M4 Max and M3 Ultra Mac Studio Reviews: Apple's Most Powerful Mac Ever

[WarmWinterHat]

For grandma who wants to face-time with her grandkids, using an iMac, sure.

But, people here are power users.

I can fill up 32GB in a blink of an eye.

Don't be condescending.

I have no use for 32gb, and couldn't figure out a way to use it if I tried. Not everyone here is IT or a creative-type. I stick to what I said, the Studio is for a small set of people, and not even the majority of this site. I've never even physically seen a computer with higher than 16gb of ram, and I've never seen a Studio.

 

[picpicmac]

I'm sure there's some rationalisation why they so belatedly made a M3 Ultra (so long after the M3 Max debuted) and skipped the M4 Ultra

The following is my speculation, based in part on this observation: There were new (old stock, NOS) M1 Mac Studios showing up on discount outlets, as recently as a couple of months ago.

Either Apple made too many M1 MS, or made enough for a sales-target for 24 months but then introduced the M2 MS more quickly, forcing the M1 MS off the Apple sales pages, leaving Apple with many M1 MS on hand.

If so, then that is why the M2 MS has been around so long (in M-series terms, quite short for other industries). It was not going to be bumped off of the Apple sales page until its stock had run low.

These SoCs are done in one-shot at TSMC, unlike the base level M SoCs, which are probably done by TSMC over several months, as Apple needs those by the millions to tens of millions. Also, while Apple bought exclusive first-shot at TSMC "3nm" production capability, that had expired so Apple likely had to work within TSMC's timeline for producing the M3 Ultra.

The Ultra SoCs are likely less than 50,000 units, maybe less than 25,000, for each generation.

I suspect the decision to sell an M3 Ultra MS was done last summer. This allowed for TSMC to have trial versions ready for Apple engineers in the fall for system integration testing.

I also suspect that all M3 Ultra SoCs that will ever be made were made in one week last year, maybe the last TSMC N3B product for Apple.

If there will be another generation of Ultra SoCs after the M3 version, it too will be a low production run item.

For a corporation who wants to sell things by the millions, an Ultra is just a specialty item that is more for bragging rights. But then again, that is often true of flagship products.

If Apple stays with "3nm" for one more generation, the M5 will likely be on TSMC's N3P process. Whether or not there is an M5 Ultra will depend more on economics and global politics than performance, I suspect. If there is an M5 Ultra perhaps it will be on N3X process.

If so, that means TSMC could make them this year, let's say September, so an M5 Ultra product could hit the shelves by March 2026.

 

[atonaldenim]

What I tended to see in most of the reviews were pointless comparisons to other Macs. Of course, they will be faster or should be than the rest of the line up. Yes it's ok to be lazy, not know what you are doing, and most importantly not upset Apple to be allowed to get early freebees to review in the future. But put these machines up against the pro machines the are competing with. Put them against the Windows machines. In power and value and everything else. These reviews if you can call them that are pretty bad, let's be honest.

Another PC comparison is Matthew Moniz’s video, attaching some screenshots. I understand this is useful information for someone currently on PC and thinking about switching!

 

[Chancha]

You can make the extra memory available from the command line. This is something someone who buys an M3 Ultra is almost certainly going to do.

I believe that’s not what he meant. He thought that having higher bandwidth ceiling in the M3 Ultra could speed things up even when only the CPU is being used. While in reality the Apple Silicon bandwidths almost always match the total core count of the given SKU, only in extreme edge case that you could throw more data to CPU and GPU cores than the RAM could handle.

 

[picpicmac]

Don't be condescending.

I did not intend to be.

Yet, for the average person, live video conferencing probably is the most demanding thing they do for their computer.

All the text stuff is leaving the CPU idle most of time.

Even watching YouTube videos is nothing for these M-series SoCs.

 

[WarmWinterHat]

I did not intend to be.

Yet, for the average person, live video conferencing probably is the most demanding thing they do for their computer.

All the text stuff is leaving the CPU idle most of time.

Even watching YouTube videos is nothing for these M-series SoCs.

We're getting into the weeds. My original response was to a comment saying that the studio is the best computer for most people. I said the Mac mini was the best computer for most people if they were looking for a desktop. People absolutely do need a studio, but to say it's for everyone or even the majority is a bit much.

I apologize for reading your tone incorrectly.

 

[Frantisekj]

Sounds like the M4 Max Mac Studio will be right for just about everybody, except for those needing high end graphics or faster graphic rendering speeds, faster video editing and video encoding speeds, users of large LLM models, or anyone else who needs a lot of fast unified memory RAM.

As you say. In one review there was cinebench multicore test. And Ultra was really much faster. There are tasks where Ultra shines. M4 Ultra would be huge jump. So I would only add ppl who have apps that utilize cores well.

 

[ThomasJL]

The fact that the Mac Pro is not the most powerful Mac ever shows how Tim Cook is neglecting the Mac Pro. Cook is clueless and mediocre, which is also why he allowed the Mac Pro to not have upgradable RAM and an upgradable main SSD.

 

[Hogswarts]

20% is "only a few percentage points'.

Ok.

I don't know where you came up with 20%. For general purpose computing, M3 Ultra is ~10% higher Geekbench multi-core vs. M4 Max, but that's using the averaged score for M4 Max from Geekbench.com, which is low. On multiple M4 Max systems with nothing else installed, I got scores averaging ~26,400. That makes the highest M3 Ultra scores currently posted on Geekbench.com only about 7.5% faster. Again, this is for general purpose computing, not video, AI, etc.

 

[Timpetus]

I held out as long as possible. Finally folded with M4 Mac Studio and Studio Display. The 27" iMac has been a perfect form factor for me as a graphic designer. I get that we just need to upgrade the computer and not toss the display, this route, but the initial purchase is hard to swallow coming from the iMac.

We did the same for our main photo editing Mac. The 2020 iMac 5K wasn't cutting it any more, and downsizing the screen was not an option. It's annoying, but considering you'd have to pay crazy money for large RAM anyway, picking up a Studio made more sense in the long run.

 

[dlopan]

So, that would be a dessert island, then?
I'll get my coat.

Welcome to dessert island, anyway I am not convinced to upgrade my m1 Studio Max, it's still plenty fast and reliable to point of insanity. Minimum of 512 of memory is just stupid these days. I have 64 and 1tb which is plenty, I would probably do 32 if I did it again but I bought a refurb for a lot less. It's so much faster in every way possible than my trashcan or my older and just as expensive when new.

 

[Hogswarts]

You can make the extra memory available from the command line. This is something someone who buys an M3 Ultra is almost certainly going to do.

What does the command line have to do with anything? All of the memory is available basically to any app. I was referring to the increased memory bandwidth, which seems not to be available, as the M3 Ultra makes very inefficient use of its general purpose computing cores, as compared to the M4 Max (or M3 Max) which has half the cores yet is nearly as fast for general purpose computing (not graphics/GPU or Neural Engine/AI).

 

[rp2011]

Another PC comparison is Matthew Moniz’s video, attaching some screenshots. I understand this is useful information for someone currently on PC and thinking about switching!

Thanks! And not just switching, It's good to see where they stand in general. When it comes to pro work flows, you like to see where things stand.
A lot of interesting things to consider in these graphs, depending on your use case.
The M3 Studio has a way to go with Blender. But at least it's comparable to a laptop PC running a desktop 4090, which is not the greatest.
The M4 Max blows the Ultra away in Photoshop.
The Ultra is mostly comparable to a PC in video rendering depending on the software.
These are the sorts of things missing in a lot of these video reviews that the target demo for these machines would like to know, but they rush them out to be "first" instead of good.
I know Max Tech will put these machines through their torture tests when they get them. Can't wait for that.

 

[johnnyturbouk]

I purchased the M4 Max 14" MBP to tide me over until this dropped as my 2020 Imac was really showing its limitations. TBH I was very disappointed they didn't release the M4 ultra. I will likely get the M4 Max version but with beefed-up CPU/GPU; 64GB unified memory and 1TB SSD storage. I am really missing my 10gbe LAN on the MBP and there are no real tb to 10gbe LAN uner £250 which is insane.

I do wish they had updated the ASD, it was outdated tech when it was released, really would like an updated ASD with 120 Hz mili LED display, TB5, a better camera, couple of USBCs. TBH I'm really tempted with Del 6K 32", but they went and released this in Jan with TB4 smh; it's also on 60Hz! I guess I could use TB - HDMI 2.1 and then use the usbc upstream port from a TB5 dock. I would also be very much tempted if an updated prodisplay HDR dropped,

 

[Chancha]

What does the command line have to do with anything? All of the memory is available basically to any app. I was referring to the increased memory bandwidth, which seems not to be available, as the M3 Ultra makes very inefficient use of its general purpose computing cores, as compared to the M4 Max (or M3 Max) which has half the cores yet is nearly as fast for general purpose computing (not graphics/GPU or Neural Engine/AI).

It would have taken nearly all the cores of a given SKU to begin saturating the available memory bandwidth. In those benchmarks, particularly ones only using CPU, we are seeing M4 Max performing very close to a supposedly doubled performance of two M3 Max, we are not seeing the bandwidth being a limit. There are other bottlenecks in the hardware chain.

An analogy: you are driving on a multi-lane highway, with both your lane and the lane next being empty. Yes you can drive as fast as your car can, since no other cars are in your way, with no need to anticipate any car cutting in front. But does it mean you can go 2x speed, since you now have 2 lanes available?

 

[deconstruct60]

The fact that the Mac Pro is not the most powerful Mac ever shows how Tim Cook is neglecting the Mac Pro. Cook is clueless and mediocre, which is also why he allowed the Mac Pro to not have upgradable RAM and an upgradable main SSD.

It has very little to do with upgradable RAM and SSD. The Mac Pro 2013 had those and was pragmatically superceded by the iMac Pro in 2017

Apple Reveals New 'iMac Pro' Built for Users With Demanding Workflows, Starting at $5K

Apple today announced an all-new iMac model, called the "iMac Pro," with an expected launch date this December and starting at $4,999....

www.macrumors.com

The revised Mac Pro didn't come until 2019. All of that was on Intel infrastructure ( it isn't an 'Apple Silicon' , new thing either. )

I susepct there will not be a two year gap between the upgrade of the Mac Pro to M3 Ultra. It just was not stragetically critical that they happen at the same time. Mac Pro getting in June or October 2025 is likely not a big issue because there is nothing else to move on to for a substantive amount of time ( M5 Ultra likely just as "not just around the corner" as the M3 Ultra release was to the M2 Ultra. It is going to take substantive time to re-coup the investment. )

Steve Jobs didn't make a Power G5 refresh any faster either. The Mac Pro SoC/'CPU' has always been hooked to an even larger ecosystem of products ( IBM workstations/servers , Intel workstation/servers , etc. ). The pace isn't really the sole call of the Apple CEO.

 

[TallManNY]

What I tended to see in most of the reviews were pointless comparisons to other Macs. Of course, they will be faster or should be than the rest of the line up. Yes it's ok to be lazy, not know what you are doing, and most importantly not upset Apple to be allowed to get early freebees to review in the future. But put these machines up against the pro machines the are competing with. Put them against the Windows machines. In power and value and everything else. These reviews if you can call them that are pretty bad, let's be honest.

Yep. I've always been disappointed that some of the top reviewers don't do two easy things that I think would make good content. One, pick a several years older Mac and run a deep comparison. Because it is people that have that older Macs (in this case I would compare to an M1, but a review against some of the last Intel Macs would be fun as well) are the people that might be thinking that an upgrade is in order. Second, run it against a current PC because a buyer's decision today also can include cross shopping against whatever is offered in PC land.
The one thing that basically nobody should be doing is be considering upgrading from an M3 to an M4 Mac. And yet 90% of the reviewers will focus on that question for a huge portion of their review.

 

[ILoveCalvinCool]

I've never even physically seen a computer with higher than 16gb of ram

Ma'am, this is Interpol, we are on our way.

 

[ILoveCalvinCool]

All of the memory is available basically to any app.

By default? That's not at all true.

 

[bzgnyc2]

The M4 Max chip was already released last year in the 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro. It can be configured with up to a 16-core CPU, up to a 40-core GPU, and up to 256GB of unified RAM. Geekbench 6 benchmark results indicate that the M4 Max is up to 75% faster than the M2 Max chip available in the previous-generation Mac Studio.

I believe there is a key mistake in the above -- as far as I've seen and can tell from Apple's BTO site, the Studio M4 Max can only be configured with up to 128GB of [unified] RAM. The 256GB configuration is a new capability but it will only be possible with the M3 Ultra (28c/60c or 32c/80c chip while the 512GB configuration requires the 32c/80c chip).

The issue is not minor -- if one needs more than 128GB, I believe one has to go for the M3 Ultra. On the other hand, for people whose needs are met with 128GB of less, the M4 Max is likely a better choice (exceptions apply).

 

[enricoclaudio]

I don't think any Studio system is right for everybody except those needing a higher-end machine. The majority should be purchasing a Mac Mini, if going with a desktop.

I've never seen a Studio, or know anyone that has any interest in one.

Guess I'm a lucky one for owning a Mac Studio M1 Max since 2022 and also considering upgrading it to M4 Max later this year...

 

[deconstruct60]

I also suspect that all M3 Ultra SoCs that will ever be made were made in one week last year, maybe the last TSMC N3B product for Apple.

Unlikely. "Max" class chips are relative large. Apple is probably only getting somewhere between 38-50 useful dies out of a 300mm wafer. So even getting 5000 chips is 100 wafers. And then have to pair them up; So need 200 wafers. These are not 1-3 layer chips. They are deep so there are multiple passes of a wafer to bake the 'layer cake'. The N3B wafers take months to go from 'blank' to fully finished. And the mulitple chip packaging is a precision process also , that if rushed with to much unalignment , doesn't product working product also.

If Apple stays with "3nm" for one more generation, the M5 will likely be on TSMC's N3P process. Whether or not there is an M5 Ultra will depend more on economics and global politics than performance, I suspect. If there is an M5 Ultra perhaps it will be on N3X process.

No way. With such a low run rate reusing the M5 Max laptop design to a high degree is the only way that makes financial sense. They aren't going to move to a new Fab process. And Apple wants TSMC nX options like they want another hole in the head. The X just throw power efficiency out the window (relatively large increased current losses ) . . Apple isn't going to do that. If the plain M5 Max is N3P then the Ultra would extremely likely use the same process node.

If the Max+ subcomponents are different from the laptop Max it more likely will just be an incrementally bigger chip. (UltraFusion , I/O upgrades that show up on Mac Pro , etc.)

 

[Royksöpp]

Guess I'm a lucky one for owning a Mac Studio M1 Max since 2022 and also considering upgrading it to M4 Max later this year...

View attachment 2491183

Link to your desk mat?

 

[deconstruct60]

The M3 is fab’ed on TSMC’s N3B process. Of which (I believe) only Apple ever committed to designing chips on as most others backed away and decided to wait for the next node, so TSMC did not have an incentive to build many lines.

Intel's current line up Lunar Lake (Core Ultra 200) [ edit Ultra 300 is the gen coming up] ins on N3B. Arrow Lake ... also N3B ( was going to be split with Intel 20A but production only rolled out on N3B as 20A pruned to put more resources into 18A ). Intel's entire contemporary line up is on N3B. Arrow Lake isn't competing as well with AMD's offerings, but there is loads of wafers being consumed. Even with AMD gaining share, Intel is still in the many millions of chips zone.

Intel's next generation is suppose to get a complete ride on 18A. ( at least for Big CPU cores).

TSMC knows Intel wants to dial back once they get the chance , but this generation they got the consumer big CPU business. I doubt TSMC is eager to expand the lines there, but N3B isn't going to be quickly wound down either ( as it looked when there was no other high volume customer).

 

[svish]

As expected, they are very powerful machines. Not going to get one but should be more than enough if one needs its processing powers.