This just isn't true, unless one means laptops.
Creative professionals, as I understand the term, generally need all the power they can get (video, audio etc.)
The Apple machines are nowhere near the top of the line from this perspective. If you care about CPU/watt then the M1 looks pretty awesome. If you care maxCPU, the M1 is currently not particularly interesting.
That is true today.
A very simple way forward for Apple is to follow in the footsteps of AMD with a chiplet design.
All modern CPUs so far have been thermally limited, so being really good at CPU/watt is a huge advantage. If they can package 2 M2 (next gen) chips in a package for power users and 4 for their Mac Pro, they could be on top of the world in very short order.
Apple will of course retain its crown as the fastest OEM of hardware that runs its own OS since it will remain the only one legally allowed to do so.
All of the benchmarks and testimonials are showing a $699 Mac mini running on a M1 beats a $4000 iMac Pro and pretty much all Intel desktops.
Apparently Hollywood doesn't agree with you; a new Mac mini is faster than the Mac Pros they've had for years: "Hollywood thinks new Mac mini 'could be huge' for video editors"—https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/11/12/hollywood-thinks-...
But for people who do video editing on ThreadRippers and such, the new Mac Mini is a little, not-too-fat nothingburger of a machine. The fact the the "$4000 iMac Pro" was woefully overpriced and underpowered doesn't change that.
Hint: I can run a faster Mac in a VM on my 16 core threadripper than I could ever have bought from Apple.
Um, no pun intended but this isn's an apples-to-apples comparison. Most ThreadRipper CPUs cost more by themselves than does the entire Mac mini.
A 16-core ThreadRipper starts at 180 watts and costs more than the Mac mini at $699. Duh—it's supposed to be faster.
On the other hand, the Mac mini and the other M1 Macs are entry level machines that put almost all Intel and some AMD processors to shame, running at 20-24 watts TDP—so cool that the MacBook Air doesn't need a fan and the one in the MacBook Pro is silent.
From the AnandTech review [1]: "The M1 undisputedly outperforms the core performance of everything Intel has to offer, and battles it with AMD’s new Zen3, winning some, losing some. And in the mobile space in particular, there doesn’t seem to be an equivalent in either ST or MT performance – at least within the same power budgets."
That's pretty good for entry-level, consumer hardware. The professional level processors should make things quite interesting.
[1]: https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-teste...
Sure it does.
The article I previously posted talks about Hollywood studios replacing high-end hardware with M1 Mac minis.
For editing 8k video with FinalCut Pro, a 16Gb M1 Mac mini is going to be faster than machines that cost 2-4x as much.
That's a big deal. Remember, video effects and graphics editing software uses the 16-core Neural Engine, which the software professionals use—FinalCut Pro, Logic, Affinity Photo, etc.—take advantage of. Adobe's apps aren't far behind.
And that's on top of the 8 core CPU and 8 core GPU which rivals dedicated graphics cards.
A college student now has access to the kind of video, graphics and sound production and editing capability that required a $4000 or $5000 workstation a few years ago.
However you want to phrase it, these Macs are in the process of changing the game.
Miller believes that the Mac mini "could be huge" for the industry. He says the main issues for all editors, regardless of what software they use, are rendering times and preparing viewable videos for clients to review — and that the M1 should help with both.
"They are computer-processing-intensive actions," he said. "We have to see if this new M1 chip speeds that up. It should. Dramatically. Then Avid, Adobe and DaVinci... have to use those hardware and OS advances in their software development."
--------------
Notice all the hedging. "We'll have to see..." and "it should ..."
> A college student now has access to the kind of video, graphics and sound production and editing capability that required a $4000 or $5000 workstation a few years ago.
Sure. That's the usual march forward of computer technology for the last 30 years. But note: the fastest standard architecture system you can buy STILL costs about $5000, and it does mind-bogglingly more than that college student will be able to do on their M1.
So this isn't changing the game at all, it's just a continuation. A few years ago, almost nobody talked about being able to edit 8k video, but how that's more or less a given. The requirements expand, the machines get faster.
Don't get me wrong, I'm tremendously impressed by what Apple appears to have done with the M1 (there's me hedging too). I just get tired of it being described in a context where the comparisons don't include a wide enough range of possible options. Before the M1 there were much more powerful systems available than anything Apple offered. After the M1, there continue to be more powerful systems available than anything Apple is offering. That doesn't mean that an M1 Mac Mini is a dumb choice - it might indeed be the perfect combination of CPU/Watt/$. But it's not changing what the high end is (yet).