Apple Announces New Mac Studio With M4 Max and M3 Ultra Chips, Thunderbolt 5, and More

[magbarn]

I know this is an Apple website, but out of curiosity, how much would it cost to build a PC with 16TB of storage, 512GB of RAM and the best processors and GPUs on the market? How much would you save compared to a $20K Mac Studio and how much better would it be?

Thanks to Ai, the PC GPU high end market is ruined at this time. Because Ai nets them 1400% more profit than end user GPU, Nvidia is allocating vast majority of their TSMC fab allocation to Ai servers rather than consumer GPUs. Even used 4090's are going for $2500 in today's market, let alone getting lucky enough to get a 5090 which has much better CUDA and video processing than the 4090.

AMD which is isn't earning like Nvidia is when it comes to Ai, has a much better allocation and was able to provide thousands of new GPU's this week while Nvidia is dripping a hundred 5090's here and there every 2 weeks worldwide. Too bad AMD GPU don't have CUDA and their video processing isn't good.

Mac Studio is currently a great value for video editing as it will be readily available and Apple allows pre-orders unlike greedy Nvidia.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

According to IDC Apple’s worldwide share of the personal computer market in Q4 2024 was 10.1%.

If you don’t believe me Google it and see for yourself.

So #1 is at 20-something % and Apple is #4 and has been generally slowly growing its market share. The only relevant point is that Apple is a major player: 4th largest in the world and growing [and probably the most profitable]. Folks who suggest Apple is simply a phone maker fail to grasp business.

 

[john1970]

I placed an order for the M3 Ultra base model, but am undecided if I should go with the M4 Max 16C with 128 GB RAM instead. The price difference is $300 with the M4 Max being less costly.

I currently have a M1 Ultra base model and as best as I can tell the improvements for the M3 Ultra are:

1) Four additional performance cores
2) 4.05 GHz vs. 3.2 GHz clock speed
3) 96 vs. 64 GB RAM
4) Better graphics
5) 36 TOPS vs. 22 TOPS

I was considering the CPU upgrade, but not for $1500. I would rather put that towards the next gen Mac studio in 3-4 year timeframe.

 

[john1970]

Am I the only one who thinks the M3 Ultra is priced almost as if it were an M4 Ultra?

The M3 Ultra is based on 2023 tech offered at 2025 prices, and these RAM and SSD storage prices are out of this world. Even with 10% discounts in the Apple refurbished store, these are still way too high prices for what they are offering.

The base M3 Ultra is the same price as the M1 Ultra from 2022; if one takes inflation into account the M3 Ultra is actually less expensive.

 

[awer25]

I placed an order for the M3 Ultra base model, but am undecided if I should go with the M4 Max 16C with 128 GB RAM instead. The price difference is $300 with the M4 Max being less costly.

I currently have a M1 Ultra base model and as best as I can tell the improvements for the M3 Ultra are:

1) Four additional performance cores
2) 4.05 GHz vs. 3.2 GHz clock speed
3) 96 vs. 64 GB RAM
4) Better graphics
5) 36 TOPS vs. 22 TOPS

I was considering the CPU upgrade, but not for $1500. I would rather put that towards the next gen Mac studio in 3-4 year timeframe.

I went with the M4 Max 14C as performance is similar to the M3 Ultra and I can’t justify the huge price difference, but one other benefit I remember from my M1 Ultra is the cooling was much beefier. I believe a lot more copper heat pipes, and it added some weight over the Max model. That, and the extra two TB5 front ports (possibly mitigated with a TB5 hub)

 

[john1970]

I went with the M4 Max 14C as performance is similar to the M3 Ultra and I can’t justify the huge price difference, but one other benefit I remember from my M1 Ultra is the cooling was much beefier. I believe a lot more copper heat pipes, and it added some weight over the Max model. That, and the extra two TB5 front ports (possibly mitigated with a TB5 hub)

I do like the faster front ports on the Ultra series as well. They are very beneficial when transferring files to and from card readers or portable SSD. The Ultra series also has much better cooling with copper heat pipes; hence the significant weight difference between the M4 Max and M3 Ultra versions.

 

[rehkram]

Ok, here's a question: roll back 50 years to 1975: How many computer companies back then are still in the business of selling computers today?

Answer: basically none. IBM today sells services.

Actually, you need to raise your eyes above your desktop. In addition to services, IBM supplies supercomputers, and the mainframe- and midrange markets, System z and System i respectively.

You might be surprised how many big companies and governments use IBM hardware that the average punter has never heard of. New models and products are always in the pipeline.

 

[jido]

I generally agree with your approach but your estimates for the M3 Ultra seem a little low. Based on the M3 Max's performance in the MacBook Pro and historical scaling from Max to Ultra, I extrapolate the Studio M3 Ultra's performance as:

1. Single core: 3100
2. Multi-core (39% avg. est. increase)
   1. 28/60c: 26K
   2. 32/80c: 29K
3. OpenCL: (41% avg. est. increase)
   1. 28/60c: 110K
   2. 32/80c: 131K
4. Metal: (45% avg. est. increase)
   1. 28/60c: 182K
   2. 32/80c: 225K

There may be some specific advantages for applications that can use all of the M3 Ultra's memory bandwidth (50% greater) or its extra media engines. On the other hand, well agreed M3 Ultra's single core performance will be less.

My general recommendations:
Studio M4 Max: mainstream choice (up to 128GB of RAM and very good but not maximum multicore CPU/GPU performance)
Studio M3 Ultra 28/60c: if you need 256GB of RAM
Studio M3 Ultra 32/80c: if you need 512GB of RAM and/or maximum multicore CPU/GPU performance

Geekbench is good to approximate general desktop software performance, but it does not give you accurate numbers for highly parallel workloads.
That’s where the extra cores on M3 Ultra really count.

 

[azchandler]

Lenovo is pragmaticvally defacto IBM's PC business. It just got spun out and a different label slapped on the product. There wasn't a "IBM" in 1975 , it was formally International Business Machines. Name changes over 40 years come all the time as mergers and spin outs happen.

"Spun out" is nice way of saying IBM sold its PC business to the Chinese company Lenovo in 2005 because they were desperate for funds.

 

[amarmot]

Time to sunset the Mac Pro 5,1?

 

[chucker23n1]

I placed an order for the M3 Ultra base model, but am undecided if I should go with the M4 Max 16C with 128 GB RAM instead. The price difference is $300 with the M4 Max being less costly.

I currently have a M1 Ultra base model and as best as I can tell the improvements for the M3 Ultra are:

1) Four additional performance cores
2) 4.05 GHz vs. 3.2 GHz clock speed
3) 96 vs. 64 GB RAM
4) Better graphics
5) 36 TOPS vs. 22 TOPS

I was considering the CPU upgrade, but not for $1500. I would rather put that towards the next gen Mac studio in 3-4 year timeframe.

It depends entirely on how much you'll saturate more than 16 CPU cores, or more than 40 GPU cores.

Most people don't. For them, the M4 Max is the better deal, as it improves single-core performance by 63% vs. the M3 Ultra's 33%. But if you really have specialized tasks that are heavily parallelized, the M3 Ultra will be much faster than the M4 Max in those — for example, a 66% speed-up in Clang, vs. just 22%.

M1 Ultra vs. M3 Ultra: https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/10942077?baseline=10944152

M1 Ultra vs. M4 Max: https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/10943381?baseline=10944152

Of course, you should also check your RAM use. If you currently find yourself getting close to saturating 128 GiB, you probably shouldn't downgrade to just 64.

 

[deconstruct60]

Maybe in old peoples' minds that remember typewriters but Lenovo is an independent company. It wasn't just spun off. It was sold. IBM does not own it; mostly Chinese investors do.

" ... ·
N.Y. and BEIJING — Dec. 7, 2004 — IBM and Lenovo Group Limited · Creates world’s third-largest PC business with approximately US$12 billion annual revenue for 2003...
... Long-term strategic alliances between Lenovo and IBM in PC sales, service and financing worldwide · ...
...IBM to take 18.9 percent equity stake in Lenovo; transaction expected to be completed in second quarter 2005 ...
Lenovo Group Limited, the leading Personal Computer brand in China and across Asia, and IBM today announced a definitive agreement under which Lenovo will acquire IBM’s Personal Computing Division to form the world’s third-largest PC business, bringing IBM’s leading enterprise-class PC technologies to the consumer market and giving Lenovo global market reach beyond China and Asia..."

Lenovo To Acquire IBM Personal Computing Division - Lenovo StoryHub

Lenovo's official site for press materials and original stories about the vision and passion behind the technology.

news.lenovo.com

Lenovo didn't have a major foothold in the USA PC market. Or the other higher end PC markets. The "IBM PC business" that sells to business and is in markets close to what Apple competes in is the old IBM business.
Even today the North American and Europe combined are substantially bigger than the China business. The notion that Lenovo would taken that on their own without IBM support or resources post sale is re-inventing history. IBM eased their way out the door fully over time, but there was a substantive transition.


IBM has wound down their holdings ( but folks like Blackrock and Lazard appear )

Lenovo Group Limited: Shareholders, Shareholding Structure - MarketScreener

Find the distribution by types of shareholders of Lenovo Group Limited listed on the Hong Kong S.E. stock exchange. Discover the geographical origin of the shareholders of Lenovo Group Limited.

www.marketscreener.com

 

[neutrino17]

Last week I ordered the Mac Studio with M4 Max 16C, 64GB and 4TB. Just now I got the update that it is shipping to the store for pickup. Scheduled to be there next Monday. This will replace a six year old Intel iMac 27”. I figure this will last at least six years.

 

[v3rlon]

Benchmarks are showing up, and M3 Ultra looks like it is the best thing there is on Blender and Cinebench, and a strong contender, even against Intel/AMD machines is multicore activities across the board.

 

[v3rlon]

Such a shame that there is no M4 Ultra.

The M3 Ultra doesn’t suck, and I am not going to lose sleep over the number after the M.
Is it faster that what I have? Yes.
Is it faster than any Mac ever made at things I do? Yes
Is the M4 Max faster at some things? Yes, but those are either things I am not doing or things where the speed of the computer is not the big limiter for me.
Does it have hardware ray tracing? Yes.
Does it have TB5? Yes

Would a M4 Ultra be better? Almost certainly.
Am I willing to wait another year for something better on the horizon? Clearly not.

 

[bzgnyc2]

Geekbench is good to approximate general desktop software performance, but it does not give you accurate numbers for highly parallel workloads.
That’s where the extra cores on M3 Ultra really count.

Agree and hopefully the people buying $5K+ machines are following best practice as far as testing (or least comparing) with the code/programs/applications they actually run. Then as often seen at the more exotic levels there are tradeoffs such that more expensive machine B is not necessarily justifiable faster (or even faster at all) than more common machine B depending on the needs. Geekbench just an easily available yardstick to highlight some of this this but agree not ideal and to second your point unlikely to be representative of the applications run by people in the market segment targeted by the Studio.

Then new benchmarks in the past few days reinforce your point showing pretty significant benefits of the Studio M3 Ultra over the Studio M4 Max on several (but of course not all) key applications.

I still draw the general conclusion that the M4 Max is a great choice for many (and I suspect most) Studio buyers while the M3 Ultra has valuable advantages over it in certain situations. Even if the M4 Max is faster at some things, the M3 Ultra may accelerate workflows more important to some people that justify its somewhat slower performance on some tasks (and of course higher cost). Buyers in this segment will have to figure out where they fit. If not sure, assume the M4 Max.

 

[Helloworld75]

There's no Geekbench results out yet, is there? Im currently owning an old iMac 27" and MacBook Pro (M4 Pro 48 gb ram). Im mainly doing lots of photoshop and figma work.

What can I expect from an upgrade to Mac Studio 4 max 16 cores and 64 gb ram? Maybe hard to answer but any thoughts is helpful.

 

[chucker23n1]

There are no scores of the M4 Max Studio, only the M3 Ultra one. Just look at M4 Max MBP scores; they’ll be fairly close. The Studio really only benefits at sustained workloads over an MBP, which Geekbench doesn’t test much.

 

[john1970]

I decided to go with the based M3 Ultra configuration to replace my three year old M1 Ultra. The plan is to keep this computer for the next 4-5 years until I can get a fifth iteration of the Ultra chip. For me the extra 8 CPU cores, 12 GPU cores, 4 GHz clock speed, and 96 GB RAM was worth the upgrade cost.

No new computers for the next 4-5 years since I also upgraded my M1 Air to M4 Air.

 

[Matt2012]

Benchmarks are showing up, and M3 Ultra looks like it is the best thing there is on Blender and Cinebench, and a strong contender, even against Intel/AMD machines is multicore activities across the board.

I’m interested in seeing more video editing/rendering results for real world use as I was holding out for the new Ultra.
So far, there’s one YouTube channel who has a DaVinci Resolve project to download/test and there’s one M3 Ultra result so far as I type this amongst various other PC/Mac systems. The 60 core CPU M3 Ultra did it in 210 seconds (60 core M2 Ultra did 222 seconds) where my PC with a 9950X3D/5090 took 148 seconds so that is a bit disappointing on the Ultra as was expecting more than that.

 

[picpicmac]

Computer sales are not 'zero'. ( IBM still has P-series also

Yes, I probably painted too broad a brush there on IBM. Yet, Services (and collecting $$ from the intellectual property royalties) are the important things to IBM. And even the computers to which you linked are cradle-to-grave arrangements as well, holding the corporate-consumer's hand all along the way, IBM offering to take the machines off your hands when you are done with them.

The rest of my argument still stands: for the ordinary person's ability to buy a computer, even an expensive one, the dean of computer companies is Apple. A very great many other companies have fallen by the wayside.

Apple survived perhaps by luck? Maybe, but I offer that Apple determined early on to offer quality products and that is why they have been able to stay in business.

And that gets us back to the subject of this thread: the new Mac Studio models continue in that tradition, offering quality products.