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

[Allen_Wentz]

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.

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.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Unified memory means better efficiency, but they are using normal LPDDR at uberly expensive prices, same for storage.

In the normal world, you can buy 32/1 TB for a fraction that apple charges people.

Read up: UMA means a lot more long term than simply better efficiency. And, baked-on RAM is not analagous to normal LPDDR. Comparing to pricing in some very substanttially different (poorer physics by a lot) architecture is like comparing Apples and Porterhouses.

UMA affects everything. IMO it will take some time, but we will see substantial long term performance benefits once OS/apps adjust to UMA and larger amounts of RAM being available closely on-chip.

 

[emmab2006]

The M2 Max Studio 38 Core GPU , is brilliantly powerful , running X Plane 12 without a problem. The GPU cores are clearly incredibly powerful, i look forward to what ever gain comes from 3rd Gen GPU and CPU Cores.

 

[ArkSingularity]

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.)

 

[chucker23n1]

Their industry leading focus on power efficiency will serve them well when they decide to scale things out further, since they will be able to easily attain much higher performance in a 150-200W power envelope of a typical full desktop thermal solution.

To be honest, I'm surprised Apple hasn't done this yet.

I’m not. It’s very niche for Apple’s primary audience, and costly to design.

Doesn’t mean they won’t eventually do it, but they have bigger fish to fry.

 

[ArkSingularity]

I’m not. It’s very niche for Apple’s primary audience, and costly to design.

Doesn’t mean they won’t eventually do it, but they have bigger fish to fry.

You're not wrong. But I will say, I do think the pro market is going to buy it up if they do eventually go this route. There were a lot of movie and music studios that bought highly upgraded Intel configurations, and they would do the same if they doubled up an M3 Ultra.

Would it be a profitable move by Apple? I'm not a business major, I can't say.

 

[seek3r]

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.

FWIW the actual storage chips on the studio (and I believe the MP) *are* replaceable, just not the controller

 

[ArkSingularity]

FWIW the actual storage chips on the studio (and I believe the MP) *are* replaceable, just not the controller

Yea, they can be replaced, just not upgraded. Apple Configurator is required for this, but if I recall, it only works if you're replacing the storage modules with an equivalent capacity configuration.

 

[enb141]

Read up: UMA means a lot more long term than simply better efficiency. And, baked-on RAM is not analagous to normal LPDDR. Comparing to pricing in some very substanttially different (poorer physics by a lot) architecture is like comparing Apples and Porterhouses.

UMA affects everything. IMO it will take some time, but we will see substantial long term performance benefits once OS/apps adjust to UMA and larger amounts of RAM being available closely on-chip.

The price is the price for memory, and doesn't matters if is used as UMA or anything else, the fact is that Apple are overcharging for RAM/Storage.

 

[enb141]

Yea, they can be replaced, just not upgraded. Apple Configurator is required for this, but if I recall, it only works if you're replacing the storage modules with an equivalent capacity configuration.

On the Mac Pro, they sell Storage "Capacity Sticks", so as far as I know you can replace them with a higher capacity in the future.

 

[ArkSingularity]

On the Mac Pro, they sell Storage "Capacity Sticks", so as far as I know you can replace them with a higher capacity in the future.

Good move. I wish they had done the same on the Mac Studio, but I suppose that external storage is less of an inconvenience on desktops than it is on laptops.

 

[chucker23n1]

But I will say, I do think the pro market is going to buy it up if they do eventually go this route. There were a lot of movie and music studios that bought highly upgraded Intel configurations, and they would do the same if they doubled up an M3 Ultra.

Sure, but how many studios exist worldwide? Let’s say 10,000. How many are in the market for something very high end from Apple? Maybe 10%?

So, 1,000 * $20,000, say. $20M is a lot for you and I, but it’s… nothing for Apple. Prestige and/or nostalgia (Ternus seems to have a weak spot for it) aside, I think the Mac Pro exists largely to stave off the threat of customers moving platforms altogether, not because it, per se, makes much business sense.

 

[ArkSingularity]

Sure, but how many studios exist worldwide? Let’s say 10,000. How many are in the market for something very high end from Apple? Maybe 10%?

So, 1,000 * $20,000, say. $20M is a lot for you and I, but it’s… nothing for Apple. Prestige and/or nostalgia (Ternus seems to have a weak spot for it) aside, I think the Mac Pro exists largely to stave off the threat of customers moving platforms altogether, not because it, per se, makes much business sense.

You might be right. I would say the number would probably be a lot higher than 10% of them (Macs are very popular in these kinds of settings, and you also have to count independent professionals and studios that would be buying multiple of them), but that would likely make up a large chunk of their market with the price that these things are priced at.

 

[chucker23n1]

You might be right. I would say the number would probably be a lot higher than 10% of them (Macs are very popular in these kinds of settings, and you also have to count independent professionals and studios that would be buying multiple of them),

Yeah, but most of the machines they buy won’t be so high end.

I mean, this is obviously very back of the envelope. But the Mac Pro is a niche in a niche, and… high BTO options in that? That’s even rarer. And it was easier when they could get the CPU off the shelf.

(Someone suggested they could buy an ARM server CPU from Fujitsu. I find that intriguing…)

 

[koyoot]

Hold on, let me grab my M3 benchmarks. 🙄

And you're completely ignoring performance per watt.

You are ignoring that Apple has process tech advantage.

Can we compare anything on 3 nm process to anything on 3 nm process, and then brag about perf/watt?

On 5 nm node, Apple does not have that huge perf/watt advantage, in some cases straight up losing to AMD(in sheer perf) which products are on the same node.

 

[rloechner]

I have a 2018 15” MacBook Pro and am holding out for the M3!

 

[NT1440]

You are ignoring that Apple has process tech advantage.

Can we compare anything on 3 nm process to anything on 3 nm process, and then brag about perf/watt?

On 5 nm node, Apple does not have that huge perf/watt advantage, in some cases straight up losing to AMD(in sheer perf) which products are on the same node.

What does the last point even mean?

 

[ArkSingularity]

On 5 nm node, Apple does not have that huge perf/watt advantage, in some cases straight up losing to AMD(in sheer perf) which products are on the same node.

You say that Apple does not have a huge performance per watt advantage, but you seem to be comparing it to sheer performance (presumably on benchmarks) for AMD processors. Which measurement are we comparing here? Performance per watt, or raw performance?

AMD is winning in the raw benchmarks when you look at HEDT desktop processors, but I don't see how this implies that Apple "doesn't have that huge performance per watt advantage".

 

[theorist9]

As for someone that doesn’t do graphic intense stuff I’d sure like a 40 core cpu and 16 core gpu instead 😁

What type of non-graphical work do you do that could use a 40-core CPU? Just curious since I once had a research task like that—i had to do several thousand separate single-core calculations, where each took several hours, so distributing them over 128 cores (on our local cluster) sped things up significantly.

 

[theorist9]

Read up: UMA means a lot more long term than simply better efficiency. And, baked-on RAM is not analagous to normal LPDDR. Comparing to pricing in some very substanttially different (poorer physics by a lot) architecture is like comparing Apples and Porterhouses.

What do you mean by "baked-on"? While the memory controllers are on-die, the RAM modules themselves are off-die.

And there's nothing exotic about the RAM Apple uses. According to this iFixit Teardown , "The M1 Pro has an 8GB Samsung LPDDR5 RAM module on either side of the core while the M2 Pro has two SK Hynix 4GB LPDDR5 RAM modules on either side of the core—a total of four. These are the very same RAM modules we found in the M2 MacBook Air."

Now maybe if they were offering their latest devices with LPDDR5x RAM (currently available on the MS Surface), which could be costly at this point because of low availability, then you might have more of an argument. But they're not!

As I've argued often on this site, when you consider the Macs as a complete package, accounting for the OS, quietness, battery life, display/KB/trackpad, performance on and off battery, weight, battery life, etc., they are a reasonable value. But that doesn't mean Apple isn't charging huge markups for its SSD's and RAM, since they are. Let's not pretend otherwise. That's a big part of how they maintain their profit margins. Essentially, the upgraded units subsidize the base models.

 

[theorist9]

On the Mac Pro, they sell Storage "Capacity Sticks", so as far as I know you can replace them with a higher capacity in the future.

Yes, but they are expensive. Buying the Mac Pro with 2 TB, 4 TB, and 8 TB of storage at the time of purchase adds $400, $1000, and $2200, respectively. Upgrading with these sticks post-purchase is $600 more than each of those ($1000, $1600, $2800). I guess Apple credits you $600 for the stock 1 TB SSD.

Many who have enough available PCIe slots, and need more storage, will probably instead just install a PCIe SSD.

New Mac Pro Features Upgradeable SSD, Apple Selling 2TB, 4TB, and 8TB SSD Kits

Following the introduction of the Apple silicon Mac Pro, Apple today added SSD upgrade kits to its online store. The kits offer 2TB, 4TB, and 8TB of...

www.macrumors.com

 

[theorist9]

To a large extent, yes. But I think Apple has been playing softball in the desktop market so far (understandable I suppose, they're less than three years into their transition). Their industry leading focus on power efficiency will serve them well when they decide to scale things out further, since they will be able to easily attain much higher performance in a 150-200W power envelope of a typical full desktop thermal solution.

To be honest, I'm surprised Apple hasn't done this yet. AMD's threadrippers still far outperform the M2 ultra in multithreaded benchmarks, BUT they use so much power to do it that they are limited in how much they can scale it out from here. Apple has the freedom to double things up and still have plenty of thermal headroom, so I do think they will probably have something else lined up in the pipeline soon.

I agree Apple's current power/efficiency balance is optimized for laptops, and they've been using the same balance (read: same clocks) for desktops, which is clearly not ideal for the latter. Their optimum is much more towards power, since they don't run on battery, and their increased size and weight allow much better thermals.

However, Apple may be constrained in that, by optimizing their microarchitecture for mobile devices (which makes sense, as that's overwhelmingly their biggest market), they may have created a design that doesn't allow for higher clock speeds.

I don't know whether that will change with the M3.

 

[Lone Deranger]

I want to. But in most ways Apple still can’t compete with the i9 4090 setup. I don’t think Apple would need 1000 watts like my PC does. My M2 Ultra Mac Studio barely goes above 100 watts.

Indeed. That's in part because for years Apple has been focussing almost entirely on their 2D customers. Editors and photographers predominantly. And boy does Apple hardware outperform the competition there.
On the flip-side, Apple has been severely neglecting the 3D pro market. They need to stop giving all that precious SoC real-estate away to 2D encoding/decoding and start shoving ray tracing accelerators in there fast and keep adding more with every upgrade to their GPUs! And then pray that developers of 3D DCC apps can be convinced that Apple is taking 3D seriously enough so they will start developing their apps not just for CUDA only, but also for Metal.
Sadly, looking at Apple's track record in 3D over the years, I doubt they have the cojones (and interest) to stick with it and take the fight to nVidia.

 

[quarkysg]

However, Apple may be constrained in that, by optimizing their microarchitecture for mobile devices (which makes sense, as that's overwhelmingly their biggest market), they make have created a design that doesn't allow for higher clock speeds.

I don’t think Apple is limiting themselves. It is just a choice they made. I don’t think there’s anything stopping Apple from cranking the CPU and GPU frequencies higher. They do have the process node advantage. Apple’s CPU running at 3.5GHz being able to trade blows with and Intel or AMD CPU running over 5 GHz clock speed says something.

As usual, engineering is always about trade offs. Fitting so many cores into a single die and making it economical will be a challenge that process node shrink will alleviate, but probably not by much. So I see Apple going with their current strategy in the foreseeable future. I don’t think they care too much being too dogs.

 

[enb141]

What do you mean by "baked-on"? While the memory controllers are on-die, the RAM modules themselves are off-die.

And there's nothing exotic about the RAM Apple uses. According to this iFixit Teardown , "The M1 Pro has an 8GB Samsung LPDDR5 RAM module on either side of the core while the M2 Pro has two SK Hynix 4GB LPDDR5 RAM modules on either side of the core—a total of four. These are the very same RAM modules we found in the M2 MacBook Air."

Now maybe if they were offering their latest devices with LPDDR5x RAM (currently available on the MS Surface), which could be costly at this point because of low availability, then you might have more of an argument. But they're not!

As I've argued often on this site, when you consider the Macs as a complete package, accounting for the OS, quietness, battery life, display/KB/trackpad, performance on and off battery, weight, battery life, etc., they are a reasonable value. But that doesn't mean Apple isn't charging huge markups for its SSD's and RAM, since they are. Let's not pretend otherwise. That's a big part of how they maintain their profit margins. Essentially, the upgraded units subsidize the base models.

Totally agree with you that apple uses standard LPDDR5 and standard SSD, for example, any Samsung SSD, specially the PRO line, smokes any apple SSD offerings in both price and performance.

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.