Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Me too. I have exclusively used MacOS daily since OS 8. I knew when they announced Mac OS X it was going to be a great OS. I love MacOS (until recently after they sucked out all the open standards). I had a dual roll as network admin for a Windows Server environments. I appreciate both worlds. The problem is we have a bunch of corporate greed trying to suck every dime out of apple now. 7g for a laptop or 10g for a desktop is not acceptable. Enough is enough. The specs they are selling for that amount are not justified when you look at PC equivalents for Price/Performance. No power user cares about Performance/Watt. When you can get a job rendered out faster on a Windows box with the same results for cheaper, that is what matters. More work done equals more money in your pocket. Savings you can use for upgrades that will again be faster than apple offerings in another year. When apple can say we have a machine that outperforms a 14900K with dual 5090's in it for 7g-10g, then I will say, hey.. they are actually competing. Right now, they are not competing. They are playing catch-up. They are about a year behind in CPU and 3-4 years behind in GPU. I would say they have painted themselves in a corner. They are going to hit a point where that SOC is just not feasible to produce for yields because they are jamming too much in. Again, I love MacOS and I love a lot of the features and service apple offers. ... but this last decade is dismal hardware and barely, if any, software offerings from apple for "Pro's". Sorry, but the 2000's were a glorious time for apple. It's changed drastically this last decade. Just my thoughts watching them for the last 30 years. They need to get prices down and simplify the product line again.
The prices are not acceptable for you. Apple’s sales figures would seem to indicate that they have enough buyers for their products irrespective of their poorer price/performance ratio in some areas.

Performance/Watt is important in mobile devices, and of course in data centres. It will become more important in desktop systems if power costs continue to rise, but I agree that few people worry about this currently.

The only metric of importance is how well the tools perform for your given tasks, both in absolute performance and in reliability and maintenance overhead. Personally I’ve found Macs and macOS to work somewhat better for me than Linux and Windows machines that I have owned or used. Performance may have been slightly better on some Linux machines, but I sold these after getting newer Apple Silicon machines to replace them, and can’t be bothered with swapping platforms just to squeeze the last bit of performance unless the difference is huge and has financial implications.

for me, I value “lack of hassle” and “it just works” far more highly that raw performance. Macs & macOS are far from perfect, but overall they have required less software and hardware maintenance than other machines I have owned, and that is a big win. Anything that stops me focussing on actual task delivery is just a distraction. I don’t care about price that much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: name99
Huh? 20% over M2 is a BIG upgrade.

That's just for the GPU. M3 Max CPU is up to 50% faster than M2 Max.

Skärmavbild 2023-11-02 kl. 03.16.32.png
 
Don't be sarcastic, I'm Just stating facts. Also, where is the M3 Max mac studio? By time the new mac studios come out with m3 max, m4 max will be right around the corner.
I imagine they want to work out any kinks in the RT pipeline before finalizing a M3 Max Studio
 
I've seen reports comparing the Snapdragon X Elite vs. Intel vs. M2. Just by looking at those reports, it seems like SD is beating M2 on all fronts (and by leaps). Any inputs on on the SD performance from the chip gurus on this forum?
A CPU coming in 2024 beating one from 2022 by using 80W vs 16-20W? You can ask your question in this thread where some gurus are active.
 
So let me get this straight, a laptop with m3 max will be faster than a mac studio with m2 max? Seems like anyone who bought a mac studio m2 max in the past 1-2 months got taken for a ride.

Edit: for those disagreeing, rumors are now saying M3 Max outperforms M2 ultra (in Geekbench 6 at least). If so, this makes it even more egregious! Mac Pro released a mere 4.5 months ago is already being bested by a laptop ?
I don't get this thinking and I'm typing this on an M2 Pro. One of two M2 Pro machines I own. You can buy a new Mac based on two criteria. The first is you just love benchmarks and love having the Mac with the highest number. In which case you are always going to feel cheated as the next Mac to make yours obsolete is already in testing the day you picked up your shiny new one. Get your credit card ready and stop whining as you know Apple is going to keep churning new Macs out on a yearly basis. The second reason is you purchased it to meet a workflow you have and in that case, it will still be competently doing that workflow, regardless if the new Mac is x times faster. Sure OS updates and application updates might slow your computer down over time, but these Apple silicon processors are so competent at what they do and have so much processor overhead, that date is probably further off into the future then its ever been for the Mac range before. There are plenty on here saying they are hanging on to their M1's and for good reason. Even Apple basically didn't try and argue an M2 owner should consider the M3. What they really focussed on was trying to get Intel Mac owners to make the jump. There is a good reason for that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chuckeee
I don't get this thinking and I'm typing this on an M2 Pro. One of two M2 Pro machines I own. You can buy a new Mac based on two criteria. The first is you just love benchmarks and love having the Mac with the highest number. In which case you are always going to feel cheated as the next Mac to make yours obsolete is already in testing the day you picked up your shiny new one. Get your credit card ready and stop whining as you know Apple is going to keep churning new Macs out on a yearly basis. The second reason is you purchased it to meet a workflow you have and in that case, it will still be competently doing that workflow, regardless if the new Mac is x times faster. Sure OS updates and application updates might slow your computer down over time, but these Apple silicon processors are so competent at what they do and have so much processor overhead, that date is probably further off into the future then its ever been for the Mac range before. There are plenty on here saying they are hanging on to their M1's and for good reason. Even Apple basically didn't try and argue an M2 owner should consider the M3. What they really focussed on was trying to get Intel Mac owners to make the jump. There is a good reason for that.
Mac Studio and Mac Pro (m2 ultra) released on June 13, 2023 are already being one-upped by a laptop chip a mere 4.5 months after their debut?
 
Show me a shipping Qualcomm SoC that’s faster than Apple’s.

Before you bring up Snapdragon X Elite: that isn’t shipping until summer, and there isn’t really any data at this point on whether it’s ahead of M3.
I used the word “seems”. Despite, not having real word data about it, geek-bench shows extremely promising results for Qualcomm’s Soc (surpassing Apple’s M3 chip). Just don’t get overly sensitive about it lol, chill.
 
Me too, but if they put it in the same big enclosure I’m out. If it doesn’t have a built-in battery I’m out. If it doesn’t have the best specs and most ports of M3 line I’m out. Please Apple, step up.
So you are out then. See you for the launch of the M4 mini.
 
Last edited:
you will be able to buy similar Intel based machines with 14 series processors and Nvidia chipsets. When it comes to getting real computer work done that requires speed.. no one cares about colours and size and power draw.
so you might as well get desktop since the intel based machines last about an hour or less at full throttle?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MRMSFC
I assure you AMD EPYC and Intel x64(? Do you mean Xeon?) does not virtualize ARM Cortex. Not only is that not what virtualization is, but it also wouldn’t make any sense to do that, unless you have a binary that’s ARM-only.
Mehhrrr, well they actually can, and AWS is doing it. AWS offers EC2s based on Ubuntu with compilers and Type-2 hypervisor to emulate Cortex-M. This enables - as you said - building and running ARM Cortex-M compiled binaries on Epyc and Intel x64 (Xeon is x64, by the way.) The value proposition is full-cycle ARM Cortex-M DevSecOps in the cloud. This way you don't need a mad scientists lab full of development boards. This makes all of the sense :cool:.

This is, in fact, PRECISELY what virtualization means. Emulation of non-native chipsets is a common feature of both "Type-1" and "Type-2" hypervisors, particularly in the mainframe and supercomputing spheres. If you're interested in hypervisors, here's a little primer in wikipedia.

For example, SoftPC was a Type-2 hypervisor (running atop the underlying OS) that could emulated x86 chipsets to run DOS and Windows virtual machines. SoftPC ran on Apple's Motorola and IBM PowerPC Macs starting back in '86? '87? Bunch of other platforms, too, Spark, AIX, HP-UX, VMS, NextStep, etc.

Today's closest equivalents to ol' SoftPC are Parallels Desktop 19 and VMWare Fusion 13. These are Type-2 hypervisors, but they don't emulate Intel's x86/x64 chipsets; rather, they support ARM version of Windows and various Linuxii. Looking forward to seeing benchmarks for a M3 Pro base with 36 GB RAM to compare with a M2 Pro base with 32 GB RAM.
 
Some results for Pugetbench Photoshop for base M3. I know there are higher scores for similar PC systems but it's funny to see a small M3 laptop perform as good as powerful PC laptops or desktops. Take a look at the GPU scores. :)


Skärmavbild 2023-11-02 kl. 05.21.42.png


Skärmavbild 2023-11-02 kl. 05.21.57.png


Skärmavbild 2023-11-02 kl. 05.22.07.png


Skärmavbild 2023-11-02 kl. 05.22.34.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: name99
Kinda pointless comparing performance 13 years apart.
I'm pretty sure that your 2010 Mac Pro has a much larger performance gap compared to a 1997 PowerMac.
Even more fun is comparing the M3 with a 1980's super computer. My money is on the M3.
 
Apple marketing usually pushes you into buying middle to high models in lineup. They are always trying to predict and manipulate demand a bit to better manage production and stock.

You mean "insert any company name here" marketing/design. You think Toyota wants you to buy the baseline Corolla, Mc'Donalds always asks if you want fries with that...


Speak for yourself. There is no such thing as getting real work done on a Windows machine! Micrososoft can have a chip 10 times as fast, but a horrific User Expereince! Windows has always gotten in its own way!

Every weekday I use a Windows machine to do "real work (Mac not an option) and Windows 10 is "fine". There are aspects of the UI that I prefer to that of MacOS which I run exclusively at home (by choice). Hundreds of millions of people us a Windows machine every day to do "real work" disagree with your ridiculous assertion.
 
You mean "insert any company name here" marketing/design. You think Toyota wants you to buy the baseline Corolla, Mc'Donalds always asks if you want fries with that...
No, I actually mean Apple. ) We are discussing Macs, not Corollas.
Your McD example is cross-selling, not upselling.
 
Don’t know what country you work in or what sector, but I see the opposite. Working in tech for 25 years and everyone that can prefers macs. Yes, there are companies that don’t, but even then the people I meet would prefer them.
I am a network engineer, my company does not allow/provide Macs for corporate use. Many of my peers at other companies have Windows machines. Engineers at the companies we work with (Cisco/Juniper) have a spattering of MacBook Airs.

10 years ago I spent my day in a thick client of an app today that is a browser tab. The only applications that I run daily that aren't out the of the Microsoft Suite (Including Visio) is SecureCRT/Google Chrome and Adobe Acrobat Reader.
 
No, I actually mean Apple. ) We are discussing Macs, not Corollas.
Your McD example is cross-selling, not upselling.
Fine .. Apple wants you to buy the mid tier product.

The base model is for those that need the base model. Who are you to tell anyone that buying the base model is wrong and will not meet their needs.

I advise family on friends on new hardware all the time. Recently helping one build a i5/14500 system with 2TB of SSD and 32GB or ram. He had a budget and I helped him stay within it. He's not a Mac guy.
 
Who are you to tell anyone that buying the base model is wrong and will not meet their needs.
Eh, one can clearly tell person ran out of arguments when they start "who are you to"eing.

No one actually even told anyone not to buy base model. The whole point is 16Gb RAM has to be base in 2023.
 
I don't know how to phrase this more gently: a base model M1 MacBook Air would run circles around your machine, apart from multi-monitor support. I recently transitioned from Windows to MacOS and my last machine, an HP ZBook Fury 16 G9 with Intel 12950HX (16 cores, 24 threads), got roundly embarrassed not by a MacBook Pro, or a Mac Studio, but by an M1 MacBook AIR. There is more to the game than benchmarks. Apple has optimised performance between its silicon and OS. Granted, the ZBook's NVIDIA RTX A5500 graphic card would slaughter an Air's GPU, but if one's productivity isn't closely tied to fastest GPU performance, Apple's OS/Silicon marriage is in a different league from past Intel chips.
Ye but your laptop with that chip in it is gimped by its enclosure lol.

I have a 8x8 16gb 1tb M1 MacBook Air and what you're saying is incorrect. It's not as fast and from a gpu perspective is about 60% slower. I also hit that max ram limit within minutes and it slows down no tomorrow. Also sustained exports are unbelievable slow, long video exports and over 100 images from Lightroom the iMac is almost twice as fast. For shorts bursts like a 5 min vid or up to 50 image exports the MacBook air is great but it aint no work horse for a day to day pro.

But bottom line like I said its the cost of upgrade, a Mac Studio would be perfect but to buy the right spec and a 5k display would be 5k which again is another 2k more than what I paid for the iMac.

But this was the whole point of my post. Ram and monitor support is the bottle neck for me 16gb is not a lot even with it being unified and the chip is also gimped by ram amounts. Especially when you are paying £200 for an extra 8 or £400 for 24gb its literally a joke. Essentially I would have to spend another 2k to get multi monitor support and up to 64gb of ram but with a fan the m3 is more than enough CPU and gpu its not far off either.


But im assuming you didn't read my post...
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.