Step into a world where the focus is keenly set on Intel Vs Amd Ryzen. Within the confines of this article, a tapestry of references to Intel Vs Amd Ryzen awaits your exploration. If your pursuit involves unraveling the depths of Intel Vs Amd Ryzen, you've arrived at the perfect destination.
Our narrative unfolds with a wealth of insights surrounding Intel Vs Amd Ryzen. This is not just a standard article; it's a curated journey into the facets and intricacies of Intel Vs Amd Ryzen. Whether you're thirsting for comprehensive knowledge or just a glimpse into the universe of Intel Vs Amd Ryzen, this promises to be an enriching experience.
The spotlight is firmly on Intel Vs Amd Ryzen, and as you navigate through the text on these digital pages, you'll discover an extensive array of information centered around Intel Vs Amd Ryzen. This is more than mere information; it's an invitation to immerse yourself in the enthralling world of Intel Vs Amd Ryzen.
So, if you're eager to satisfy your curiosity about Intel Vs Amd Ryzen, your journey commences here. Let's embark together on a captivating odyssey through the myriad dimensions of Intel Vs Amd Ryzen.
Advanced Micro Devices new Trinity chip doesn't deliver the performance trifecta necessary to threaten Intel's market-leading position, according to most initial evaluations.
It's an old story line now: AMD comes out with a new processor that offers better graphics performance, but, overall, does little to change Intel-AMD market dynamics -- which of course heavily favors Intel.
And AMD has done it again. Tapping into the graphics processing unit (GPU) expertise it got when after acquiring ATI in 2006, the Sunnyvale, Calif.-based company continues to ding Intel on GPU performance.
But AMD fails to threaten Intel on central processing unit (CPU) speed and power efficiency.
But don't take my word for it. "AMD's Trinity...doesn't unseat [Intel's] Sandy Bridge from its position of performance supremacy," wrote Tom's Hardware, referring to the Intel chip design announced in January of last year.
Let's insert a quick parenthetical here. Intel is now shipping its next-generation Ivy Bridge chip, and performance will only improve vis-a-vis AMD.
That said, there's plenty of praise for AMD's graphics silicon. Game play is good: AMD's Trinity is recommended "if you're a casual gamer" by Tom's Hardware.
But for higher end games, the advantage isn't necessarily there. "Your best bet continues to be laptops with an Intel CPU and a discrete GPU from Nvidia, at least of the GT 640M level," according to Anandtech.
And note that Intel these days is touting media processing performance for tasks like transcoding: converting a file from one format to another. For example, converting a movie so it is playable on an iPod.
In this area, Intel's Quick Sync is competitive with AMD, said Anandtech.
AMD is making strides with battery life, though. "It's worth pointing out that the concerns about AMD's battery life from a few years ago are now clearly put to rest," Anandtech said.
Then there's the school of thought that Intel needs to be afraid, very afraid. "AMD has a very credible chip on their hands with Trinity, and Intel should be very worried," said chip site Semiaccurate.
But one financial firm is not that enthusiastic. "Advanced Micro Devices'...Trinity seems unlikely to gain share, and will likely compete on price rather than performance against Intel's Ivy Bridge," said MKM Partners in a post on Barron's.
Amd unveils the ultimate 1080p gaming processor at ces 2020 location amd unveils the ultimate 1080p gaming processor atom amd unveils the ultimate 1080p gaming processor comparison amd unveils the ultimate 1080p gaming processor for pc amd unveils the ultimate 1080p gaming processor price amd unveils the ultimate 1080p gaming processor cell amd unveils the ultimate 1080p gaming processor chart amd unveils the ultimate 1080p vs 1440p amd unveils the ultimate fighter amd unveils the ultimate showdown amd the band played on amd unveils meaning
AMD unveils the 'ultimate 1080p gaming' processor at CES 2020
AMD unveils the 'ultimate 1080p gaming' processor at CES 2020
This story is part of CES, where CNET covers the latest news on the most incredible tech coming soon.
AMD is kicking off the world's biggest consumer tech show by unveiling the third-generation Ryzen 4000-series mobile processors, which will be used in upcoming laptops. A crowd of hundreds lined up for more than an hour before the CES 2020 announcement, filing slowly into the enormous Mandalay Bay Convention Center in Las Vegas to hear details on AMD's new gaming products Monday afternoon.
AT CES 2019, AMD unveiled Radeon 7, the world's first 7-nanometer gaming graphics card. More than 20 products are now using its 7nm architecture, AMD said Monday.
A year later, the US chip giant is using CES 2020 as a platform to launch its latest graphics processors.
"In 2020, we will be introducing the best laptop processor ever built," AMD CEO Lisa Su said during the press conference. The processors will use AMD's 7nm technology.
It'll be used across gaming and creator laptops, ultrathin consumer laptops, and ultrathin professional laptops. The Ryzen 7 4800U features eight Zen 2 cores, 16 threads, up to 4.2GHz boost, 1.8GHz base, eight Radeon cores and 15W TDP. Graphics will be 28% better than Intel's Core i7, Su said, 90% better on multi-thread performance and 4% higher on single-thread performance.
More than 100 systems will be using the series by the end of 2020, with the first laptops expected in the first quarter. One laptop that will use it is the Lenovo Yoga Slim 7, also being announced at CES 2020.
Su also provided details on the anticipated Ryzen Threadripper 3990X. AMD had been expected to announce the new flagship consumer processor at CES 2020, but it dropped some details in late November. At that time, it announced it'll have 64 cores, 288MB of cache and is designed for a 280-watt power draw. Now, we also know it'll be available for $3,990, coming with 128 threads, up to 4.3GHz boost and 2.9GHz base. The Ryzen Threadripper 3990X will be available in February.
It follows the announcement of the 32-core AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and the 24-core AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960X boxed processors, which shipped in September.
AMD's new Ryzen Threadripper 3990X.
James Martin/CNET
AMD also announced the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT, which it called the "ultimate 1080p gaming." It will deliver the best graphics across all games in comparison to the competition, according to the processor giant. The 5600 will be available worldwide on Jan. 21 for $279.
It will also be coming to mobile in the first half of 2020, launching as the 5600M.
Su said AMD has partnered on Sony's PlayStation 5, the Xbox Series X, Microsoft'sxCloud and GoogleStadiagaming consoles and cloud services. Its graphics cards are also being used in Apple's new Mac Pro and the Microsoft Surface. Its processors are behind Twitter, and the data centers Google is using.
AMD's Frank Azor shows off the new Asus Zephyrus gaming laptop.
James Martin/CNET
Alienware co-founder Frank Azor, who made the jump to AMD last year, additionally announced the AMD Ryzen 7 4800H, aimed at gamers and creators. It comes with eight cores, 16 threads, up to 4.2GHz boost, 2.9GHz base and 45W TDP.
Azor showed off the new Asus ROG Zephyrus G14/G15 and the Dell G5 special edition gaming laptop. The Dell laptop will use AMD's new SmartShift technology coming in the second quarter of 2020, as well as AMD's Radeon 5600M, Ryzen, FreeSync and Radeon software.
SmartShift automatically brings AMD's discrete GPU into the equation when the CPU is allocating graphics resources, just like it does for the integrated GPU, without any size increases.
CNET's Lori Grunin also contributed to this report.
Apple m1 chip performance apple m1 chip cores apple m1 processor vs intel what is the apple m1 processor apple m1 processor apple m1 processor review apple s m1 chip review apple smartphone apple smart keyboard
Apple's custom-built M1 processor and the new MacBook Airs, MacBook Pros and Mac Minis that use it are a problem for Intel. The divorce proceedings will last about two years as the prestigious customer gradually ejects Intel's chips from its personal computers.
But Intel isn't doomed.
The Santa Clara, California, company has some advantages and options in the PC market that insulate it from Apple's threat. Other PC makers aren't going to have as easy a time as Apple in moving past Intel. Intel is still the leader in higher-end chips more powerful than the M1. And it's got enough money on hand -- $18.25 billion in cash, equivalents and investments -- to let it spend its way to a better situation.
"There isn't much near-term threat to Intel's PC business beyond losing one sizable customer," said Linley Group analyst Linley Gwennap. That doesn't mean it's going to be easy for Intel, though.
Giving Apple grounds for divorce is the latest of the chipmaker's whiffs. Earlier achievements, like charting decades of steady chip industry progress with Moore's Law, pioneering PC technology standards and powering Google's data centers, have been overshadowed by newer flubs. That includes losing its manufacturing lead and failing to tap into the smartphone market. Intel ultimately sold its cellular chip business to Apple for $1 billion.
Though Macs account for only about 8.5% of the PC market, according to IDC, Apple remains one of the biggest and most influential tech companies. Its MacBook Air models led the trend to slim but useful laptops, its MacBook Pro models remain popular with programmers and the creative set, and Apple profits from selling premium machines costing hundreds of dollars more than most Windows PCs.
Losing Apple's business will sting. New Street Research analyst Pierre Ferragu estimated in a Wednesday report that 4% to 5% of Intel's revenue comes from Apple. But it's just one of the concerns Intel will need to address.
Intel said it's "relentlessly" focused on building leading chips. "We welcome competition because it makes us better," Intel said in a statement. "We believe that there is a lot of innovation that only Intel can do," including supplying chips that span the full price range of PCs and that can run older software still common in businesses.
It's also built its first samples of the 2021 Alder Lake PC chips and expects improvements in 2022 and beyond. "We're increasingly confident in the leadership our 2023 products will deliver," the company said.
Intel faces several challenges along the way, though.
The Qualcomm worry
One of the biggest concerns tied to the arrival of Apple's M1 is that it could embolden another Intel rival, Qualcomm, which already sells mobile-based processors for PCs.
The M1 is a member of the Arm family of processors that are used in every smartphone today. Qualcomm, a leading designer of those chips for Android phone makers, is pushing more-powerful versions of its Snapdragon chips for PCs, too, and several PC makers offer Windows laptops using them.
So far, though, Arm-based Windows laptops have shown lackluster performance and remain a rarity among customers. Arm PC makers have to prove better value and performance before more people adopt the machines, said CCS Insight analyst Wayne Lam.
Apple's transition to Arm-family M1 chips is also very different from Windows PC makers using Qualcomm chips. No PC maker is dumping Intel the way Apple is, so software makers don't need to worry as much about adapting their products for the new chip architecture. Though it might be nice to have, Qualcomm PC support isn't really essential.
The AMD threat
Intel is the dominant manufacturer of chips in the x86 family, which are the kind of processors you'd find in a normal laptop. But it's not the only x86 chipmaker.
"AMD is a greater threat in the near term," said Tirias Research's Kevin Krewell, who noted that PC makers aren't going to be quick to drop the industry standard family of x86 chips.
AMD has done well with high-end desktop processors, chiefly for gamers, and is making inroads in the server market, too. It's using Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corp. for manufacturing, taking advantage of its miniaturization progress to cram more circuitry onto new chips. Its new Zen 3 chip design offers a substantial speed boost.
In contrast, Intel, which manufactures its own chips, has struggled. It's only now moving in earnest from an earlier manufacturing technology with 14-nanometer features to a newer 10nm process after years of delays. Even next year's Rocket Lake chip for desktop computers will still be built with the 14nm process. (A nanometer is a billionth of a meter, and the smaller the measurement, the more transistors you can cram into a chip.)
AMD's Ryzen 5000 processor family, with up to 16 processing cores, challenges Intel in gaming PCs.
AMD
New manufacturing options
Intel is giving itself new options, including the ability to use other manufacturers like TSMC to build its chips. That's got risks, too, though, Gwennap said.
Moving some manufacturing to a partner makes it harder for Intel to justify the expense of trying to develop cutting-edge manufacturing, according to Gwennap. And the possibility that Intel could reclaim manufacturing once it fixes its problems could spook TSMC away from investing enough to meet Intel's massive demand.
Intel didn't comment on its manufacturing plan details. It said its integrated design and manufacturing approach helps competitiveness and in letting Intel assure customers it can supply the chips they need. "We've also been clear we will continue investing in leading process technology development," Intel said.
Apple, in contrast, has benefited from TSMC's steadily improved manufacturing. It's one reason it can fit a whopping 16 billion transistors onto its M1 chip, enough circuitry to power the main processor engines along with lots of extra abilities.
Apple's M1 starts small
Over and over during the new Mac launch event, Apple emphasized the performance per watt advantages of the M1. Translate that as being able to do useful work without draining a laptop battery fast.
Apple gets this advantage from the M1's lineage: the A series of processors that power iPhones. Smartphone chips have even stronger battery constraints than laptop chips. With the M1, a close relative of the iPhone 12's A14, Apple gets to add more transistor circuitry for more processing power and can run the chip at a higher clock speed than in phones, too.
Apple steadily increased A series chip performance for years, evolving the chip design and taking advantage of the prowess of TSMC, which manufactures the chips. Speed tests published by tech site Anandtech using the SPECint2006 benchmark show the A14 surpassing Intel's quad-core laptop chip, the 3GHz Core i7 1185G7 model that's a member of the new Tiger Lake processor family.
But the reality is that even Apple isn't ready to use the M1 in brawnier systems. The MacBook Air is all-in on M1, but Apple continues to rely on Intel for higher-powered 13-inch MacBook Pros. The 16-inch MacBook Pro, the iMac, the iMac Pro and the Mac Pro will continue to use Intel processors as Apple moves through a two-year transition to its own chips.
"It will get really interesting when Apple starts specifically optimizing its architecture for higher performance in a bigger thermal envelope and constant power for desktops," Techsponential analyst Avi Greengart said.
So yes, Intel has challenges. Apple's M1 is just the most obvious.
Apple Mac Studio and Studio Display Review: A Desktop Combo for Creators Looking to Step Up
Apple Mac Studio and Studio Display Review: A Desktop Combo for Creators Looking to Step Up
It's rare that Apple launches an entirely new product line, but that's what we have in the Mac Studio, a new desktop positioned somewhere in the huge gulf between the Mac Mini and Mac Pro.
The Mac Studio that I tested impressed me but didn't surprise me. Internally, it's very similar to the 16-inch MacBook Pro I tested and reviewed in late 2021. Both systems feature Apple's M1 Max chip, a CPU/GPU combo that's in all new Macs and some iPads. Both systems target creators of all kinds, but especially filmmakers, video editors, audio producers and coders. The biggest difference is that the MacBook Pro is a high-end laptop meant for travel and as an all-in-one solution, while the Mac Studio is a compact desktop and more likely to remain tethered to one place, connected to a display, keyboard and mouse.
Mere months ago, the M1 Max chip was the reach-for-the-stars, top-end Apple chip, outperforming the original M1 and the in-between M1 Pro. It was part of Apple's nearly complete evolution from Intel chips to its own designs, sometimes called Apple Silicon. Now, the M1 Max has moved down to become the middle-of-the-road version, because you can now get the even more powerful M1 Ultra chip in the Mac Studio.
My first inclination was to write off the $2,000 M1 Max version of the Studio as not ambitious enough, and the $4,000 M1 Ultra version as too expensive for a non-upgradable desktop. That audience is probably waiting for a new Mac Pro desktop for upgradability and future-proofing.
But speaking to other creatives, I heard the opposite -- that the M1 Max Mac Studio (try saying that five times fast) is exactly what a developing filmmaker or music producer might want. My colleague Patrick Holland told me that back in his filmmaking days, "The Mac Studio would have been ideal for me. It's $1,500 less than the 16-inch MacBook Pro. It's small enough that I could travel with it and plug it into a ton of displays, TVs and even cameras. But most importantly, the Mac Studio would have meant that I didn't need to 'design a computer' for my workflows."
The Mac Studio is paired with another brand-new product, Apple's new 27-inch Studio Display. It has a chip inside, too -- in this case the A13, as seen in the iPhone 11. That enables on-board features like Center Stage and spatial audio. Its only comparison within the Appleverse right now is the professional-level Pro Display XDR, a 32-inch display that starts at $5K, plus an extra $1,000 if you want its sold-separately stand. At $1,599, the Studio Display feels like a reasonable ask for a pro-level display, even if stand and screen options can drive up the price.
The Mac Mini (left) next to the Mac Studio.
We've only tested the M1 Max version of the Mac Studio so far, not the M1 Ultra version. That version has a bigger, heavier heat sink (that weighs about two pounds more), because the M1 Ultra is essentially two M1 Max chips joined together. Even in the M1 Max version, the case is practically half-filled with fans and cooling gear.
Besides the look -- a gently rounded square with an Apple logo on top -- there's not much common ground between the Mac Studio and the Mac Mini. In fact, I've described the Studio as two Mac Minis stacked up, but it's actually taller than that, at 3.7 inches, vs. 1.4 inches for the Mini. If anything, the price difference should tell you this is a different category: $700 for the entry level M1 Mac Mini vs. $2,000 and $4,000 for the two Studio base models. I'd like to see an M1 Pro chip version of the Mac Studio -- that might be an even better in-between level for budget-conscious creatives looking to step up.
An underside view of the Mac Studio.
Dan Ackerman/CNET
Upgrades add up
The configuration we tested is a few steps up from the base model. It adds 64GB of RAM, 2TB storage and the version of the M1 Max chip with 32 GPU cores (vs. 24 GPU cores for the base model). That all adds up to $3,199. Choose your options carefully, as the Mac Studio isn't internally upgradable after the fact.
That's probably the biggest sticking point for a certain brand of creative professional. The appeal of the Mac Pro desktop, or really any tower desktop PC, is its upgradability. In some cases that just means being able to swap out a graphics card. In other cases, everything from the power supply to the CPU to the fans.
Once you get over that hurdle, if you do, a comparably configured 16-inch MacBook Pro is $4,300. The price difference accounts for the screen, keyboard and touchpad that you don't get with the Mac Studio.
The new accessories look great, but are sold separately.
Dan Ackerman/CNET
Note that the keyboard and mouse or touchpad are not included in the box. If you don't already have a set, there are new gray-and-silver versions of Apple's input accessories to go along with the Studio. The Magic Keyboard, with a number pad and Touch ID, is $200. The Magic Mouse is $100 and the Magic Touchpad (which looks great in dark gray) is $150. As a long-time Apple user (and even longer-time PC user), the Magic Touchpad is one of my all-time favorite computer input devices. The Magic Mouse is one of my least favorite. Then again, I predicted the imminent death of the computer mouse back in 2010, so what do I know?
Front loaded
The biggest innovation of the Mac Studio may be one of its simplest. Take some of the connections and put 'em on the front face. The Mini, for example, has USB-C/Thunderbolt, Ethernet, audio and other ports on the back. The Mac Studio has a similar setup, with four USB-C/Thunderbolt ports, a 10GB ethernet port, two USB-A ports, HDMI and an audio jack on the back. But there are also two USB-C ports and an SD card slot on the front, a move sure to appeal to photographers, videographers and others who hate digging around the back of a system to plug anything in. On the M1 Ultra version of the system, those front ports are Thunderbolt as well.
From its nadir, when some MacBooks included only a single USB-C for power, accessories, output, everything, we're almost in a golden age of Mac ports now. The latest MacBook Pro laptops have HDMI and SD card ports (again), for example.
Plenty of ports on the back of the Mac Studio.
Dan Ackerman/CNET
Familiar but fast
I wasn't expecting anything radically different in our basic benchmark testing when compared to the 16-inch MacBook Pro we tested last year. Both systems have M1 Max chips with 10 CPU cores and 32 GPU cores. Both include 64GB of RAM.
I'm not a full-time high-end creative pro, but especially during the Covid era I've been shooting and occasionally editing my own videos, usually in 4K. I also do some design and layout work in Illustrator and Photoshop and a little recording and mixing in Logic Pro. I sometimes design 3D printed objects in a CAD program, too.
As expected, the M1 Max Mac Studio performed similarly in our testing to the M1 Max MacBook Pro. That review includes a deeper dive into the differences between the M1 Pro and M1 Max chips, as does this M1 family performance comparison. The Mac Studio version was marginally faster in many tests, perhaps because if its better cooling.
Asus Zephyrus GX701 (Core i7-8750H, Nvidia RTX 2080 Max-Q)
16628
MacBook Pro, 14-inch, M1 Pro
10383
MacBook Pro, 13-inch, M1 (2020)
4918
iPhone 13 Pro Max (A15 Bionic)
2660
Center of attention
The Mac Studio is being pitched hand-in-hand with the Apple Studio Display, the first new Apple display since the Pro Display XDR. It's a lower-cost alternative for the XDR in some ways, but doesn't cover all of the same ground. I asked our display guru Lori Grunin to weigh in on the Studio Display as well.
At $1,600, the Studio Display is certainly more attainable than the $5,000-and-up XDR. But it's also missing some key features you might want. Specifically, it's a typical standard-definition IPS monitor with an undisclosed backlight tech, not HDR like the 1,600-nit XDR display, which uses a Mini LED backlight. The Studio Display doesn't even support HDR content, despite its 600-nit peak brightness.
The Studio Display.
Dan Ackerman/CNET
Both Apple displays top out at 60Hz refresh rates, although other Apple products, like the iPad Pro and some MacBook Pro models, have ProMotion, Apple's variable refresh rate technology that goes up to 120Hz.The XDR is two years old, so that's understandable; it's a big disappointment in the Studio. Like the XDR, the Studio Display's controls are all in software, so, for instance, if you want to disable it or power it down you have to unplug it, and it's basically unusable with anything other than a Mac, unless you want a non-smart display with no controls.
We haven't finished our formal testing yet, but eyeballing the Studio Display and XDR side by side shows excellent consistency between the colors in the reference modes. There seemed to be slightly better detail in the darkest shadows in photos on the XDR, understandable given the wider tonal range. We'll offer a full benchmarked separate review of the Studio Display soon.
The new Studio Display still has a few unique tricks courtesy of the built-in A13 chip. The speakers support spatial audio and the built-in webcam supports Center Stage, which lets the camera zoom and pan (not physically, all within the original 12MP camera image) to keep faces centered and visible.
The ports on the back of the Studio Display.
Dan Ackerman/CNET
I played around with Center Stage in FaceTime, but it works Zoom and a few other apps as well. Before now, it's been limited to iPads, but I liked it on the Studio Display. With three people ducking in and out of frame, Center Stage did a reasonable job of keeping up with us, widening the image when all three of us were in-frame and zooming in when it was just me. The real trick here is the 122-degree field of view from the camera, which gives it extra space to work in. You can see the distortion of that lens if you force the Center Stage view to its widest, where the perfectly straight pillar next to me appears bowed.
Center Stage auto-adjusting the frame. Note that while there are webcam image quality issues, the softness of this image is mostly from the gif compression.
Dan Ackerman/CNET
Other Macs and even iPads can connect to the Studio Display, but will need an OS update to iPadOS 15.4. or MacOS 12.3 to use the Center Stage and other A13 features. Apple says it works with MacBook Pro laptops from 2016 and later, and MacBook Air and Mac Mini systems from 2018 and later.
Some early owners and reviewers have had issues with the webcam quality on the Studio Display. So much so that Apple is said to be readying a software fix. I found images soft, and the color not as good as an on the 16-inch MacBook Pro. Look for more on the Studio Display camera in our upcoming deep dive review.
MacBook Pro (FHD) webcam vs. Studio Display webcam.
Dan Ackerman/CNET
The in-betweeners
It's clear that Apple would like you to think of the Mac Studio and Studio Display as a perfectly matched pair of devices. If you're building a mid/high-end video production or other creative workspace, that's an appealing combination that solves a lot of problems in a single package. Together, it's a minimum investment of $3,500, and probably more. The height-adjustable stand for the Studio Display feels like a must-have, especially if you use multiple monitors and want them positioned at similar heights, which adds another $400 to the total. The Studio also has a $300 Nano-texture glass option that cuts down on screen reflection. Reflections on the standard screen weren't overpowering, and glossy screens do make everything look better -- but they can be distracting for some types of work.
The setup will cost a minimum of $3,500.
Dan Ackerman/CNET
Through a certain lens, the financial side works out. A comparable MacBook Pro can cost $1,000 more, making the M1 Max version of the Mac Studio seem more reasonably priced. The Studio Display doesn't have every high-end feature you might want, but it's right around where some comparable prosumer displays sit, although they also can come cheaper because they don't toss in the speakers and webcam. For instance, HP's new Z27xs G3 Dreamcolor monitor, a 4K color-accurate display with similar specs plus HDR support, is less than half the price. Remember that the $5,000 XDR may seem expensive next to even high-end consumer displays, but it's considered very reasonable compared to true professional models.
I'm reserving judgment on the M1 Ultra version of the Mac Studio until we can test one. I'm also leaving room in my creative pro thinking for the long-promised Mac Pro update. That system seems to change radically with each new generation, from the original tower to the black tube version to the current massive cheese grater design. Will the next Mac Pro, teased at the very end of the Mac Studio introductory webcast, follow in the Studio's footsteps and look like an elongated Mac Mini? And how will it address the issue of discrete graphics cards and upgradable components, both must-have features for many of those highest-end buyers? The GPU issue is especially important, as M1 systems don't currently support any AMD/Nvidia GPUs (so for example, you can't hook up a Black Magic eGPU to an Apple Silicon MacBook or Mac Studio).
That leaves us back here, with the Mac Studio and Studio Display. It's somewhere in-between the future Mac Pro and standard M1 Macs, and it'll probably appeal to people who find their work or their budget are similarly in-between those two extremes.
