Which is fine, just don't release the ultra chip after you've released the next gen.
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.
M3 Ultra Chip's Massive 80-Core Graphics Performance Revealed in Benchmark Result
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The M3 Ultra Mac Studio pricing is basically the same as the M2 Ultra.
You do get that the M3 Ultra replaces the M2 Ultra, yes?
What does the m2 ultra have to do with my comment about m4max vs m3ultra price/performance?
Someone who is paying 2x the cost for the m3ultra vs the m4max is getting 10% faster multi core, 20% slower single core and 40% faster GPU.
That is a BRUTAL price to performance ratio.
Quickly looking at the m2 generation of studios the 2x cost got you.
40% faster multi core
60% faster gpu
In fact, if the price difference was just the price of the memory, I’d pay for 256GB rather than 128GB, because of AI models like you said. But they are making you also pay for the Ultra like if it was a M4 Ultra, so I’ll go for 128GB.
The real point of the Ultra is for things like GPU including AI with 512GB of RAM it slugs it out with Nvidia fine.
Define ‘they.’ Apple didn’t say it. You tubers said based on max tech. Consider the source. That’s the problem with rumors, people start quoting them like gospel. Apple has said no M4 ultra and I’m inclined to believe them.
M3 ultra is for desesperated Apple users who needs the best GpU Apple can offer.
The price vs the m4 max is not proportional. Double the price but slower single core CPU , slower ANE (neural engine) just 10% faster multicore COU and only 38% faster GPU
In real world, most GPU process needs the fastest CPU you can match to be effective.
yet waiting for the real world test but on paper, this looks like saying “if you need a good GPU what are you doing here”
The price vs the m4 max is not proportional. Double the price but slower single core CPU , slower ANE (neural engine) just 10% faster multicore COU and only 38% faster GPU
In real world, most GPU process needs the fastest CPU you can match to be effective.
yet waiting for the real world test but on paper, this looks like saying “if you need a good GPU what are you doing here”
They had to go back to add the TB5, could they not have added ultra fusion at the same time?
I agree the source matters, but we aren't talking about the same m3max chips that were launched originally.
This machine is the AI workhorse. If you need 512GB of Unified (GPU) memory this is your baby.
Where? They have said that not every series will get an Ultra but that doesn't preclude it happening on the M4.
For sure. If the performance roughly doubles as it did for the M2 Max 38 > M2U 76, these Blender benchmarks hint that the M3U 80 will almost rival the 4090 in Blender. Considering how well optimised Apple Silicon Metal performance is in Blender, and coupled with the amount of potential VRAM M-chips can offer –I dare say it's actually a more powerful proposition, for a Blender user at least.
What's also notable is just how performant the M4 Max 40 is in Blender. Just imagine an M4 Ultra!
I've been in the market for a M3 Studio since the M3 announcement in Nov 2023. And as with others, have been waiting patiently for this. But I really wish it had been released last summer.
I now have an annoying predicament. I was really after around 128GB of RAM for things like Houdini and Fusion Studio. In order to fulfil that with the M3 Ultra 80 I'll have to cough up for the 256GB model making the cost hefty, far more than say a Linux build with a Threadripper, 4090, etc. It is a real shame this isn't an M4 Ultra as we were all kinda expecting, that truly would have spanked hard for graphics.
Rather than lump out for the M3U 80 256, and work with it for 4+ years, I may well just go for an M4 Max 128GB, then update to the M5 Ultra Studio which I expect we'll see in 2026/7. That or seriously consider my Linux option.
Same boat. I’ve decided to go for The 80-core M3 256GB. 96GB isn’t enough for really big scenes in Blender (plus running other apps). I was hoping for M4 Ultra, which would have been ideal, but the M3 isn’t too far off, and reducing all my render times by half is worth a punt. Just hope I don’t regret it in six months’ time!
I doubt you'll regret it, that spec is fire. Yeah, I just can't do the 96GB option either.
The gains will be jaw dropping. I went to my current M3 Max from my maxed out retina Macbook pro and the difference is like driving a go-kart around a race track and then upgrading to an F1 car. So worth it!
Things that would tax my old machine and have the fans going full blast will sit there and run on the efficiency cores almost exclusively, just barely dipping into the main cores.
Well, I just cancelled my order. Looking at the benchmarks, I just don't think it's worth the expense. I might change my mind when real world figures start appearing, but at the moment it feels like a shedload of cash (£7,699 my spec) for not enough return.
If the M5 Max in the next MBP follows a similar pattern it will probably outperform the M3 Ultra graphics wise, possibly also coming close to a 4090. £5k ish will probably buy one of those with 128GB. Food for thought.
I was playing Resident Evil 4 Remake with pretty high settings (M4 mini) and decided to check the wattage. It came in at 35. It looks good or better than my Xbox Series X which is using a wee bit more power. It's amazing what they've done on the low power space.
You "...can’t think of any real reason for Apple not to offer it..." You mean other than physics? Apple is building a different, more efficient paradigm. We will see how it plays out long term.
Seeings these benchmarks today really has me torn since I've also been waiting since late 2023 for the next refresh, although for my reasoning is a lot dumber.
For the past 20 years, on every desktop computer I've owned I have found that I was fine with a prosumer level CPU for 4 to 5 years and the GPU was always the thing I needed to upgrade. Although I occasionally do some video work, 3D, and a fair amount of software development, I still like the ability to run games on the side which is why I had a couple of Mac Pro's in the past and eventually switched to the fastest 2018 Mac Mini with an eGPU in 2019. I last upgraded my GPU 2021, and the 4 year old Radeon I'm using basically benchmarks around the same as an M4 Pro (excluding the eGPU overhead, which puts it slightly below).
Since eGPU is no more and I wanted a newer Mac, in 2023 I decided I would get the M3 Ultra when it came out because I didn't like the idea of getting something with a worse GPU than what I was replacing and wanted something good enough that the GPU would still be "average" 4 years from now until I'm ready to upgrade again. I immediately ordered the 60-core version of the Studio when it went up this week, assuming that since the M4 GPU was only about 18% faster than M3, 50% more cores than the M4 Max would put the 60 core Ultra at least 25% over the M4 Max.
With the presumably 80 core model only being 38% faster in this benchmark, it's making me think the extra cost might not have been worth it even though I want to keep the machine at least 4 years. I've tried running a bunch of numbers to estimate how the 60 core Ultra might fare compared to M4 Max, but nothing I've come up with makes sense. The best estimate that I can come up with places the 60 core M3 only 1.3% faster than the 60 Core M2, which is still ahead of the 40 core M4 Max by 16% but this implies that the M3 GPU cores are barely improved over M2.
I was hoping for the equivalent of mid-tier desktop card with the 60 core model instead of a high end laptop equivalent, but it's sounding like I should rethink my plan and switch to M4 Max because I'd have to pay triple the price to get the equivalent of a "pretty good" discrete desktop card.
Not sure what point you are making, even my original M3 mba, not pro, not max, has tb5. Point is tb5 has been part of all M3 chips.