Apple Testing M3 Max Chip With 16-Core CPU and 40-Core GPU

[Ethosik]

We agree Apple lags at the high-performance top 5% of personal computer sales, but the fact remains that Apple rules on the 95 percentile of units sold.

We also agree that Apple should also go after the 5% high performance end of things. For the perception even if sales to that segment are unprofitable. My expectation (hope?) is that Apple will bring us some sweet new chip architecture along with M3 that will again allow Mac Pros to be really deserving of their name.

Not really. Even getting a 4080 or 4070 with an i7 even at around $1,500 for the entire computer beats Apple's $1,500 offerings by a mile and a half. Apple has a big issue here. They still have no way to compete with the more advanced PC market.

Apple has NOTHING from the desktop side....not even close. And that is a MAJOR issue.

 

[Ethosik]

Technically, the "unified memory architecture" (sharing memory between the GPU and the CPU) isn't something that's necessarily new. Intel has long done this in their iGPUs, they have more or less done the exact same thing with system RAM and have designed it in such a way to allow data to be shared without copying data between CPU and GPU "pools".

However, Apple was the first to do this with very high performance GPUs as they have done, and Apple also was the first to put such ludicrously high bandwidth setups into consumer class laptops. In the PC world, if you want high-end dedicated class graphics, you lose out on the "unified memory" architectural advantages. (To be fair, I suppose AMD has also made some reasonably good iGPUs, but I think Apple has them beat here by a long shot.)

Unless you coded it specifically, it still copied memory between the Application side and the GPU side. You had to code it specifically for zero-copy.

Getting the Most from OpenCL™ 1.2: How to Increase Performance by...

Downloads Download Getting the Most from OpenCL™ 1.2: How to Increase Performance by Minimizing Buffer Copies on Intel® Proce

www.intel.com

 

[umbilical]

Probably not many. Maybe newer HDMI, SD, etc.



Maybe a slight difference in weight, but almost certainly not a change like removing the notch. The design is less than two years old.

(And… remove it in favor of what? A dynamic island?)

dynamic island on the MBP? Please GOD No!
I prefer the notch in that case.

 

[theorist9]

... any Samsung SSD, specially the PRO line, smokes any apple SSD offerings in both price and performance.

I dunno--when I hear words like "smokes" and their ilk ("destroys", etc.) I'm thinking fanboyism. Can you show us the data to back this up? Here's Crystal Disk Mark for a 2 GB Samsung 990 Pro, which is Sammy's fastest consumer SSD, which I was able (after some work) to find on a review site (https://techaeris.com/2022/10/18/samsung-990-pro-ssd-review-an-excellent-upgrade-for-any-system/). Can you find something similar (except with the Mac version, which would be Amorphous Disk Mark) for the 2 TB SSD in the M2 MacStudio, that's also from a review site?

But I disagree with you with pricing, I still think macs are overpriced, the macs with 8/256 seems a good deal but is an obsolete computer by current standards even if people here claim otherwise.

I'm not saying they are junk, but definitively they are overpriced, specially RAM and SSD.

Take another look at what I wrote--I said "the whole package". Sure, if you focus on any one or two specs, you can always find something that beats everything else for a lower price.

And, as I said, "whole package" includes the OS. I find I work far more efficiently in MacOS than in Windows, and that adds enormous value.

But let's set aside the OS for now, and just focus on the whole hardware package. Consider the 15" M2 Air. With 16 GB RAM and a 1 TB SSD, it's $1,900 (full US retail pricing; there are educational discounts, etc., but lets ignore those).

So:

Can you back up your claim that Macs are "overpriced" for what they offer by identifying a 16 GB/1TB 15" PC laptop for substantially under $1,900 (from a legit manfacturer, like HP, Dell, Lenovo, Asus, Acer, etc.; and this should be normal discounted pricing, not a freak one-time offer) that offers what the Air does, including:

• Silent operation
• Extremely long battery life
• High single-core performance (most tasks run on a thin-and-light are going to be single-core; based on GB6 scores, you'll need a Ryzen 9 7940HS or Intel i9-13700H)
• Performance that doesn't decrease when on battery.
• Good GPU performance (about equal to Intel Arc Pro 30M, which is faster than the A370M)
• 16 GB (minus OS and open app load) shared RAM available to the GPU
• High resolution display (pixel density = 224 ppi)
• Weight = 3.3 pounds (1.51 kg)
• Thickness = 0.45 inch (1.15 cm)
• A trackpad and keyboard as good as that on the Air

[Not looking for an exact match, just reasonable comparability. So if a competing laptop is 10% thicker but 10% lighter (say 0.5", 3 lbs), that keeps it in the same league as the Air. But if your competing PC laptop is, say, an XPS 15, which is 4.2–4.6 lbs (depending on configuration) and 0.73" thick, then no, it's not in the same league as the Air. A laptop that size would instead need to be compared to the 16" MBP—the comparison would be the 4.6 lb/0.73" 15" XPS vs the 4.8 lb/0.66" 16" MBP; the MBP is 4% heavier, the Dell is 11% thicker. But let's start with the Air for now.]

 

[Ethosik]

I dunno--when I hear words like "smokes" and their ilk ("destroys", etc.) I'm thinking fanboyism. Can you show us the data to back this up? Here's Crystal Disk Mark for a 2 GB Samsung 990 Pro, which is Sammy's fastest consumer SSD, which I was able from a review site (https://techaeris.com/2022/10/18/samsung-990-pro-ssd-review-an-excellent-upgrade-for-any-system/). Can you find something similar (except with the Mac version, which would be Amorphous Disk Mark) for the 2 TB SSD in the M2 MacStudio, that's also from a review site?

That is better than my 4TB M2 Ultra Mac Studio that only gets 4GB/s. And my M1 Ultra Mac Studio 8TB that gets 5 GB/s and my M1 Max 16" MacBook Pro 2TB that gets 4 GB/s.

 

[quarkysg]

site?

Result is with or without encryption?

 

[theorist9]

That is better than my 4TB M2 Ultra Mac Studio that only gets 4GB/s. And my M1 Ultra Mac Studio 8TB that gets 5 GB/s and my M1 Max 16" MacBook Pro 2TB that gets 4 GB/s.

That seems low for sequentials.

I found this posted on one of the MR threads (sorry, forgot to copy its location, so can't source it). I'll try to find it later if I have the time. The 4k QD1 randoms seem too low, though, so I'd really like to find something from a reputable review site.

 

[theorist9]

Result is with or without encryption?

I linked the review. If there's an answer to your question, it's there. But I'm guessing this is unencrypted.

 

[chucker23n1]

Result is with or without encryption?

Shouldn’t have a big impact on modern CPUs.

 

[enb141]

I dunno--when I hear words like "smokes" and their ilk ("destroys", etc.) I'm thinking fanboyism. Can you show us the data to back this up? Here's Crystal Disk Mark for a 2 GB Samsung 990 Pro, which is Sammy's fastest consumer SSD, which I was able (after some work) to find on a review site (https://techaeris.com/2022/10/18/samsung-990-pro-ssd-review-an-excellent-upgrade-for-any-system/). Can you find something similar (except with the Mac version, which would be Amorphous Disk Mark) for the 2 TB SSD in the M2 MacStudio, that's also from a review site?


View attachment 2243509

Take another look at what I wrote--I said "the whole package". Sure, if you focus on any one or two specs, you can always find something that beats everything else for a lower price.

And, as I said, "whole package" includes the OS. I find I work far more efficiently in MacOS than in Windows, and that adds enormous value.

But let's set aside the OS for now, and just focus on the whole hardware package. Consider the 15" M2 Air. With 16 GB RAM and a 1 TB SSD, it's $1,900 (full US retail pricing; there are educational discounts, etc., but lets ignore those).

So:

Can you back up your claim that Macs are "overpriced" for what they offer by identifying a 16 GB/1TB 15" PC laptop for substantially under $1,900 (from a legit manfacturer, like HP, Dell, Lenovo, Asus, Acer, etc.; and this should be normal discounted pricing, not a freak one-time offer) that offers what the Air does, including:

Silent operation
Extremely long battery life
High single-core performance (most tasks run on a thin-and-light are going to be single-core; based on GB6 scores, you'll need a Ryzen 9 7940HS or Intel i9-13700H)
Good GPU performance (somewhere between the Intel Arc 350 and Arc 370)
16 GB (minus OS and open app load) shared RAM available to the GPU
Performance that doesn't decrease when on battery.
High resolution display (pixel density = 224 ppi)
Weight = 3.3 pounds (1.51 kg)
Thickness = 0.45 inch (1.15 cm)
A trackpad and keyboard as good as that on the Air

[Not looking for an exact match, just reasonable comparability. So if a competing laptop is 10% thicker but 10% lighter (say 0.5", 3 lbs), that keeps it in the same league as the Air.]

With laptops some people will prefer Mac Specs (I don't) except battery, so unless you are on a field in where you can't plug your laptop, then a mac makes sense, but again, that's not an issue to me.

You want a high single core performance from a benchmark, dude for most people low end mac M1 or M1 are more than enough, so a core i5 will be more than enough, but if you insist, then again a core i9 is better than any mac CPU laptop CPU.

Dell laptops have way better keyboards than macs, for example my Alienware, smokes any keyboard from mac laptops.

Trackpad I can't talk about it because I use trackball or mouse.

Weight, I haven't checked, because to me a few millimeters or up to one pound more, doesn't bothers me.


Why you don't mention the Mac Pro, that has about the performance of a core i9 + 4070 GPU, I don't see the win win with mac desktops.

 

[_Spinn_]

I can’t wait to see what the M3 chips can do!

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

I love the idea of new apple silicon. But I fear their longevity will be spotty at best.
We still have Apple G5 machines kicking to this day.
But with the heavy memory and storage integration I doubt we will have these apple silicon machines around after 6-7 years. A simple bad capacitor on these new boards completely wipe the devices. Requiring new motherboard. The storage usage is eating through the drives and when a single ram chip or ssd chip dies all of your data is gone. Yes iCloud and backups are helpful. But not a full proof plan.
It would be a step backwards to go back to the old way of building these systems. But there has to be a way to make the memory and onboard storage replaceable.

Of course there is a way. Apple only switched to this game so it can:
Ream us with the 400% Markup Upgrade Apple Tax for RAM and SSDs;
Create disposable machines... extremely expensive (a.k.a. profitable) disposable machines.

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

Windows had 72% marketshare in 2019. Dropped to 52% in May 2023.

Mac 18.72% in 2019, 33% in May 2023.

Pretty sure that's a nice dent.

That sounds like pure fiction to me.

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

Why is that even a useful comparison? The 4080 and 4090 aren’t even within most people’s budget and are far from the most popular GPUs currently in use for gaming. Every time this comparison is made I roll my eyes because Apple doesn’t have to equal that performance to get people to buy their products. Not every gamer or designer or engineer can afford to plop down $1200-$1700 for a top tier GPU. It’s just more people expressing their desire for wish fulfillment instead of actually living in the real world. It’s almost the same as people on these forums who think Apple should be selling the MacPro for less than $2K because they “did the math”.

Yeah nah, my son's blazingly fast gaming PC runs rings around my 16" M1P MBP, and is not much more than 1/2 the price.

I do, of course, much prefer my laptop. Portability, battery length, performance that is massive overkill for my needs, and runs quiet and cool. I don't play games though.

For price, all I did was upgrade my SSD to 2TB, and RAM to 32GB. Hardly huge numbers, but they came with a ridiculously huge price tag. However, even the base price was more than what my son's PC cost.

Note, he bought all the parts, and put it together himself, which I presume made it even cheaper, and is something you can't do with any Mac. I'm talking some sweet parts here too, a powerful cooling system, clear panels on the case, fancy LED lights all over the place. None of it was cheap, bottom of the range stuff, all mid to high end parts.

 

[theorist9]

With laptops some people will prefer Mac Specs (I don't) except battery, so unless you are on a field in where you can't plug your laptop, then a mac makes sense, but again, that's not an issue to me.

You want a high single core performance from a benchmark, dude for most people low end mac M1 or M1 are more than enough, so a core i5 will be more than enough, but if you insist, then again a core i9 is better than any mac CPU laptop CPU.

Dell laptops have way better keyboards than macs, for example my Alienware, smokes any keyboard from mac laptops.

Trackpad I can't talk about it because I use trackball or mouse.

Weight, I haven't checked, because to me a few millimeters or up to one pound more, doesn't bothers me.


Why you don't mention the Mac Pro, that has about the performance of a core i9 + 4070 GPU, I don't see the win win with mac desktops.

So basically, after saying "Macs are overpriced", you can't come up with any PC laptop that equals the 15" Mac Air for significantly less, and aren't willing to be straighforward and admit it. Instead, you're just trying to spin things by dimissing any category in which the Mac is superior (other than battery life) as unimportant. Nice try.

 

[theorist9]

Yeah nah, my son's blazingly fast gaming PC runs rings around my 16" M1P MBP, and is not much more than 1/2 the price.

You're comparing price/performance for a Mac laptop to a PC desktop. Those are Apples and oranges. A gaming PC desktop will also blow away any gaming PC laptop for price/performance.

 

[chucker23n1]

for most people low end mac M1 or M1 are more than enough

I don't understand the point of "less performance is enough" arguments in a thread about high-performance chips.

 

[ph001bi]

Apple is testing the next-generation M3 Max chip, according to Bloomberg's Mark Gurman. The Apple silicon chip will be a replacement for the M2 Max, and it is set to be used in new MacBook Pro models next year.

Signs of the chip were found by a third-party Mac developer in test logs, and it appears to feature a 40-core GPU and a 16-core CPU with 12 high performance cores and four efficiency cores. Comparatively, the current M2 Max chip features a 12-core CPU and a 38-core GPU. The test machine also includes 48GB memory, but there will likely be higher upgrade options available as the current MacBook Pro supports up to 96GB memory.

Apple's M3 Max chip is expected to be built on a new 3-nanometer process, resulting in speed and efficiency improvements compared to the M2 Max chip. Apple is testing the chip in an unreleased high-end MacBook Pro that's codenamed "J514."

The M3 Max will be the higher-end chip in a trio that also includes the M3 and the M3 Pro. The M3 chip will include an 8-core CPU and up to a 10-core GPU, while the M3 Pro will feature a 12-core CPU and 18-core GPU.

Apple is expected to release the first M3 Macs in October, but will likely focus on machines that use the standard M3 chip, such as the 13-inch MacBook Pro and the MacBook Air models. 14 and 16-inch MacBook Pro models that include the M3 Max chip are expected to come out in 2024.

Article Link: Apple Testing M3 Max Chip With 16-Core CPU and 40-Core GPU

Does that mean that the M3 ultra in the Studio and the MacPro will have a 32-core CPU and a 80-core GPU?
Sounds incredible.

 

[enb141]

So basically, after saying "Macs are overpriced", you can't come up with any PC laptop that equals the 15" Mac Air for significantly less, and aren't willing to be straighforward and admit it. Instead, you're just trying to spin things by dimissing any category in which the Mac is superior (other than battery life) as unimportant. Nice try.

To me Macs are overpriced,

My checklist for a laptop

- Nvidia Video Card (3050 and up)
- Good Keyboard with backlight (apple have but I prefer Alienware Keyboards plus are RGB)
- Hz over pixels, I prefer 75Hz 1080P than 2k @60
- Upgradability, specially storage

So what computers are way cheaper than your beloved Macbook air

Dell XPS 13
Intel® Core™ i7-1250U
16 GB RAM
512 SSD
Iris Xe
Full HD+ (1900X1200)
$900.00


Dell XPS 15
i7-13700H
Arc™ A370M Graphics with 4GB GDDR6
16 GB RAM
512 SSD
Full HD+ (1920X1200)
$1500



What computer I would choose

Alienware x14 R2
i5-13420H
GeForce RTX™ 3050
16 GB RAM
512 SSD
Quad HD display (2560X1600)
$1500.00

So now back to Desktops, can now move on to Mac Pro vs Core i9 + 4070 overpricing debate?

 

[enb141]

I don't understand the point of "less performance is enough" arguments in a thread about high-performance chips.

My point is, the base M1 has enough CPU for pretty much for most people, nobody is looking to upgrade M1 to M2 because has more CPU power.

But storage and memory that's another story the real benefit of upgrading from M1 to M2 is RAM and SSD not CPU.

 

[GuruZac]

If you destroy your pro market, applications and third party support will drop. This will cause a domino effect to eventually impact the low end “popular” devices. They are trashing the Mac name but again not focusing on the pro market.

I mean in 90% of cases it is NO CONTEST an i9 with a 4090 beats the best Apple could do? By a massive margin? This isn’t good. They dropped the ball HEAVILY with the 2023 Mac Pro. $3,000 just for the same performance of a Mac Studio? Macs will become even more of a joke than they are now. Which will affect marketshare. Which will affect how useful it can be used by consumers.

But that’s my point. How many ’professionals’ require computing power beyond the M2 Ultra? I would argue a very small percent. Apple hasn’t turned its back on professionals. When it comes to professional grade laptops the MacBook Pros set the standard and there are a ton of professionals who use MacBook Pros. In fact, many professionals were able to use the M1 MacBooks prior to the M-series MacBook Pros. I think Apple is in a very good position with their lineup currently. No they don’t have a one-for-one replacement for the 2019 MacBook Pro, but how many 2019 MacPros are they selling in the first place??

 

[chucker23n1]

My point is, the base M1 has enough CPU for pretty much for most people, nobody is looking to upgrade M1 to M2 because has more CPU power.

That's true, but… how is that relevant to a rumor about the M3 Max?

But storage and memory that's another story the real benefit of upgrading from M1 to M2 is RAM and SSD not CPU.

Either way, I wouldn't recommend upgrading just one generation.

 

[spcopsmac21]

Of course there is a way. Apple only switched to this game so it can:
Ream us with the 400% Markup Upgrade Apple Tax for RAM and SSDs;
Create disposable machines... extremely expensive (a.k.a. profitable) disposable machines.

I hope the EU eats them alive when these machines start filling up in landfills. Consumers will catch on fast when their $3500 laptop dies within a year of its apple care expiring.

 

[spcopsmac21]

To me Macs are overpriced,

My checklist for a laptop

- Nvidia Video Card (3050 and up)
- Good Keyboard with backlight (apple have but I prefer Alienware Keyboards plus are RGB)
- Hz over pixels, I prefer 75Hz 1080P than 2k @60
- Upgradability, specially storage

So what computers are way cheaper than your beloved Macbook air

Dell XPS 13
Intel® Core™ i7-1250U
16 GB RAM
512 SSD
Iris Xe
Full HD+ (1900X1200)
$900.00


Dell XPS 15
i7-13700H
Arc™ A370M Graphics with 4GB GDDR6
16 GB RAM
512 SSD
Full HD+ (1920X1200)
$1500



What computer I would choose

Alienware x14 R2
i5-13420H
GeForce RTX™ 3050
16 GB RAM
512 SSD
Quad HD display (2560X1600)
$1500.00

So now back to Desktops, can now move on to Mac Pro vs Core i9 + 4070 overpricing debate?

I built a pc for $1400 that wipes the floor with my wife’s work Mac Studio. It renders videos about 12% faster. In every real work benchmark I can compare hands on with both devices my PC womps the studio. The studio is cool to look at, but I can actually replace parts and upgrade the pc. Apple is going down a path I think will come back to haunt them.

 

[eldho]

I built a pc for $1400 that wipes the floor with my wife’s work Mac Studio. It renders videos about 12% faster. In every real work benchmark I can compare hands on with both devices my PC womps the studio. The studio is cool to look at, but I can actually replace parts and upgrade the pc. Apple is going down a path I think will come back to haunt them.

I assume that is putting zero cost on your own time for doing so.