Annual spring updates for the Studio makes sense given past updates. And if Apple goes to the trouble of designing new A-series silicon every year there's no reason they can't do the same with M-series silicon, seeing as how they use the same microarchitecture, so an M4 in the fall with further incremental updates is perfectly reasonable and in line with how Intel and AMD release their products. It would be nice to get back on the wagon of Apple updating their core Mac lineup on an annual basis even if it's just a spec bump between major revisions.
As for the Mac Pro, I'd be curious to see if there are any rumors of the Jade 4C dies being resurrected (essentially four Max chips stitched together), or some other form of silicon that can differentiate the Pro from the Studio aside from PCIe slots. That could account for the Pro not being upgraded to the Ultra if Apple has something else in mind. I highly doubt it, but it was on Apple's radar at one point.
Hopefully it means they the Mac Pro will actually get a valid update.
The whole apple silicon timescale is a bit weird I think. Because the chips are staggered the Max then performs similarly to the Ultra and then you get a portable laptop thats as quick as a desktop like the Mac Pro.
IMO, this has been due mostly to production scale issues. When M1 launched, we had the base SoC and then months later the PRO/MAX and months after that the ULTRA. TSMC and Apple were probably having issues scaling production of these new SoCs so they staggered them. We saw much the same with M2.
Now M3 launches with base, PRO and MAX at the same time. Yet Apple did not move the MacBook Air to the M3 at launch, as that model makes up the significant bulk of Mac sales. One reason is probably the high cost of N3B (relative to N3E) would have eaten into margins (assuming Apple had kept the MacBook Air price the same) and another could be that the lower production volume of the M3 MacBook Pro family meant they could meet demand while working on scaling 3nm production.
As such, it makes some sense to move M3 MAX fabrication from N3B to N3E first (and might be why PRO and MAX now have different internal structures with the M3 generation) to lower the cost and increase the yields to allow two being used to make an ULTRA.
M4 might very well release all four SoC models at once as N3E should be at scale and with sufficient yield quality to support making all four SoCs.
I am confused why this article insists that an Ultra chip based on N3E would have to be called an M4 Ultra... It would still be an M3 if it is based on the same core designs.
I think MacRumors is just conflating "N3E equals M4" because M4 is expected to be fabricated on the N3E process.
The release of N3E in june might explain the mac mini macbook air delays
Agreed. N3E will be cheaper to manufacture and probably will have higher yields to support MacBook Air demand and profit margins at the same base price.
And yet, Apple is expanding to game, 3D, AI, and research where high GPU performance is required from last event. Even for video, you will need high GPU performance for graphic or even 3D in videos. Beside, Apple Silicon's GPU performance is barely close to RTX 40 series while taking advantage with 3nm as Nvidia is still using 5nm.
Historically, dedicated GPUs have always crushed integrated GPUs.
What I find exciting and hopeful is that Apple is the first company who is making integrated GPUs that are not crushed by dedicated GPUs. Yes, the dGPUs still hold an advantage (and in some areas and configurations, a substantial one), but for so many purposes, Apple's iGPUs are now not just "good enough", but "more than good enough" and in portable applications provide this power paired with exceptional battery life.
9to5mac.com
