2025 vs. 2026 Mac Studio Buyer's Guide: All Upgrades Compared

[loby]

Who needs all this power (other than ai?)

Video production, it is always a plus.

 

[Mr. Bear]

I do “light” 3D, video games (Unity), Photoshop, After Effects, Final Cut, Xcode, Substance Designer, Houdini, etc…
I have an M1 Ultra 64GB since launch day that has powered through like a champ, however, for this cycle around I preordered a M5 Max (64GB also) instead, it will ultimately feel a lot faster but thanks in big part to those impressive single core scores, M5 Ultra I felt it overkill… will leave the m1 ultra as a render, build machine and agent of sorts in any case.

I have an M1 Max with 64gb. Before chips exploded, I was planning on getting a "maxed out" Studio, figuring an M5 Max would be around $6k. Wasn't sure how I'd pay for it, though. Adobe will use as much RAM as you can throw at it, and I was hoping to get 256gb. And an 8tb SSD for my 5tb photo library. But with the huge price increase, I'll probably have to "settle" for an M5 Max with 128gb and a 4tb SSD. But I may go nuts and get the 8tb version

 

[rosschang]

Damn... I'm absolutely gonna buy one just to play Wuthering Waves at Max Settings.

 

[dragoon2745]

The SSD uses PCIe Gen 5 not Gen 6. Gen 6 is not available on consumer desktop computers yet. I already posted this once but Mac Rumors posted the same mistake again.

 

[alfonsog]

I have a base M1 Ultra and I'm still good for years. My heaviest task nowadays is full symphony orchestra music notation/playback.

 

[kwikdeth]

Can someone explain to me what the difference is between a performance core and a "super" core? It sounds like marketing gibberish.

 

[theorist9]

Last August I got a refurb base M4 Max Studio for about $1,700 (got it from the Apple Japan refurb store while I was visiting there)....

That's a great deal!

It's worth noting that there is nothing particularly notable about that pricing, except by contrast with the current inflated prices.

That was just the standard refurb price at the time. The base model, at that time, retailed for $2,000, and the usual refurb discount is 15%, giving $1,700.

 

[theorist9]

I think this comparison nicely illustrates the difference:

The launch pricing for an upgraded M4 Max Studio with a 40 core GPU, 64 GB RAM, and a 2 TB SSD ($3,299) is identical to the current pricing for the base M5 Max Studiio (32 core GPU, 36 GB RAM) with a 2 TB SSD.

 

[bxs]

Can someone explain to me what the difference is between a performance core and a "super" core? It sounds like marketing gibberish.

It may seem gibberish, but it isn't.

Apple's new desktop computers are designed specifically for local AI development

Folks have been daisy-chaining Macs for AI—this refresh keeps that in mind.

arstechnica.com

M5 Pro and M5 Max are surprisingly big departures from older Apple Silicon

Apple is using more chiplets and three types of CPU cores to make the M5 family.

arstechnica.com

 

[zync]

Your implicit question answers itself: this is to feed the AI bubble and the hardware $$$ out of it. These machines (besides the mini) are far too powerful for home/office usage and even for graphical workflows.

No they aren’t. I could max out this machine and still need more speed. The only reason I’m not buying one now is that I often use over 96 GB of RAM (which is why my M2 Ultra is 128 GB) and I don’t want to spend $4K, for 256 GB. But I might bundle it into the next big job because this machine will blow the doors off of my machine, especially for lookdev in Blender when iterating quickly is good for the process. Even my M4 Max MBP is often faster in some tasks because of the ray tracing they added.

There are tons of pros out here who need faster computers. I don’t know why that’s so hard to grasp. Look at the non-AI/ML stats they always put up. Redshift, Davinci Resolve, etc.

Someone mentioned Magic Mask earlier in the thread. I just did a spot yesterday where every shot needed it to remove the background from footage to match a graphical style. That could’ve helped me end my day earlier.

 

[theorist9]

It strikes me that, to this day, one or several writers at MacRumors still do not understand or do not want to acknowledge that the "super" core type in the M5 Pro/Max/Ultra is simply the renamed "performance" core type from the base M5 (as well as the M4/A19 and earlier series). OTOH, what is now called the "performance" core type on the M5 Pro/Max/Ultra (and base M6) is factually an entirely new core type, with no precedent in earlier designs other than reusing the previous name of the current "super" cores. The new "performance" core type is more compact and efficient than what is now the "super" core type, less performant in absolute terms but featuring a higher compute density, which is what drives up the multi-core performance at optimized area. This should be clearly pointed out, but regularly is not. The article once more goes for an apple-to-apples comparison that is absolutely impossible to make in this case.

Summarized:

On M5 Pro/Max/Ultra + base M6: "super core" = old "performance core", "performance core" = entirely new core type
On base M5 as well as M4/A19 and earlier: "performance core" = current "super core"

This is talking core types/classes, not node shrinks or minor architectural upgrades.

In all fairness, Apple created an absolute mess that is a nightmare to explain; renaming an existing core type to something else while introducing an entirely new core type bearing its former name.

Yes.

I think it's helpful to add some numbers explaining how the new performance cores represent a new kind of animal. Here's how I'd put it, by referencing measurements from Ars Technica:

Apple went from Efficiency Cores + Performance Cores in the M4 generation to a three-tier CPU architecture across the M5 family: Efficiency Cores + Performance Cores + Super Cores, where the new M5 Performance cores represent a middle tier intended to balance performance with efficiency.

The individual M5 chips don't use all three tiers*:

Base M5: Super Cores + Efficiency Cores
M5 Pro/Max: Super Cores + Performance Cores
[*But the new M6 does: 2 super + 4 performance + 6 efficiency.]

According to Ars Technica (

Testing Apple's 2026 16-inch MacBook Pro, M5 Max, and its new "performance" cores

M5 Pro Max's "performance" CPU cores definitely aren't just rebranded E-cores.

arstechnica.com

), the new M5 Performance cores are not simply rebranded Efficiency cores. Apple describes them as an all-new design optimized for power-efficient multithreaded workloads, and Ars reports that they are derived from the Supercore design. They also have more L2 cache and substantially higher clock speeds than the M5 Efficiency cores.

Like the Efficiency cores, the M5 Max's Performance cores are able to maintain relatively stable clock speeds under sustained multicore load. But whereas the M5 Efficiency cores run at ≈ 3.0 GHz, the M5 Max Performance cores sustain ≈ 4.2–4.3 GHz. That's nearly as high as the Supercores, which peak at ≈ 4.6 GHz.

Thus, a useful shorthand is:

M4 Max:
12 highest-performance (“Performance”) + 4 low-performance, efficiency-oriented (“Efficiency”) = 16 cores

M5 Max:
6 highest-performance (“Super”) + 12 middle-tier cores balancing performance, efficiency, and multicore throughput (“Performance”) = 18 cores

And I definitely agree that Apple screwed up the naming. They should not have reused the term "Performance cores", given that the new Performance cores are qualitatively different from anything they were using before. They should have been called "Balance cores" or something equivalent.

Can someone explain to me what the difference is between a performance core and a "super" core? It sounds like marketing gibberish.

See above.

 

[theorist9]

My problem is that my current M4 Pro Mini will set there for 10 or 20 minutes running (Apple Xcode) 100% on each of the efficiency cores and using 0% of the performance cores. All the while I sit and wait for results. Apple's obsession with low power consumption keeps me from getting my job done.

These specs look powerful but are meaningless with how Apple prioritizes CPUs. Plus the fact that there is not anyway for the user to help macOS make better allocation decisions. These are toys meant to look good, but not actually perform.

In that case the new M5 Pro/Max might be interesting for you, since they don't have the type of efficiency-optimized cores seen on the M4; see my post immediately above.

 

[conmee]

For a quick second there I thought MacRumors was charging $200 to read the full article lol 😉

 

[colincarter]

The SSD uses PCIe Gen 5 not Gen 6. Gen 6 is not available on consumer desktop computers yet. I already posted this once but Mac Rumors posted the same mistake again.

Actually if you look on apples website the new studios are using pci gen 6 for their ssd’s.

 

[Acronyc]

It's worth noting that there is nothing particularly notable about that pricing, except by contrast with the current inflated prices.

That was just the standard refurb price at the time. The base model, at that time, retailed for $2,000, and the usual refurb discount is 15%, giving $1,700.

Yeah, it was normal refurb pricing at the time. Nothing special.

But, where I live, refurb Studios are almost never in stock and on the rare occasion that they are, the configs offered are super expensive versions that I don't need. Being in Japan at the time was a good opportunity for me to grab one.

I'm just happy I got it then. If I waited until now to get my Studio, I'd only have the option of buying a new one at the equivalent of US$3,100 for the base M5 Max compared the to US$1,700 I spent a year ago for the refurb base M4 Max, so I saved 45% by buying then instead of now. The performance difference between the M4 Max and M5 Max is negligible for what I need.

 

[flottenheimer]

Admittedly, I get a bit excited when I hear about all the improvements between Apple Silicon generations.

When I finally decide to upgrade my M1 Pro / 32GB Mac, I figure my next machine ought to be at least 10 times as fast with all the 1.5x, 2.2x, 3.1x, 0.7x, 1.8x etc numbers they've claimed along the way.

Doubt that is how it works out though. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[neuropsychguy]

Admittedly, I get a bit excited when I hear about all the improvements between Apple Silicon generations.

When I finally decide to upgrade my M1 Pro / 32GB Mac, I figure my next machine ought to be at least 10 times as fast with all the 1.5x, 2.2x, 3.1x, 0.7x, 1.8x etc numbers they've claimed along the way.

Doubt that is how it works out though. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You’ll be waiting a while. An M5 Pro is likely about 1.8 to 3X as fast as the M1 Pro overall (those are single and multi core, respectively). Some specific workflows might see a little less or much more (e.g., using neural engine) improvement.

 

[Powerbooky]

These specs seem fast by yesterday’s standards, but when I used to work in 3D full time - many years ago- my conclusion back then was that I needed a machine that was 20X faster than what I had - and what I had was a top tier Mac Pro.
So for those wondering what all this power is for on the new Studio - guaranteed there’s going to be guys waiting and waiting and waiting for their task to complete while the Top of The Line Mac Studio churns through it all.

Every computer apple has ever made and will ever make will eventually become a slow old dog - because the software becomes more and more demanding as time goes on.

Actually, software has been getting more inefficient and slower over the decades. These days we need multi core machines, loads of memory and storage, just to type some document of send an email. I could do the same on my old PowerPC G4 550MHz just as fast.
A more recent example... look at Photoshop. The old version 7 was relatively small and the binary could fit on a 100MB ZIP disk. No need for additional agents and stuff. Then Adobe came with Creative Suite versions... these were much bigger and slower with hardly any new functionality. Still any basic task was slower, including saving to an uncompressed file format. I had a couple of workflow scripts that did some processing with layers and exports; used to run for 5 to 10 seconds or so. In later CS versions it went to minutes, even on faster Mac's. Simple tasks, like selecting layers and trigger a PNG export or something. One script I still use today does turn on the fans to maximum on my Intel MacBook Pro (2019) and needs at least 5 minutes to finish.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

Actually if you look on apples website the new studios are using pci gen 6 for their ssd’s.

A link where it says that sure would be helpful since it's not obvious and I just checked everywhere I could find and didn't see it.

 

[JippaLippa]

Still rocking the original M1 Ultra 💪.

I went into the apple silicon transition full in, having purchased a 16GB Mac mini M1...THE OG in late 2020.
Soon enough I needeed a beefier machine for some animation projects and 2022 was a good year earnings wise; I wouldn't have been able to purchase a 6000$ machine any year later (I know, as I was annoyed when the M2 Ultra added hdmi 2.1).

Having said that, I'm starting to see the first limitations of the machine, and I'd eventually like to get something with modern standards and connectivity (hdmi 2.1, bluetooth 6, wifi7, thinderbolt 5).
The M5 Ultra is glorious, but simply unattainable at these prices.

I'll pretty much need to get this going for an other year and hopefully get an M7 Max.
By that point a Max chip will be considerably better than my M1 Ultra (The M5 Max is already better in many regards).
I want to keep the 128GB of ram (a smart investment I made in 2022), therefore I'll be aiming for an M7 Max with 128Gb of ram, whatever it'll cost in mid 2028.

I really hope macOS 28 will still be compatible with the M1 generation.
I think I can sell my M1 ultra easily for 2k (considering the 128GB of ram).
We shall see...

 

[nottorp]

Hmm no more efficiency cores means that when a javascript "application" runs amok you'll pay for it in power consumption, heat and noise...

 

[CaptainBlue]

Oh, and Lightroom Classic. More seriously, I’m gunning for a Max because of my photography. Ultra is overkill (although 256gb of RAM would be nice)

I was looking at the mini with 48GB RAM but it wasn't that much cheaper than the Studio which also has Thunderbolt 5 for my 6k monitor ... BUT I could only get 36GB without upgrading the CPU and adding even more to the price. I could probably have saved a bit by not opting for 2TB and getting external drives, but that potentially slows down read and write times?

So I've gone with the Studio in the M5 Max with 36GB and 2TB.

 

[amartinez1660]

I have an M1 Max with 64gb. Before chips exploded, I was planning on getting a "maxed out" Studio, figuring an M5 Max would be around $6k. Wasn't sure how I'd pay for it, though. Adobe will use as much RAM as you can throw at it, and I was hoping to get 256gb. And an 8tb SSD for my 5tb photo library. But with the huge price increase, I'll probably have to "settle" for an M5 Max with 128gb and a 4tb SSD. But I may go nuts and get the 8tb version

Darn, yeah ok, fair points there. I actually close at least Photoshop when I know I won’t be visiting it in some time (say, some hours). Since Photoshop 2026, it can chug the rest of the system badly… heck just box marquee selecting can lag, the simplest of the simple actions available.

Just for awareness, might be useful, I recently bought a Crucial 6TB portable drive for TM backups, it’s surprisingly tiny (less than the palm of a hand) and can leave it plugged right there in top of the Mac Studio. Maybe useful for archiving said photo library.

 

[Powerbooky]

Why didn’t you include the price of the M4 model and just write “now discontinued”? So people wouldn’t see just how outrageous Apple’s price increases have become and how much more customers are being made to pay?

Is it? If you replace a Mac every year or few years, then yes. But once every 10 years?
I remember buying my Mac Pro 2008 with some options, not the absolute top order but still around 3500 euro.
Last year I replaced it with the Mac mini M4 pro with 48GB memory, also not the absolute top Mac but still extremely powerful: less than 2900 euro.

 

[HVDynamo]

These specs seem fast by yesterday’s standards, but when I used to work in 3D full time - many years ago- my conclusion back then was that I needed a machine that was 20X faster than what I had - and what I had was a top tier Mac Pro.
So for those wondering what all this power is for on the new Studio - guaranteed there’s going to be guys waiting and waiting and waiting for their task to complete while the Top of The Line Mac Studio churns through it all.

Every computer apple has ever made and will ever make will eventually become a slow old dog - because the software becomes more and more demanding as time goes on.

This is true to a point. But at some point the need for faster machines does and will hit a plateau. There are for sure use cases where continued jumps in performance will be needed, but for the vast majority of people we hit that plateau a LONG time ago and software is just needlessly getting more complicated to help continue driving the need for new hardware. For most people's needs, a 10 or even 15 year old computer would still be completely adequate today if software wasn't needlessly complicated or support dropped for it. Technically, my mid 2012 Macbook Pro running a linux distro would still handle any basic office tasks with Libre Office and doing email/online payments. The software Apple makes left it behind, but that doesn't mean the hardware is useless. But for people just using a computer to pay their bills and stay in touch with people, it would be fine if Apple had kept supporting it.

The needs at the high end is a slowly shrinking market as hardware has essentially becomes faster.