Perhaps you should count some beans and observe Apple's [extraordinary] financial success before making silly claims that "The bean counters in Cupertino need to wake up."
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.
No new M3 Mac Studio. No new adult size iMac…. for YEARS.
- Thread starter Suzzzabelle
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple wasn't making new iterations of CPU/GPU and SOC. Apple updated with the Intel release. Apple just cant swap M4 or M5 from other vendor.
Yeah the iMac got returned to its original intention - the computer for "the rest of us." It's kind of refreshing to see, and it fits it's product demographic perfectly.
An M1 iMac is running circles around my old 2012 MacPro and I made music using Logic just fine on that machine still this year.
I wonder how many people really need all the power of an M3 Ultra or whatever versus people just liking the idea of a large performance headroom.. or maybe just because there is the latest and greatest to be had every 6 months to a year?
Not judging.. honestly wondering.
I wonder how many people really need all the power of an M3 Ultra or whatever versus people just liking the idea of a large performance headroom.. or maybe just because there is the latest and greatest to be had every 6 months to a year?
Not judging.. honestly wondering.
Apple's desktops are fantastic. They just don't update them as often because they don't sell as much as the laptops. Even during periods when they offer the same chips. People prefer laptops even for desktop use. It's a no brainer now that the laptop form factor doesn't hinder performance anymore.
Well yes, you have to pay for the additional benefits of the laptop.
This should not be an issue for any working professional earning their living by using the device.
If you're just a consumer, then you don't need to be worried about the laptops having an M4 (soon) while the desktops have an M2. All of them are already 10x faster than anything you'll ever need.
All of this is completely incorrect. I need to point that out for anyone reading this thread who doesn't know better.
Not something any working professional that is serious about their profession and uses their device to make a living would do. I have a 2018 sitting on a shelf because it's nothing but a Plex media server for the home, and even that I consider old and will replace eventually.
As a working professional I would never keep a primary work machine more than 5 years, and more likely only 3-4. The smart move is to stay up to date, use the fastest and most capable thing available, and recoup your investment by selling/trading in while the unit still has high resale value, which Macs maintain in earnest for a good 5 years.
Most “working professionals” don’t spend money that doesn’t need to be spent
Don’t confuse your fetish for new gear with “prudent financial planning”
You could not possibly more wrong
"I wonder how many people really need all the power of an M3 Ultra or whatever versus people just liking the idea of a large performance headroom" is a reasonable query. My response (other than the obvious YMMV) is that users
A) accustomed and accepting of the substantial latency of older boxes and
B) using only one app at a time can suffice with older hardware; particularly if they also choose not to upgrade that single app.
However in my experience:
A) The reduced latency of more modern hardware has a huge impact on one's creative capabilities. When the software responds more quickly, one's brain also responds more quickly. [Note that I am not talking about silly brain-dead YouTubers' videos doing things like comparing render times 20 seconds versus 60 seconds which are not really very relevant; I am talking about milliseconds differences in real operation affecting thought processes, not feasible for clickbaiting videos.]
B) Many users multi-task and/or use multiple apps at the same time in their workflows. The additional RAM available with more current hardware (e.g. my 2016 MBP max available was 16 GB RAM while my 2023 MBP max available was 96 GB RAM) facilitates much smoother workflows. Again, when the hardware/software responds more quickly, one's brain also responds more quickly; it is synergistic.
C) Latest app versions in general tend to allow more effective real work. Latest app versions in general also tend to optimize with or even require modern hardware.
D) Latest OS versions in general tend to be more secure and add features that allow more effective real work. Latest OS versions in general also tend to optimize with or even require modern hardware.
E) This is tech. One very literally does not know what one is missing when one plods along using hardware/software a decade old.
Bottom line is yes upgrading has value. Each user decides where the cost-effective purchase lines are. Personally I have for decades found top hardware and maximum available RAM appropriate and cost effective, 5-7 year life cycle. YMMV; however all buyers need to think forward, not backward (even though most here continue to buy, esp. RAM, based on what they did last year when they are buying a box for future years; go figure).
Last edited:
No, but that is hardly the point. If it were, the M3 and M4 iterations of Apple silicon would not be here. But they are, so who wants to be using yesterday's chip in a matter of months? Nobody looking to spend 4k plus on hardware...
for a very very very long time:
looking to spend 4k plus on hardware + not wanting to be using yesterday's chips = not buying apple
they've just switched from selling intel/nvidia/amd's old hardware to selling their own
they are a supply chain driven company when it comes to hardware. why do you think they released an apple silicon "Mac Pro" that's just a studio in the old box?
they probably had a surplus of the chasis.
they are not going to put m3 and m4 chips in everything until they have completely exhausted their supply of older silicon
Last edited:
I think you're honestly leaning a little too much into artificial benchmark results for the M-series, based upon your points A) and B) above. I am curious what your actual workflows for your setup are, because that would go a long way toward actually resolving whether the generational improvements between the M2 Ultra, M3 Max, and a future M4 Max/Ultra will actually be truly noticeable.
But comments like this "Again, when the hardware/software responds more quickly, one's brain also responds more quickly; it is synergistic.", make me honestly question how much of this is actual product frustration versus just rage posting, and why I want to know what your workflows are exactly, to see how almost imperceivable differences in response time for normal applications, are going to have this much of an impact in your day-to-day usage.
Similarly, you make a case for "more RAM" facilitating a smoother workflow, because your 2016 MBP had 16 GB and your 2023 MBP available is 96 GB, but you're talking about a complete architectural change, significantly more cores, etc., and it's probably not the additional memory that's anywhere near the largest contributor toward your smoother workflow.
Overall, this honestly seems like a fairly disingenuous argument/response, because we're not comparing the M3 Max or a future M4 Max/Ultra to a Skylake-based MBP; we're comparing the current M3 Max against the current top-performing Apple Silicon M-based chip, the M2 Ultra. Nothing that has been presented by anyone, has made the case that the M3 Max will have any greater of a lifecycle than the M2 Ultra, and the M4 Max might not see it either, because of the shear performance of the M2 Ultra. The M4 Ultra obviously will surpass it, if Apple releases one, but we're probably talking about several months to almost a year away for its release, and I think that anyone who reasonably wants "the best performing Mac available right now", could purchase an M2 Ultra-based Mac Studio or Mac Pro (though the latter, I wouldn't probably recommend personally), and could generally ignore the "two generations behind" argument.
Now, are there instances where someone can take advantage of ray tracing, mesh shading, etc.? Absolutely. And in those instances, it could make perfect sense to go M3 Max over M2 Ultra, and to argue for greater hardware longevity based on that. But "macOS updates" and "responsiveness" isn't one of them.
It's not even about exhausting supply, because as we've seen from rumors, they potentially are going to use M2 Ultras in their AI server farms, so if anything, the argument should be that the sooner they move the Studio and Mac Pro to M4 Max/Ultra, the better it is for their internal plans (potentially, if the rumors are true).
They very clearly decided at some point that the M3 architecture would be short-lived, which is why they've so-quickly moved on to M4. Maybe they planned a monolithic M3 Ultra and now will do an M4 Ultra as such, or maybe we'll see the return of an interconnect on the M4 Max for a future M4 Ultra (which would really confirm that M3 was never intended for the Studio or Mac Pro).
At the end of the day, M3's time was basically October - April, and now we're at M4. They almost certainly weren't ready for M4 Max/Ultra, which is why we didn't get Studios / Mac Pros. In reality, I'd expect them to do M4, M4 Pro, and M4 Max again later this year, let the initial new purchase rush and need for higher volume production to satisfy that, and then as production capacity becomes more available in the spring, they'll be able to start production some M4 Ultras that, whether monolithic or interconnected, still use up the node's limited capacity available and potentially takes production away from M4 and M4 Pro-based hardware.
we're this to be true, it could just as easily be the case that they plan on using m2 for servers because they have so much oversupply of old silicon
why else wouldn't they use their own best silicon for their own servers?
Why doesn’t Intel put their latest cores in servers?
A: because they get the consumer platforms to shake out the bugs.
Apple putting the brand new m4 in a server farm would be high risk and stupid.
Honestly wouldn’t surprise me if they’re actually m1 ultras though m2 probably makes more sense at this point.
Because even if they could put out M4 Ultras right now, that’d utilize critical capacity needed for the M4-based iPads, upcoming iPhones, and any updated Macs later this year, and it’d be production capacity locked at that.
By comparison, since they’re migrating off of the M2’s process node generally, that opens up silicon wafer production capacity for the M2 Ultra for use in servers.
And my understanding is that AI processing loves memory and bandwidth, and that’s two things the M2 Ultra can provide better than any current Apple Silicon until an eventual M4 Ultra.
Pretty simple honestly…
I’m saying they’re brand new and building a facility to house millions of them is a big thing to commit to without real world testing.
A bug in the iPad they can work around in software is no big deal. Maybe some warranty claims.
A datacenter deal breaker is catastrophic.
For an extreme version of this thinking look up the CPUs NASA put on spacecraft. They’re ancient.
No they generally don’t.
The core design inside the xeon usually lags consumer by 1-3 years.
Is your 'working profession' based on "my way or the highway"?
Your insinuation that laptops are for children is and adults only use desktops is….interesting.