They're going to have a hard time selling leftover M2 Ultra Studios (even now, and especially once the M3 versions come out). The only performance advantage over the M3 Max is that the 76 core GPU is significantly faster than the 40 core in the full-throttle M3 Max (the 60 core is only marginally faster, but the 76 core is significant). Two of the three RAM options are the same (there's another advantage for the M2 Ultra if you need 192 GB - but a lot of users who want 192 GB will also want the M3 Ultra).
Yes, the $1999 M3 Max Mac Studio will use the binned CPU, and the full-throttle version will be around $2499-$2699, depending on what upgrades it comes with - but it'll be awfully darned close to a $4999 machine in performance. I wouldn't pay much more for an M2 Ultra than for a comparably specced M3 Max - you get about about 30% extra GPU performance (with the 76-core) and turn two USB ports on the front into Thunderbolt, but you pay for it with double the power consumption and double the (modest in any case) room heating. The 76-core M2 Ultra will have to take a two thousand-dollar plus price cut to be attractive - it's a $500 upgrade at most over a M3 Max... Leftover 60-core M2 Ultras will probably have to sell BELOW the price of a full-throttle M3 Max.
The M3 Ultra will, of course, be a beast. - especially the full-throttle version. There is a problem, though - rapidly multiplying Mac Studio SKUs. Since there are two significantly different M3 Max chips (not a simple difference in GPU cores only like the M1 and M2, but also memory capacity, memory bandwidth and CPU P-cores). Perhaps the most telling example of this problem is the memory configurations (the M3 Max memory configurations are confusing enough, and the Studio will double it). If Apple follows their usual practice, one model or another will have RAM configurations of 36, 48, 64, 72, 96 (2x), 128 (2x), 192 and 256 gigabytes. All except 96 and 128 GB will be reachable only with a single processor choice, and even those options can only be reached on two of four choices.
One possible simplification would be to offer only two (or maybe three) CPU choices. Binned M3 Max is essential, because it offers the entry level price point (unless they can get the binned M3 Max into a Mac Mini). I could see them getting the binned M3 Max into a Mini, and moving up the price on the entry level Studio (the Studio's extra ports, card reader and 10 Gb Ethernet only come with a more expensive CPU), but I can't see them jumping from the M3 Pro Mini to a full-throttle M3 Max Studio that will come in over $2500. They have to have a $2000 desktop using the binned M3 Max, especially given the repositioning of the M3 Pro (an M3 Pro Mini is a less viable replacement for an M3 Max Studio than in the last generation), but it could be a Mac Mini if the thermals fit?
The other essential configuration is probably full-throttle M3 Ultra. There are users in the creative arts and in science (among other fields), who need the very best, and will pay for it. There are also people who will buy it for the Ultimate Safari Experience, where any MacBook Air with 16 GB of RAM would have worked just fine, but they want the Best - they also drive S-class Mercedes to the grocery store.
Do they need a full-throttle M3 Max configuration (if the binned model is a Mac Studio rather than a Mini)? Do they need a binned M3 Ultra (unless the chips are lying around because of yields)? They certainly need a Mac Studio less expensive than the big one, and just a Mini won't do, even if they get the M3 Max into the Mini chassis. The full-throttle M3 Max is probably more appealing than the binned M3 Ultra, assuming that the price difference is significant. If yields mean that the binned M3 Ultra could be similarly priced, then it is the more appealing of the two.
