But with a desktop, power efficiency is not really important since you are always plugged in and the Studio Ultra has a very impressive cooling system with plenty of headroom.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is “Max” Mac Studio the worst option?
- Thread starter cocoua
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But with a desktop, power efficiency is not really important since you are always plugged in and the Studio Ultra has a very impressive cooling system with plenty of headroom.
Power efficiency is important pretty much all the time in this day and age. If you look google for "M2 Ultra thermal throttling" there are plenty of examples. Everything is a balancing act / tradeoff, but I don't see how literally zero e-cores makes any sense from what we know today. Just on the basis of computers spending most of their time idling, you'd want at LEAST two.
Maybe the ratio of P to E will just be moved toward P cores on the Ultra? And maybe the Ultra could be clocked slightly higher too to really see some gains.
I always find the 2 to 8 ratio of E-Cores to P-Cores on the M1 Max Studio to be good. M1 Ultra getting 4 to 16 is the same ratio but 4 already feels excessive.
On the M2 Max and M2 Ultra there are 4 to 8 and then 8 to 16 which is where it starts looking like it needs adjustment. 8 E-Cores has no business being in a semi-workstation class machine, you probably only need 2-4 if not just 1 of them when you are not pushing the performance envelope.
On the M2 Max and M2 Ultra there are 4 to 8 and then 8 to 16 which is where it starts looking like it needs adjustment. 8 E-Cores has no business being in a semi-workstation class machine, you probably only need 2-4 if not just 1 of them when you are not pushing the performance envelope.
For low-stress workloads, you could have the active performance cores clock themselves down and the inactive cores be at idle to minimize the thermal envelope.
If Apple adds efficiency cores to the M3 ULTRA, then they would use one four-core cluster (as found on the M3 and M3 MAX).
I have not seen the die shots, but presuming the performance cores are arranged in six-core clusters (one for the M3 PRO and two for the M3 MAX), I would expect Apple to offer a four and six cluster option, allowing for 24 or 36 pCores. And the "M3 EXTREME", if it exists, could offer eight or more clusters (for 48+ pCores).
NO. It's about the performance that each individual CHOOSE to have for their own personal convenience to do whatever they need to do on their Mac Studio!!! I have the M2 Max Mac Studio since August 2024 and have no issues with its performance at all. If I wanted better, then I would have chosen the M2 Ultra or Mac Pro, especially that I came from using a Mac Pro in the first place. Just like when you go out and buy a car, are you going to get what you can for the best financial performance for your bucks or the worst?
+1. I’m assuming that if Apple decides to go with zero E cores on the next gen Ultra, then they will have a way to keep it from Throttling (especially in the Studio). If this is the case and someone wants the extra power and gives little or no weight to efficiency then go for the Ultra. It’s up to the individual.
If this is true, it will be very disapointing that the Mac Studio M4 is released a whole year after iPad M4, when people is buying M5...
www.macrumors.com
Many apps depend on single core, and buying a M3 6000USD screen/battery/keyboard-less machine this June, slower than an iPad in some task would be like the old Intel days where you should sacrifice cores per single core performance.
The alleged advantage you would get paying such a high price wouldnt match your real advantage in the market.
To be clear, buying a Mac Studio M2 today has no sense at all (unless obviously, you get a >20% discount or you really really need it for work). But for one just thinking in updating systems, the Mac Studio only has sense buying in at it release date (before next Macbook Pro MPro/Max would be release 6 months later to match price and performance)
The real thing here would be to release the Ultra the first one. The MSMax together with the ultra would be too beautiful to be true, and Apple wouldnt do that never as it would cannibalize MBP16" sales., But the Ultra is too far from the general public and is the Mac's flagship model. It belong to be the first.
M4 Macs Are Expected to Launch in This Order Starting Later This Year
Bloomberg's Mark Gurman recently reported that the first Macs with M4 series chips will be released later this year, with more models to follow...
www.macrumors.com
Many apps depend on single core, and buying a M3 6000USD screen/battery/keyboard-less machine this June, slower than an iPad in some task would be like the old Intel days where you should sacrifice cores per single core performance.
The alleged advantage you would get paying such a high price wouldnt match your real advantage in the market.
To be clear, buying a Mac Studio M2 today has no sense at all (unless obviously, you get a >20% discount or you really really need it for work). But for one just thinking in updating systems, the Mac Studio only has sense buying in at it release date (before next Macbook Pro MPro/Max would be release 6 months later to match price and performance)
The real thing here would be to release the Ultra the first one. The MSMax together with the ultra would be too beautiful to be true, and Apple wouldnt do that never as it would cannibalize MBP16" sales., But the Ultra is too far from the general public and is the Mac's flagship model. It belong to be the first.
Last edited:
yeah, the 8 E-cores totally feels as a design flaw waiting to be fixed, lets see this June what they have for us
Apple silicon probably has the most linear price point of any processor out there. For example, the Studio comes in the following:
Apple M2 Max chip $1999
It costs $1k to bump up the Ultra to a 72 core GPU, while it only costs $200 to bump the Max to a 38 core GPU. Yes it's half the cores than the Ultra, but it only costs 20% more. Moreover, if you made that bump on the M1, you would also get the 32GB RAM bump for free (up from 16GB).
If money is not an issue, then obviously you want the beefiest machine. But if you are looking at balancing cost to performance, the Max is the clear winner.
Also note that doubling the cores does not produce a linear 2x gain. There is always overhead. Just like the 2013 Mac Pro that had two GPUs, which didn't give users double the graphics performance (I think real world tended to be around 1.4x). And a point of interest, the base 2013 Mac Pro was an insane cash grab given how much money it cost and could barely do more than the latest iMac at the time. You had to pony up an additional $1k to get a worthwhile processor. They "fixed" that with Apple silicon so to speak.
Apple M2 Max chip $1999
- 12-core CPU with 8 performance cores and 4 efficiency cores
- 30-core GPU
- 16-core Neural Engine
- 400GB/s memory bandwidth
- 24-core CPU with 16 performance cores and 8 efficiency cores
- 60-core GPU
- 32-core Neural Engine
- 800GB/s memory bandwidth
It costs $1k to bump up the Ultra to a 72 core GPU, while it only costs $200 to bump the Max to a 38 core GPU. Yes it's half the cores than the Ultra, but it only costs 20% more. Moreover, if you made that bump on the M1, you would also get the 32GB RAM bump for free (up from 16GB).
If money is not an issue, then obviously you want the beefiest machine. But if you are looking at balancing cost to performance, the Max is the clear winner.
Also note that doubling the cores does not produce a linear 2x gain. There is always overhead. Just like the 2013 Mac Pro that had two GPUs, which didn't give users double the graphics performance (I think real world tended to be around 1.4x). And a point of interest, the base 2013 Mac Pro was an insane cash grab given how much money it cost and could barely do more than the latest iMac at the time. You had to pony up an additional $1k to get a worthwhile processor. They "fixed" that with Apple silicon so to speak.
I understand that this is the cycle of products, the ultra comes later so the Mac Studio Max also comes later
Thats precisely why it looks to me that the MSMax is the device with the worst performance per money available at Apple.
MBP Max is 1k more, but it arrives 6 months earlier ( a lot for a 12 months cycle), it comes with battery and a retina screen (not so easy to find a screen so good, thought only 16”)
So releasing a Mac Studio Max together with the Ultra looks a good movement for Apple in order to encourage people to go for the Ultra, since with the Max you wont get anything new you couldnt in the lastest 6 months. And as Max is 6 months older, Apple also gets more for the price, client less for the price.
That might be somewhat true if people are buying new at full price.
I bought an Apple refurb M2 Max (38 core GPU, 64 GB memory, 2 TB storage) for around $2700.
Apple's increase prices somewhat for each generation so the next generation will always be more cost effective than the previous generation (i.e. people can wait on a purchase forever if they are only looking at price vs performance vs upcoming tech).
I got the M2 Max because I wasn't going to wait and I had no interest in buying Apple laptops. I bought my last Apple laptop in 2017, the battery died (wear item) and Apple could not source a replacement battery.
I am split currently on a refurb Mac Studio base or MacBook Pro 16” M3 Pro, I have a MB Pro laptop from 2010 that still works, it has had the board changed though at least once, but its battery is knackered, I never bothered replacing it though but I know if I wan to I can as it’s easy to do. My worry with MacBooks now is the battery’s are glued in, and not meant to be replaced by the end user. So if it did die in 4 or 5 years what do you do? Really split on the decision as I want the computer to last me for ages.
I am not going to buy a M3 Max MacBook as I’m not spending a grand plus more then the Studio for the privilege.
I have a 2012 retina 15” that was my main computer until 2022, replaced battery twice woth the warranty (bad batteries for that model) and one by myseflf even being glued. The latest 4 years battert was dead but pluged was perfect (as a desktop easy to carry with screen and keyboad/mouse oncluded)
Now this is even better as desktop and laptop performance is similar, in intel days you should sacrify perfromance over portability.
So i’d go for the MBP if you dont intend overnight renders
I am leaning more towards a laptop, for my use it’s general stuff, I want to setup an eBay trading business to get some extra income but anything can do that. And I want to play some older games from my Steam account, I think the most stressful one I have is Diablo 4 but that seems to run ok Apples silicon fine, I’m not going to buy anymore or newer titles on Steam otherwise as I have consoles for that task. Think I’ll go for the MacBook, I want to run my eBay thing whilst doing my day job so with my setup, a laptop makes more sense next to my monitor I use for the day job. Plus my last MacBook Pro has served me incredibly well.
This is not the case with the Apple Silicon MacBook Pros. The batteries use stretch release adhesive strips that secure the battery to the frame so they are designed to be removed easily.
Step 24: https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Macbook+Pro+14-Inch+2023+Battery+Replacement/159645
I believe batteries are covered under Apple's Self Service Repair program.
My 2017 MacBook Pro battery died and I found numerous 3rd party battery replacements but I couldn't find anyone, including Apple, that would replace it (Apple stopped supplying replacement batteries for it long ago).
I have some experience with electronics but it was still a nightmare to try to replace the battery myself.
Using a battery replacement kit you can buy, the adhesive holding the battery was actually one of the easiest parts.
The difficult parts were generally the size of the torx screws (really tiny) and the fact that everything had to mate perfectly in order to have a shot of getting it back together with all the screws.
I ended up ripping off a speaker connector (only one speaker now) and destroying the new battery's mylar connector on the final step of putting in the replacement. The laptop runs but it is down a speaker, has no battery, and is missing a bunch of screws.
I'm sure that there are many people who successfully replaced their battery but it only takes one mistake (in a many step procedure) to destroy your laptop.
You can buy the batteries from Apple until Apple decides not to source them anymore.
When my 2017 MacBook pro was declared vintage (5 - 7 years from when it was last sold), Apple no longer supplied the battery for it.
I can foresee a lot of unhappy M1 MacBook owners in a few years unless Apple changes its policy and continues to supply batteries when the M1 MacBook is declared vintage.
Someone has said the Apple silicon MacBooks have those pull tab tape things, so with any luck it may be a little easier to replace the battery? I can take things apart easy enough. But if it’s like your computer it does sound like a nightmare. But a M3 Mac is tempting, especially if they release an M4 model soon. It could make the Max 14” model in my budget, but if an M4 Studio is released next week that’s gonna be extremely tempting. I can afford a M2 Max Studio now but the M3 seems like quite an upgrade.
The battery replacement kit I bought had solvent and it loosened the glue without trouble (took about 25 minutes) but the pull tape sounds like a much better idea.
The problem is that you had to almost totally disassemble the MacBook in order to get at the battery. Some of the torx screws also looked like about 1 mm in size and were impossible for me to work with. Likewise, a bunch of the connectors were very delicate surface mount connectors and some of the cables were attached with adhesive (making it easy to destroy the connectors when removing the cables).
Unless Apple greatly changed the internal design of the M1 MacBook, it probably could still be a nightmare on replacing the battery even if it comes with pull tab tape.
I like Apple laptops but I will never get one again because of the battery.
I'm doubtful that Apple will release an M3 Studio this year but I think that there is a good chance that Apple releases an M4 Studio in 2025. In any case, it's doubtful that the Studio will be updated until the next Mac Pro iteration.
I think we will still see an M4 Studio this year, if we do I’ll be buying that anyway.
I agree, an M4 Studio sooner rather than later makes a lot of sense.
Meh I’ve changed my mind, I’ll stick with the Studio as I’ve just seen the M2 Max can run Diablo 4 fine, just a bit if a faff to get it working. I‘ll keep saving my pennies and then if an M4 comes out great, if not then I’ll grab a refurb M2 once the right spec comes up, which for me is really a 1TB model, the bumped up Max chip would be nice but not essential. I’ll then upgrade my iPad Pro next.
I just can’t help think Apples laptops are so expensive. With it yes sure, but very expensive. The Studio seems much better value to me as I have a monitor anyway for work. And I can upgrade that to an OLED whenever I like.
I just can’t help think Apples laptops are so expensive. With it yes sure, but very expensive. The Studio seems much better value to me as I have a monitor anyway for work. And I can upgrade that to an OLED whenever I like.
And just to reflect on things, the M1 Studio was released mid 2022! Apple has been moving at a rabbit's pace kicking out new processors. So temporally speaking, even the M1 is very nearly bleeding edge!
I own the M1 Max and even with the 5K display, it's a beast. Naturally I'd get more FPS with an M3/4 but they are pricey machines. No rush in dumping it just yet. I'd say waiting till 2026 when they'll likely reveal the M6/7 isn't really a bad decision either.