - which is done by the SoC).
But AFAIK only Mac Pro/Studio logic boards have slotted SSDs (No mobiles or Minis (?)

 

See 6:14 this video:

 

[Mark Aceto]

Decided to test the MBP M2 Max internal disk against the Samsung T7.

 

Hopefully, if you click on the first image and then arrow back and forth you can see the difference.

 

[Mark Aceto]

5 hours ago, Pat Stanford said:

Lexar LS600. 

USB 3.2 Gen2x2

2000MB/s Read / 2000MB/s write.

 

Wanna trade?

[Tom W.]

16 hours ago, Pat Stanford said:

Be really careful when buying external drives.  I got one a few weeks about that I think was T3, but offered 2000MB/s transfer speed. Other similar drives has transfer speeds as low as 150 MB/s. Even though they said they had the same T3 connection.

 

OWC Envoy Ultra Thunderbolt 5 SSD:

 

[Mark Aceto]

3 hours ago, Tom W. said:

OWC Envoy Ultra Thunderbolt 5 SSD:

 

60gb/s is impressive

 

this is a nice little summary of what to expect from each confusing cable gen (assuming the drive read / write speed can keep up with the cable bandwidth):

 

 

 

[Tom W.]

10 minutes ago, Mark Aceto said:

 

60gb/s is impressive

 

this is a nice little summary of what to expect from each confusing cable gen (assuming the drive read / write speed can keep up with the cable bandwidth):

 

 

 

 

6GB/sec no...?

 

So yes, as you said earlier quite a dramatic reduction on the capacity of the cable/interface! BTW why is it 80 or 120GB/sec for TB5?

[Mark Aceto]

58 minutes ago, Tom W. said:

6GB/sec no...?

 

ha i added a zero... 

 

yeah this is the thing to look for:

 

[Mark Aceto]

that said, cable bandwidth can also refer to pixels and FPS, so the new TB5 protocol is also meets the DP 2.1 standard which will be fantastic if mac's ever ship with a decent GPU

 

for a real world example, my current external monitor is capable of 240hz with DP 2.1 but my RTX 4090 only has DP 1.4, so i'm "stuck" at 120hz (totally fine for my needs). however, the new blackwell GPU's all come with DP 2.1, so that won't be the bottleneck** anymore

 

so, it's great to see apple finally getting back to being an early adopter of next gen I/O with TB5 but it's only useful in those goofy marketing examples of "connect up to 6 4k displays... "

 

they gotta give customers a reason to completely replace their entire system a few years from now... 

 

 

** identifying the bottlenecks and deciding where to spend our hard earned money is the name of the game... sometimes it's CPU single core, sometimes it's multicore (Renderworks), sometimes it's the GPU (redshift, unreal engine, twinmotion, carbon for unreal...), sometimes it's RAM or VRAM, sometimes it's the cable, sometimes it's the read/write speed, and sometimes.... it's *cough* the software code *cough*... and with the apple tax and upgreeds, it's always the budget (and the GPU because of their beef with NVIDIA)

[Tom W.]

On 3/7/2025 at 6:35 PM, Mark Aceto said:

The M3 Ultra build is the Studio everyone expected last summer, and is the best all-rounder (albeit with 2024 components at 2025 pricing). The only caveat of this build is single core clock speed (unless you count some perceived hardware accelerated ray tracing on a weak GPU).

 

So would an 80-core GPU on an M3 Ultra offer any benefits over a 32-core GPU on an M4 Max as far as Vectorworks is concerned?

 

[rDesign]

22 hours ago, Tom W. said:

BTW why is it 80 or 120GB/sec for TB5?

Copied from this Thunderbolt 5 Technology Brief PDF:

 

[zoomer]

6 hours ago, Tom W. said:

as far as Vectorworks is concerned?

 

I would say no.

The fast M4 Max CPU single speed will help. I think 16 CPU cores are more than enough for anything VW can do multi-threaded. I think similar for GPU and VW graphic tasks .... or that an M4 would be already .... fast enough (?)

 

But theoretically Redshift should (GPU) render faster with more GPU cores, I am not experienced using Redshift though.
Same for the double CPU core count of the M3 Ultra in CPU (RW) Rendering.

Generally, M3 cores are a bit slower than M4 cores in general. But because the Ultra has double the amount of cores, it is still faster. But not 2 times faster, it is more of a 1.5 times.

 

But for VW or other daily Apps, I think even the standard M4 would be really suited overall,
beside that it is limited in Memory and a bit by less Bandwidth vs its more expensive M4+ brothers, which might be an issue in VW with larger projects.

 

BTW,

there are more and more (similar spread) Geekbench results coming in (Youtubers testing their Studio samples ?). But I am more interested in Blender open bench Metal results, which are somehow still not available.

Edited March 9 by zoomer

[Mark Aceto]

6 hours ago, Tom W. said:

 

So would an 80-core GPU on an M3 Ultra offer any benefits over a 32-core GPU on an M4 Max as far as Vectorworks is concerned?

 

Yes but I think the real question is, "How much?" Probably not much.

 

That's kind of what I meant about bottlenecks (although I can't find that post, so maybe it got deleted). When forking over cash for a non-upgradable desktop, and backing into a budget, I look carefully at the ROI.

 

With (Apple) storage upgreeds, the ROI is terrible. And this is the one thing that's sort of modular and upgradable if it's external. Also, it can be purchased and upgraded at any time to offset the cost of a new computer purchase.

 

With (Apple) memory, you have to future proof it, so if you need 96gb now, get 128. If you need 128, get 192. If you need 192, get 256...

 

Thankfully, (M series) single core performance is the same across all configs in each gen. M4 is faster than M3 but all the M3's are pretty much the same.

 

If you're a FQRW architect with 200-sheet sets filled with sections, get as many cores as possible. The Cinema engine will peg every single core for maximum ROI. But if you're a Shaded renderer, extra cores would be a diminishing ROI (money better spent on the GPU).

 

But as for that (Apple) GPU... this has been a paradoxical pain point ever since Apple split with NVIDIA. On the one hand, it's such a crippled GPU to begin with, you sort of have to max it out just to compete with the low end of NIVIDIA and AMD. On the other hand, maybe that money would be better spend on more memory or CPU cores...  

 

I tend to look at a big purchase like this as backing into a budget. So if the magic number is 6k (or whatever), it would be easier to weigh in on specific upgreed choices of the total package.

[Mark Aceto]

OHMYGOD WHAAAATTTT????

 

1500 bucks!!!!!! The 4090 FE sold for 1600! The 5090 FE sells for 2000!!! I'm sorry but on general principle nobody should give apple this money. Absolutely not!

 

Also, they're pulling that same iPad scam of forcing you to upgrade to the 1500 chip to get more memory.

 

If anyone is this serious about spending money on hardware, I'd love to have a conversion about building a PC. If nothing else, just head to Puget. That's what I did in 2023, and have no regrets. In fact, I found out about them here in the forum, so I have another VW user to thank for opening my eyes (and shutting my wallet).

 

[Mark Aceto]

if i had  to get a mac studio, i would spec this but the memory is overkill for VW alone:

 

 

my M2 Max MBP handles VW fine, so my recommendation would be to get this instead (zero bottlenecks for VW alone):

 

 

and for anyone use apps like Rhino, Blender, Unreal, TwinMotion, Carbon for Unreal... get a PC

 

the other cool thing about having a PC is you get to use windows-only apps

 

and then you can also get into SMB file sharing or a NAS between the 2 machines (another way to save on apple storage upgreeds)

 

also PC's don't have scaling issues, so they look gorgeous on any monitor... on that note, every mac user with an external display should check out BetterDisplay (absolute life saver from an amazing indie developer)

[Tom W.]

One of the things my current computer struggles with is the WindowServer taking up tons of CPU %. No doubt because I have loads of stuff open over two screens at all times. It affects working with VW + I eventually have to close everything + restart to free things up again. Hopefully a new computer would make this a thing of the past.

[zoomer]

15 hours ago, Tom W. said:

is the WindowServer taking up tons of CPU %

 

I think that is a macOS, not Intel vs ARM thing.

I see mine also constantly using 15-30 % of CPU !? and often lots of memory.

Although I currently have mostly only static Apps like Mail, Kalender, Numbers, .... active.

The only thing I can imagine is this and another site active in Safari, and maybe the other 10 Safari sites that I keep collapsed in my Dock (?)

 

But beside when using VW, even on my 16GB Mini, I had no lags when using more memory than available and switching between any other Apps, including CAD or 3D Apps. Just when VW is involved Apps like Bricscad may have lagged.

 

With 16 GB Mini, Activity Manager usually showed at least 8 GB in use, whatever you do. And always an amount of swap. Now with 128 GB it uses 48-64 GB (just because it is there/available ?). So far I have never seen any swap file.

 

15 hours ago, Tom W. said:

No doubt because I have loads of stuff open over two screens at all times.
Hopefully a new computer would make this a thing of the past.

 

I think a current ARM Mac would help.

Everything got noticeably faster since. CPU single core, GPU cores, shared memory bandwidths, SSDs, swap, ...

 

I also think multi monitor usage should be faster or easier now.

On the other hand multi monitor usage is still often more error prone with some Apps and VW in special.

 

 

Edited March 10 by zoomer

[Tom W.]

With VW I see the memory use gradually creeping up until it starts affecting performance, at which point I need to close all files, close the app + reopen it. For whatever reason it seems often it's when I'm on sheet layers that it happens. Updating section viewports in particular seems to add to the memory usage.

 

As for WindowServer it often goes as high as 100%. Anything over 80% + I notice it.

 

Be interesting to see how both these things are affected if/when I upgrade computer...

[Tom W.]

On 3/9/2025 at 8:11 PM, Mark Aceto said:

if i had  to get a mac studio, i would spec this but the memory is overkill for VW alone:

 

 

my M2 Max MBP handles VW fine, so my recommendation would be to get this instead (zero bottlenecks for VW alone):

 

 

and for anyone use apps like Rhino, Blender, Unreal, TwinMotion, Carbon for Unreal... get a PC

 

the other cool thing about having a PC is you get to use windows-only apps

 

and then you can also get into SMB file sharing or a NAS between the 2 machines (another way to save on apple storage upgreeds)

 

also PC's don't have scaling issues, so they look gorgeous on any monitor... on that note, every mac user with an external display should check out BetterDisplay (absolute life saver from an amazing indie developer)

 

Hmm the benchmarks suggest the M4 Max Studio performs significantly better than the M3 Ultra on single core + only marginally worse on multi core + GPU yet is a lot cheaper...