M4 Mac Studio and Mac Pro Launching in Mid to Late 2025

[Chuckeee]

As much as I hate Gurman's iterative approach to predictions that means he is rarely wrong. There must be something in the gap he is suggesting between the Mac Studio and Mac Pro releases next year

I wonder if that means the Mac Pro will actually be something different this time. Not a repackaged Mac Studio Ultra but something that stands alone with its own processor(s) that has some extra special sauce to justify the "Pro" label. Plus a price tag to reflect that!!

I keep wondering the same thing. There was previously all this talk about some sort of magical new SUPER Hydra chip. Could this new Hydra chip be destined for updated Mac Pro?

The cooling capabilities of the current Mac studio are close to being maxed out with the ultra chips. They probably couldn’t accommodate a new Significantly high-powered chip. But a MacBook Pro could handle it.

And could this new Hydra Chip also be intended for these new Apple AI servers that we keep hearing rumored about too?

All of this is just a total WAG by the way 😝

 

[novagamer]

I keep wondering the same thing. There was previously all this talk about some sort of magical new SUPER Hydra chip. Could this new Hydra chip be destined for updated Mac Pro?

The cooling capabilities of the current Mac studio are close to being maxed out with the ultra chips. They probably couldn’t accommodate a new Significantly high-powered chip. But a MacBook Pro could handle it.

And could this new Hydra Chip also be intended for these new Apple AI servers that we keep hearing rumored about too?

All of this is just a total WAG by the way 😝

Yes, I’d say it’s a certainty this will happen eventually. Whether it’s this generation is less clear.

Before Apple Intelligence I‘d have said they may forego the entire halo product / top end performance market, but not anymore since their hardware directly integrates with their Secure Compute Cloud and that will pay for the R&D on the hardware to power it.

It’s wild how many M2 Ultras are being used for this given during the design for that chip I don’t think this was on Apple’s radar at all… they will certainly want to create better efficiencies there for both performance and cost / power consumption reasons. It’s great, because we’ll benefit as consumers even if we don’t care about their cloud.

 

[chucker23n1]

I keep wondering the same thing. There was previously all this talk about some sort of magical new SUPER Hydra chip. Could this new Hydra chip be destined for updated Mac Pro?

Maybe.

And could this new Hydra Chip also be intended for these new Apple AI servers that we keep hearing rumored about too?

Those are probably more reliant on NPU (and GPU) cores than CPU cores. They’re another case where the monolithic SoC approach is a bit limited.

So, if “Hydra” is about making core counts easier to scale independently, the answer might be yes. For example, perhaps the Mac Pro comes in “Compute”, “Graphics”, and “Bionic” flavors. The M3 Max is 12p 4e 40g 16n. The M4 Max may get more e-cores, judging from M3 vs. M4, so let’s say 12p 6e 40g 16n. M4 Ultra will likely double that: 24p 12e 80g 32n. (Contrast the M2 Ultra, which had 16p 8e 76g 32n.)

Spitballing three M4 Extreme variations based on that:

• “Compute” 48p 24e 80g 32n
• “Graphics” 24p 12e 160g 32n
• “Bionic” 24p 12e 80g 64n

 

[Fomalhaut]

I think they're saying they'd be dissatisfied if the Mac Pro with M4 Ultra has the same performance as the Mac Studio with M4 Ultra, or to put that another way: if there isn't a higher-end BTO option on the Mac Pro than on the Mac Studio, and you essentially pay $3,000 mostly for the ability to insert PCIe cards.

Which, we'll see. I wouldn't be surprised if that's once again the case.

I got the wrong end of the stick there! When @basehead617 said M4 Pro, I assumed they meant the SoC not the Mac Pro tower….Apple have seriously overloaded the term “Pro” recently!

The original comment makes more sense now. The M2 Ultra Mac Pro and M2 Ultra Mac Studio are of course almost identical in performance, with the only clear reason for the Mac Pro being the need for PCIe slots.

 

[nikhsub1]

I am considered the "Techy" among my social circle and I have no idea the difference between m1, m2 , nor the ipad releases. I know as the number gets higher its better, but what does that really mean for the average user?

Yeah, that's the 'ignorance is bliss' response I suppose, not a dig, just how most folks are. So, the M4 chips are out NOW. If you want to buy a Mac Studio for example (right now) the only chip they have is based on M2. Why would one knowingly buy something that is already 2 gens behind? That is what I take issue with. As someone mentioned, maybe they ought to rename the Ultra and Extreme chips to something totally different so they aren't compared with the ipad/laptop/imac M chips.

 

[haddy]

Maybe Apple’s mistake is in branding? Would we think differently if they branded these chips Ultra series [x], Max series [x], etc? Then we’d compare the Ultra 3 to Ultra 2, “knowing” Ultra is better than Max, Pro, basic. Now we’re comparing M2 Ultra against an M4 in an iPad. When the ultra still sits at the top and outperforms the others, are we distracted by the M# brand?

Well my M1 Studio Ultra is good enough to last me its life time. Connected to the XDR a M4/5 ultra whatever won't make any difference to my computing needs.

 

[chucker23n1]

Apple have seriously overloaded the term “Pro” recently!

It’s especially confusing with the M4 MacBook Pro vs. the M4 Pro MacBook Pro.

 

[Pressure]

It’s especially confusing with the M4 MacBook Pro vs. the M4 Pro MacBook Pro.

It's really quite easy.

One is the chassis and the other is the actual part doing the computing. You only need to know 3 tiers when it comes to the computing part, the base SoC, the middle SoC and the high-end SoC.

Just be happy you aren't on the Windows PC side if you get easily confused by naming conventions.

 

[chucker23n1]

It's really quite easy.

It isn’t, as evidenced by people asking “didn’t the predecessor start at 18 GiB?” when seeing the leak of the M4 MBP. The M3 Pro MBP did; the M3 MBP did not.

One is the chassis and the other is the actual part doing the computing.

You really don’t need to mansplain that to me.

Just be happy you aren't on the Windows PC side if you get easily confused by naming conventions.

Yes, some vendors do an even worse job.

 

[jacobgkau]

It's really quite easy.

One is the chassis and the other is the actual part doing the computing. You only need to know 3 tiers when it comes to the computing part, the base SoC, the middle SoC and the high-end SoC.

Just be happy you aren't on the Windows PC side if you get easily confused by naming conventions.

I think "it's really quite easy" is being a little too dismissive of the current names' flaws.

As a casual observer, I wouldn't be able to tell you whether Pro or Ultra is the "high-end" vs. "middle-end" SoC based on those names. Having just looked it up to check, I see the MacBook Pro tops out at the Max (which makes sense), but the Mac Studio offers the Max and an even-higher-end Ultra (which doesn't make sense, because "max" is short for "maximum" and it's evidently not the maximum), while the MacBook Pro offers a Pro and Max alongside an unlabeled regular version. All this also means there are 4 tiers, not 3 like you said; but one product offers 3 of the 4 tiers, and another offers 2 (while you do still need to keep track of all 4 tiers in order to understand the differences between the products).

I also wouldn't be able to tell you why the MacBook Pro offers the non-Pro, non-Max chip at all; how would it be different from the normal/air MacBook? I'm assuming it must be other things like the screen or ports, but I generally don't recall the MacBook Pro's entry-level Intel chips being the same thing you got in a MacBook/Air.

"Be happy it's not worse" is a vague, weak argument. The entire point of bringing this up is that Apple's moving in that direction with how they're currently engineering and marketing this stuff.

 

[Pressure]

It isn’t, as evidenced by people asking “didn’t the predecessor start at 18 GiB?” when seeing the leak of the M4 MBP. The M3 Pro MBP did; the M3 MBP did not.



You really don’t need to mansplain that to me.



Yes, some vendors do an even worse job.

I intentionally left out the "workstation" SoC as it is not available in any laptop. The segment it belongs to should be painfully obvious when the starting price is $4000.

I think "it's really quite easy" is being a little too dismissive of the current names' flaws.

As a casual observer, I wouldn't be able to tell you whether Pro or Ultra is the "high-end" vs. "middle-end" SoC based on those names. Having just looked it up to check, I see the MacBook Pro tops out at the Max (which makes sense), but the Mac Studio offers the Max and an even-higher-end Ultra (which doesn't make sense, because "max" is short for "maximum" and it's evidently not the maximum), while the MacBook Pro offers a Pro and Max alongside an unlabeled regular version. All this also means there are 4 tiers, not 3 like you said; but one product offers 3 of the 4 tiers, and another offers 2 (while you do still need to keep track of all 4 tiers in order to understand the differences between the products).

I also wouldn't be able to tell you why the MacBook Pro offers the non-Pro, non-Max chip at all; how would it be different from the normal/air MacBook? I'm assuming it must be other things like the screen or ports, but I generally don't recall the MacBook Pro's entry-level Intel chips being the same thing you got in a MacBook/Air.

"Be happy it's not worse" is a vague, weak argument. The entire point of bringing this up is that Apple's moving in that direction with how they're currently engineering and marketing this stuff.

It's the job of the consumer to educate themselves when they are a prospective buyer. Most people do that. I agree, there is a vocal minority who can't tell the difference between red or blue or have the ability to parse and understand numbers.

I believe Apple have made it simple compared to every other company in this regard, despite the current fragmentation in the line-up and the mess that is their iPad line-up. Apple aren't infallible though and there is always room for improvement.

 

[chucker23n1]

Having just looked it up to check, I see the MacBook Pro tops out at the Max (which makes sense), but the Mac Studio offers the Max and an even-higher-end Ultra (which doesn't make sense, because "max" is short for "maximum" and it's evidently not the maximum), while the MacBook Pro offers a Pro and Max alongside an unlabeled regular version. All this also means there are 4 tiers, not 3 like you said; but one product offers 3 of the 4 tiers, and another offers 2 (while you do still need to keep track of all 4 tiers in order to understand the differences between the products).

Yep. The M series has four tiers, with a rather silly and definitely unintuitive sort order. And at a technical level, you could make the case that it really goes:

S
A
A Pro
M
M Pro
M Max
M Ultra

They usually start with the A, sometimes have an A Pro variant, scale that up to the M, which increases the clock speed and core count, and adds features such as Thunderbolt, then add more cores for the M Pro, even more (especially graphics) cores for the Max, sometimes with even higher clock, and finally double all that for the Ultra. And then take the e-cores from the A for the S, in Apple Watch, HomePod mini, etc.

(I believe the H and W series in AirPods and elsewhere currently share no cores with the A/M/S.)

If this were more like Intel, we might have the M4.3, the M4.5, M4.7, and M4.9 instead of no suffix / Pro / Max / Ultra. That’s rather technical, sure, but it’s very easy to tell “which is best?”. They prefer the splashy-sounding suffixes, but I have no doubt this has led to confusion. Has it led to accidentally purchasing the wrong product, I’m less sure. (I guess I wish they would’ve at least picked different suffixes, not used “Pro” for both the laptop/desktop and some of the SoCs, if they’re gonna mix and match like that. Contrast the iPhone, where if you get the iPhone 16 Pro, it comes with the A18 Pro, and if you get the iPhone 16, it comes with the A18. That makes more sense.)

As for none of the products offering all tiers, that comes down to market segmentation and heat dissipation. The MacBook Air can’t come with an M4 Pro because a fabless design produces too much heat. Similarly, the top-end 16-inch MacBook Pro can’t come with an M4 Ultra. Conversely, the Mac Studio starts at the M4 Max, because the M4 Pro is what the Mac mini already has.

I also wouldn't be able to tell you why the MacBook Pro offers the non-Pro, non-Max chip at all; how would it be different from the normal/air MacBook? I'm assuming it must be other things like the screen or ports,

One reason is psychological; some people and IT departments won’t buy anything that doesn’t say “Pro”.

But if you configure the two similarly, it’s only a difference of $300, which gets you more ports, a much, much nicer screen, nicer speakers and mics, oh, and the screen is bigger as well.

but I generally don't recall the MacBook Pro's entry-level Intel chips being the same thing you got in a MacBook/Air.

This sort of started around 2016 with the one MacBook Pro configuration that didn’t have the Touch Bar yet but was otherwise quite similar on the outside. It has fewer ports and a much slower Intel CPU, so it was sort of an oddball low-end Pro.

Ultimately, it’s Apple saying: we want to offer a MacBook Pro at $1,600 but not compromise the $2,000 starting price for the “real” Pro.

 

[Ethosik]

Close to when base M5 will launch. This is ridiculous.

 

[Ethosik]

I mean, these are just spec bumps. What’s there really to prioritize? Back in the day unless it got a redesign of how it physically looked or some new physical hardware feature, a spec bump would quietly appear on the Apple Store. It’s really inexcusable that the studio and pro our left languagish this way, or that the lineup is always Swiss cheese with old chips in the line like in the iMacs and minis. They’re making the Mac lineup worse than the iPad.

Agreed. They need to switch their strategy. With Intel, no X+1 gen mobile chip beat X gen desktop from Apple. This isn’t the case with Apple silicon where some workflows the M3 Max is better than the M2 Ultra.

 

[Ethosik]

This is true to a point, but it simply isn’t a big market segment any more.



They’re quite competitive elsewhere.

Because everyone moved on with Apple’s trash can fiasco. How flipping difficult is a desktop for goodness sake? I left the Mac due to it. I hate using laptops as desktops and the iMacs aren’t that good for 24/7 work.

 

[MacBH928]

Yeah, that's the 'ignorance is bliss' response I suppose, not a dig, just how most folks are. So, the M4 chips are out NOW. If you want to buy a Mac Studio for example (right now) the only chip they have is based on M2. Why would one knowingly buy something that is already 2 gens behind? That is what I take issue with. As someone mentioned, maybe they ought to rename the Ultra and Extreme chips to something totally different so they aren't compared with the ipad/laptop/imac M chips.

The answer is price. If I can get an M2 machine for $1000 , why pay $2000 for M4 where it will not affect my use case? If I will only notice the M4 power when rendering 4K videos or making 3D graphics while most people just use the browser and MS Office.

 

[nikhsub1]

The answer is price. If I can get an M2 machine for $1000 , why pay $2000 for M4 where it will not affect my use case? If I will only notice the M4 power when rendering 4K videos or making 3D graphics while most people just use the browser and MS Office.

I don't disagree with you, that doesn't mean my point isn't valid.

 

[chucker23n1]

Why would one knowingly buy something that is already 2 gens behind?

If you need high-end workloads, the Mac Studio is still your best choice.

“2 gens” is also technically true, but we’re really only talking ~15 months.

 

[jacobgkau]

I agree, there is a vocal minority who can't tell the difference between red or blue or have the ability to parse and understand numbers.

The rest of your comment is "but, but, but..." and then the only thing that's not an admission we had a point is you being a jerk and talking down to people. You're not doing yourself any favors with that tone.

Not wanting things to be unnecessarily complicated does not make people idiots "who can't tell the difference between red or blue," nor does not wanting to spend a bunch of time and effort "educating themselves" on convoluted naming schemes. (Defending the scheme so hard, though, does suggest you don't have anything better to spend your time and energy on than studying it, which is a little sad.)

 

[Pressure]

The rest of your comment is "but, but, but..." and then the only thing that's not an admission we had a point is you being a jerk and talking down to people. You're not doing yourself any favors with that tone.

Not wanting things to be unnecessarily complicated does not make people idiots "who can't tell the difference between red or blue," nor does not wanting to spend a bunch of time and effort "educating themselves" on convoluted naming schemes. (Defending the scheme so hard, though, does suggest you don't have anything better to spend your time and energy on than studying it, which is a little sad.)

Sorry you felt called out. This isn't in any way personal or directed at you.

Let's list the computers offered by Apple to understand my frame of reference.

Apple is currently selling the following laptops:

Model	SoC
13-inch MacBook Air	M2 / M3
15-inch MacBook Air	M3
14-inch MacBook Pro	M3 / M3 Pro / M3 Max
16-inch MacBook Pro	M3 Pro / M3 Max

Apple is currently selling the following desktop machines:

Model	SoC
iMac	M3
Mac mini	M2 / M2 Pro
Mac Studio	M2 Max / M2 Ultra
Mac Pro	M2 Ultra

What powers them (the SoC) are easily explained on their respective landing pages. It's up to the consumer to understand how much they need concerning unified memory and storage or user specific features.

Is this really complex and confusing compared to any other PC manufacturer?

Personally the biggest issue I have with this is the fragmentation of SoCs.

 

[MacBH928]

The rest of your comment is "but, but, but..." and then the only thing that's not an admission we had a point is you being a jerk and talking down to people. You're not doing yourself any favors with that tone.

Not wanting things to be unnecessarily complicated does not make people idiots "who can't tell the difference between red or blue," nor does not wanting to spend a bunch of time and effort "educating themselves" on convoluted naming schemes. (Defending the scheme so hard, though, does suggest you don't have anything better to spend your time and energy on than studying it, which is a little sad.)

Sorry you felt called out. This isn't in any way personal or directed at you.

Let's list the computers offered by Apple to understand my frame of reference.

Apple is currently selling the following laptops:

Model	SoC
13-inch MacBook Air	M2 / M3
15-inch MacBook Air	M3
14-inch MacBook Pro	M3 / M3 Pro / M3 Max
16-inch MacBook Pro	M3 Pro / M3 Max

Apple is currently selling the following desktop machines:

Model	SoC
iMac	M3
Mac mini	M2 / M2 Pro
Mac Studio	M2 Max / M2 Ultra
Mac Pro	M2 Ultra

What powers them (the SoC) are easily explained on their respective landing pages. It's up to the consumer to understand how much they need concerning unified memory and storage or user specific features.

Is this really complex and confusing compared to any other PC manufacturer?

Personally the biggest issue I have with this is the fragmentation of SoCs.

I remember when Steve Jobs came back to Apple and said there was so many Mac models that not even he understand the difference between them. Then he did the 2x2 matrix "Desktop, Laptop" "Consumer, Pro" . Now you need a PhD to tell iPad models apart.

 

[Chuckeee]

Now you need a PhD to tell iPad models apart.

That is absolutely NOT true. I have a PhD, and I still can’t tell them apart. 😆

 

[chucker23n1]

I remember when Steve Jobs came back to Apple and said there was so many Mac models that not even he understand the difference between them. Then he did the 2x2 matrix "Desktop, Laptop" "Consumer, Pro" . Now you need a PhD to tell iPad models apart.

This is partially true, but things aren’t quite as bad as the days of the Power Macintosh 6220CD, only sold in Europe, largely the same as the Performa 6543, or the LC5800.

Was that better or worse than the 6240CD? It depends!

I’m making up the numbers but it was pretty much that bad.

Keep in mind Steve had a financial issue to solve. Radically cutting down the product line was the right move, but expanding the product line as the company grows isn’t necessarily a bad move.

It’s still quite easy to tell “what’s the best Mac to get?”.

 

[MacBH928]

This is partially true, but things aren’t quite as bad as the days of the Power Macintosh 6220CD, only sold in Europe, largely the same as the Performa 6543, or the LC5800.

Was that better or worse than the 6240CD? It depends!

I’m making up the numbers but it was pretty much that bad.

Keep in mind Steve had a financial issue to solve. Radically cutting down the product line was the right move, but expanding the product line as the company grows isn’t necessarily a bad move.

It’s still quite easy to tell “what’s the best Mac to get?”.

not once you drop in the Max, Ultra, Pro including M1, M2, M3 processors

 

[chucker23n1]

not once you drop in the Max, Ultra, Pro including M1, M2, M3 processors

Why not?

If you want a laptop, you can get the consumer Air or the pro Pro. Then you decide on the screen size. And finally, you decide on how much oomph you require.

For a desktop, there are granted more choices to make. Do you like an AIO? You can get any size you like, as long as it’s 24 inches, and you also only get the mid-range SoC. Do you want the very high end for specialized needs? Get the Pro. For everyone else: how much power do you require? If the answer is medium, configure a mini. Otherwise, configure a Studio.