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 Speculation [Merged]
- Thread starter darkus
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Unfortunately, I personally wouldn't buy any Mac Studio right now, because the performance difference between the M2 Max and M3 Max is so great. For almost any Mac Studio-type workload, the M3 Max is at least closely approaching the M2 ULTRA (90%+ in CPU, 70% or so in GPU)...
On the one hand, this is disappointing for Mac Studio customers - there is no desktop Mac in our world to buy right now. The iMac has just been updated, but no new, more creative-oriented model, just the "iPad on a stick" for home and light business use. The Mac Mini is a reasonable buy, far better than either the iMac or the Studio (because the difference between an M2 Pro and an M3 Pro is FAR less than the difference between an M2 Max and an M3 Max - it even occasionally favors the M2 Pro), but it's not a super-fast machine with a ton of RAM capacity, either.
There are two pieces of good news. One is that the M3-generation Studio is likely to be a Beast (affordable access to the very quick M3 Max at the low end, VERY high end performance at the top). The second is that I am quite sure Gurman's wrong. Apple is unlikely to tolerate a MacBook Pro being as fast as the top Studio for a year - this is an artifact of the timing of the M3 generation, but I'd expect the Studio at WWDC at the latest.
On the one hand, this is disappointing for Mac Studio customers - there is no desktop Mac in our world to buy right now. The iMac has just been updated, but no new, more creative-oriented model, just the "iPad on a stick" for home and light business use. The Mac Mini is a reasonable buy, far better than either the iMac or the Studio (because the difference between an M2 Pro and an M3 Pro is FAR less than the difference between an M2 Max and an M3 Max - it even occasionally favors the M2 Pro), but it's not a super-fast machine with a ton of RAM capacity, either.
There are two pieces of good news. One is that the M3-generation Studio is likely to be a Beast (affordable access to the very quick M3 Max at the low end, VERY high end performance at the top). The second is that I am quite sure Gurman's wrong. Apple is unlikely to tolerate a MacBook Pro being as fast as the top Studio for a year - this is an artifact of the timing of the M3 generation, but I'd expect the Studio at WWDC at the latest.
Gurman, as per usual, is guessing, and nothing more. The M3-gen Mini, Mac Studio and Mac Pro will be following as soon as Apple can get them out. They know damn well anyone who knows they're coming and wants one will wait for it rather than buying an M2…
(Waiting for an M3 Studio…).
(Waiting for an M3 Studio…).
Then there was that, from November. It made me hopeful that it foretold an early 2024 release but if it is a form-factor redesign, then much later would be understandable. Maybe they are coming out with the Mac Pro smaller case we've seen pictures of long ago. An Ultra base model with two pci-e slots.
"The M6 is just a few years-away..."
There's always something better, just-around the corner . . . I am not, however, content with chasing that dragon
urhm . . . YMMV, but I'm very happy with the M2-Max Mac Studio I purchased from apple dot com last month . . . it truly is a beast.
There's always something better, just-around the corner . . . I am not, however, content with chasing that dragon
urhm . . . YMMV, but I'm very happy with the M2-Max Mac Studio I purchased from apple dot com last month . . . it truly is a beast.
Need the M3 Ultra for hardware ray tracing and dynamic cache. Big upgrades on the GPU. 32 core CPU, 80 core GPU and up to 256 GB memory will make for a great Creative Cloud, audio production, Blender and Unreal Engine machine.
M3 ultra rumors.
www.macworld.com
How the M3 Ultra could bring the most significant Mac shift in years
If the M3 Max is any indication, the M3 Ultra will be a beast.
www.macworld.com
I hope it comes sooner. NAB 2024 would be nice.M3 ultra rumors.
How the M3 Ultra could bring the most significant Mac shift in years
If the M3 Max is any indication, the M3 Ultra will be a beast.
Yeah, but Apple hasn't been at NAB since 2011.
I’m worried there's not even going to be an announcement at WWDC.
Last edited:
...or just for checking Macrumors, Reddit, and your email a few microseconds faster
Those microseconds add up! Think of all the miniseconds saved…...or just for checking Macrumors, Reddit, and your email a few microseconds faster
“Mac desktops need a serious boost.”
www.digitaltrends.com
What will the M3 Mac Studio look like? | Digital Trends
Apple's Mac Studio is its most attractive and accessible desktop PC, offering tremendous power in a refined package. What will Apple do to keep it on top?
www.digitaltrends.com
Yeah, thats right. Having M3 Max in a laptop and then not in a desktop is a bit weird. The more time passes the more awkward it will be when M4 gets out. They really need to start doing these updates a bit more together. Maybe October one dump and then March/April the rest. Right now M2 Studio is pretty much DOA as the MBP overtakes it in most tasks.
“Mac desktops need a serious boost.”
What will the M3 Mac Studio look like? | Digital Trends
Apple's Mac Studio is its most attractive and accessible desktop PC, offering tremendous power in a refined package. What will Apple do to keep it on top?
“Mac desktops need a serious boost.”
What will the M3 Mac Studio look like? | Digital Trends
Apple's Mac Studio is its most attractive and accessible desktop PC, offering tremendous power in a refined package. What will Apple do to keep it on top?
Interesting bit of conjecture (no evidence provided) suggesting the current M3 Max has no Ultra-Fusion bridge.
If true, the stars might be aligning for the final step in Apple’s transition / full lineup of M chips. Something like this . . .
M
M-Pro
M-Max (Laptop Variant) sans Ultra-Fusion
M-Max (Desktop Variant) with x4 capable Ultra-Fusion
Wishful thinking?
Maybe, just maybe, the laptop variant is N3B without the fusion and then Desktop will be N3E with the fusion. That is possible explanation why the release was all in one go back in October.
Very interesting, and would make a lot of sense. No need for an interposer on a laptop. It takes a 16" chassis to adequately cool ONE of those chips - an Ultra laptop would look like a 2" thick Alienware gaming monster, and have the battery life of one, too.
If you add a second interposer to the desktop chip, the Mac Pro chassis suddenly makes sense. It alone has the space, cooling and power to handle a 4-way interposer.
You then have:
M(N) - iPads, MacBook Airs, low-end MBP, Mini and iMac. Performs like a decent midrange PC. ($800-$1500).
M(N) Pro - High-end Mini, midrange MBP, new midrange iMac?. Performs like a performance-oriented business PC or a high-end laptop. ($1200-$2500).
M(N) Max - High-end MBP, low-end Mac Studio, new high-end iMac?. Fastest laptop in the world, performs like a top-end desktop PC or entry-level desktop workstation. ($2000-$7000).
M(N) Ultra (2x Max) - High-end Mac Studio, iMac Pro????, low-end Mac Pro? Performs like a powerful desktop workstation (midrange to upper-end Threadripper or Xeon). ($4000-$15000).
M(N) Extreme (4x Max) - Mac Pro only. Performs like a VERY high-end desktop workstation. May outperform any single Threadripper or Xeon. ($12000-$35000).
That's quite a line.
For my day job I am running a 2019 Mac Pro somewhat loaded.
Also an M1 Pro 10core for mobile use which is being replaced by new M3 MAX.
We just received the Studio M2 Ultra and I haven't had a chance to fire it up.
My question is, what is coming down the pipe in the near future.
I want one for home freelance use and still sitting on a 2013 tube.
I can wait but would like to plan now.
Also an M1 Pro 10core for mobile use which is being replaced by new M3 MAX.
We just received the Studio M2 Ultra and I haven't had a chance to fire it up.
My question is, what is coming down the pipe in the near future.
I want one for home freelance use and still sitting on a 2013 tube.
I can wait but would like to plan now.
What we need is:
;^p
- Mac Cube Pro
- M3 Extreme SoC
- 64-core CPU (48P/16E)
- 160-core GPU
- 64-core Neural Engine
- 1TB LPDDR5X RAM (16 @ 64GB chips)
- 2TB/s UMA bandwidth
- 32TB SSD (4 @ 8TB NAND blades)
- Thunderbolt 5
- WiFi 7
- Bluetooth 5.4
;^p
Would be very surprised if the M3 Studio didn‘t ship with an M3 Max and M3 Ultra (2x Max). Since we know what the M3 Max can do, it’s not really a question of ”what?” but “when?”.
The question is not whether those two chips arrive in a Mac Studio (it would be a major surprise if they didn't), but whether something even higher-end (justifying the Mac Pro case, because the Studio can't cool it).
Apple DOES seem to have some way of linking more than two chips (whether it is as fast as UltraFusion is a question) - they were fooling with it in Apple Car prototypes until that got cancelled. They were talking about a "quad-ultra" (or 8x Max) in the car. Of course it is possible that the (in)ability to go beyond Ultra is what cancelled the car AND made the Mac Pro disappointing. Maybe they had an idea, and it didn't work? Or the performance compromises were too great? Or the yields were too low?
The other thing to consider is what needs quad-M3 Max or greater performance. As a photographer, I'm absolutely shocked by how good the M3 Max is, both in performance and efficiency. I'm using 100 MP raw image files (the largest files readily available - there is ONE camera used in some very high end fashion and advertising applications that shoots 150 MP files, but it's $50,000). If the M3 Max handles the largest possible still photo files in large numbers with speed and aplomb (and will almost certainly handle the next generation of sensors, which should go up to ~160MP in semi-reasonable cameras), still photography is no longer a reason for a "beyond-Max" machine. There were certainly advantages to an M1 or M2 Ultra over a Max, but those seem to have disappeared for still photography in the M3 generation. Of course we haven't seen an M3 Ultra, but the M3 Max is real-timing even complex edits on very large files.
Video? I'm no professional, but I don't THINK it'll make much difference at 4K, with the possible exception of some super-complex effects. 8K - sure, but 8K distribution simply doesn't exist. Even IMAX projection is enhanced 4K, and, while 8K TVs for the home exist (8K home projectors don't), the only ways to get 8K content into them are to use a high-end computer as a streamer or to load still images from a USB memory key. It would take a HECK of a memory key to play 8K video, even if you had the files in the first place. No cable or satellite box can handle 8K, no Internet streamer short of a full-on computer can, either, and even if you DID use a computer, almost no 8K content exists for download or streaming at any price.
AI? Sure, but training big LLMs seems to take a supercomputer? 3D, especially 3D animation? Possibly, but how often are people doing that on the desktop? Isn't high-end 3D rendering generally done on render farms - your desktop needs to be powerful enough to do the interactive parts, but the big renders get pushed off to the server room?
It seems like there is a narrowing window between "an M3 Max is plenty fast" and " that's going to be pushed to the server room"?
Apple DOES seem to have some way of linking more than two chips (whether it is as fast as UltraFusion is a question) - they were fooling with it in Apple Car prototypes until that got cancelled. They were talking about a "quad-ultra" (or 8x Max) in the car. Of course it is possible that the (in)ability to go beyond Ultra is what cancelled the car AND made the Mac Pro disappointing. Maybe they had an idea, and it didn't work? Or the performance compromises were too great? Or the yields were too low?
The other thing to consider is what needs quad-M3 Max or greater performance. As a photographer, I'm absolutely shocked by how good the M3 Max is, both in performance and efficiency. I'm using 100 MP raw image files (the largest files readily available - there is ONE camera used in some very high end fashion and advertising applications that shoots 150 MP files, but it's $50,000). If the M3 Max handles the largest possible still photo files in large numbers with speed and aplomb (and will almost certainly handle the next generation of sensors, which should go up to ~160MP in semi-reasonable cameras), still photography is no longer a reason for a "beyond-Max" machine. There were certainly advantages to an M1 or M2 Ultra over a Max, but those seem to have disappeared for still photography in the M3 generation. Of course we haven't seen an M3 Ultra, but the M3 Max is real-timing even complex edits on very large files.
Video? I'm no professional, but I don't THINK it'll make much difference at 4K, with the possible exception of some super-complex effects. 8K - sure, but 8K distribution simply doesn't exist. Even IMAX projection is enhanced 4K, and, while 8K TVs for the home exist (8K home projectors don't), the only ways to get 8K content into them are to use a high-end computer as a streamer or to load still images from a USB memory key. It would take a HECK of a memory key to play 8K video, even if you had the files in the first place. No cable or satellite box can handle 8K, no Internet streamer short of a full-on computer can, either, and even if you DID use a computer, almost no 8K content exists for download or streaming at any price.
AI? Sure, but training big LLMs seems to take a supercomputer? 3D, especially 3D animation? Possibly, but how often are people doing that on the desktop? Isn't high-end 3D rendering generally done on render farms - your desktop needs to be powerful enough to do the interactive parts, but the big renders get pushed off to the server room?
It seems like there is a narrowing window between "an M3 Max is plenty fast" and " that's going to be pushed to the server room"?