Mac Studio & M1 Ultra

[line-weight]

1 hour ago, dtheory said:

How are folks feeling about the Max vs Ultra question at this point? 

More RAM more important than the better processor? ornot?

 

I think I'd definitely spend the money on extra RAM (and perhaps also HD size) rather than the better processor, as far as VW is concerned.

 

My impression is that VW currently barely takes any advantage of the extra processing power except for RW renders.

 

It's the memory that slows things down. On big files my M1 mini is pretty much constantly using as much of the 16GB RAM as it can get its hands on, and then frequently using 20 or 30GB of swap memory.

[zoomer]

3 hours ago, Mark Aceto said:

 

I'd have to dig through screenshots but I can definitely show you VW using every other thread.

 

When using Cinerender, VW will use all CPU cores.

 

But for loading files, importing/export, starting a 3D view, creating Sections, ....

VW may only use 1-4 (or up to 8 ?) threads.

I am sure that there may be still some potential to MT one or other task or use

more threads. But CAD and Modeling is often not like Rendering or some

Scientific Tasks that can make use of infinite threads.

[zoomer]

2 hours ago, line-weight said:

I think I'd definitely spend the money on extra RAM (and perhaps also HD size) rather than the better processor, as far as VW is concerned.

 

 

Ha, the problem is - if you want the 128 GB - you will need to go Ultra.

If you like double CPU cores and Video Decoders or not.

Edited July 1, 2022 by zoomer

[Mark Aceto]

2 hours ago, zoomer said:

Ha, the problem is - if you want the 128 GB - you will need to go Ultra.

 

Until the M2 Max which I'm betting 1 taco will have a 72gb option. Let's see how this ages... 

[zoomer]

I also expect 24/ Pro 48/ Max 96 GB.

But for the 192 GB option you will need the Ultra

[Mark Aceto]

On 6/17/2022 at 3:39 PM, Mark Aceto said:

Finally got to scratch the render itch.

 

Rule of thumb for these specs: Realistic is as fast as Preview used to be on the Intel MBP in my sig.

In this case, Preview Spotlight takes about 30 seconds for this scene, and Realistic Spotlight took about a minute and half (previously 5-10 min). Time stamp is in the screenshot below. This is on the design layer for a projection clipping study, so it's not a client-facing published viewport with RW camera, 300 DPI, and all the fixin's.

 

I was hoping that Preview Spotlight would feel like "real time" but it doesn't really function that way. It's more like a stop-start... rotate or pan view... stop-start.... vs what we're used to with Shaded or TM/UE. In hindsight, that makes sense because each scene is "baked" with RW. If anything moves are changes (even a class visibility), the scene has to bake again.

 

Looking forward to testing this with more challenging renders this weekend... 

 

Ugh... upload failed (again).

 

Following up on this with some more anecdotal observations... 

 

Compared to my 2019 Intel MBP, this M1 machine is super wonky. They're both running Monterey 12.4 but I'm experiencing all manner of bugginess in both third party and native apps (like Mail and Messages) on the Studio. This thing is blazing fast but they still haven't ironed out all the kinks yet.

 

I'm absolutely loving the speed of Preview Spotlight and Realistic Spotlight as part of my workflow of revising a design in (almost) real time. Below are some screenshots of design layer saved views on a 40" widescreen monitor. What took minutes today would have taken hours on the MBP (render time stamp in the screenshot). Also, imported a point cloud with 100M points, and am referencing that into the project file with no issues (a little jittery at times). But, still, that's a 1.8gb file with 100 million points.

 

 

Ugh... @JuanP I'm still having issues uploading files

[Mark Aceto]

Here's a screenshot of a screenshot. The takeaway is not the quality of the render – it's just a saved view on a design layer – it's about how fast the workflow was. For example, the mirror panels didn't exist before yesterday, so I had to model and texture them. At first they weren't "smoky" enough, so it was a totally unrealistic literal reflection, like a portal into another dimension. So it was the usual trial and error workflow: 75% black, 70%, 65%, 60%, and so on... and each time, it only took 2 min instead of 20 (imagine those Cinema render blocks moving around this 40" monitor like PAC-MAN).

 

OK @JuanP this file is 22mb (compare to 36mb). Is it Safari? Do I need to use Chrome on Mac?

[Mark Aceto]

Super minimized screenshot finally uploaded. Hopefully, 2:05 render time is readable.

 

 

[zoomer]

19 minutes ago, Mark Aceto said:

it was a totally unrealistic literal reflection, like a portal into another dimension

 

 

It is still 🙂

But very impressing space.

Would like to enter that room.

[Mark Aceto]

14 minutes ago, zoomer said:

It is still 🙂

 

Hahaha it does have that "infinity room" effect which is something we're battling with projection brightness and blending, paint color and gain... so having a speedy workflow on a Mac for once in my life is super beneficial.

 

For Mac users, which are lot of us here, this feels like scratching the surface of what's possible (instead of resigning ourselves to what's good enough for now). Feeling very optimistic about the near future as M2 and M3 are released.

 

Now if Apple will just release hardware accelerated ray-tracing support... 

[Dick Jenkins]

This has been a good topic.  I was so disappointed in 2017 when I dropped a load of cash on a pretty much fully loaded iMac Pro only to find it was hardly noticable better then what I had replaced it with. One very disappointing aspect is that I have never been able to use the highest display setting (There use to be 3 settings, now I think it is just called "accellerate graphics") in every day work. Why tease me with that as a new feature if it is impractical to use?

 

So my question is two-fold. Do those of you who have upgraded, especially the ones who went all out, feel it was worth it? Second, I have been wondering about the larger non-Apple monitors (43"). Are they as sharp as the retina screen Apples and have any of you been able to work using the highest display settings with or without an Apple monitor.

 

[line-weight]

10 minutes ago, Dick Jenkins said:

This has been a good topic.  I was so disappointed in 2017 when I dropped a load of cash on a pretty much fully loaded iMac Pro only to find it was hardly noticable better then what I had replaced it with. One very disappointing aspect is that I have never been able to use the highest display setting (There use to be 3 settings, now I think it is just called "accellerate graphics") in every day work. Why tease me with that as a new feature if it is impractical to use?

 

So my question is two-fold. Do those of you who have upgraded, especially the ones who went all out, feel it was worth it? Second, I have been wondering about the larger non-Apple monitors (43"). Are they as sharp as the retina screen Apples and have any of you been able to work using the highest display settings with or without an Apple monitor.

 

 

It was only worth it for me because I was upgrading from a fairly ancient mac pro which was stopping me from upgrading beyond a certain version of macos and a certain version of VW.

 

Going to the mac mini gave me slightly (but not dramatically) better performance in VW at quite a modest cost. But it also allowed me to use newer versions of other software, and the performance difference in some of those other softwares (eg video editing) was much more significant than in VW. These other softwares aren't critical to my fee-owning workflow though, so for me they are a bonus to enjoy for extra-curricular stuff rather than something I could use to justify a commercial decision.

 

Basically do not expect a step change in the performance of VW as a result of moving to an M1 mac is what I'd say ... others may disagree.

Edited July 13, 2022 by line-weight

[Dick Jenkins]

1 hour ago, line-weight said:

 

It was only worth it for me because I was upgrading from a fairly ancient mac pro which was stopping me from upgrading beyond a certain version of macos and a certain version of VW.

 

Going to the mac mini gave me slightly (but not dramatically) better performance in VW at quite a modest cost. But it also allowed me to use newer versions of other software, and the performance difference in some of those other softwares (eg video editing) was much more significant than in VW. These other softwares aren't critical to my fee-owning workflow though, so for me they are a bonus to enjoy for extra-curricular stuff rather than something I could use to justify a commercial decision.

 

Basically do not expect a step change in the performance of VW as a result of moving to an M1 mac is what I'd say ... others may disagree.

Have you been able to use the higher display settings?

[line-weight]

7 hours ago, Dick Jenkins said:

Have you been able to use the higher display settings?

Which ones specifically? These are my main settings:

 

I use three monitors; my main one which VW is on most of the time is currently a Dell UP2716D (27" and 2560x1440 so fewer pixels than the 43" ones you're thinking of I think)

 

 

[zoomer]

Zoom Line Thickness,

I would deactivate first when dealing with performance issues.

 

Use vector Caching,

is something I would deactivate when having low memory (?)

or display issues.

 

3D Conversion resolution,

AFAIK I use at medium or max at high - but not quite sure about the

effect or where it exactly takes place.

AFAIK for rounded Objects, like unimportant Chair Legs or Columns,

usually too much tessellated while any large diameter rounded Wall

or Slab will still look jagged.

But I am not sure where exactly that Setting applies as you will find

similar in Render Modes and such ...

 

[Dick Jenkins]

54 minutes ago, line-weight said:

Which ones specifically? These are my main settings:

 

I use three monitors; my main one which VW is on most of the time is currently a Dell UP2716D (27" and 2560x1440 so fewer pixels than the 43" ones you're thinking of I think)

 

 

Under Navigation Graphics, I have never been able to use "Best Performance" without problems.  This is my current specs:

 

[line-weight]

What kind of problems do you see?

[jnr]

D

For whatever its worth, I had the same iMac Pro. Drank the Koolaid, robbed a bank, and bought the M1 ultra 64gb ram and a studio monitor (not worth it). Really like the LG I bought as a second monitor. The M1 its made a significant difference in the speed of Vectorworks for most stuff.  That said am having issues with it locking up on dual monitors (apple display is highly suspect) with projects with large dwg imports. it smacks of integrated memory perhaps being a failure but would defer to zoomer on that. In sum it's a mixed bag for me but hope that software development in time, irons this out. 

[J. Miller]

I have the same lock up issue. It's more of a screen freeze for me. If i unplug the monitor and  plug it back in the freeze goes away. The render times are incredible though.

Jeff

[Dick Jenkins]

47 minutes ago, jnr said:

D

For whatever its worth, I had the same iMac Pro. Drank the Koolaid, robbed a bank, and bought the M1 ultra 64gb ram and a studio monitor (not worth it). Really like the LG I bought as a second monitor. The M1 its made a significant difference in the speed of Vectorworks for most stuff.  That said am having issues with it locking up on dual monitors (apple display is highly suspect) with projects with large dwg imports. it smacks of integrated memory perhaps being a failure but would defer to zoomer on that. In sum it's a mixed bag for me but hope that software development in time, irons this out. 

What is it about the Studio monitor that is not worth it? I have been intrigued by the talk on here of a 43" LG monitor, but I worry about the resolution not being sharp enough for detail drawing.

[zoomer]

3 hours ago, Dick Jenkins said:

What is it about the Studio monitor that is not worth it?

 

It is basically the same as the first iMac 27" Retina Monitor - just without the Mac inside.

So it is a very sharp Monitor, as Apple always exactly doubles the resolution.

Means the resulting Size for Palettes and Text heights is still typical 27" by 2560x1440.

But 5k resolutions means that you will have 4 Pixels for each point.

Therefore Text is sharper and the pixels are so small that you can't see them at usual distances.

And it has high color space and color accuracy out of the box.

 

Same for the Studio Display with also a wonderful worthy case around.

Also Camera and Sound.

It even includes a whole iPhone SoC with 6 GB memory, to make the camera make you

look better and control sound and microphones .....

 

So why not ?

 

WTH the price !?

For that money you could have got one of the last basic 27" Intel iMacs which has the same

monitor Features but includes a useful Mac. Or for a few bucks more a used iMac Pro

nearly specced out with 18 cores, GPU and lots of RAM.

If you only could still use iMacs as Monitors when hardware is outdated,

as you could in the past.

Everything sub $1k I would had recognized as reasonable, maybe up to $1200.

 

And at its official price, I would have at least expected Micro LEDs, HDR and High Refresh Rates.

Edited July 15, 2022 by zoomer

[Dick Jenkins]

57 minutes ago, zoomer said:

 

It is basically the same as the first iMac 27" Retina Monitor - just without the Mac inside.

So it is a very sharp Monitor, as Apple always exactly doubles the resolution.

Means the resulting Size for Palettes and Text heights is still typical 27" by 2560x1440.

But 5k resolutions means that you will 4 Pixels for each point.

Therefore Text is sharper and the pixels are so small that you can't see them at usual distances.

And it has high color space and color accuracy out of the box.

 

Same for the Studio Display with also a wonderful worthy case around.

Also Camera and Sound.

It even includes a whole iPhone SoC with 6 GB memory, to make the camera make you

look better and control sound and microphones .....

 

So why not ?

 

WTH the price !?

For that money you could have got one of the last basic 27" Intel iMacs which has the same

monitor Features but includes a useful Mac. Or for a few bucks more a used iMac Pro

nearly specced out with 18 cores, GPU and lots of RAM.

If you only could still use iMacs as Monitors when hardware is outdated,

as you could in the past.

Everything sub $1k I would had recognized as reasonable, maybe up to $1200.

 

And at its official price, I would have at least expected Micro LEDs, HDR and High Refresh Rates.

I was worried because I don't really need the sound and camera to be anything special if I need them at all. Just want a monitor to make my workflow better. You said you had another monitor. I have only had iMacs and Mac monitors. Do you think I would be frustrated with a third party monitor in terms of eyestrain or other frustrations? (I guess I need to venture out to other offices and see what they have).

[zoomer]

1 hour ago, Dick Jenkins said:

Do you think I would be frustrated with a third party monitor in terms of eyestrain or other frustrations?

 

If you are sensitive, I think that could happen.

 

There is a not so bad looking 4k Monitor that looks a bit like Apples Studio Monitor

but it is typical PC-like 4k. Forgot about its exact real size and the vendor (Samsing ?)

It is not bad but it will not be as sharp as a retina display as it needs to unevenly scale

to a useful scaled GUI and texts.

 

I somehow have a small Dell with 4k and only 24".

Usually I ran it at 175% scaling to bring a useful Text and Icon size and personally had

no problem with the sharpness.

Still much better or sharper than my coarse 27" native 2560x1440 Wacom Cintiq or my

30" Cinema Display at 2560*1600.

I just scaled it back to 200%, which will not give you as much display real estate, just because

I ran into problems with many Apps on Linux or Windows which weren't capable running

usefully with uneven display Scaling.

Of course the Monitor feels even a bit sharper now, at the cost that is a pretty small view,

a bit too small for me for CAD and VW.

(But hey, I had to work CAD on an 21" Iiyama with 1600x1200 last century, which was already

much better than typical 17" 1280 CRTs in most offices)

 

But I think running something like a curved 32" PC 4k Monitor at a 150 % scaling would

disappoint you after getting used to your 27" Retina. iMac.

[Jeff Prince]

47 minutes ago, zoomer said:

If you are sensitive

 

I guess I am 🙂.

I can't stand looking at anything less than a Retina display now.

Maybe that's because my phone now has more pixels than most of the monitors I have used over my career.

[E|FA]

5 hours ago, zoomer said:

If you only could still use iMacs as Monitors when hardware is outdated,

as you could in the past

I heard that the Astropad Luna Display might be a way to do that.  I haven't looked into it, but it's on my radar for when I upgrade my 27" iMac to a Mini or Studio.  Would love to get feedback if anyone's tried it.