3D Rendering on Apple Silicon, CPU&GPU

[jeanlain]

If it will have more GPU cores, like 48c

It would be too hot for a thin laptop.

 

[Macintosh IIcx]

Yes. But then they will release it only in the mbp in spring, and put it in the studio first in 2027 if they continue the pattern they have had for some time. so once you actually have a m5 ultra on your desktop, competition is on next gen nvidia. And also the m6 max almost beats the m5ultra. Especially since there will be a node switch. With this candence, i am amazed anyone buys the desktops or ultras at all

The Studio M3 Ultra being one generation behind what is current at launch was hopefully a one-off thing. They only alluded that there might not be an Ultra for each generation, not that it would always be launched on an older M generation. So I would not rule an M5 Ultra out, although it might come a couple of months after the M5 Max to bin the chips for it.

There is also the weird state of the Mac Pro to account for, maybe that will get the M5 Ultra for WWDC 2026?

 

[Homy]

It would be too hot for a thin laptop.

Maybe but not hot for Mac Studio. We’ll see.

 

[leman]

It would be too hot for a thin laptop.

The 16” model still has some thermal headroom. It’s more a question of costs, probably. Faster GPU also requires faster everything else (more caches, faster RAM, etc.).

 

[Tdude96]

The Studio M3 Ultra being one generation behind what is current at launch was hopefully a one-off thing. They only alluded that there might not be an Ultra for each generation, not that it would always be launched on an older M generation. So I would not rule an M5 Ultra out, although it might come a couple of months after the M5 Max to bin the chips for it.

There is also the weird state of the Mac Pro to account for, maybe that will get the M5 Ultra for WWDC 2026?

I'm hoping we do. I was looking at release dates after someone in another thread said that Apple is on a 2-year cadence with Mac Studio, which didn't strike me as correct (it's ~15-21 months). We don't have a good enough sampling to make a remotely accurate guess.

However, what I noticed was that when there is a new Mac Studio, it follows ~5 months after the release of the same generation Max chip.

MacBook Pro M1 Max -> Mac Studio M1 Max/Ultra = 4 months, 23 days
MacBook Pro M2 Max -> Mac Studio M2 Max/Ultra = 4 months, 20 days
MacBook Pro M4 Max -> Mac Studio M4 Max/M3 Ultra = 4 months, 4 days

This makes me think that if we do see a late January release of the M5 Max MacBook Pro and if they are planning to release a M5 Mac Studio, there's a really good chance we'll see the M5 Max/Ultra Mac Studio around WWDC 2026, which would be roughly 5 months after the M5 Max MacBook Pro release and 15 months after the Studio M4/M3 release, fitting both timelines.

That's assuming, of course, Apple does plan on having M5 Studios and doesn't do something wonky with the chip generation mismatch like they did on the last Studio.

 

[M4pro]

M5 MBP GPU-rendering benchmarked in Cinebench 2024 GPU (using the Redshift renderer).

 

[dgdosen]

There is a remote possibility that they are introducing die stacking, which could potentially increase the effective logic area. We do know that they have been working on it for many years. But whether this technology will arrive with M5 Pro/Max and which form it might take is anyone's guess.

With respect to stacking/packaging - assuming the tech exists (a big assumption) - would it already be feasible from a heat/power perspective in Apple's case? If an A19 Pro consumes 12W of power - all else being equal - could they stack two of them and not have heat be an issue? Would that change assuming there was available active cooling (as in a desktop)?

 

[Homy]

96% faster!

 

[skippermonkey]

If that score is genuine, then an M5 Ultra would scream. It would definitely be a fine replacement for my M3 Ultra, which itself is no slouch.

 

[StudioMacs]

96% faster!

View attachment 2572276

If it was 96% faster than 108 seconds, it would be 4.32 seconds.

55 seconds is approximately 49.07% faster than 108 seconds.

 

[jeanlain]

"faster" refers to seed, and speed is proportional to the inverse of time. 1/55 is 1.96 times 1/108.
You can also say that it takes almost twice as long to finish the task on the M4. When one device takes twice the time, the other is twice faster, not 50% faster.

 

[Homy]

If it was 96% faster than 108 seconds, it would be 4.32 seconds.

55 seconds is approximately 49.07% faster than 108 seconds.

It's all relative. Yes, M5 does the job in half the time or 49.07% of M4's time but that's twice as fast as M4. M5 is 96% faster.

 

[Homy]