Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Suppliers Reportedly Gearing Up for New Macs Later This Year

AppleTO said:
Upgrading the 13" MacBook Air right away but the 15" later seems pretty unlikely.
Click to expand...
I am all for upgrading the computer when it is possible to do so, rather than strategically waiting.

While M3 sounds like a significant update, especially for power efficiency, the truth of the matter is that a vast majority of the users won't be able to exploit its power nor notice it (over M2 and even M1).

So if you need a MacBook Air now, and you can get a good deal (e.g., $250 educational discount), I wouldn't wait.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elmo1938, Leon Ze Professional, AppleTO and 1 other person
umbilical said:
Which specs you expect from a 32 at that price? same as the studio display just like bigger?
5K, no mini led, no hdr, no promotion?
Click to expand...
The ideal situation is Apple coming with a XDR 2.0 at 7k res and better specs and maybe larger than 32" and the current XDR dropping in price to $2.5k.
I'm a pro but I honestly can't justify paying $7k (nano/stand) for the XDR. The current Studio display is too small and I don't care for the speakers/camera/chips on it. I rather have a dumb display that can last a long time like my 30" ACD that is going to be 18 years of solid use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: umbilical, Rokkus76, CyclingHermit and 1 other person
So will the M3 Mac Mini be more powerful than a Mac Studio M2 Ultra? Can anyone shed some light on that? 🤔
 
TigerNike23 said:
I’m ready to purchase a Mac for the first time. The question is will it be an M2 Mac mini (with needed peripherals) or an M3 iMac?

I’d like to keep the cost below $2000.
Click to expand...
Get the M2 Mac Mini with the most RAM you can afford and find an inexpensive third-party display that suits you. Long term, All-In-Ones like iMacs mean you cannot separately upgrade displays and computer, which often have different life cycles. E.g. one needs to get a stronger computer but the display suits perfectly; or perhaps one wants to get a bigger display but the computer remains strong. Some folks love the clean design of iMacs above all else, but they do sacrifice utility to get it.

Do not fall into the gotta have M3 trap, which will cost more because of newness. M2 are plenty strong at the level of computing you seek. Shorting on RAM will bite you during the later years of the life cycle of any new box if you cheap out on RAM.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rokkus76, El Szomorito, richmlow and 1 other person
wilhoitm said:
So will the M3 Mac Mini be more powerful than a Mac Studio M2 Ultra? Can anyone shed some light on that? 🤔
Click to expand...
No, an M3 Mac Mini will not be more powerful than a Mac Studio M2 Ultra. An M3 Mac Mini probably will not be more powerful than a Mac Studio M2 Max.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wilhoitm
gugy said:
The ideal situation is Apple coming with a XDR 2.0 at 7k res and better specs and maybe larger than 32" and the current XDR dropping in price to $2.5k.
I'm a pro but I honestly can't justify paying $7k (nano/stand) for the XDR. The current Studio display is too small and I don't care for the speakers/camera/chips on it. I rather have a dumb display that can last a long time like my 30" ACD that is going to be 18 years of solid use.
Click to expand...

You do know that there are MANY other monitor makers in the world... most without Apple premium pricing. Do that powerful consumer thing and shop around. You can find great options from others who make monitors (some of which make Apple's screens for Apple). If the stuff has to have an Apple logo on it, there's Apple stickers for that.

I went from the baked-in iMac 27" monitor to a 5K2K 40" from Dell. The Mac (and PC) that both use it as a display are basically invisible, hidden behind it. So at a glance, it looks like I've got some macOS-like PC Windows "skin" running on a big Dell Ultra-Wide computer. In reality, it's a Mac Studio displaying on a 40" ultra-wide screen.

I'd buy the same monitor again to replace it if this one conked tomorrow. And my 20:20 eyes don't notice a visual quality difference vs. the former iMac screen it replaced... EXCEPT much more screen RE.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Allen_Wentz and roronl
EugW said:
It really depends on the planned usage. Not much point in getting 24 GB RAM to run Word and to look up recipes on the internet, even if the plan is to keep it 5 years..
Click to expand...
OK, I accept that. But at the same time IMO few of the folks that come to MR are likely to only run Word and to look up recipes on the internet for the next 5 years. And, RAM demands even to just run Word and to look up recipes on the internet will increase over the next 5 years like they have for the last 40 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rokkus76
If M3 is indeed released this year and based on 3nm, will it also be based on A17? Prior M-series cores have been based on A-series cores released at least 1 year prior.
 
Sir_Macs_A_Lot said:
Maybe they'll stagger the MBA releases like they already have. The 13" this fall and the 15" next year (since that one just came out).
Click to expand...
Doubtful, I think. Lots of people expecting a M3 MBA 13” this fall are likely going to be waiting until 2024, when Apple aligns the updates to the entire MBA lineup. There is no reason to have these products on different upgrade cycles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leon Ze Professional and El Szomorito
Allen_Wentz said:
Get the M2 Mac Mini with the most RAM you can afford and find an inexpensive third-party display that suits you.
Click to expand...
Since modern Macs are not user upgradable (even Mac Pro is limited to just the PCIe-based expansion), your argument isn't wrong.

However, I generally offer the following recommendations for my friends and families.
  1. If you have the extra budget, step up to 512 GB storage before upgrading the memory. The exception is for very casual users that rarely stores anything locally. Even if your Mac can easily accommodate external storage (e.g., Mac Mini and Mac Studio), not everything can be easily stored on external storage, such as applications and iCloud-based documents. 512 GB is also significantly faster as it uses two NVMe storage modules. This is particularly beneficial when you have 8 GB RAM.
  2. Even if you think you can get by with 8 GB RAM, if you tend to have many dozen browsers tabs, run several applications, or intend to use external display and MacBook's display at the same time, consider getting 16 GB RAM. Mac's GPU cores will borrow up to 5.5 GB from the system RAM for video use, although typically, the amount borrowed will be under 2 GB. Still, that leaves only about 6 GB for RAM. That can be taxing with many browser tabs and applications. New features like widgets may also use significant amount of RAM.
 
EugW said:
It really depends on the planned usage. Not much point in getting 24 GB RAM to run Word and to look up recipes on the internet, even if the plan is to keep it 5 years.
Click to expand...

That is only one consideration when deciding upon RAM usage. You also need to consider the following:

1. New macOS versions appear to be using more RAM as the years go by.

2. New versions of applications appear to be using more RAM as the years go by.

3. Your future workflow may change so that having extra RAM would be very helpful.


richmlow
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leon Ze Professional and El Szomorito
richmlow said:
That is only one consideration when deciding upon RAM usage. You also need to consider the following:

1. New macOS versions appear to be using more RAM as the years go by.

2. New versions of applications appear to be using more RAM as the years go by.

3. Your future workflow may change so that having extra RAM would be very helpful.
Click to expand...
I am aware. However, 24 GB is still way overkill for the vast majority of mainstream users, and will continue to be overkill for many years to come. My wife and daughter both only have 8 GB (2017 13" Intel MacBook Air and 2015 13" Intel MacBook Pro respectively) with zero problems whatsoever. It would be a complete waste of money for them to get 24 GB. In fact, if they were buying next year, 8 GB would still be fine, and would also still be sufficient for years. However, if someone in their shoes wanted to be super future proofed, 16 GB would be all that is necessary.

For my main work desktop, 8 GB is usable for my moderate business application multitasking but 16 GB is more than enough. I use PowerPoint +/- Keynote, Word, Numbers, Safari and Chrome (maybe a dozen tabs total including one YouTube or Netflix), Mail, Calendar, Contacts, Messages, Music, Citrix VPN, FaceTime, and occasional Photos and Apple TV+, and there will be no swap, or else minimal swap with 16 GB. With 8 GB it was also fine, but I'd sometimes have about 1-3 GB swap, and I'd occasionally see a short slowdown. However, if I were buying next year I'd consider 24 GB just because I'm a geek. ;)

OTOH, I'd rather have more ports. IOW, I might even rather have a 16 GB Mac mini M2 Pro than a 24 GB Mac mini M2. It would be nice to get a 24 GB Mac mini M2 Pro, but unfortunately that machine doesn't exist. Once you want to get more than 16 GB and more than 2 USB-C ports, at that point it might just make sense to get an M1 Max Mac Studio.
 
Last edited:
AppleMad98004 said:
Seems to me the M3 is really about the battery.... Everything I've read about performance is 15% to 20% at most for the base M3 (non pro/max) So essentially we get the same real world performance but much better battery life.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. It really depends upon how Apple prioritizes the SoC performance vs power utilization curve, and it also depends on what their battery size is, which can vary each model generation. It could very well be that Apple chooses to emphasize performance, with a battery size that "only" meets their desired battery life but no longer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back