Is “Max” Mac Studio the worst option?

[cocoua]

As mac studio max releases 6 months after the Macbook pro Max and just 6 months before next Max macbook is released, Im wondering if the Mac Studio Max is the worst option to go in terms of money value.

Apple releases bothe mac studios at once (max and ultra) ultra is the vest of the best and it is released no matter when as the previous best machine is already 12 months old, but the max version, is alteady at ist mid term life span.

So the mac studio max is the only mac wich is already “old” at its released date.

The MBP Max is 1k usd more than the MSMax but if tou buy it 6 months early, the money males totally sense.

I have a MSM1 Max but Im wondering if it has any sense if my next machine should be anothe MS Max…

 

[CWallace]

There is always going to be something better "just around the corner" so pretty much you need to pull the trigger when the need is highest.

I had to replace my 2020 iMac 5K last Summer with an Apple Silicon desktop Mac and I bought an M2 MAX Studio because it was the best value at the time. And I knew that Apple was unlikely to offer an M3 MAX Mac Studio until a year later so waiting another 12 months was not an option. And considering the M2 MAX is so much more than I need, I probably will not be in the market for a new Mac Studio for many, many years.

As to paying a $1000+ premium for a laptop just because it has a newer generation SoC, that is going to vary by need. If having an M3 MAX SoC now will make you more than $1000+ over the six months between the M3 MAX MBP and M3 MAX Mac Studio then no reason not to go for it. But if you want an M3 MAX just because it is "newer and cooler" and an M2 MAX is plenty enough for you, then I personally would rather spend that $1000+ on more RAM or SSD for my Mac Studio to extend it's useable life. Or just bank it in a high-interest savings account.

 

[cocoua]

Makes totally sense! Thanks for taking your time here

 

[Geoff777]

Received the M2 yesterday, so far blown away by the speed. Amazing.
Yes, the M3 will probably be faster...... but the M4 will be faster still.... 😂

 

[cocoua]

Hi! The point is not m2vs m3 but M max being six months old at it releases date and only 6 months younger then the next version

 

[CWallace]

Hi! The point is not m2vs m3 but M max being six months old at it releases date and only 6 months younger then the next version

That's just how the release cycle for the models works. Desktops sell about 1/3rd as many as laptops so Apple prioritizes refreshing laptops. Also, since the Studio comes with MAX and ULTRA and ULTRA is always the last SoC to be released, that paces when Studio can be updated even if MAX is available months earlier.

I am just happy we're back to roughly annual Mac updates again, even if my purchasing cycle runs 4-5 years (or longer).

 

[cocoua]

I understand that this is the cycle of products, the ultra comes later so the Mac Studio Max also comes later
Thats precisely why it looks to me that the MSMax is the device with the worst performance per money available at Apple.

MBP Max is 1k more, but it arrives 6 months earlier ( a lot for a 12 months cycle), it comes with battery and a retina screen (not so easy to find a screen so good, thought only 16”)

So releasing a Mac Studio Max together with the Ultra looks a good movement for Apple in order to encourage people to go for the Ultra, since with the Max you wont get anything new you couldnt in the lastest 6 months. And as Max is 6 months older, Apple also gets more for the price, client less for the price.

The limit you can do is buying the Max 12 months after its release ( talking in a Pro range, beyond that it has little sense), so 6 months is just half way.

Apple makes computers vintage at 5 years old, this means 10x6 months.

Buying a computer at 12 months makes it already just 4 years from being vintage.

7 years would be obsolte, so buying a 12 months old computer and saving 10% of the original price is a bad bussines, it is at its 20% of it life span for the manufacturer point of view.

 

[Chancha]

The release cycle does decrease its value a bit. But on its own, it fits a pretty nice niche for users being turned off by the mini's lack of I/O and the Pro's price and size.

If say all that someone want is an M# Max. A 14" 16" MBP with M3 Max could be had in last November, and the M3 Max Studio may be available in WWDC so like you said more than half year apart. If all he wanted was a desktop he could use the MBP docked and/or clamshell mode, but it has a much higher upfront cost, less I/O, worse thermals, battery and screen that are waiting to be worn out etc. So it still can be a pretty enticing option whenever the Studio does come out.

Also Apple's refurb nowadays becomes available sooner than usual, like with 3-5 months of initial release, and the base Studio is actually pretty adequate especially in RAM amount., unlike the base MBP with 8/16/18GB for instance.

Though I do agree it is true that if all Macs carrying the same chip could be released at the same time, this gives the customer the best options to choose from and no model will get a shafted lifespan. Desktop Macs are clearly 2nd or 3rd class citizens in Apple's eyes but I am content with this, compared to 2013 to 2020 where we got fewer choices and those choices were all bad.

 

[Strider64]

My most recent computer purchase was a Mac M1 Studio Max, and I must admit, I'm still very satisfied with it, although I can only speculate about the improvements the M3 might offer. That being said, my decision to purchase a computer is always based on its capabilities, not on a desire to keep up with the latest trends or what others might have.

 

[Basic75]

Thats precisely why it looks to me that the MSMax is the device with the worst performance per money available at Apple.

Most people just buy the tool they need at the time they need it.

 

[wdhpgx]

When I'm shopping for a laptop, I don't consider the desktops. When I'm shopping for a desktop, I don't consider the laptops. So if an M3 laptop comes out a few months after an M2 desktop, it .. doesn't matter to me. If I'm looking for a desktop, then the laptop isn't an option, so its specs don't matter.

 

[cocoua]

The release cycle does decrease its value a bit. But on its own, it fits a pretty nice niche for users being turned off by the mini's lack of I/O and the Pro's price and size.

If say all that someone want is an M# Max. A 14" 16" MBP with M3 Max could be had in last November, and the M3 Max Studio may be available in WWDC so like you said more than half year apart. If all he wanted was a desktop he could use the MBP docked and/or clamshell mode, but it has a much higher upfront cost, less I/O, worse thermals, battery and screen that are waiting to be worn out etc. So it still can be a pretty enticing option whenever the Studio does come out.

Also Apple's refurb nowadays becomes available sooner than usual, like with 3-5 months of initial release, and the base Studio is actually pretty adequate especially in RAM amount., unlike the base MBP with 8/16/18GB for instance.

Though I do agree it is true that if all Macs carrying the same chip could be released at the same time, this gives the customer the best options to choose from and no model will get a shafted lifespan. Desktop Macs are clearly 2nd or 3rd class citizens in Apple's eyes but I am content with this, compared to 2013 to 2020 where we got fewer choices and those choices were all bad.

totally agree.

moreover, here in spain the MBP 16" is already 300€ off so in June it would be, at least just 700€ from the MSMax

maybe by that time even less, so same SOC, RAM, but faster SSD, retina 16" display and portability for 700 (probably even less) euros looks like a good chioce.

Of course Im happy with my MSMax M1 I bought the first day it came out, but my personal feeling is not going to change the fact the internals where already 6 months old, and 6 months from being renewed.

 

[apostolosdt]

My Studio M1 Max just arrived. I beg you, please let me enjoy it a couple of months, then feel free to reopen the discussion? Please? 😔😂🤣

 

[ewitte]

I can understand waiting a bit if it is just a few months away. For the 2nd machine I've been using a 16GB m2 pro mac mini. Having to constantly micromanage what is open is annoying, but I'll make do for a few months.

 

[Chancha]

totally agree.

moreover, here in spain the MBP 16" is already 300€ off so in June it would be, at least just 700€ from the MSMax

maybe by that time even less, so same SOC, RAM, but faster SSD, retina 16" display and portability for 700 (probably even less) euros looks like a good chioce.

Of course Im happy with my MSMax M1 I bought the first day it came out, but my personal feeling is not going to change the fact the internals where already 6 months old, and 6 months from being renewed.

I have a feeling even Apple doesn't want the Mac release schedule to be like this. If the TSMC related rumors were of relevance, their 3nm process (N3E) did not have good enough yields, where the later one will (N3B). Apple being the 1st customer buying out the exclusivity of the N3E batch had a side effect of not getting enough chip supply for all the Mac and iPad products that use the M3 series, such that the roll out have to be stretched across half a year or longer.

If we looked at Intel Mac release schedules in the past, since Intel typically had a rather fast renew cycle (at least in the 2010's), Mac had really frequent updates and seldom would you find a MacBook lagging behind with its chip tech for too long. But desktop Macs got their shaft, the Mac mini especially, from 2014 to 2018 a 4 year gap of no refresh, despite Intel having released the class of chip that goes inside a few times in that period.

So the point is, Apple has long been having less than top priority for desktop Macs. A half year lag time for a Mac Studio doesn't even qualify as a problem in hindsight. Though if I were a M2 Ultra Mac Pro buyer then I would question this much more seriously, since the Mac Pro is supposed to have a much higher ceiling of performance and is meant to be as cutting edge as possible.

 

[cocoua]

I have a feeling even Apple doesn't want the Mac release schedule to be like this. If the TSMC related rumors were of relevance, their 3nm process (N3E) did not have good enough yields, where the later one will (N3B). Apple being the 1st customer buying out the exclusivity of the N3E batch had a side effect of not getting enough chip supply for all the Mac and iPad products that use the M3 series, such that the roll out have to be stretched across half a year or longer.

I dont get it, if apple has the exclusivity, then supply should be assured (the opposite would mean supply for more buyers so less supply for apple, isnt it?)

And this is the 3rd year same pattern so it seem apple wants to release MSMax with MSUltra, it seems logical so more chances are to clients going for the new and expensive to produce ultra model . The MSMax is a cheaper/older/first-to-get-old option and apple has made a lot of effort to make the ultra soc possible so they would do whatever in order to favor it purchase. They lnow this very well with the iphone/iphone pro. Iphone buyers end buying pro model in few generations.

If we looked at Intel Mac release schedules in the past, since Intel typically had a rather fast renew cycle (at least in the 2010's), Mac had really frequent updates and seldom would you find a MacBook lagging behind with its chip tech for too long. But desktop Macs got their shaft, the Mac mini especially, from 2014 to 2018 a 4 year gap of no refresh, despite Intel having released the class of chip that goes inside a few times in that period.

This is so true. They complain about intel cycles but they didnt update desktops for years (macpro ahem!…)

So the point is, Apple has long been having less than top priority for desktop Macs. A half year lag time for a Mac Studio doesn't even qualify as a problem in hindsight. Though if I were a M2 Ultra Mac Pro buyer then I would question this much more seriously, since the Mac Pro is supposed to have a much higher ceiling of performance and is meant to be as cutting edge as possible.

I dont get about the mac pro ultra buyers concern, this 6months old soc doesnt apply to the ultra as it is brand new at it’s release date (max soc is 6 months from being replaced)

 

[CWallace]

I dont get it, if apple has the exclusivity, then supply should be assured (the opposite would mean supply for more buyers so less supply for apple, isnt it?)

TSMC can still only produce so many SoCs per wafer and MAX are the most complex version of the SoC so they likely have the lowest yields. So they only have so many "good" and "perfect" MAX available and due to demand, they would prioritize this capacity to meeting MacBook Pro demand. By pushing the Mac Studio refresh to the mid-cycle six months later, TSMC's yields will have improved and they will have sufficient MAX SoC capacity available to both meet the Mac Studio MAX and ULTRA demand.

And this is the 3rd year same pattern so it seem apple wants to release MSMax with MSUltra, it seems logical so more chances are to clients going for the new and expensive to produce ultra model. The MSMax is a cheaper/older/first-to-get-old option and apple has made a lot of effort to make the ultra soc possible so they would do whatever in order to favor it purchase. They lnow this very well with the iphone/iphone pro. Iphone buyers end buying pro model in few generations.

I expect the Mac Studio ULTRA sells fairly less than the Mac Studio MAX due to the significant cost delta between them ($1400 when both are configured with 64GB and 1TB, which is almost 50% more). That being said, Apple possibly has decided that it is better to offer the Studio with both MAX and ULTRA options at the same time to "capture" buyers who need a new machine now and would "settle" for the MAX if that was all they could get, but would get the ULTRA if they could. So even if Apple could offer the Mac Studio MAX at the same time as the MacBook Pro MAX models and ship Studio ULTRA models months later when supply allowed, they would prefer not to so as to not lose that extra revenue and margin on the ULTRA.

 

[Chancha]

The Ultra actually suffers the most impact with a delayed launch, in the context of pushing performance envelope, that's what I meant. The Mac Studio's case both the Max and Ultra chip not coming as timely have different negative impacts.

With Max like you mentioned, the same chip appeared in 14" 16" MBP months ago. So this is indisputable loss of potential since the literal chip is already there, Apple just doesn't sell it in the Studio chassis, yet.

With Ultra, while it is true the chip launches with the Studio / Mac Pro, so one could argue there's no what-if scenario of it releasing earlier. However, performance-wise the Ultra suffers heavy pressure from the Max of the next generation. We have already seen it happening twice: M1 Ultra vs M2 Max, and M2 Ultra vs M3 Max now. There are tasks that actually perform better on the next-Max than the previous-Ultra (in fact, most tasks other than pure GPU core demanding tasks). This situation on the Studio is slightly less embarrassing since it is not positioned as a top of the line Mac desktop, while the Mac Pro is.

The above poster laid out what Apple's line of thinking is likely to be, so the undermining of Mac desktop instantaneous performance is what they chose to sacrifice, in exchange for a strategical and logistical advantage on the MacBook side.

 

[cocoua]

Agree with you both! thanks

 

[cocoua]

So the bottom line to me is;

The best balance between money/release date/CPU+GPU performance (plus added extra features) is the Macbook Pro 16" Max of any Apple Silicon generation. You get the best performance until date, plus portability and the best 120Hz/Truetone/HDR/16" screen +trackpad+backlit keyboard )

The Ultra is too expensive for obtaining just 6 months of advantage in performance Vs the next Max (with slightly better CPU, slightly worse GPU). The next Max could be even have new "minor" features as updated ports and connections.

The Mac Studio Max is the cheapest option from 6 months before and 6 months after it's release in terms of competitive performance Vs other options available since 6 months back and to the next 6 months.

The Mac Pro as it is, is a very specific device, so it doesn't have any sense to compare it with the other devices in terms of performance/money

 

[cocoua]

well unless this would be true:

 

[CWallace]

The Ultra is too expensive for obtaining just 6 months of advantage in performance Vs the next Max (with slightly better CPU, slightly worse GPU). The next Max could be even have new "minor" features as updated ports and connections.

While this proved to be the case with the M3 MAX vs. M2 ULTRA, there are rumors that the next ULTRA (be it labeled M3 or M4) will be a custom SoC with only performance cores (and plenty of them) and a significant number of GPU cores so it should comfortably outclass the M4 MAX when that is released.

 

[haralds]

There is always more in the future. I got an M1 Ultra and never looked back. I would be hard-pressed to find a use where it is no longer more than enough.
I also still have my CMPro 5,1 with 3.4 GHz dual Xeons. It uses ten times the power for a fraction of the performance.

This is like the lust for EVs with 900HP and acceleration to 60 in a couple of seconds. Do we need it.

 

[Pezimak]

These days I look for value and savings, and to me Apples laptops no longer offer that. The 16” is the only current model that makes sense as I’ve heard the M3 Max in the 14” can thermal throttle. But the 16” is vastly more expensive then the Max Studio, my brother in law got an Apple refurb M1 Max 16“ MB Pro for an absolute steal of a price, the M3 no longer offers that value. The Studio does. IMO.

 

[rkuo]

While this proved to be the case with the M3 MAX vs. M2 ULTRA, there are rumors that the next ULTRA (be it labeled M3 or M4) will be a custom SoC with only performance cores (and plenty of them) and a significant number of GPU cores so it should comfortably outclass the M4 MAX when that is released.

At first glance an all p-core design seems incredibly dumb. Hard to believe this is real. Efficiency matters a lot … it keeps power consumption reasonable under lower workloads, is easily more performant if a highly parallel workload is constrained by die size or thermals, etc.