We have an M2 Air in our house so I'm quite familiar with it, thank you. I am not suggesting that machine be discontinued. Rather, I'm saying that the M1 could push further down in price when the Air is upgraded to the M3, since there will be a pretty good gap between the machines, yet the M1 Air is still a very good machine and waaaay better than most or all Chromebooks.
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.
These M3 Macs Are Still Coming, But Are They Worth the Wait?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As a MAcs Studio Max user, I find the Mac Studio Max the perfect Mac desktop, is a "8" in performance compared with available options with a allowable price...
if it weren't because "Mn MAX" is always half cycle old at release, and you know next SOC release version is 6 months away.
The point is, you buy a 4800€ M3Max Macbook Pro and it turns out it is faster than my "brand new 6-months-old 6000€ mac studiio M2 ultra" ???
It is like the Ultra is only worth for just few top notch professional who doesnt care to buy a computer every year (not to mention the Mac Pro... ahem!)
Some years ago, there wasn't any mac better than the Mac pro for 3 years, eventually CPU and GPUs on iMac27 could get on pair, so your 6K USD invest was worth, but now is just 6 months far from being old!!!!. And even so, before you could upgrade RAM, Disk, GPU... now you cant!!! you are in a dead end. This is nuts.
MacStudio Max/Ultra and Macbook Pro Max should be released along.
if it weren't because "Mn MAX" is always half cycle old at release, and you know next SOC release version is 6 months away.
The point is, you buy a 4800€ M3Max Macbook Pro and it turns out it is faster than my "brand new 6-months-old 6000€ mac studiio M2 ultra" ???
It is like the Ultra is only worth for just few top notch professional who doesnt care to buy a computer every year (not to mention the Mac Pro... ahem!)
Some years ago, there wasn't any mac better than the Mac pro for 3 years, eventually CPU and GPUs on iMac27 could get on pair, so your 6K USD invest was worth, but now is just 6 months far from being old!!!!. And even so, before you could upgrade RAM, Disk, GPU... now you cant!!! you are in a dead end. This is nuts.
MacStudio Max/Ultra and Macbook Pro Max should be released along.
Last edited:
I wonder if they're eventually going to do that? What you say makes a lot of sense - although the problem is exacerbated this year by how fast the M3 Max is. It benefitted BOTH from a die shrink and a 50% increase in P-cores. In total, it's about 150% as fast as last year's M2 Max, which is typical for Max-to-Ultra of the same year. I'd imagine this double whammy that actually catches the previous year's Ultra (except in GPU performance) will be rather uncommon - maybe one year in four or five?
In a more typical year, when the overall performance upgrade on the Max is more like 10-15%, the previous year's Ultra will still be noticeably ahead, and even the Ultra from two years ago (assuming that neither of the two previous years was a huge year for the Max) will still be slightly faster.
Using Geekbench 6, simply because it's easy to search (I know it's not perfect) multicore:
M1 Max =~12000
M2 Max=~14500
"M3 Max" expected value (based on M1 Max and M2 Max) =~17000
M3 Max (the four extra P-cores make a big difference) =~21100
M1 Ultra =~18500
M2 Ultra =~21200
M3 Ultra expected value=~31650??? (150% of M3 Max - historically, the Ultra is almost exactly 150% as fast as a Max on GB6)
Were it not for the huge performance jump from M2 Max to M3 Max, the M1 Ultra would fall in between the expected speeds of an M3 Max and M4 Max. A 50% core jump is a VERY significant architectural update, especially coupled with a die shrink, and that temporarily upset the relationship between the Max and the Ultra (which will be restored when the M3 Ultra comes out).
Of course, Apple playing their cards close to the vest doesn't help. Prior to the actual release of the M3 Max, no rumor had suggested that it might have extra P-cores and be unexpectedly faster than it "should be". The M3 almost exactly matched expectations, the M3 Pro slightly underperformed expectations (nobody suggested that it would trade in two P-cores for E-cores), and the M3 Max outperformed expectations. As little as two weeks prior to the introduction, nobody expected the M3 Max at all before next March .
Another possibility that will help is if they get an "Extreme" chip into the Mac Pro. That should be around 250% the speed of a same-year Max (with GPU performance well over 300%, since GPU cores scale better), assuming that it's a straight-up quadruple Max or double Ultra, and that should be faster than any lesser chip for a number of years, barring a complete architecture shift.
Even WITH a complete architecture shift (and a very successful one) in the mix, 250-300% is a lot. The M1 Max MacBook Pro is about 180% the speed of the final Late 2019. Intel MacBook Pro, the M2 Max is around 210%, and the M3 Max is about 315%. Desktops are similar - the M1 Ultra Mac Studio is about 180% the speed of the final Intel Mac Pro, the M2 Ultra is around 210%, and I'd expect the M3 Ultra to tuck right in at 315%.
Without an architecture shift, we don't have enough data for Apple Silicon to say how long it will take to get that kind of performance improvement, but for Intel Macs, it was roughly seven years - a Late 2019 16" final Intel MacBook Pro is about 270% the speed of a Mid 2012 MacBook Pro (the first Retina model). There was an "M3-type transition" in there two - the move from four to six, and finally eight cores. Five to seven years for a newer "Max" to catch an older "Extreme" is a pretty safe guess, with a minimum of four years in the case of a highly successful architecture shift.
In a more typical year, when the overall performance upgrade on the Max is more like 10-15%, the previous year's Ultra will still be noticeably ahead, and even the Ultra from two years ago (assuming that neither of the two previous years was a huge year for the Max) will still be slightly faster.
Using Geekbench 6, simply because it's easy to search (I know it's not perfect) multicore:
M1 Max =~12000
M2 Max=~14500
"M3 Max" expected value (based on M1 Max and M2 Max) =~17000
M3 Max (the four extra P-cores make a big difference) =~21100
M1 Ultra =~18500
M2 Ultra =~21200
M3 Ultra expected value=~31650??? (150% of M3 Max - historically, the Ultra is almost exactly 150% as fast as a Max on GB6)
Were it not for the huge performance jump from M2 Max to M3 Max, the M1 Ultra would fall in between the expected speeds of an M3 Max and M4 Max. A 50% core jump is a VERY significant architectural update, especially coupled with a die shrink, and that temporarily upset the relationship between the Max and the Ultra (which will be restored when the M3 Ultra comes out).
Of course, Apple playing their cards close to the vest doesn't help. Prior to the actual release of the M3 Max, no rumor had suggested that it might have extra P-cores and be unexpectedly faster than it "should be". The M3 almost exactly matched expectations, the M3 Pro slightly underperformed expectations (nobody suggested that it would trade in two P-cores for E-cores), and the M3 Max outperformed expectations. As little as two weeks prior to the introduction, nobody expected the M3 Max at all before next March .
Another possibility that will help is if they get an "Extreme" chip into the Mac Pro. That should be around 250% the speed of a same-year Max (with GPU performance well over 300%, since GPU cores scale better), assuming that it's a straight-up quadruple Max or double Ultra, and that should be faster than any lesser chip for a number of years, barring a complete architecture shift.
Even WITH a complete architecture shift (and a very successful one) in the mix, 250-300% is a lot. The M1 Max MacBook Pro is about 180% the speed of the final Late 2019. Intel MacBook Pro, the M2 Max is around 210%, and the M3 Max is about 315%. Desktops are similar - the M1 Ultra Mac Studio is about 180% the speed of the final Intel Mac Pro, the M2 Ultra is around 210%, and I'd expect the M3 Ultra to tuck right in at 315%.
Without an architecture shift, we don't have enough data for Apple Silicon to say how long it will take to get that kind of performance improvement, but for Intel Macs, it was roughly seven years - a Late 2019 16" final Intel MacBook Pro is about 270% the speed of a Mid 2012 MacBook Pro (the first Retina model). There was an "M3-type transition" in there two - the move from four to six, and finally eight cores. Five to seven years for a newer "Max" to catch an older "Extreme" is a pretty safe guess, with a minimum of four years in the case of a highly successful architecture shift.
We must keep in mind that Apple sells computers, not chips. Apple offers computers for various types of use and their product line is segmented by end-user.
A Mac Studio Ultra version is not needed but by a small fraction of Mac users. The Ultra is for video makers. I'd also say it is for "AI", i.e., machine learning and LLM but people doing those things tend to use Nvidia machines.
It's pretty clear from the specs that the Pro line of chips is for those who need a working computer, for their jobs. Multiple displays, more ports than the base models, etc. And the Max chips are for those who work on large image files and need lots of RAM.
Computers are rapidly depreciating assets.
Using computers as some sort of social signalling of status happens a lot, but that is a human thing we do with all objects (houses and cars and clothing....)
Well, the next Studio will be the M3 Max, Ultra and Plus – probably. At least two of those three. And almost certainly with Thunderbolt 5 (or plain, vanilla USB 4.2 if Apple is tired of paying Intel licensing fees). No one knows how fast the proposed 4 x6 pipe will be for external drives but 7000–8000 GB/s is certainly possible.
My 18 Core iMac Pro/128GB RAM/4TB storage was still doing a yeoman's duty but I could see its resale value falling monthly—one of the reasons I was itching to replace it. Could have waited for the M3 Studio in 2024 or 2025, I suppose but, when that 192GB M2 Studio Ultra 8TB hit the Refurb Store at the price it did beginning of October, I knew that was a sign screaming at me, BUY NOW!!!!
I put the iMP on Craigslist for $2,800 and it sold for my asking price in two days. Cash with no eBay or PayPal commission. That soooo works for me.
My 18 Core iMac Pro/128GB RAM/4TB storage was still doing a yeoman's duty but I could see its resale value falling monthly—one of the reasons I was itching to replace it. Could have waited for the M3 Studio in 2024 or 2025, I suppose but, when that 192GB M2 Studio Ultra 8TB hit the Refurb Store at the price it did beginning of October, I knew that was a sign screaming at me, BUY NOW!!!!
I put the iMP on Craigslist for $2,800 and it sold for my asking price in two days. Cash with no eBay or PayPal commission. That soooo works for me.
The smart money is on the Steam Deck for gaming…
I thought your sig was pretty funny. In a way, PC users are either spec-agnostic, when they know pretty much any computer is going to be good enough for them, or they care deeply about specs, like everyone who games.
Mac users have a much less complicated spec landscape to navigate, since the coming of Apple Silicon which has massively reduced the number of cpu models but forces people to care more about ram spec in particular.
But I do agree with you, most computer users are like my neighbour, a lady in her seventies who needs assistance to uninstall Norton from her Windows PC. They do some browsing, email, light office and that’s it.
Probably, I don’t care for handheld gaming though and I’m not sure the steam deck would look that good at 4K.
I'm curious. What do you do that requires 96GB of RAM that's not processor intensive?
They're cannibalised their Ultra chip, seemingly. How many people will be willing to spend crazy money for a device that's only the fastest for 3-4 months, only to be supplanted by something way cheaper.
I entirely agree with this.
All the devices with Pro/Max/Ultra (if they're not giving up on that chip) should be released at once.
Half a year or so later every base M chip device should be released.
Is a Studio even really necessary for a Max chip? The MacMini could certainly cool it at least as well as a laptop could. Having front USB ports is nice, though.
I'm not sure if the Mini cools as well as a 16" laptop? I've wondered the same thing. It's historically carried chips more in the 13-14" laptop range. Occasionally, we've seen a 65W CPU in an Intel Mini (they're usually 15W versions). I oddly can't recall a 45W or 55W Mini (typical for the 15"-16" laptops), and the few 65W Minis have been integrated graphics only, while some of the big laptops have been 45W plus a discrete GPU.
The M3 Max is a ~100W chip (that runs at peak power far less often than most Intel chips) but that includes the GPU. It's well inside the range of what we've seen in a 16" laptop (about the same total TDP as the most powerful Intel MBP designs, once you add CPU and GPU power, but with much better power management) - but it's well outside what we've ever seen in a Mini.
Yes, the M3 Max also comes in the 14" case, but I'm suspicious that the 14" doesn't quite cool it. The 14" gets really hot, has loud fans, and occasionally throttles on extended tasks - I've seen no evidence that the 16" does any of the above outside of crazy use cases.
If we assume the Mini cools about as well as a 14" laptop (which seems a reasonable assumption, looking at what's been in the mini over the past 10 years or more), there's an excellent argument for putting the Max in the Studio case instead, especially since there doesn't seem to be an extra cost to the Studio case. Once you upgrade the M2 Pro Mac Mini to the 32 GB of RAM the comes standard with the Mac Studio, it's only $300 cheaper than the Studio with the M2 Max. This is actually less than the Pro-Max upgrade would probably cost if offered - if you upgrade the Mini to 32 GB of RAM and the higher-end M2 Pro, it costs the same $1999 as the Studio with the M2 Max. This means that Apple is actually offering the base Studio for $200-300 LESS than a comparable Mac Mini would cost if such a thing existed...
The M3 Max is a ~100W chip (that runs at peak power far less often than most Intel chips) but that includes the GPU. It's well inside the range of what we've seen in a 16" laptop (about the same total TDP as the most powerful Intel MBP designs, once you add CPU and GPU power, but with much better power management) - but it's well outside what we've ever seen in a Mini.
Yes, the M3 Max also comes in the 14" case, but I'm suspicious that the 14" doesn't quite cool it. The 14" gets really hot, has loud fans, and occasionally throttles on extended tasks - I've seen no evidence that the 16" does any of the above outside of crazy use cases.
If we assume the Mini cools about as well as a 14" laptop (which seems a reasonable assumption, looking at what's been in the mini over the past 10 years or more), there's an excellent argument for putting the Max in the Studio case instead, especially since there doesn't seem to be an extra cost to the Studio case. Once you upgrade the M2 Pro Mac Mini to the 32 GB of RAM the comes standard with the Mac Studio, it's only $300 cheaper than the Studio with the M2 Max. This is actually less than the Pro-Max upgrade would probably cost if offered - if you upgrade the Mini to 32 GB of RAM and the higher-end M2 Pro, it costs the same $1999 as the Studio with the M2 Max. This means that Apple is actually offering the base Studio for $200-300 LESS than a comparable Mac Mini would cost if such a thing existed...
Although available with up to 8TB onboard storage, the M2 Mini Pro maxes out at 32GB RAM. I was looking at it since it supports three monitors, my minimum requirement
Then I realized that the Studio didn't cost much more ($200) when you compared equivalent specs but offered a lot more including much faster internal storage and those additional ports. It was a no brainer for me.
Then a much larger tax return came in, I spotted an M2 Studio Ultra 192GB 8TB in the Refurb Store and went a little nuts... so there's no equivalent Mini to what I bought, I could have made do with an M2 Pro Mini if I had to.
I meant it was an enclosure large enough, with sufficient potential to cool. I wasn't thinking about the arbitrary limits imposed by Apple upon it in terms of RAM or monitor support.
Were you not around for the PPC Macs? Apple had to go to liquid cooling on the last few.
Apple went to Intel when the PPC Consortium could not promise a future upgrade timetable and Intel could while demonstrating much, much cooler running CPUs—a friend led the engineering team that tested Intel. The Xeon W and i9 never ran as hot as what Apple was installing in the G5. My wife still has an i9 and I sold my iMac Pro just last week. My G5 went to a studio in Santa Cruz that stopped running their heater in the winter. The savings on my energy bill paid for the replacement Intel Mac in about a year. They were that bad.
In the last few months, I've pulled HDDs from four 2012 MBPs and a pair of 2014 Minis. Amazingly, all were running but only one of the drives still tested good. All are running with SSDs but booting much faster and running a lot cooler with only intermittent fan spikes.
The idle power consumption of the old G5s was insane (I just looked it up) - 170 watts or so from the wall on the desktop (with a few models even higher), with nothing running in the background. It's rare for any modern PC or Mac to idle above 50 watts, and the most efficient (Mac) laptops can go as low as 5 watts idle power. I've seen my 2019 i9 MacBook Pro idle under 10 watts (more often closer to 15 due to OS background tasks). Any M-series laptop will do quite a bit better than my i9, including the full-throttle M3 Max I'm ordering to replace it. Most PC laptops idle anywhere from 10 watts (Ultrabooks with integrated graphics) to 30 watts (some gaming rigs). Modern desktops idle anywhere from 15-20 watts for a business desktop to 50 or so for a gaming rig, with some very specialized machines (multiple CPUs or GPUS, huge amounts of DRAM or inefficient power supplies) running higher. No modern desktop should be anywhere CLOSE to 170W at idle.
Under load, though, they were much more reasonable. The maximum draw of any of the G5s was around 450 watts from the wall (CPU, GPU, RAM,disk, etc. all together). Even some laptops can come close to that - many higher-end gaming laptops can fully saturate a 330 watt power supply (for a brief period before throttling due to heat). A few use dual power adapters, and can go higher. Most high-end gaming and workstation-class desktops use kilowatt-plus power supplies, and 600-700 watts of actual draw under load is not at all unusual, with more possible with certain combinations of parts (or multiple /unusual GPUs). Some custom gaming rigs use 1600 watt power supplies and can easily draw 1200 watts (generally overclocked and using multiple GPUs). The only Mac that has ever come close to that is some (rare) configurations of the 2019 Mac Pro with multiple GPUs.
Under load, though, they were much more reasonable. The maximum draw of any of the G5s was around 450 watts from the wall (CPU, GPU, RAM,disk, etc. all together). Even some laptops can come close to that - many higher-end gaming laptops can fully saturate a 330 watt power supply (for a brief period before throttling due to heat). A few use dual power adapters, and can go higher. Most high-end gaming and workstation-class desktops use kilowatt-plus power supplies, and 600-700 watts of actual draw under load is not at all unusual, with more possible with certain combinations of parts (or multiple /unusual GPUs). Some custom gaming rigs use 1600 watt power supplies and can easily draw 1200 watts (generally overclocked and using multiple GPUs). The only Mac that has ever come close to that is some (rare) configurations of the 2019 Mac Pro with multiple GPUs.
Looking up the G5 is all well and good, I suppose but, if you didn't have to install an extra air conditioner to handle it, a 23" Studio Display and a pair of early Time Capsules running 7200rpm WD Blacks, you don't know how hot, hot can be. I did a lot of work on a maxed out Mac Pro 7.1 and it doesn't come close.
As for Windows gaming stations, I'll assume that those approach the heat of 56 Core, $150K Maya Box Rendering Stations but I've used those only in studios with the units in temperature controlled ISO boxes.
I am not a gamer and never have been so such stations hold no interest for me. The only times I have any involvement with PCs is when I am being paid well for the experience.
As for Windows gaming stations, I'll assume that those approach the heat of 56 Core, $150K Maya Box Rendering Stations but I've used those only in studios with the units in temperature controlled ISO boxes.
I am not a gamer and never have been so such stations hold no interest for me. The only times I have any involvement with PCs is when I am being paid well for the experience.
That absurd idle power could have had a lot to do with it - if the machine was on all the time, a 170w continuous heat source is enormous. I haven't used a G5 in many years, so I forget whether they slept effectively (I seem to recall they may not have).
I was also amazed by what a Time Capsule can draw on a continuous basis (about 30w, which doesn't seem like a lot, except that it's several times a typical Mac laptop). I shouldn't have been surprised - it's essentially a small server. Two of them are the equivalent of an incandescent light bulb left on 24/7, which can certainly heat up a room.
I don't know anything about Maya Boxes, not working in 3D (still photographer), but one of the amazing things about newer Apple Silicon is just how little power it dissipates. An M3 Max with a 100 watt maximum sustained draw under load (brief peaks higher) including the GPU is performing like a ~600-700 watt PC less than a year old (Core i9 13900K plus RTX 3090) in non-gaming benchmarks. Yes, the PC will perform better in games, both because Apple optimizes their GPUs for non-gaming use AND because Mac games tend to use inefficient technologies like OpenCL (which is especially inefficient on Macs) and Rosetta. 6-7x power efficiency gains in Photoshop, Resolve, etc. are nothing to sneeze at.
I was also amazed by what a Time Capsule can draw on a continuous basis (about 30w, which doesn't seem like a lot, except that it's several times a typical Mac laptop). I shouldn't have been surprised - it's essentially a small server. Two of them are the equivalent of an incandescent light bulb left on 24/7, which can certainly heat up a room.
I don't know anything about Maya Boxes, not working in 3D (still photographer), but one of the amazing things about newer Apple Silicon is just how little power it dissipates. An M3 Max with a 100 watt maximum sustained draw under load (brief peaks higher) including the GPU is performing like a ~600-700 watt PC less than a year old (Core i9 13900K plus RTX 3090) in non-gaming benchmarks. Yes, the PC will perform better in games, both because Apple optimizes their GPUs for non-gaming use AND because Mac games tend to use inefficient technologies like OpenCL (which is especially inefficient on Macs) and Rosetta. 6-7x power efficiency gains in Photoshop, Resolve, etc. are nothing to sneeze at.
That's the business model Apple has used for decades. Unfortunately they have confirmation bias operating at the Board and senior (shareholding) Exec level so they have been doubling down in some ways, even inspite of the powerful M-series chip transition offering much better $/CPU+GPU value for Apple and its customers buying products in the Mac lineup. Apple have passed on the cost improvements of the M-series chips (they had to given their waning populari of Macs y pre-M1 launch), which is smart but they get you another way, be it nickel and diming you on the convenience of iCloud storage over pcloud/G-Drive/One Drive/Dropbox etc or be it literally massive mark ups the higher up you go on internal specs for RAM and SSD capacity.
The model is simple and effective: Volume at the bottom of the market positioned as a premium product in that market segment c.f. other brands. Sting customers more and more with the Apple Tax as you rise through the model specifications. Some of their DRAM and SSD prices are like >4x market equivalent products from quality fab brands.
In addition Apple has added all the hardware (and software hooks for) built-in-obsolescence features like soldered SSDs and RAM which can't be replaced, repaired or upgraded by 3rd party licensed technicians. Then theres all the other built-in-obsolescence and anti-right-to-repair stuff that Louis Rossmann describes in minuscule detail, often camouflaged as benefits to users, like the "security" chips, but also just a heap of obfuscation about parts, getting suppliers to rebadge or worse standard parts as custom Apple parts, etc etc.
Last edited by a moderator:
The integrated RAM, like the GPU is part of the M1/2/3 chip. None of those components can be replaced and the speed cannot be duplicated with discrete components.
The SSDs for the desktop Mac Studio and Mac Pro are in sockets and can be replaced if needed by authorized technicians, same as the iMac Pro. These Macs can even be upgraded but it is quite expensive to do so.
Last edited: