Notifications
Clear all

[Sticky] Will Unify ever run natively on Apple Silicon?

133 Posts
25 Users
37 Likes
7,483 Views
(@getdunne)
Illustrious Member Admin
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 4368
Topic starter  

Posted by: @pzoo

Posted by: @getdunne
It might help if you could complain about this directly to the JUCE team here: https://forum.juce.com/t/mac-m1-thread-priority-audio-workgroups/52188/12

What exactly should we say? I assume it’s to complain about JUCE and not Unify

I suggest the following:

I'm a long-time user of Unify, a JUCE-based combination host/plug-in from PlugInGuru. It runs poorly on my new Mac Studio, with a lot of CPU spiking. I have already complained to the developers, who have told me this only happens on the Pro/Max versions of the M1 chip, and requested that I report this directly to the JUCE development team. I see that this phenomenon, which affects other multi-threaded JUCE apps/plug-ins, has been discussed extensively on the JUCE Forum for a year, but there is still no official solution. I urge you to address this as soon as possible.

If you do choose to post either on the GitHub Issues page, or on the JUCE Forum, please add a link here in this thread so I can be sure to follow it.


   
ReplyQuote
(@fleer)
Eminent Member
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 28
 
  • Thanks Dr. Dunne. 
    It really is a pity. I have an M1Max MacBook Pro with 64GB RAM and a 4TB SSD, so these JUCE-caused Unify spikes aren’t very welcome. 

   
ReplyQuote
(@getdunne)
Illustrious Member Admin
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 4368
Topic starter  

Posted by: @fleer

It really is a pity. I have an M1Max MacBook Pro with 64GB RAM and a 4TB SSD, so these JUCE-caused Unify spikes aren’t very welcome.

I hear you. It's more than a pity; it's extremely frustrating. However, I have hope that the JUCE team will eventually deliver a permanent solution, because Unify is not the only product affected by this.

 


   
Fleer reacted
ReplyQuote
myuusic
(@myuusic)
Active Member
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 12
 

Posted by: @fleer

  • Thanks Dr. Dunne. 
    It really is a pity. I have an M1Max MacBook Pro with 64GB RAM and a 4TB SSD, so these JUCE-caused Unify spikes aren’t very welcome. 

 

I'm in the same boat as you, it is super frustrating.

I also want to say that "max thread priority" checkbox in Unify settings is not available in the plugin version, I use Unify mainly in Cubase (and it is already ticked in the standalone Unify app), and a buffer length of 256 or more is not really a good workaround, it still spikes.

I'll report it as suggested (and hopefully more will do that).

@getdunne : https://forum.juce.com/t/mac-m1-thread-priority-audio-workgroups/52188/15?u=myuusic

 

This post was modified 8 months ago 4 times by myuusic

   
ReplyQuote
myuusic
(@myuusic)
Active Member
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 12
 

Hey @getdunne

is this now the solution everyone has been waiting for? Just wanted to check as I don't understand everything, because I am not a developer
https://forum.juce.com/t/fr-thread-priority-vs-efficiency-performance-cores/49025/50

 

edit: The more I read the comments, the more I fear it is still not a guarantee

 

This post was modified 6 months ago by myuusic

   
ReplyQuote
(@getdunne)
Illustrious Member Admin
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 4368
Topic starter  

Posted by: @myuusic

is this now the solution everyone has been waiting for?

Well, at least it's what I've been waiting for from the JUCE team. They've been saying they have it for over a year now, but as you see, only made it public 4 days ago. Another developer actually tipped me off about this already.

It will take me some time to evaluate this for Unify. Unify is currently built on JUCE v6.1.6, with several of my own modifications and fixes, but this new code is only available in the develop branch of JUCE 7.0.7. I do have a version of Unify which will build with JUCE 7, but even if this new Audio Workgroup code worked perfectly, it wouldn't be ready to ship until I can port all my mods and fixes over to JUCE 7. Furthermore, the develop branch is basically new experimental stuff, which shouldn't be considered stable enough to ship, so I'd prefer to wait until they move it to the main branch.

Despite all those caveats, this is indeed good news, and I plan to look into this over the coming weeks.

 


   
myuusic reacted
ReplyQuote
myuusic
(@myuusic)
Active Member
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 12
 

Ah this all makes sense to me! This really doesn't sound easy, hope all goes as smooth as it can be for you. Fingers crossed!


   
getdunne reacted
ReplyQuote
(@dolmensdude)
Eminent Member
Joined: 7 months ago
Posts: 16
 

nice to see some movement on this!  let me know if you need another tester! Would be glad to help of course!


   
ReplyQuote
(@getdunne)
Illustrious Member Admin
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 4368
Topic starter  

For a glimpse of what it's like one the bleeding edge of JUCE development, see https://forum.juce.com/t/auhostingservicexpc-arrow-crashing-consistently-on-release-au-builds-using-latest-develop-branch/57790


   
ReplyQuote
(@tony10000)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 195

   
ReplyQuote
(@tony10000)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 195
 

@getdunne Looks like you found a patch that works...progress!


   
ReplyQuote
(@getdunne)
Illustrious Member Admin
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 4368
Topic starter  

@tony10000

Thank you for the links, but of course I had already seen those. Search for any problem on the internet, and you'll find a torrent of near-misses dating back many years. Finding actual solutions is rare. In this case, after trying to "fix" my code in every way I could think of, I finally started from scratch and proved that my code wasn't the problem at all. To his great credit, reuk of the JUCE team responded with a solution in just one hour--on a Sunday.

Whether or not this actually solves the problem of CPU usage on M-series Macs remains to be seen. At this point, all I really know is that it doesn't crash.


   
ReplyQuote
(@tony10000)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 195
 

@getdunne I hope that it works!


   
ReplyQuote
(@dolmensdude)
Eminent Member
Joined: 7 months ago
Posts: 16
 

well, let me make life even more confusing.  Sonoma RC installed... Buffer size 32... no cracks and pops... in fact, I can even run Pianoteq 8 at 16...  not kidding. USB direct from MacStudio to Wing as interface.

15 minute test.  Nothing else changed on YOUR end, but clearly, Apple has done something different.

Not tried yet as a plugin in Logic, this is just standalone.

Truly bizarre.

I AM NOT RECOMMENDING UPDATING TO ANYONE. I have the means to test, and 40 years of development teams to try this kind of stuff.

This post was modified 6 months ago by DolmensDude

   
getdunne reacted
ReplyQuote
(@getdunne)
Illustrious Member Admin
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 4368
Topic starter  

Quick update: John and I are testing a rebuilt version of Unify, built using the latest JUCE 7 develop code, and I'm happy to say CPU spikes and audio glitching seem to be under control.

This isn't yet ready to send out, even as a beta, because I had to make some fundamental changes to Unify's threading code, and we're still finding things that broke as a result, but we're on our way.

@dolmensdude Very exciting news about MacOS Sonoma, though as always, I worry about what that might also break in Unify...


   
ReplyQuote
(@dolmensdude)
Eminent Member
Joined: 7 months ago
Posts: 16
 

Posted by: @getdunne

@dolmensdude Very exciting news about MacOS Sonoma, though as always, I worry about what that might also break in Unify...

 

yeah. The yearly cycle. Was floored though. I’ll give it a better workout later. 

some weirdness about scanning AUs in both Logic and MainStage. Didn’t need to rescan in Unify, this is just what I noticed within the first minutes of trying stuff, as you say, to see what broke!

 


   
ReplyQuote
(@dolmensdude)
Eminent Member
Joined: 7 months ago
Posts: 16
 

Gave it a full run. Standalone behavior improved. No caveats. 

as a plugin, now also behaving as buffer=32 if unify window is open. Does not have to be focus window but while others had this, I didn’t but did note that if the settings window was open, cracks and pops were pronounced but would settle down if this window was open. I didn’t close it fully as was trying to find a buffer setting that would work, so found that both the buffer window and the settings window had to be closed. No idea why this dialog box would affect audio performance but it did so repeatedly. 

still think Apple has done something to improve the situation and after Shane has had the chance to take the time to incorporate a major version number change to JUCE, plus see if their most reinvent changes for workgroup priorities actually work. 

Appreciate all the efforts and am hopeful. Truly.

There’s still something for Apple to declare as their own audio apps give users to choice to go perf cores only, and then how many, yet all their documentation says you can’t do that, but assigning one’s self to a worker group at the proper level would insure that macOS would provide the requested computing resources on-time. 

pfff, that was a lot. 

this kind of code overhaul deserves a major version number update! With upgrade pricing. More than fair. Really. 


   
ReplyQuote
(@getdunne)
Illustrious Member Admin
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 4368
Topic starter  

@dolmensdude

Once again, thank you for reporting. With luck, we'll all see some nice improvements with MacOS Sonoma.

The business about needing the Unify window to be open is resolved by the new Audio Workgroups code I have been working on here. The problem is that with JUCE 6, attempts to set priority of audio worker threads silently fail and do nothing, so our threads get put onto E (efficiency) cores, and only get bumped up to P (performance) cores if the E cores get loaded up with other stuff--such as GUI event handling. Unfortunately, MacOS still sees them as low-priority and keeps bumping them back down to E cores, and this is what causes the audio glitching.

this kind of code overhaul deserves a major version number update! With upgrade pricing. More than fair. Really. 

God bless you! I'm not sure everyone would agree, and I just don't feel right about asking people to pay more just to keep the same functionality they've had all along. Especially not Windows users (who are the majority), for whom this is all moot.


   
ReplyQuote
(@tony10000)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 195
 

@getdunne

I thought that you may find this information useful:

https://www.bluecataudio.com/Blog/preview/realtime-audio-multicore-issues-for-apple-silicon-end-of-the-story/


   
ReplyQuote
(@getdunne)
Illustrious Member Admin
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 4368
Topic starter  

@tony10000

Thank you. Very interesting link. This may give people some idea of what I've been up against since 2021.


   
ReplyQuote
(@tony10000)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 195
 

@getdunne Absolutely!  The scary part is they break stuff with each new OS update!


   
ReplyQuote
(@tony10000)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 195
 

@getdunne Here is a excellent video showing Apple Silicon multicore performance on different DAW platforms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSqX4bt9to4


   
Nico5 reacted
ReplyQuote
myuusic
(@myuusic)
Active Member
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 12
 

What is the "best" workaround currently? Do we benefit by updating to Sonoma or should we stay on Ventura? I just had another project with all BBCSO instruments and I miss loading them through Unify. It was waay easier and cleaner to work with these in Unify.


   
ReplyQuote
(@getdunne)
Illustrious Member Admin
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 4368
Topic starter  

Posted by: @myuusic

What is the "best" workaround currently? Do we benefit by updating to Sonoma or should we stay on Ventura?

I can't offer any wisdom here. I'll be watching this thread with great interest to see what other Mac users say. I haven't noticed any issues in Sonoma on my own Mac Mini M1, and Unify performance (with the v1.11.1 public beta) is very good, but I don't use the Mac enough to be sure.

I just had another project with all BBCSO instruments and I miss loading them through Unify.

Did I miss something? Have the BBCSO plug-ins stopped working in Unify for you? The VST is working fine for me (Sonoma, M1 Mini).

 


   
ReplyQuote
myuusic
(@myuusic)
Active Member
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 12
 

Posted by: @getdunne

I just had another project with all BBCSO instruments and I miss loading them through Unify.

Did I miss something? Have the BBCSO plug-ins stopped working in Unify for you? The VST is working fine for me (Sonoma, M1 Mini). 

 

No no they work! My bad, I misworded it. Just the current performance of Unify makes it unusable for me due to the CPU spikes on Apple Silicon (and I don't want to use a high buffer size because of the higher latency).

 

This post was modified 3 months ago by myuusic

   
ReplyQuote
(@getdunne)
Illustrious Member Admin
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 4368
Topic starter  

Posted by: @myuusic

the current performance of Unify makes it unusable for me due to the CPU spikes on Apple Silicon

Which Mac model are you using?

Have you tried the v1.11.1 public beta: https://pluginguru.net/unify/beta-change-log.html

 


   
myuusic reacted
ReplyQuote
myuusic
(@myuusic)
Active Member
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 12
 

Posted by: @getdunne

Which Mac model are you using?

Have you tried the v1.11.1 public beta: https://pluginguru.net/unify/beta-change-log.html

Macbook Pro M1 Max on Ventura.

Oh wow this beta works surprisingly well! I don't hear any audio crackling due CPU spikes. What is this magic!
Thank you for sharing this!

 


   
getdunne reacted
ReplyQuote
(@getdunne)
Illustrious Member Admin
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 4368
Topic starter  

@myuusic

Thank you for the report. This is very good news, and I'm delighted to know that Unify is working well on your new Mac.

The "magic" is simply that the (hard-working, under-staffed, under-funded) JUCE developers finally added support for new MacOS changes that Apple warned about back in 2020. In true Apple fashion, they didn't document clearly enough, so responses were late and imperfect, but it appears real progress is finally being made.


   
Fleer and myuusic reacted
ReplyQuote
(@getdunne)
Illustrious Member Admin
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 4368
Topic starter  

I think it's time I gave everyone a detailed summary of why Unify's performance fell apart on Apple's priciest new Macs, what we and others have been doing about it, why it took so long, and why the Windows/PC world is about to struggle as well.

In short, the world of computer design is in the midst of a tectonic shift from "symmetric" to "asymmetric" multi-core architectures.

Unify was built for traditional multi-core processors, where all cores are identical; this is called Symmetric Multi-Processing (SMP). SMP works well for servers and supercomputers, but became impractical for consumer machines. This was exemplified by my 2018 Mac Mini, running a 6-core Intel Core i7, and my 2019 MacBook Pro, running an 8-core Intel Core i9, both of which quickly overheated despite fans blasting like jet engines. When I replaced both in 2020 with one of the first M1 Mac Minis, it was obvious that the writing was on the wall for Intel and that whole SMP approach.

The M-series "Apple silicon" CPUs are Asymmetric Multi-Processing (AMP) devices, with a mix of low-power, cool-running "efficiency cores" (E cores) and high-power, hotter-running "performance cores" (P cores), combined with dedicated on-chip GPU, RAM, and SSD in a super-fast "unified memory architecture". This works like magic for standard consumer apps, where the E cores are nearly always sufficient, and the most demanding programs are games and video apps that rely on the GPU. For audio, DAWs, and plug-ins, not so much.

The basic problem is that audio processing tends to be highly parallel--think of all the tracks in a typical DAW session, which are independent enough that they run most efficiently on separate CPU cores. Unify pushes that even further, by allowing multiple layers, which also run best on separate cores. There will almost always be many more parallel "threads of execution" than there are cores to run them, so the operating system must decide, from one millisecond to the next, which core to assign to each thread. This is straightforward in SMP machines, because all cores are the same, but it's a nightmare with AMP, because the OS needs to know which threads are demanding enough to require P cores, versus all the others (and in a modern system there will be thousands) for which E cores are good enough. Until v1.11, Unify had no way to supply that information, so MacOS tended to put its layers onto E cores, and only bump them up to P cores only when the E cores became saturated, by which point audio was already glitching.

The first M1 processors had four E cores and four P cores, so the problem was bad, but not awful. Later, more expensive M1 chips had only two E cores, but MacOS was still favoring them, so they'd be coughing and spluttering while the pricy and more numerous P cores sat nearly idle. We faced the embarrassing situation that our most discerning customers, who spent a lot of money on Apple's most expensive new Macs, found their performance disappointing. I could do nothing, because thread management in Unify is handled by code deep inside the wonderful JUCE framework that made it possible to write Unify without having to worry about differences between MacOS and Windows. It took the JUCE team more than a year of experimentation to devise a way to address this in a cross-platform way and release it (in what I consider a still unfinished form) this summer.

I emphasized "in a cross-platform way" just now, because the JUCE team, PlugInGuru, and every other audio company on the planet isn't even half-way through this tectonic shift. AMP designs have already begun to appear in Windows PCs, with Intel's recent "Coffee Lake" CPUs. That's bad enough, but the PC world is gradually realizing that the Intel/AMD "x86-64" CPU architecture is a dinosaur, and that Apple was right to pursue new ARM-based designs. As "Windows on ARM" begins taking over the PC world, the wailing and gnashing of teeth is going to be deafening. Buckle up, folks.


   
Fleer and myuusic reacted
ReplyQuote
(@tony10000)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 195
 

@getdunne AMP came out of the ARM big.LITTLE architecture and that has been around for quite awhile.  I think the first machine I had that used it is my ancient Samsung ARM Chromebook.

https://www.arm.com/technologies/big-little

I wanted to stay with SMP, so that is why I settled on my AMD 5700G system.  8 symmetrical power cores, low cost, high performance, and comparatively low TDP of 65W max:

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?id=4323&cpu=AMD+Ryzen+7+5700G

I think that the Apple Silicon platform will be challenging for audio devs for years to come as they migrate to more efficiency cores in place of power cores.  We are already seeing that with the M3.


   
ReplyQuote
(@getdunne)
Illustrious Member Admin
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 4368
Topic starter  

@tony10000

AMP in general is much older than ARM, but that's splitting hairs. My point is that this is the first time AMP systems have been expected to run a full range of computing loads. You likely never ran a DAW on your Samsung Chromebook; I certainly didn't on mine.

I also chose an AMD processor (Ryzen 7950x 16-core) for my PC, for exactly the same reasons. I knew the AMP shift was about to pull the rug out from under audio apps, and I needed a PC I could trust to be future-proof until the craziness died down. I agree with you that audio on Apple Silicon has entered a new era of challenges for developers.


   
Fleer reacted
ReplyQuote
(@tony10000)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 195
 

@getdunne Yeah, I agree AMP is older than ARM.  But ARM really popularized it and Apple integrated it into their architecture.  Other chip makers are now doing the same thing.  

James Zhan's tests of the M3 vs. M2 and M1 shows that Apple is going backwards in terms of audio performance:

https://youtu.be/FSqX4bt9to4?si=nOxsLNdtbiQbqlJH&t=375


   
ReplyQuote
(@getdunne)
Illustrious Member Admin
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 4368
Topic starter  

Three important issues I didn't raise in my summary are worth mentioning:

  1. Multi-threaded audio processing is fundamentally "hard real-time" computation, which ideally requires a real-time operating system (RTOS), but Windows and MacOS are not RTOSs. What Apple has done by adding Audio Workgroups to MacOS (starting with MacOS 11 Big Sur) is to add RTOS-like scheduling capabilities. It took the JUCE team over a year to get around to supporting this, in part because Apple's documentation was weak and late.
  2. Computers used to be cheap, relatively speaking, but lately they are becoming big-ticket items again. People who spend big bucks for a fancy new Mac or PC are going to be extremely unhappy if its performance doesn't meet their expectations, in part because swapping it for something else is just too costly. (And how are they to know what to buy anyway?) This makes it imperative that we adjust Unify to these new architectures quickly.
  3. Unfortunately, our customers are going to be spread across a broad range of older and newer machines for years yet, and this will prove very challenging for smaller companies like us. I had a rude awakening when, after spending several weeks getting Unify updated to the bleeding-edge JUCE 7 develop branch, I found through the public beta program that we had lost compatibility with older PCs (Windows 7) and older Macs running anything older than MacOS 13 Ventura (which only came out last summer). I am now quite literally digging out older computers and setting them up to build older versions of Unify, updated with some of the latest changes. This burns through time (and my sanity) very quickly.

   
Fleer and Nico5 reacted
ReplyQuote
(@tony10000)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 195
 

@getdunne Actually, the machine I got was cheap and stock except for a memory upgrade to 32GB.  It is now down to $600!  That is why I am still a PC guy:

https://www.microcenter.com/product/647427/powerspec-b734-desktop-computer  


   
ReplyQuote
(@bengteh)
Active Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 3
 

@getdunne Just wanted to comment regarding the latest beta version. I'm on Mac M1 max, with 64GB ram. OS Monterey 12.7.1 I use Mainstage 3.6.4 live and Protools in my studio. I downloaded the version today and so far this seems like a massive improvement to me. I am an avid user of Unify, especially live. Thanks so much for all the hard work on this!


   
getdunne and Fleer reacted
ReplyQuote
(@fleer)
Eminent Member
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 28
 

Posted by: @bengteh

@getdunne Just wanted to comment regarding the latest beta version. I'm on Mac M1 max, with 64GB ram. OS Monterey 12.7.1 I use Mainstage 3.6.4 live and Protools in my studio. I downloaded the version today and so far this seems like a massive improvement to me. I am an avid user of Unify, especially live. Thanks so much for all the hard work on this!

Seconding this with the very same configuration (except for ProTools). 
Still not upgrading to Ventura, or Sonoma for that matter, as I’m comfortable with how most plugins fare in Monterey.
Running the latest MegaMagic v4 (and Magic Motion) all fine.
Amazing work, Dr. Dunne, kudos indeed. 

 

 


   
getdunne reacted
ReplyQuote
(@fleer)
Eminent Member
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 28
 

So, what will JUCE 8 bring to the table?


   
ReplyQuote
(@getdunne)
Illustrious Member Admin
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 4368
Topic starter  

Posted by: @fleer

So, what will JUCE 8 bring to the table?

I have no idea, and I have learned the hard way about wishing for improvements in JUCE. They kept their Audio Workgroups implementation (what made the difference for Unify 1.11 on MacOS Ventura and advanced M-series CPUs) entirely in-house (unavailable to any developers) for over a year, and when it finally did appear on their develop (unstable) branch, it had fatal flaws, so I had to wait even longer.

The JUCE team is tiny and under-funded, but I have tremendous respect for what they manage to do. I may think I have a lot of grief over compatibility, but I simply can't imagine the responsibility they shoulder.

 


   
ReplyQuote
(@northwood)
Active Member
Joined: 4 weeks ago
Posts: 4
 

Hello all....  first post on the forum.  I am really excited about purchasing Unify and some libraries, however, after this long read, I am not certain of the prospective reliability on my hardware. (Given that this is an older thread now).  I have the M1 MacBookPro Max and as such my question is have the clicks and pops been eliminated in native mode, and also, how is it behaving in Sonoma, I am still on Ventura at this point.  Thanks


   
ReplyQuote
(@getdunne)
Illustrious Member Admin
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 4368
Topic starter  

@northwood

Definitely get the v1.11.1 beta for your M1 Max machine. I hope to have the final v1.11.1 (non-beta) version out very soon, but this will be little different from the current beta.

I have Unify v1.11.1 running fine here on MacOS Sonoma, and previously it ran fine on Ventura also. I'm not aware of any issues; all of the feedback from Apple Silicon Mac users running the latest beta has been very good.


   
ReplyQuote
(@northwood)
Active Member
Joined: 4 weeks ago
Posts: 4
 

Thanks... just paid my way into the Unify landscape... sounds great so far.

Cheers


   
getdunne reacted
ReplyQuote
(@northwood)
Active Member
Joined: 4 weeks ago
Posts: 4
 

So after some initial playing, I am finding the more complex layered patches indeed spike...  I started pushing things to their limit.  So, just installed the beta and still see some spiking on my craziest patches, (all Unify) but it appears to be quite a bit better.  Will be testing some more when time permits, today was a 5 minute tire kick.  Great work on this software, I appreciate the arduous effort expended this far.  Was an IT Manager for 20 years, I can feel your pain!  lol

 

p.s. using Cubase 13 Pro, also Reaper 7.1.1, on a 16 inch M1 MB Pro Max with ten cores (eight performance cores and 2 efficiency cores), a 32-core GPU, a 16-core Neural Engine, 32 GB of onboard RAM, 2TB ssd.   Still on Ventura.

This post was modified 1 week ago 2 times by Northwood

   
getdunne reacted
ReplyQuote
(@fleer)
Eminent Member
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 28
 

Same configuration here (M1Max 64GB RAM 4TB ssd) and the beta is indeed pretty pretty good. Makes me pretty sure the next full update will be too. 


   
ReplyQuote
Page 3 / 3
Share: