Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Testing Four New M4 Macs Ahead of Fall Launch
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Putting the M4 Pro into a Studio Chassis should be a low cost continuity option - very little engineering required, and would offer a very attractive low cost option - especially if Apple keep the 16/512 configuration rather than going for a 32/512 configuration which might only attract a relatively small discount over a future M4 Max. I'd imagine that the IO should be at least equivalent to the M2 Max in terms of number of Thunderbolt ports.
Talk of M4 Pro being optimised for efficiency over performance (like the M2 Pro) might offer a chance for them to also squeeze it into the rumoured smaller case but I think if you're going to make the case smaller you probably need to disregard the M4 Pro which might limit options.
If the M4 Max and Ultra Mac Studio updates are delayed for a number of months that might introduce question marks over whether or not Apple would just sell an M4 Pro SKU alongside M2 Max and Ultra models for months. Obviously performance wise the M4 Pro wouldn't get close to M4 Max but the lineup would look a bit weird for several months.
Apple were perfectly happy to have a massive gap between Mini and Pro in the Intel days, even as the Mac Pro went from $3000 (trashcan pro) to $6000 (2019 Mac Pro). The arrival of the M1 Max Mac Studio offered the chance to users who wanted something better than a Mac Mini but couldn't pay up for the Mac Pro which just kept getting more expensive. The good thing in the last few months for the bargain hunters is that I have seen M1 Max Mac Studios for as little as £1299 in Costco - amazing pricing if you're in the market for a cheap Mac desktop.
not really an option if you didn't want the (albeit nice) 5k screen - it's an irony that the 27" let you put regular RAM in to expand for yourself. Nowadays the Mac Studio lets you choose your own screen.
I agree they’ll keep the M4 Pro in the redesigned Mini (as opposed to moving it to the Studio). Apple likes having two choices in a product category. I’ll guess, in terms of design proportions, it will look more like a scaled-down Mac Studio, and less like a scaled-up tv.
I’d like to see them do something a bit more interesting with the design, but I’m not sure what that would be…
Well, no, the iPad Pro now has the best laptop CPU on the market... and Apple are increasingly promoting it as suitable (whether or not people agree) for the sort of content creation jobs that have traditionally been Mac territory. I'm not saying "oh, no! the Mac is doomed" but somebody decided it was better to risk Osborne-ing the Mac than delay the new iPad.
Well, it's more speculation than any solid rumour (can't read too much into the fact that nobody leaked M4 Pro Mini specs to Gruber et. al.) - really, my point is that the processor "cadence" has changed with M3 and could change further with M4 - especially with the desktop range where we've only seen M3 in the "one size fits all" iMac.
If price was no object, I wouldn't bother with M3 Pro in a desktop, where battery life wasn't an issue... and, as for price, the maxed-out M2 Pro Mini already costs the same as the M2 Max Studio (which IMHO is better built, anyway). Meanwhile, we've yet to see how many of the "limitations" of the M4 are fundamental, and how many are imposed by it being in an iPad. It looks to have 4 TB4 controllers - if it also supports more than 2 displays then it would take a bite out of the market for a M4 Pro Mini. Even the "max 2 displays" issue is less of a big deal on a desktop, or even a M3 laptop now you have the clamshell option.
It would be funny if they shrunk the studio, too. Right about now they're probably scratching their head asking why did we make this chunky monkey
I don't see the M4 having noticeably more or fewer limitations than the M3 did. The M3 isn't that old.
Maybe because the base-like M4 chip in these Macs will come in 16 and 32 GB RAM configurations. So I might be torn between whether to get a regular or Pro-level Mac Mini with that amount of RAM.
You're joking, but one choice they might be rethinking is the apparent fact the Max Mac Studio has to wait for the Ultra Mac Studio before it can launch, when in reality the Max must be ready to go months before the Ultra. It's a problem with an easy solution (just sell the next-generation Max Mac Studio alongside the last-generation Ultra Mac Studio/Pro for a few months), but I can't see Apple doing that. I think it probably goes against some product-marketing axiom or some such conventional wisdom.
I really meant "any new things that the M4 can do that iPad/iPadOS doesn't support". Max number of TB3/4 ports for a start (some people are guessing 4 from the published images of the die, which would be a step up from M3) or how many displays the new "display engine" can really support. Not claiming that there are any surprises - just that all we know so far is filtered through iPadOS.
I suspect “we’ll update the Studio, but only the one with the Max” is deemed even more confusing for customers than “we won’t update the Studio at all until the Ultra is ready”.
And I’m inclined to agree.
If they make a 16" MBP with a thinner, and possibly fanless design, I'll be possibly interested in upgrading my 16" M1P MBP.
Especially if the M4 chip range has a chip aimed at software engineers. We need CPU power, and capability for truck tons of RAM. What we don't need, is lots of GPU.
The base M1 chip is massive GPU overkill for my needs. But to get 64GB RAM, I would have to buy the M1 Max, which is a GPU beast, but gives me next to zero performance gains for my use case, but with a whopping price tag, on top of the whopping RAM upgrade price tag, sheesh.
Thus, also, we don't need the fan to cool such unused GPU power (my fan has never turned on in the 2 years I've owned this machine), and thus don't need such a clunky, thick, 2010-esque, body.
Especially if the M4 chip range has a chip aimed at software engineers. We need CPU power, and capability for truck tons of RAM. What we don't need, is lots of GPU.
The base M1 chip is massive GPU overkill for my needs. But to get 64GB RAM, I would have to buy the M1 Max, which is a GPU beast, but gives me next to zero performance gains for my use case, but with a whopping price tag, on top of the whopping RAM upgrade price tag, sheesh.
Thus, also, we don't need the fan to cool such unused GPU power (my fan has never turned on in the 2 years I've owned this machine), and thus don't need such a clunky, thick, 2010-esque, body.
And? It’s the same chip. Apple has gone out of their way to make the iPad version of the same chip worse to make more $$$
It’s a MacBook Pro. Pros need that fan. If you want fanless. Get a MacBook Air…
I’m not sure what you’re on about.
What I’m saying is:
If this article is to be believed, the base memory for M4 is now 16 gigs.
But for the iPad Pro, it’s currently 8.
My question is, why have apple gone out of their way to give the iPad a lesser processor in this case? Other than to force people to pay a lot more for the 1TB version which has the 16 gigs of memory.
You could make the same argument that Apple "went out of their way" to not give the iPad an M4 Pro. Or heck, an M4 Ultra.
I imagine most people with an iPad Pro will be happy with 8 GiB RAM.
Because iPad OS uses less ram than Mac OS X as Mac OS X is more heavy.
So they are not crippling the iPad CPU, they re giving what is needed.
Only people who really need 16 will buy that version, just like in mac you have a 8 go version and versions with more ram.