Woah! It seems like some software optimization needs to happen on Apple's end to get the proper performance out of those GPUs.
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.
Mac Studio Power Consumption
- Thread starter Miguel Cunha
- Start date
-
- Tags
- consumption mac power studio
- Sort by reaction score
Running Cinebench on the CPU plus 3DMark on the GPU doesn't utilise the full GPU. It's power limited, simply that the CPU becomes the bottleneck in 3DMark due to being busy with Cinebench.
This is the main reason I'm so thrilled with my (not so new anymore) M1 iMac as opposed to my old iMac Pro! The power savings of the new apple silicon machines are huge!
That 370 W figure is the capacity of the power supply, which is probably why Apple lists a 370 W max continuous power requirement for its electrical and operating requirements (perhaps it's a safety requirement that the former doesn't exceed the latter):
But the actual maximum wall-socket power consumption is well under that (it's probably good engineering to not have your continuous power consumption go right to the capacity of your power supply).
According to Apple, the max (wall socket) power consumption for the Mac Studio Ultra with a 48-core GPU is 215 W; for a Mac Studio Max (32-core GPU) it's 115 W (which is the question to which you wanted an answer). Based on this the extra 16 GPU cores on a 64-core GPU Ultra should add less than 40 - 50 W, so let's say ~260 W max for the 64-core GPU Ultra [Source: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT213100]
Last edited:
The GPU power draw could have little to do with iTunes and Mail, and instead be from running your two Dell U2715h’s. To test this, you could try unplugging one and seeing what happens.They are just crazy 'low' figures......
Just looked at iStat menus..just my gpu is using 64w, with just iTunes and Mail running.
I know running my external monitors is one of the big power drains on my MBP (though I'm running three of them, including a 4k). I say that because when my MBP starts to overheat and throttle, one solution is to unplug them (using only the MBP's internal display) unti the temps go down.
Mac Studio power consumption and thermal output (BTU) information – Apple Support (UK)
Find out about the power consumption and thermal output of Mac Studio computers.
Mac Studio (2022)
M1 Ultra 20-Core CPU & 48-Core GPU, 64 GB unified memory, 1 TB SSD
- 215W
Mac Studio (2022)
M1 Max 10-Core CPU & 32-Core GPU, 32 GB unified memory, 2 TB SSD
- 115W
I think the 370W is the PSU's max output assuming all I/O ports are charging/powering a device.
Without those I/O ports then it drops nearing 215W and 115W respectively.
Edit: Looking at Page 2 I see someone answered your question.
I was looking for the actual power consumption of a M1 Ultra as I was hoping that M2 Ultra would come to the MBP 16" with a 240W USB PD charger.
Last edited:
Someone did do a wall socket reading when the Mac Studio Ultra droped last year. He pushed both CPU and GPU to the max running Blender, without any bus powered peripherals, and only had like a single display; I believe his meter never exceeded 140W.
The PSU with 370W is never going to operate at 100% with no loss, it is typical to give like 30% headroom and then some.
That said even if a USB PD3.1 48V5A profile is possible on a laptop, I don’t see Apple putting the Ultra in a laptop due to cooling.
The PSU with 370W is never going to operate at 100% with no loss, it is typical to give like 30% headroom and then some.
That said even if a USB PD3.1 48V5A profile is possible on a laptop, I don’t see Apple putting the Ultra in a laptop due to cooling.
We all need to wait some more time until we can buy the MacBook Pro (16", maybe 18") with M2 ULTRA.Mac Studio power consumption and thermal output (BTU) information – Apple Support (UK)
Find out about the power consumption and thermal output of Mac Studio computers.support.apple.com
Mac Studio (2022)
M1 Ultra 20-Core CPU & 48-Core GPU, 64 GB unified memory, 1 TB SSD
- 215W
Mac Studio (2022)
M1 Max 10-Core CPU & 32-Core GPU, 32 GB unified memory, 2 TB SSD
- 115W
I think the 370W is the PSU's max output assuming all I/O ports are charging/powering a device.
Without those I/O ports then it drops nearing 215W and 115W respectively.
Edit: Looking at Page 2 I see someone answered your question.
I was looking for the actual power consumption of a M1 Ultra as I was hoping that M2 Ultra would come to the MBP 16" with a 240W USB PD charger.
Apple had to put up with 6 years of Intel's 14nm chips known for short battery life and hot laptops.
I cannot see Apple saying no to something with a ~11 hour battery life and less hot laptop that would show off ~140W part powered by a 240W charger.
Intel's 24-core laptop chip powered by a 330W charger causes this.
Nice update!Mac Studio power consumption and thermal output (BTU) information – Apple Support (UK)
Find out about the power consumption and thermal output of Mac Studio computers.
Mac Studio (2022)
M1 Ultra 20-Core CPU & 48-Core GPU, 64 GB unified memory, 1 TB SSD
- 215W
Mac Studio (2022)
M1 Max 10-Core CPU & 32-Core GPU, 32 GB unified memory, 2 TB SSD
- 115W
I think the 370W is the PSU's max output assuming all I/O ports are charging/powering a device.
Without those I/O ports then it drops nearing 215W and 115W respectively.
Edit: Looking at Page 2 I see someone answered your question.
I was looking for the actual power consumption of a M1 Ultra as I was hoping that M2 Ultra would come to the MBP 16" with a 240W USB PD charger.
Thanks!
I am thinking a more sensible alternative is to improve the IPC efficiency of the SoC, say the M3 will get 3nm as expected, then we can see significant efficiency improvements in M3 Max, and that's without Apple sharpening its overall design and/or core layout. So we will get a pretty meaningful performance already within the same thermal envelop of the 16" chassis. The 16" is already very close to the previous 17" MBPs, it is very hard to imagine Apple creating anything bigger since it will just be unwieldy to still qualify as a laptop (AKA gaming "laptops"). And without beefing up the chassis like that it just will be hard to lose all the heat without the TDP budget, even if the power supply can support >100W continuously. There's also the 100Wh battery limit in mind, again Apple is not likely to sacrifice battery life on their laptops.
Based on Apple's prevailing product refresh cycle the 1st 3nm M3 will be out 11 months from now by January 2024.
3nm M3 Max will then be released by end of that year. This assumes Apple holds to their M1 to M2 product refresh timeline.
This will leave Intel unchallenged for nearly 2 years with the only 24-core laptop chip that requires a 330W charger. Apple will release their M2 Ultra 24-core laptop chip as late as this June for the 2023 Mac Studio that will consume ~140W and use a 240W charger. Apple wins in performance per watt, power consumption, battery life and even raw performance.
I'm not proposing Apple make a MBP 17" or 18" to accommodate the thermals of a 5nm M2 Ultra. Many do not understand why the Mac Studio has such a beefy HSF. It is because of the requirement that all Mac desktops be silent PCs. The M2 Max/Ultra could actually be placed into Mac mini but it will be loud like a typical PC.
If the 2019 MBP 16" Core i9 14nm that has an enclosure that was lesser than the year 2022 model was acceptable to buyers then what more a M2 Ultra SKU in a more thermally thought out design that runs less hot today?
MBP 16" M2 Max 5nm is rated for up to 22 hours battery. Seeming a M2 Ultra are two M2 Max dies then would up to 11 hours battery good enough at a worst case scenario?
If 2014-2019 MBP 15"/16" Core i7/i9 sold well even when they throttled and had less than 11 hours battery then why not a 2023 MBP 16" M2 Ultra 24-core that will showcase Apple Silicon tech?
People buying into this possibly $5.5k laptop will accept its shortcomings as they know what they are buying into.
Mobile workstations are known to be built thick and heavy and run hot and short. By comparison a 2023 MBP 16" M2 Ultra will run longer and cooler relative to it without the weight or bulk.
PC people accept these limitations but any improvement is an improvement even if it is the best crud.
Only reason this will not occur is if the yield of M2 Ultra chips are insufficient enough to support both the Mac Studio & MBP 16".
Last edited:
On my M1 Ultra Xcode is the app that can max all CPUs during compilation. I end up with about 105W. Cemu pushed graphics at around 95W. It idles with some apps loaded at around 20W or less. Sleep is around 2W.
My cMPRO sleeps with about 20W and tends to run at 325W during use.
Overall, a high-end cMPRO runs at about 1/3 the speed of a high-end M1 Ultra. Not really bad for a machine that is 10 years plus old. Power consumption is about 10x overall.
My cMPRO sleeps with about 20W and tends to run at 325W during use.
Overall, a high-end cMPRO runs at about 1/3 the speed of a high-end M1 Ultra. Not really bad for a machine that is 10 years plus old. Power consumption is about 10x overall.
Wish people called it 2006-2012 Mac Pro so people like me would understand quickly.
