The new Mac Studio is the mid-range standalone desktop estimator that many Apple tree users accept been asking for.

All product photography past DL Cade

Subsequently many months of speculation and some very accurate leaks, Apple finally unveiled the "professional Mac Mini" that many of us have been waiting for. It's about three times thicker and several times more powerful than the Mac mini, and it's called the Mac Studio.

Released alongside the M1 Ultra Apple Silicon SOC that sports 20 CPU cores, upwardly to 64 GPU cores, and up to 128GB of RAM, the Mac Studio is capable of delivering more functioning than all but the most expensive Mac Pro configurations. Merely fifty-fifty if you don't spend $5,800+ on the maximum spec, this figurer is the Mac desktop creatives have been hoping Apple would release for a very long time.

It'southward powerful, it's tiny, information technology's silent, and if yous've already got a loftier-quality monitor, keyboard, and mouse at home, it's also an incredible deal compared to a similarly specced xiv- or 16-inch MacBook Pro. A couple of days after concluding week'due south declaration a Mac Studio and Studio Brandish made its way to the DPReview offices for review, and I've been frantically testing this picayune computer ever since. Overall, I'thou very impressed by what Apple has achieved.

Design, build and usability| Performance benchmarks | Performance takeaways | Conclusion

Central specifications:

A full "Mac Studio" setup per Apple: the Mac Studio ($3,200), Studio Display ($1,600), a Magic Keyboard ($200), a Magic Trackpad ($150), and a Magic Mouse ($100).

The Mac Studio comes in two main flavors, M1 Max or M1 Ultra, each with a few possible configurations. The M1 Max variant can be configured with either 24 or 32 GPU cores, 32 or 64GB of RAM, and between 512GB and 8TB of storage; the M1 Ultra comes with either 48 or 64 GPU cores, 64 or 128GB of RAM, and between 1TB and 8TB of storage.

We've listed four potential configurations below to give you a sense of the full range of specs (and toll points) available in this same 3.5L aluminum box. If you go along storage the aforementioned and just upgrade the CPU, GPU, and/or RAM, yous can expect to pay anywhere from $2,200 to $v,800 depending on how much power you want to squeeze out of this tiny little calculator:

M1 Max 24-cadre M1 Max 32-core M1 Ultra 48-core M1 Ultra 64-core
CPU

M1 Max

10-core CPU

M1 Max

10-core CPU

M1 Ultra

twenty-core CPU

M1 Ultra

xx-cadre CPU
GPU

M1 Max

24-core GPU

M1 Max

32-core GPU

M1 Ultra

48-core GPU

M1 Ultra

64-core GPU
RAM 32GB Unified Memory

64GB Unified Retentivity

 64GB Unified Memory

128GB Unified Memory
Storage

1TB Integrated NVMe Storage

1TB Integrated NVMe Storage

 1TB Integrated NVMe Storage

1TB Integrated NVMe Storage
Price

$2,200

$2,800

 $4,000 $5,800

The version nosotros're testing today is an M1 Max variant with a 32-cadre GPU, 64GB of RAM, and 2TB of storage, which brings the total price up to $3,200. When yous consider that a 16-inch MacBook Pro with identical specs volition ready you back $four,300, that sounds like a pretty good deal, but it depends on whether or not you already have high quality peripherals at dwelling house.

The Mac Studio doesn't come with a keyboard or mouse, and if y'all don't have a monitor at home, you'll need one of those too. If y'all add together up the cost of all the products Apple sent us for this review – the Mac Studio, a full-sized Magic Keyboard, a Magic Mouse, a Magic Trackpad, and the base of operations-model Studio Display – the cost of our review unit of measurement goes from $3,200 to a much steeper $five,250. Bump that Mac Studio up to an M1 Ultra and you could spend another $1,200 - $3,000 depending on the variant.

If y'all add up the cost of all the products Apple tree sent us for this review – the Mac Studio, a keyboard, a mouse, a trackpad, and the base of operations-model Studio Display – the cost of our setup goes from $3,200 to a much steeper $5,250.

None of this means the Mac Studio isn't worth it. Pound for pound, Apple has packed more performance into this piffling device than any mini-ITX figurer you lot could hope to build at home. And since near photo and video editors already accept an external display, mouse and keyboard at home, this gets you Apple's nigh powerful components without charging you for peripherals y'all already own. Simply it'due south worth keeping the extra costs in mind if yous're deciding between the Mac Studio and an equivalent MacBook Pro.

Back to height

Design, build and usability

The Mac Studio looks like a tall Mac mini with some front I/O.

In that location's not a lot to say well-nigh the design or build quality of the Mac Studio. Basically, Apple tree took the CAD design of the Mac mini, extruded it up a couple of inches, and called it a mean solar day. The Mac Studio does include a bit more than aluminum instead of the plastic dorsum plate you'll discover on the Mac mini, but other than that they're pretty similar when you see them side-past-side.

Overall, I like this minimalist blueprint. And while Apple might have been able to fit the M1 Max into a slightly smaller version with slightly smaller fans, the two large fans and the aluminum (M1 Max) or copper (M1 Ultra) head sink that have upward most of the 3.5L chassis are so quiet that I never once heard them over the hum of my nearby appliances, non even during heavy workloads.

In terms of usability, the slightly larger chassis and much more powerful Apple Silicon did give Apple tree the opportunity to brand one major design tweak though: they added a agglomeration of extra ports.

On the back, you become four Thunderbolt 4 ports (40GB/south), an HDMI ii.0 port, 2 USB Blazon-A ports (10Gb/s), a 10 gigabit ethernet port and a "pro audio" jack that can power loftier impedance headphones:

On the back of the device, the Mac Studio features 4 Thunderbolt 4 ports, a 10 gigabit ethernet port, the power connector, two USB-A ports, an HDMI 2.0 port, and a "pro sound" jack that tin can drive high-impedance headphones.

The inclusion of ten gigabit ethernet every bit standard is peculiarly noteworthy, because it enables professional person photograph and video editors to work on their avails at loftier speed over the network. That'south not relevant for boilerplate Joe photo editor, but for professional photo- and video-editing studios, the ability to put all of your source footage or RAW files on an external NAS and access them at x gigabit speeds over the network is a godsend.

The inclusion of 10 gigabit ethernet as standard is particularly noteworthy, because it enables professional photo and video editors to work on their assets at high speed over the network.

And Apple didn't stop with the ports on the dorsum. Breaking with many years of Apple design tradition, they put extra I/O on the forepart of the device, where you'll discover two boosted USB Type-C (M1 Max) or Thunderbolt 4 (M1 Ultra) ports and a UHS-II SDXC card slot.

Equally an owner of the M1 Mac mini, I can't express how happy the front I/O makes me. Non simply did they throw in an SD card slot, which I nevertheless employ regularly, but I can now charge my wireless peripherals or plug in an SSD without scratching up the dorsum of the estimator trying to blindly stab a USB-C cablevision into one of the free Thunderbolt ports.

On the front of the Mac Studio, you get an additional two USB Type-C (M1 Max) or Thunderbolt 4 (M1 Ultra) ports, and a UHS-II SDXC card slot.

Yes, I wish the HDMI port were 2.ane, non ii.0, and information technology would have been nice to see a UHS-Iii or SD Limited 7.0 card reader – all things we've seen on PCs that we've recently reviewed – just overall this is an excellent complement of ports that has you covered for 95% of all apply cases. For the concluding 5%, y'all can always go a Thunderbolt dock.

Other than these ii small gripes, at that place's really only one major downside to the Mac Studio'south blueprint, and that'southward upgradability...or lack thereof.

This isn't surprising, but it's disappointing all the same. Given how Apple Silicon is laid out I never expected the RAM to be upgradable, simply even a single accessible Yard.2 slot for storage expandability would take been a massive win in my book. Alas, it seems that Apple is saving all the expandability for the Mac Pro, so keep that in mind if y'all're shopping for a Mac Studio: the configuration y'all buy is the configuration you're stuck with.

Back to top

Functioning benchmarks

Even if you lot opt for the more affordable M1 Max version of the Mac Studio, this niggling computer is capable of incredible photo and video-editing performance.

The M1 Max Mac Studio that Apple sent over is identical to the M1 Max MacBook Pro 16 that we reviewed in November. Apple tree promised to ship an M1 Ultra variant in for testing soon merely, in the meantime, we wanted to observe out if Apple was property annihilation back from these chips on the laptop side.

Does the Mac Studio with an M1 Max, 32-core GPU, and 64GB of RAM perform whatever better than an identical 14- or 16-inch MacBook Pro, or is it actually just a thing of preference and price? The answer: there is no significant difference. The Mac Studio and 16-inch MacBook Pro posted identical numbers in all of our benchmarks, with just a few seconds difference here or there — well within the margin of error for these kinds of tests.

As such, for today'southward comparison we decided to exam the M1 Max Mac Studio confronting three different computers: a 14-inch MacBook Pro with a 10-cadre M1 Pro and 32GB of RAM, a Mac mini with a 10-core M1 and 16GB of RAM, and an MSI Creator 17 with an 11th-gen Intel Core i9 CPU, NVIDIA RTX 3080 GPU, and 32GB of RAM. Full specs below:

M1 Max Mac Studio M1 Pro 14-inch MacBook Pro M1 Mac mini MSI Creator 17
CPU

M1 Max

10-core CPU

M1 Pro

10-cadre CPU

M1

8-core CPU

 Intel Core i9-11900H
GPU

M1 Max

32-core GPU

M1 Pro

sixteen-cadre GPU

M1

8-core GPU

NVIDIA RTX 3080

16GB VRAM
RAM 64GB Unified Memory 32GB Unified Memory 16GB Unified Memory 32GB DDR4-3200MHz
Storage 2TB Integrated NVMe Storage 1TB Integrated NVMe Storage 2TB Integrated NVMe Storage 2TB PCIe 4.0 Yard.two NVMe SSD
Display

North/A

14-inch Retina HDR miniLED Display

100% DCI-P3

North/A

17-inch 4K HDR miniLED Display

100% DCI-P3
Price $iii,200 $two,900 $1,700 $3,800

We used these four computers to run all of our usual benchmarks on the latest versions of Lightroom Classic, Capture One Pro 22, Photoshop, Premiere Pro, and, for the Apple computers, the latest version of Final Cut Pro. These numbers should give you a sense of the kind of performance you lot can expect from this automobile compared to some of Apple tree's other options, and how the Mac Studio compares to a high-powered 17-inch PC laptop.

These numbers should give you a sense of the kind of functioning you lot tin expect from this machine compared to some of Apple's other options, and how the Mac Studio compares to a high-powered 17-inch PC laptop.

Unfortunately, nosotros don't accept a comparable desktop PC in-business firm that we can test against the Mac Studio, but we're working on it and hope to have something around to exam past the time Apple tree sends over the M1 Ultra version of the Mac Studio old in the next few weeks. The about appropriate comparing would exist the beastly Intel NUC 12 Farthermost, so Intel, if you're reading this, reach out and testify us what you've got!

We've got an unused RTX 3080 but sitting here in our studio, waiting for the right rig.

Adobe Lightroom Classic

For Lightroom Classic, we run two different benchmarks using 100 copies of the studio scene test photo from four different cameras: the Canon EOS R6, the Nikon Z7 II, the Sony a7R 4, and the Fujifilm GFX 100. For our beginning criterion, we examination how long information technology takes to import each set of 100 RAW files and generate ane:1 previews. For our 2nd criterion, we employ a custom preset and export each ready of 100 RAW files every bit full-size, 100% quality JPEGs.

Generally speaking, Lightroom Classic import and preview generation tracks raw CPU performance and isn't significantly affected by the amount of RAM or the number of GPU cores. That's pretty much what we see here. The Mac mini with just four operation cores is the slowest of the bunch, while the other three computers post very similar numbers across the lath. The MSI Creator 17 does manage to pull ahead with a more significant margin once we get to the 100MP Fujifilm files, though.

Canon EOS R6 Import Nikon Z7 Ii Import Sony a7R IV Import Fujifilm GFX 100 Import
Mac Studio 1:26 2:xix 2:24 6:02
MacBook Pro 1:24 2:xviii ii:24 6:01
Mac mini 1:59 3:37 3:53 eight:57
MSI Creator 17 1:23 ii:17 two:32 5:31

For exports, the corporeality and speed of RAM built into your organization begins to play a role, allowing the Mac Studio to pull ahead of the pack... simply not past much. Both the Mac Studio and MacBook Pro are much faster than the Creator 17 and peculiarly the Mac mini, but the difference between the M1 Max and M1 Pro is much smaller than we expected given that the Mac Studio has twice the RAM.

It goes to evidence that your powerful, expensive hardware is really only as good equally the software yous're using. If the software isn't optimized to accept full advantage of actress cores or more than GPU power or more RAM, you're out of luck:

Canon EOS R6 Export Nikon Z7 II Consign Sony a7R 4 Export Fujifilm GFX 100 Consign
Mac Studio ii:28 v:xviii 6:45 11:16
MacBook Pro 2:33 v:29 half dozen:51 11:39
Mac mini 4:16 9:17 sixteen:01 40:21
MSI Creator 17 iii:32 7:42 9:52 20:19

Capture 1 Pro 22

To test Capture One Pro performance, we run the exact same import and export benchmarks equally Lightroom Archetype, with ane exception: previews are generated at the default 2560px, since there is no 1:ane choice. Capture I is much faster than Lightroom for both of these tasks, as information technology relies heavily on the GPU to advance both import and consign.

At import, there's basically no deviation between the three Macs. Any is happening behind the scenes, Capture I isn't taking advantage of the extra RAM , CPU, or GPU horsepower between the M1, M1 Pro, and M1 Max. The MSI Creator 17 pulls ahead here, thanks to its beefy NVIDIA RTX 3080:

Canon EOS R6 Import Nikon Z7 Ii Import Sony a7R IV Import Fujifilm GFX 100 Import
Mac Studio 00:43 1:03 one:17 two:04
MacBook Pro 00:42 1:03 ane:17 two:03
Mac mini 00:44 ane:05 ane:eighteen 2:01
MSI Creator 17 00:40 00:56 1:08 one:39

Finally, when we go to Capture One Exports, the actress GPU cores and RAM within the Mac Studio outset to generate some noticeable improvements in performance. Combining 64GB of super fast LPDDR5 unified memory with 32 GPU cores allows the M1 Max Mac Studio to pull way alee of the other computers, leaving even the MSI Creator 17 in the dust.

The power to export 100 fully edited 100MP Fujifilm GFX 100 RAW files in merely 4 minutes and 30 seconds is pretty impressive if you ask me:

Catechism EOS R6 Export Nikon Z7 II Export Sony a7R IV Export Fujifilm GFX 100 Export
Mac Studio 00:57 ii:07 two:33 4:30
MacBook Pro 1:xi 2:52 iii:32 half-dozen:43
Mac mini 2:06 v:22 half dozen:40 12:20
MSI Creator 17 i:31 3:xiii three:55 6:23

Adobe Photoshop

The final photography benchmark we run is Puget Systems' popular Puget Bench criterion. We run a slightly older version of the criterion (v0.8) because it was the last 1 to include a PhotoMerge test. Information technology's too a script, non a plugin, which allows us to run information technology on Apple Silicon Macs without relying on the Intel-based version of Photoshop.

As you lot can see, the Mac Studio cleans house. Every single score, including the GPU category score, is the highest we've seen. That'south specially impressive when yous consider that the MSI Creator 17 boasts an RTX 3080 that soaks upwardly 95W of power at full load and has 16GB of its own VRAM. It's non an apples to apples comparing (pun intended) because the GPU score is based on tests that rely on more than raw GPU performance, but it's withal an impressive win for Apple tree:

Overall General GPU Filter PhotoMerge
Mac Studio 1287.two 129.2 117.5 111.five 162.2
MacBook Pro 1218.7 124.viii 108.0 100.3 159.1
Mac mini 1035.6 103.1 87.iii 83.four 144.8
MSI Creator 17 1030.5 111.7 113.one 85.8 120.3

Adobe Premiere Pro and Terminal Cutting Pro

In Adobe Premiere Pro and Concluding Cut Pro, we use the same 4K timeline fabricated up of 8K Sony a1 exam footage, consummate with color grading and multiple layered effects. The footage is rendered, and so we export a master file, H.264 file, and HEVC/H.265 file. The target scrap charge per unit is adjusted to go along the output identical betwixt the two programs.

Finally, every bit a last examination, we also run Warp Stabilize and Final Cutting's born stabilization characteristic on a 15-second clip from this aforementioned video shoot.

Y'all can lookout the video used in these benchmarks below:

The Mac Studio'south Premiere Pro performance is fantabulous. Ever since Adobe ramped upwardly hardware dispatch and released their Apple tree Silicon optimized version of this app, the render and export times we've seen from the M1 Pro and M1 Max have been faster than anything else we've tested.

And non only a lilliputian faster, we're talking twice equally fast. Comparing the Mac Studio to the MSI Creator 17, return and consign times are 51% faster beyond the board:

Render All Consign Master File Export H.264 Consign HEVC/H.265 Warp Stabilize
Mac Studio 1:47 00:03 1:41 1:40 ii:13
MacBook Pro three:04 00:12 two:57 3:01 2:13
Mac mini seven:29 00:11 8:17 vii:47 2:24
MSI Creator 17 three:40 00:11 3:26 3:25 ii:32

What's more, the Mac Studio is actually faster in Premiere Pro than Concluding Cut Pro. The aforementioned footage cut into the same timeline using (to the extent it was possible) identical effects is 35% faster to return and 28% faster to export into H.264. The only test where Final Cutting was faster is encoding an 8-bit HEVC file, which is 34% faster in Apple tree's software.

Return All Consign Master File Consign H.264 Export HEVC/H.265 Final Cut Stabilize
Mac Studio ii:45 00:44 ii:21 one:06 00:24
MacBook Pro three:05 00:46 3:09 1:31 00:23
Mac mini four:47 1:22 4:19 ane:54 00:24

Performance Takeaways

Given that we already reviewed a 16-inch MacBook Pro with identical specs, yous might think in that location's not much to have away from these results, simply I'd beg to differ. Beginning, the very fact that the Mac Studio with an M1 Max and 64GB of RAM performs identically to a sixteen-inch MBP with the same specs ways that Apple isn't holding annihilation back in the laptops. You're non going to cede performance if you lot choose to go with a MacBook Pro, it's genuinely a matter of preference.

2d, now that we've been able to compare an M1 Max-powered computer to the more affordable M1 Pro, it shows which uses volition (and won't) benefit from the more than powerful processor, twice the RAM, and twice the graphics cores. For many photographers in particular, an M1 Pro-powered MacBook Pro with 32GB of RAM is going to be more than powerful enough.

For many photographers in detail, an M1 Pro-powered MacBook Pro with 32GB of RAM is going to be more than powerful enough.

Tertiary, these numbers point out an intriguing pigsty in Apple'southward line-up: in that location is no M1 Pro desktop. For creatives who don't demand a laptop and aren't interested in the extra RAM and GPU cores offered past the M1 Max and M1 Ultra, a more affordable Mac Studio with an M1 Pro would be an incredibly intriguing value suggestion that would probably unseat the M1 Mac mini equally the best value in the Apple ecosystem. We've got our fingers crossed.

Finally, and it has to exist asked. Given the performance above, is in that location any reason to spend the actress $1,200 to $3,000 on an M1 Ultra variant of the Mac Studio other than perhaps "future proofing" your investment? There are definitely use-cases that can benefit from twice the GPU cores and twice the RAM – and we will definitely be testing the M1 Ultra simply as before long as Apple tree can get one to us – only for the vast majority of users, annihilation more powerful (and expensive) than the M1 Max is probably beyond the point of diminishing returns.

Back to peak

The Apple desktop (most) creators have been waiting for

Apple managed to pack a ton of power into this tiny piffling computer.
What We Similar What Nosotros Don't Similar
  • Incredible performance in a tiny 3.5L package
  • Front-facing ports are extremely useful
  • Tons of I/O on the back, including two USB-A ports and ten gigabit ethernet
  • Totally silent, fifty-fifty under heavy load
  • No upgradable components
  • Keyboard and mouse not included
  • The HDMI port is HDMI ii.0, non two.one
  • The SD carte du jour slot is UHS-Two, not UHS-III
  • However expensive if y'all need to purchase peripherals

Lovers of the iMac will be disappointed that Apple seems to have discontinued the 27-inch iMac in favor of the Mac Studio and Studio Brandish, but for most creatives, I call back this is a win. Nigh of us don't need a display, keyboard, mouse, speakers, mic, or webcam, just nosotros might want the power and performance that comes with a high-end Apple Silicon device. Now, we tin get that without paying for all the other stuff.

For $2,200 you can buy yourself a Mac Studio with M1 Max, 24-cadre GPU, 32GB of RAM and 1TB of storage, claw it upward to your existing photo editing setup, and experience one of the fastest photograph- and video-editing rigs that Apple has ever released.

The Mac Studio is precisely the calculator that many of employ were hoping Apple would release: a "professional" Mac desktop with tons of power and lots of ports, that all the same takes up less room on your desk than a gallon of milk.

I can't give the Mac Studio 5 stars. The fact that yous can't upgrade whatever of the components disqualifies it, and Apple left out some nice-to-haves like HDMI ii.1... or a mouse and keyboard. But if y'all can overlook these omissions, the Mac Studio is precisely the computer that many of employ were hoping Apple would release: a "professional" Mac desktop with tons of power and lots of ports, that all the same takes up less room on your desk than a gallon of milk.

Dorsum to top