M4 Max (16-Core CPU, 128GB RAM) vs. M3 Ultra (28-Core CPU, 96GB RAM)

[JSRinUK]

I'm with you on that. I had a M4P Mini spec'd up to $2099 in my cart off and on for months, and I kept waiting, thinking an M4 Studio would be a better buy for me. Ordered a Studio one day after launch (M4M 64/1TB) and this morning I cancelled it for an M4M 128/2TB and it's clocking in at double the price of the Mini haha. Target workloads are mostly software dev, local LLMs, and maybe dabbling in Ableton again.

I should also sell my 4090 gaming PC (since the GPU market is crazy again) to offset the cost as my investment in computers is getting silly at this point.

Wish I could have stretched to a 2TB, but I’m making do with 1TB (as with my MBP). I have a couple of Crucial X9 Pros which I’ve dumped all of my LLM models and Stable Diffusion models on, which saved a shedload of space on the MBP, so I think I’m good with 1TB. Can’t ever have enough space, though!

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Buy based on requirements. Price differences just get in the way.

For me, I want RAM, so 128GB is more important to me than 96GB.

OTOH, for a video producer, the four encoders in the Ultra seems like it is the thing to get, along with the more GPU cores. Plus the Ultra can do 8 monitors, or four 8K monitors, which for those with the need for such things will seal the deal for the Ultra.

You say "For me, I want RAM." So why only mention base level? Max on the M3 Ultra is 500 GB RAM and on the M4 max is 128 GB.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Bottom line is that unless you're using software that makes HEAVY use of multi-core operations (if you have to ask for examples, you're probably not doing them), the M4 Max with more RAM is the way to go.

Again, why do you folks only reference base RAM? The M3 Studio Ultra allows up to 500 GB of RAM. So stating "the M4 Max with more RAM" is just wrong.

Folks make a big error when they only compare base level machines. Apple's SoC Macs running under Apple's Unified Memory Architecture perform very differently depending upon RAM amounts and on the applications involved. The only relevant comparisons are those between full real-world workflows. E.g. no one knowledgeable would build a box to run AI LLMs and configure it with base-level RAM.

 

[Basic75]

I am a software engineer.

Then you should really know what you need, and if you don't it probably doesn't make much difference what you get.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Then you should really know what you need, and if you don't it probably doesn't make much difference what you get.

We should know what we need, but past performance is just a starting point since we are all only forecasting what we expect that we will need over the future life cycle of any new purchase. IMO with a little homework we can forecast our reasonable expectations. Not know, but reasonable.

Things could always change unexpectedly of course, but that is historically unlikely. For instance never in 40 years have Macs not wanted more RAM in year+1 than in year zero. But for instance the whole AI LLM model thing might change dramatically. Ms. AI may tell us that she no longer thrives on the current resource-absurd levels of GPU and RAM and instead prefers massive parallel CPU processing, who knows?

 

[asiga]

Again, why do you folks only reference base RAM? The M3 Studio Ultra allows up to 500 GB of RAM. So stating "the M4 Max with more RAM" is just wrong.

Folks make a big error when they only compare base level machines. Apple's SoC Macs running under Apple's Unified Memory Architecture perform very differently depending upon RAM amounts and on the applications involved. The only relevant comparisons are those between full real-world workflows. E.g. no one knowledgeable would build a box to run AI LLMs and configure it with base-level RAM.

We did consider the 256GB and 512GB Ultras (I mention that in my post). The point is that such configurations make you pay not only the memory, but adding to the cost a M3 Ultra at the price of a M4 Ultra (if it existed). And this means that you roughly pay twice the price of the memory, causing it be way beyond our budgets. If it was only the price of the memory, I could have afforded the 256GB configuration, and of course I would have chosen it.

 

[UnifiedMelody]

The main issue is not just the difference between 96GB and 128GB of RAM (although a 32GB difference is certainly significant). The real factor is the old-generation vs. new-generation cores. Older cores generate more heat, which can lead to increased fan noise. Additionally, the performance gap between the M4 Max and the M3 Ultra may not be as big as expected.

I'd probably argue the M4 generation [from a MBP perspective] has the fans ramping up and heating up more than usual. Just because they also boosted the clock speed and dumped more P cores [especially the M4 Pro].

If anything I think if benchmarking extreme tests do hold true, the Mac Studio still should remain fanless even under extreme loads. which is insane, as the MBP's don't control those two well now [limitation of the chassis/system to a certain degree].

Which was why when I got my M4 Max MBP 2 months ago, I got it... ideally a Mac Studio would be beautiful for me but I'd also have to get a new 5K display as my current one is only 1440p... that would be another 1.5k+ on top. Idk maybe, I might pick a Mac Studio eventually when I rake up enough apple gift cards [off credit card redemptions] to have a standalone studio in the house. This MBP M4 Max will outlast me very long time; its speedy asf. esp on 64GB ram I don't see low memory issues.

That said I don't do AI generation/LLM's. so maybe my comment will falter for those who do.

 

[splifingate]

If you're debating paying for a comp, all-the-while knowing that this will create a battle between that and how you pay your mortgage, you may be approaching the question from an untenable position.

If you need a specific comp, then just buy the darn thing

 

[JouniS]

It's criminal how much they charge for an upgrade from 96GB to 256GB RAM, which apparently would be fantastic to have, but like you said it's not exactly budget friendly

The upgrade to 256 GB is actually pretty reasonable. Apple charges $12.5/GB up to 128 GB and $9.375/GB beyond that, while the market rate for workstation RAM seems to be ~$6/GB (according to Puget Systems). And because the base system is so cheap, the Mac Studio Ultra is by far the cheapest option if you need a workstation with that much RAM. Even if you don't care about GPU memory.

SSD prices, on the other hand, are criminal. While the market rate is less than $100/TB, Apple charges you $300/TB, effectively forcing you to clutter your desk with random boxes and cables. A desktop computer should be able to hide all that ugly stuff inside a well designed case. But I guess Apple sucks at design, like it often does.

 

[floridaman]

At least it gives an idea about M3 Ultra.

Here is a link that talks about Geekbench and benchmark results for M3 Ultra. https://www.macworld.com/article/26...tra&huid=d4a7fe1d-59fc-42bc-a3da-40bf968dd331

 

[seastar]

Heat shouldn't be an issue as the ultra models are running on a fully copper heat sink and core, whereas the Max models are running on an aluminum heat sink/copper core.

This reply made me reconsider the M3 Ultra, but these differences—the $300 price gap, the 32GB RAM difference, and the generational core improvements—are significant. If you sum up these differences, they roughly equate to the value of an M4 Mac Mini with 24GB RAM. In that case, an M4 Max Mac Studio with 128GB RAM provides a better overall balance of performance, efficiency, and longevity compared to an M3 Ultra Mac Studio.

 

[Ekim Venes]

The upgrade to 256 GB is actually pretty reasonable. Apple charges $12.5/GB up to 128 GB and $9.375/GB beyond that, while the market rate for workstation RAM seems to be ~$6/GB (according to Puget Systems). And because the base system is so cheap, the Mac Studio Ultra is by far the cheapest option if you need a workstation with that much RAM. Even if you don't care about GPU memory.

SSD prices, on the other hand, are criminal. While the market rate is less than $100/TB, Apple charges you $300/TB, effectively forcing you to clutter your desk with random boxes and cables. A desktop computer should be able to hide all that ugly stuff inside a well designed case. But I guess Apple sucks at design, like it often does.

One could say that in Apple's price increase terms RAM is "cheaper" as you add up more of it compared to SSD pricing which is an utter daylight robbery. Thankfully external storage is becoming faster than ever with TB5, fair play to Apple for introducing it.

It's rather Apple's deliberate omission of 128GB (or even 192GB) RAM option with Ultra configuration that is upsetting. As if they wanted to persuade more people into M4 Max rather than M3 Ultra, which from overall sales figures perspective makes perfect sense, indeed. After all majority of people will be more than happy with the M4 Max configs available out there, although - again - Apple's limitation at 36GB RAM in the base M4 Max lineup (they should have offered an option of at least up to 48GB). It's a good old sales strategy, just stating the obvious here

 

[asiga]

The upgrade to 256 GB is actually pretty reasonable. Apple charges $12.5/GB up to 128 GB and $9.375/GB beyond that, while the market rate for workstation RAM seems to be ~$6/GB (according to Puget Systems). And because the base system is so cheap, the Mac Studio Ultra is by far the cheapest option if you need a workstation with that much RAM. Even if you don't care about GPU memory.

That would be true if you ignore the price of the Ultra processor, which is between 1000€ and 3000€ extra (over the price of the M4 Max), and which changes the math completely, and for no CPU performance improvement and just minor GPU improvement.

 

[asiga]

By the way, this makes me think that perhaps the only reason why Apple decided to release the M3 Ultra is because of RAM. If the M4 Max supported 256GB I guess they would have released just the M4 Max model.

 

[JouniS]

That would be true if you ignore the price of the Ultra processor, which is between 1000€ and 3000€ extra (over the price of the M4 Max), and which changes the math completely, and for no CPU performance improvement and just minor GPU improvement.

The Ultra is also really cheap relative to Threadrippers and Xeons. While the 96 GB model is a bit underwhelming, the 256 GB and 512 GB models are the most affordable workstations in the market, if you are looking for specs like that.

You should not pay too much attention to Geekbench 6 results, because it's fundamentally a single-task consumer benchmark. If you are doing the kind of work where having tens of CPU cores makes sense, the M3 Ultra is obviously much faster than the M4 Max.

 

[picpicmac]

After watching Matt Talks Tech's video

I wrote Matt off long ago... he just churns out many videos a week filled with nothing but fluff.

Also, you asked about heat: The M4 Max is clocked at 4.5GHz, while the M3 Ultra looks to be at the 4.05 GHz as with the M3 Max. Many people have noted that MBPs with M4 Max run their fans hard. The faster clock speed does give the M4 better single core performance (and indeed I expect the clock bump counts for much of the performance enhancements from the M3 to the M4), but it also means more heat generated per sec (i.e. Watts) per core for the M4.

You also mentioned After Effect (Ae). In his test Art includes an AE test, I've linked his bit M4 family video starting in the Ae part:

You will see that the unbinned M4 Max beats out the M2 Ultra, and that is because Adobe doesn't do a good job with AE code. Anyway, assuming a 30% performance boost of the M3U over the M2U, using Art's data then the M3 Ultra will be about the same or a little better than the M4 Max.

 

[picpicmac]

For instance never in 40 years have Macs not wanted more RAM in year+1 than in year zero.

I remember walking through a big Japanese electronics store in Osaka, way back in 2003, and on the computer floor they had Macs on one row, and I go up to one and it had the beachball going. Everytime I walked by there over the next few months the beachball was going.

I concluded it was because it has the base RAM amount and somebody tried to do something big and the system just went out to lunch. At that time I had the top of the line 17" PowerBook so I knew what the Macs at the time needed.

Apple has tended to be RAM stingy since the original Mac.

Now, the new Mac Studios are not stingy on RAM, yet if I decide to buy one of these Studios (I had saved up to get an M4 Pro Mini and have had one sitting in my cart at Apple since last fall's announcement) I think the one thing for sure I will do is get at least one-step up in RAM, if not two step increases.

 

[M1956]

The real factor is the old-generation vs. new-generation cores. Older cores generate more heat, which can lead to increased fan noise.

If noise and heat are a major factor probably worth waiting a week for real reviews.
I would assume m4 max will be less hot and noisy simply because it has less cores, but we will never know how m3 ultra fairs in studio case until the reviews.

 

[throAU]

interactive performance on the m4 generation will be a bit better as that's mostly single/low core count work and the cores are significantly faster per core.

the ultra will be able to do batch work faster, but 96 GB is a bit short for it really.

Between those two specs: I'd go the m4 max, but it depends what you do. I think ordering an m3 ultra with less than 256 GB of RAM = why are you buying an Ultra.... you're probably making a mistake with that sort of unbalanced spec.

 

[seastar]

If noise and heat are a major factor probably worth waiting a week for real reviews.
I would assume m4 max will be less hot and noisy simply because it has less cores, but we will never know how m3 ultra fairs in studio case until the reviews.

You're right; it would be best to wait for real reviews. I’ve decided not to cancel my M4 Max Mac Studio order for now. If the M3 Ultra proves to have significant advantages over the M4 Max—especially in terms of fan noise and overall performance—I can purchase an M3 Ultra Mac Studio from the local Apple Store (since it’s the base model) and cancel my M4 Max order.

 

[seastar]

Then you should really know what you need, and if you don't it probably doesn't make much difference what you get.

My base needs are fully met with an M4 Max Mac Studio with 64GB RAM and 512GB SSD since I already have a 4TB external TB4 SSD. Before the M4 and M3 Mac Studios were announced, I had planned to buy a Mac Studio with 64GB RAM and 1TB internal SSD—just in case of compatibility issues (for example, my sound interface not working with an external bootable SSD). However, when I saw the 128GB RAM option, I decided to go for that model. At that point, I also noticed that the M3 Ultra was an alternative within the same price range.

 

[seastar]

Max Tech states that the M4 cores are based on the ARMv9 architecture, which is a significant factor when choosing the M4 Max over the M3 Ultra. He also mentions that unless you specifically need the extra cores, sticking with the M4 Max is the better choice.
Here’s the Max Tech video I referenced:

 

[MacPoulet]

Max Tech states that the M4 cores are based on the ARMv9 architecture, which is a significant factor when choosing the M4 Max over the M3 Ultra. He also mentions that unless you specifically need the extra cores, sticking with the M4 Max is the better choice.
Here’s the Max Tech video I referenced:

Serious question because I don’t know: how does M3 Ultra not being ARMv9 affect your workflow?

 

[seastar]

Serious question because I don’t know: how does M3 Ultra not being ARMv9 affect your workflow?

As MaxTech mentioned, ARMv9 cores are more efficient, which means higher single-core and multi-core performance in benchmarks. How does this impact my workflow? Well, for one, I might be able to allocate just 3–4 CPU cores to my VMs instead of 6–8, and that could be sufficient. Additionally, some software may include optimizations specifically for ARMv9 CPUs, which would naturally lead to better performance.
If I already had an M3 Mac, upgrading to M4 wouldn’t make much sense. However, since I don’t own a Mac right now, choosing the latest architecture is the better option for me.

 

[picpicmac]

Max Tech states that the M4 cores are based on the ARMv9 architecture

Max Tech is just one step above the Matt (you linked earlier)... but that is not saying much.

The newer-is-better algorithm in marketing - and be sure to understand that Max Tech is a marketing machine - works which is why advertisers exploit it so much.

In reality, the clock bump up to 4.5GHz is why the M4 is faster than the M3. That the M4 has the latest (deployed) version of the ARM architecture probably helps, but remember that is only for the CPU cores. The rest of the SoC - the GPU cores, the memory controllers, etc. - are not ARM v9 things.

The first real-world test of these Mac Studios should be online before the end of the week. Let's see how real world (not synthetic benchmarks) usage turns out.