What to Expect From Apple's M4 Ultra Chip Next Year

[obviouslogic]

There was that expectation by some that thought Apple might release the M4 Ultra machines first, then trickle down. It didn't play out but it makes sense to me. People who want a machine now would have to buy a higher end, higher profit margin machine. While the lowest profit margin machines would come in last.
I'm sure Apple's marketing knows what they're doing though (or maybe it actually does just take longer to have the M4 Ultra ready than the lower spec chips).

Releasing the M4 mini kind of throws a wrench in that logic though. Why buy a $1599 Mac Book Pro when I can just get a $599 Mac mini and save $1000?

Better reasoning would be that the higher end chips take too much fabrication capacity that is better served for getting “mass market” systems out the door and on shelves first. All base M4 systems have been released already, except for the Air, which will probably happen soon’ish.

Before the Studio is updated, I’ll bet we’ll finally see a “pro” iMac make a return with Pro and Max chips. Then the Studio released with Max and Ultra chips and the Mac Pro with Ultra and possibly a new Extreme variant (This could be the SoC they’re working on for their data centers/server farms?)

 

[tenthousandthings]

Apple’s use of various superlatives (Pro, Studio, Max, Ultra, Extreme) gets a little confusing at times. The hierarchy of which is better than the others isn’t always clear.

By dictionary definition, both “Max” and “Ultra” refer to something that’s at the absolute top end, which would make “Extreme” a step below them.

JUST SAYING

Ultra means “beyond,” so it doesn’t mean the same thing as Max, and it’s appropriate for what it is, “beyond the maximum” as it were.

As a result, I think they will keep Ultra where it is, and if they introduce a desktop variant that is then multiplied in the Ultra, they’ll give it a new name. I’d bet on Max+ but I don’t know.

Agree with the idea that Extreme is confusing and I don’t think they should use it.

 

[obviouslogic]

All true, although not making a 27 inch or bigger iMac makes it a self fulfilling prophecy. But I suppose the margins on a bigger iMac suck compared with a combination of studio display and a Mac Studio

Yeah those margins only work when you’re forced to buy a Studio Display, not everyone needs to. I ended up buying a base M1 mini and a $200 27” 4k display, when I really wanted a new large iMac to replace my 2009 27” iMac. So basically that was $2000 more Apple could’ve gotten from me had the large iMac still been around.

 

[vladi]

They should have had Mac Pro specific chip from the get-go. Maybe that was the intention of M2 Extreme and hopefully dismal sales of Mac Pro will make sure they change their mind this time around. Previous Current generation Mac Pro is there just to let us know what kind of great deal Mac Studio is in comparison. And to pray on people dependent on PCI cards (and some OCD people who don't want bunch of boxes under or on the desk next to a desktop computer such as Mini or Studio).

We shall see.

 

[dazzer21-2]

Question: why does the Mac Pro still exist? What does to do that a Studio can't? I get that a large case allows for better cooling, but you can't upgrade the graphics any more and apart from maybe music production where there may be audio hardware that can't be incorporated on other machines, I don't see what advantage there is for any other sort of creative or productivity tasks. Just curious.

 

[vladi]

Ultra means “beyond,” so it doesn’t mean the same thing as Max, and it’s appropriate for what it is, “beyond the maximum” as it were.

As a result, I think they will keep Ultra where it is, and if they introduce a desktop variant that is then multiplied in the Ultra, they’ll give it a new name. I’d bet on Max+ but I don’t know.

Agree with the idea that Extreme is confusing and I don’t think they should use it.

Actually, I think they screwed up Max and Pro. Max sounds like beefed up base chip while Pro sounds like it's meant for completely different market. And Ultra should have been Pro Ultra instead. Have two marketing families of the chip lineup: Mx, Mx Max | Mx Pro, Mx Pro Ultra.

I think that alone would get MacBook Pro buyers to opt more for the Pro chip (in the real world Max chip) cause product they are buying already has Pro moniker in it and without Pro chip inside it wouldn't be complete Pro. The drive would be hey Max is there so you could afford it but the real deal is the Pro chip when it comes to MacBook Pro. And big bad desktop boys like Studio and Mac Pro already come with Pro and offer Pro Ultra. That sounds a lot better than what we have today which is Mac Mini M4 Pro instead of Mac Mini M4 Max which sounds cooler to begin with. There is nothing Pro about Mac Mini.

But that's just my notion telling me what sounds right. I get it they wanted to follow iPhone nomenclature for marketing purposes not to confuse the existing users but I'm not sure how that translates actually to Mac users.

 

[grjj]

And the Pages icon will still bounce in the dock for ten seconds before the app loads.

I know you're trying to be snide about people wanting to upgrade but on my M2 Ultra Studio the Pages icon bounces twice from cold load before it displays the file selector window. I suspect on M4 with even slightly faster storage that it may not bounce at all. While no-where near as dramatic as major workloads, faster machine to make the mundane work faster/simpler as well.

 

[grjj]

Question: why does the Mac Pro still exist? What does to do that a Studio can't? I get that a large case allows for better cooling, but you can't upgrade the graphics any more and apart from maybe music production where there may be audio hardware that can't be incorporated on other machines, I don't see what advantage there is for any other sort of creative or productivity tasks. Just curious.

quite a few pros use expansion cards that are not for video/graphics and having them in the chassis instead of an external device is more reliable and faster.

 

[Schmed]

Apple last week debuted its latest M4 Pro and M4 Max chips in the Mac mini and MacBook Pro, and the highest-end M4 Ultra chip should follow next year.

In his Power On newsletter today, Bloomberg's Mark Gurman said the M4 Ultra chip in the next Mac Pro will "probably" have up to a 32-core CPU and up to an 80-core GPU, which would be double the M4 Max's up to 16-core CPU and up to 40-core GPU. That would be unsurprising, as the M1 Ultra and M2 Ultra chips both have up to double the number of CPU and GPU cores compared to the M1 Max and M2 Max chips, respectively.

Not all patterns at Apple carry on forever, so it is still noteworthy that the M4 Ultra chip will likely follow the same doubling scheme as usual.

When will the M4 Ultra chip be available? In a report last month, Gurman said the next Mac Studio will likely "debut between March and June" next year, and higher-end configurations of that computer should be available with the M4 Ultra chip. He expects a new Mac Pro desktop tower with the M4 Ultra chip to follow in the second half of next year.

Given the Mac Studio and Mac Pro were never updated with M3 series chips, the M4 Ultra chip would give these computers an improved Neural Engine for Apple Intelligence and ray tracing for improved graphics rendering for the first time.

A few years ago, Gurman said that Apple had tested a so-called "M2 Extreme" chip that would have offered even greater performance than the M2 Ultra chip, but he later said that the chip's release was canceled. Apple could choose to revisit an "Extreme" chip for the Mac Pro in the future, but there are no "M4 Extreme" chip rumors as of now.

Article Link: What to Expect From Apple's M4 Ultra Chip Next Year

The big question will be whether the M4 Max will have a fusion strip. If it doesn't, then we'll be waiting with baited breath to see if the M4 Ultra will be on a single die - WiTH a fusion strip. If so, then we could be looking at true linear performance on the Ultra for the first time, and 1.7x performance on the extreme (!)

 

[mcnallym]

There was that expectation by some that thought Apple might release the M4 Ultra machines first, then trickle down. It didn't play out but it makes sense to me. People who want a machine now would have to buy a higher end, higher profit margin machine. While the lowest profit margin machines would come in last.
I'm sure Apple's marketing knows what they're doing though (or maybe it actually does just take longer to have the M4 Ultra ready than the lower spec chips).

the previous Mx from Apple always been low end first so Not sure where the expectations come through that for M4 would be reversed.
whilst Apple will make more money selling 1 High End machine, compared to 1 low end machine then the volume of low end machines means that Apple makes more money on the low end machines, so the lower end go out first.

same was true with the Graphics Cards.

back in the days when the iGPU was rubbish if existed at all then Nvida made the most of the money on the mundane x200, x400, x600 series GPU whilst the x800/x900 had all attention and glory the real money rolled in from the lower end simply because of the sheer volume pumped out. OEM deals for the cards with vendors such as Dell provided the money with the high end grabbing the headlines.

 

[lkrupp]

I remember the days when the peanut gallery was constantly berating Apple for not being competitive in this area. It’s why Steve Jobs made the disastrous decision to produce the water cooled G5 Power Mac to placate the critics (I had one and yes it eventually leaked). Then the move was made to Intel. Now the same peanut gallery is once again criticizing Apple for having too powerful machines that aren ’t necessary.

 

[tenthousandthings]

Actually, I think they screwed up Max and Pro. Max sounds like beefed up base chip while Pro sounds like it's meant for completely different market. And Ultra should have been Pro Ultra instead. Have two marketing families of the chip lineup: Mx, Mx Max | Mx Pro, Mx Pro Ultra.

I think that alone would get MacBook Pro buyers to opt more for the Pro chip (in the real world Max chip) cause product they are buying already has Pro moniker in it and without Pro chip inside it wouldn't be complete Pro. The drive would be hey Max is there so you could afford it but the real deal is the Pro chip when it comes to MacBook Pro. And big bad desktop boys like Studio and Mac Pro already come with Pro and offer Pro Ultra. That sounds a lot better than what we have today which is Mac Mini M4 Pro instead of Mac Mini M4 Max which sounds cooler to begin with. There is nothing Pro about Mac Mini.

But that's just my notion telling me what sounds right. I get it they wanted to follow iPhone nomenclature for marketing purposes not to confuse the existing users but I'm not sure how that translates actually to Mac users.

I think it’s Max that is the problem, I think Pro is just good marketing, like you say. They’re apples and oranges, one is not like the other.

I have always thought Max was meant to evoke the X in the A-series, so that fits your scheme. So, how to evoke the Z? M4 Zen? (short for zenith)

 

[Tyler O'Bannon]

It will be interesting to see if Apple will release an updated Apple Studio display alongside the M4 Mac Studio.

The release of the Mini and Macbook Pro supporting Thunderbolt 5 will ensure a large enough population of Thunderbolt 5 enabled devices by the time a new display might be released next year that will make use of the increased bandwith.

I hope for a larger than 27" display. It would be an instant buy for me. In any case, I hope that both the Studio and the display will be released rather earlier than later next year....March would be ideal.

This. Something I haven’t seen the answer to yet, can TB5 drive 120Hz refresh on 5K and 6K? If so, can the studio display and pro display be the quality of the MBP screen with promotion?

 

[mode11]

[sarcasm]
I really hope the Mac Pro with the M4 Ultra does not have upgradable RAM nor upgradable SSDs. I want the RAM and SSD soldered to the motherboard because, that way, when I need more RAM, I have to buy a new Mac Pro, and that will benefit ultra-rich Apple shareholders instead of benefitting me. You see, I am not rich, so therefore, I am less human than ultra-rich people like Apple shareholders and Tim Cook. Cook is such a wonderful CEO who can do no wrong. Apple should put shareholders first, and customers like me a distant second.
[/sarcasm]

Where did you get hold of the Apple manifesto? Was there a leak?

 

[mcnallym]

They should have had Mac Pro specific chip from the get-go. Maybe that was the intention of M2 Extreme and hopefully dismal sales of Mac Pro will make sure they change their mind this time around. Previous Current generation Mac Pro is there just to let us know what kind of great deal Mac Studio is in comparison. And to pray on people dependent on PCI cards (and some OCD people who don't want bunch of boxes under or on the desk next to a desktop computer such as Mini or Studio).

We shall see.

I suspect the volume just isn’t there to support it though.
back in 2006 then your desktop chip was 2 core if lucky.

come 2010 then the mini still had dual core, and the Mac Pro has Quad to 12 cores.

come 2020 then you could get a 10 core iMac.

as such much of the lower end Mac Pro sales would be lost/cannibalised by the iMac. It is under that many of the “Wedding Photographers“ section went iMac 5k screens as fit there needs/budget better As the CPU available in iMac/Desktops improved.

I went from a 6 Core 2010 bought second hand to a iMac i9 9900k/RX580 hackintosh to an M1 Max Studio.

I went with that as wanted the ProRes Hardware which the M1 lacked.
when come to replace the Studio I fully expect to be in Mini with Mx Pro Chip. Possibly even the base Mx chip as they now have ProRes Hardware.

susoect not unique there either.

 

[mode11]

Well, typically it was always like you got 2 banks of lower capacity ram (bandwidth advantage) and had to replace them with 2 of higher capacity and soforth. You`d always be stuck with a ssd and ram nobody needs and nobody wants, and the system performance remains more or less the same as different bottlenecks kicks in.

Only because Apple's RAM / storage costs have always been ridiculous. Customers shouldn't need to take out a second mortgage to buy the amount they need. The fact it was far more cost efficient to get the base RAM, bin it, and install a bunch of RAM from Crucial or whoever, is on Apple not the user.

If you borrowed money for the spec difference and got what you needed in the first place, it would probably be cheaper.

If only.

Another alternative is simply to sell the mac when you need a higher spec and get a new mac when you actually need the additional capacity. One just have to be awake and dispose of the old before it gets too long in the tooth.

How convenient. I'll just wipe my Mac, advertise it on eBay, then carefully parcel it up and send it, all whilst hoping I don't get ripped off by a dishonest buyer. Rather than add a RAM stick.

I have done a lot of upgrades, and it was never cost efficient. New cpu and old mainboard? A graphics card outperforming the cpu and mainboard.... Nah.....

Never cost efficient to add more HDD / SSD / RAM?? Also, a faster GPU is still a faster GPU, even if it doesn't perform to its limit, as it could with a faster CPU. Though some apps (e.g. games) are not particularly CPU limited anyway, especially at higher resolutions.

The way Apple moves ahead with their M`s it will not make sense.

Who would want to upgrade a M1 Mini base iteration when M4 is on the table, who would upgrade a M1 Studio "outperformed" by a M4 Mini and pay nearly just as much for the upgrade as what you pay for a new machine.

A don't know. Someone buying an M4 Ultra might fancy a proper GPU, e.g. one of Nvidia's better models, but they'll never have the option.

The M1 got give or take 2-3 years left before it stops receiving new MacOS editions, then 1 year of updates to the last one, then 1-2 years where it is outdated but gets the critical security updates.

Yes. I'm sure there are no M1, M2 or M3 users that would like to upgrade their 8GB of RAM, so they can run AI properly...

 

[mode11]

I remember the days when the peanut gallery was constantly berating Apple for not being competitive in this area. It’s why Steve Jobs made the disastrous decision to produce the water cooled G5 Power Mac to placate the critics (I had one and yes it eventually leaked).

Of course 'the peanut gallery' (i.e. Mac users) were disappointed that PPC Macs were falling behind Windows PCs. It's not like Macs cost less, to compensate. If Apple could have made a fast G5 Mac capable of being air cooled, they would have. But they couldn't, so they had to resort to water cooling. They had no choice. After that, they just gave up and

Then the move was made to Intel.

Now the same peanut gallery is once again criticizing Apple for having too powerful machines that aren’t necessary.

The same peanut gallery? Are you sure? This was two decades ago. I'd expect these are totally different users.

Also, few people are criticising Macs for being too fast. Mainly for being too expensive, especially when specced up, and for having no GPU options that are equivalent to the more powerful desktop PC cards.

 

[tenthousandthings]

This. Something I haven’t seen the answer to yet, can TB5 drive 120Hz refresh on 5K and 6K? If so, can the studio display and pro display be the quality of the MBP screen with promotion?

In theory, yes. TB5 supports DisplayPort 2.1, which allows 120Hz up to 8K. The DisplayPort 2.1a spec is for cables up to two meters, so a Pro Display XDR refresh with ProMotion seems likely to be on the horizon. That cable won’t be cheap, not to mention the display. The price won’t drop.

I can’t really imagine the Studio Display getting the same treatment, but you never know. Display technology is a moving target, some hits but even more misses.

 

[Tago]

Only because Apple's RAM / storage costs have always been ridiculous. Customers shouldn't need to take out a second mortgage to buy the amount they need. The fact it was far more cost efficient to get the base RAM, bin it, and install a bunch of RAM from Crucial or whoever, is on Apple not the user.



If only.



How convenient. I'll just wipe my Mac, advertise it on eBay, then carefully parcel it up and send it, all whilst hoping I don't get ripped off by a dishonest buyer. Rather than add a RAM stick.



Never cost efficient to add more HDD / SSD / RAM?? Also, a faster GPU is still a faster GPU, even if it doesn't perform to its limit, as it could with a faster CPU. Though some apps (e.g. games) are not particularly CPU limited anyway, especially at higher resolutions.



A don't know. Someone buying an M4 Ultra might fancy a proper GPU, e.g. one of Nvidia's better models, but they'll never have the option.



Yes. I'm sure there are no M1, M2 or M3 users that would like to upgrade their 8GB of RAM, so they can run AI properly...

Freakin`easy and safe to sell 2nd hand Macs. No problem in this market, and prices are fair and pretty predictable if normally clever wrt timing. Not a problem at all.

I find it rather silly to borrow or drawing credit for consumer goods, but it IS an alternative, and again - normally clever - it is pretty easy to calculate the cost of credit and put it up against trade in / upgrade costs.

I have wasted enough cash on upgrades and looked into potential benefits at variously aged machines. You`ll improve performance, but the stuff you kept has become last year`s story. Selling off and adding the upgrade cost to what you get will often make much more sense in terms of performance.

Sure they would. M1/M2 Minis pops up for sale, and some morons tries to charge more for a M1 16 than Apple charges for a M4. If they sold a M1 8gb 2 weeks ago, and bought a M4 16 today, the difference would be give or take identical to the extra they would have paid for M1 16. AND get a WAY better machine. That`s an indication of the waste of upgrades.

The upgrade arguments tend to be presented by windows people anyway. My MBP is newer than yours apparently, the battery is busted, and I can replace battery and fit a faster SSD to it myself and keep it. But it makes no sense, it is already too old, even with 16gb ram.

IF I do that, it would be to replace MacOS with Linux just for fun, not for productivity. But it won`t give me great battery time, would it.... Old.

The wish it could be upgraded because it`s trash if it can`t debates bores me like Windows and Intel. They deserve each other, and if gamers wants to be a passenger on the upgrade train, it`s all up to them. Heaven knows there`s an industry to drain their pockets. Cheap? Hehe..... Worse than loansharks. Apple is a toddler breastfeeding in comparison.

 

[Siliconguy]

They should just put 12 Mac Minis wired in parallel stacked inside the box like cheeseburgers.

First at home supercomputer space heater.

150 watts apiece times 12, that's a space heater. Although 5 USB ports at 15 watts each is half that demand, and you wouldn't have anything connected to those ports. Back to the old Beowulf clusters.

 

[Siliconguy]

Now the same peanut gallery is once again criticizing Apple for having too powerful machines that aren ’t necessary.

The M4 Macs are unbalanced. The M4 benchmarks are very impressive, but the standard RAM is, well, standard. The storage is substandard. So we have a screaming hot CPU, but with OK RAM (only just upgraded from substandard) and inadequate storage unless you pay a ridiculous surcharge.

For example, the Ryzen 7435HS benchmarks at 23,800, the M2 Pro at 21,700, and my MacBook Air M1 at 14,200. The M1 is entirely fast enough for me. But I can get a mini PC with the 7435HS with 32 GB and 1 TB NVME for $650. My desktop Linux box has a Ryzen 4600G, which benchmarks at 16,000 (call it M1 an class CPU) plus multiple internal drives and 11 USB ports with upgradable memory and PCI-e slots for future expansion, like a better video card than the one built into the CPU (which I haven't needed either.)

Not that Apple will consider it, but is there a market for a die-shrunk (to save power) M2 with more RAM and storage? Where is the balance point between the parts of a computer in the current state of technology?

Edit; the Linux box started out with a Ryzen 3200G. That benchmarks at 7100, and was NOT fast enough for some things. For most things yes, but occasionally I did want more, so I swapped in the 4600G and happiness was achieved.

 

[mode11]

Freakin`easy and safe to sell 2nd hand Macs. No problem in this market, and prices are fair and pretty predictable if normally clever wrt timing. Not a problem at all.

Sure, I'm no stranger to eBay. Bear in mind, though, that unlike Apple's retail prices, upgrade prices fall steadily over time (especially when buying second hand). So rather than paying through the nose for e.g. 64GB of RAM at Apple's checkout in case you need it later, you could just buy it later, and for a fraction of the cost.

I have wasted enough cash on upgrades and looked into potential benefits at variously aged machines. You`ll improve performance, but the stuff you kept has become last year`s story. Selling off and adding the upgrade cost to what you get will often make much more sense in terms of performance.

I accept you have be sensible with upgrades. There obviously comes a time when you're better off just selling up and moving on.

Sure they would. M1/M2 Minis pops up for sale, and some morons tries to charge more for a M1 16 than Apple charges for a M4. If they sold a M1 8gb 2 weeks ago, and bought a M4 16 today, the difference would be give or take identical to the extra they would have paid for M1 16. AND get a WAY better machine. That`s an indication of the waste of upgrades.

People can list something on eBay for whatever price they like. That doesn't mean anyone will actually pay that much. Only the Sold price means anything.

Also, the 16GB 'windfall' is a special case. Apple would still be selling 8GB at the entry level if AI hadn't suddenly become a thing for them. The base storage is still 256GB (!). I wouldn't expect $200 upgrades to suddenly become free year-on-year; this was a rare occasion.

The upgrade arguments tend to be presented by windows people anyway. My MBP is newer than yours apparently, the battery is busted, and I can replace battery and fit a faster SSD to it myself and keep it. But it makes no sense, it is already too old, even with 16gb ram.

Sure. My 2015 MBP's in mint condition (I bought it as such a couple of years ago). It gets little use TBH, but if it did I'd probably trade it in for a M2 Air (either 13 or 15).

The wish it could be upgraded because it`s trash if it can`t debates bores me like Windows and Intel. They deserve each other, and if gamers wants to be a passenger on the upgrade train, it`s all up to them. Heaven knows there`s an industry to drain their pockets. Cheap? Hehe..... Worse than loansharks. Apple is a toddler breastfeeding in comparison.

Equally, Mac users tell themselves this because regardless, they have no choice. They can only buy hardware from Apple, and Apple doesn't allow upgrades, so it's a moot point. I agree upgrading doesn't always make sense, but it certainly does sometimes, and not having this option is a definite minus of the Mac platform. Deal-breaker? No. But not having the option is hardly a positive.

The main benefit of Mac expandability wouldn't so much be the ability to upgrade later, as to provide price competition to Apple's spec-upselling. Which is, of course, why it's not allowed, even on desktop machines that would have no physical restrictions to it.

 

[rezwits]

I know you're trying to be snide about people wanting to upgrade but on my M2 Ultra Studio the Pages icon bounces twice from cold load before it displays the file selector window. I suspect on M4 with even slightly faster storage that it may not bounce at all. While no-where near as dramatic as major workloads, faster machine to make the mundane work faster/simpler as well.

The thing is the "bounce" is 1/3 SoC and 2/3 SSD. When you get a brand spanking new SSD with practically ANY M1 series chip, the 2-3 months you're gonna get a 1-2 bounces for quite a few "Apple Installed Apps." But after you have had it for a year and done some re-installs or did some video file transfers here and there that # of bounces increases.

There is also the addition of each macOS update, which could account for 1 additional bounce each major release... LOL

 

[Chuckeee]

Why buy a $1599 Mac Book Pro when I can just get a $599 Mac mini and save $1000?

Because some people need a portable laptop and a desktop (even if it’s small) computer is not appropriate.

 

[soyazul]

Can it compete with a RTX 4090?

It will surely surpass it, doubt about it.