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.
M4 Max Chip Up to 25% Faster Than M2 Ultra in First Benchmark Results
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
For everyone going on about the Ultra, it's advantage isn't JUST CPU. Don't forget it has many more GPU cores. You also can't rely on just one synthetic CPU bench mark - i'm sure there are real world uses where it performs better. It still has 800GB/s memory bandwidth - plus much higher amounts of RAM to spec it with.
There's still many reasons someone might want or need a Mac Studio over an M4 Max equipped MacBook Pro (beyond form factory) and the M4 Pro Mac mini is not a Studio replacement based on just a CPU result alone.
There's still many reasons someone might want or need a Mac Studio over an M4 Max equipped MacBook Pro (beyond form factory) and the M4 Pro Mac mini is not a Studio replacement based on just a CPU result alone.
Are they really going to wait until the middle of next year to upgrade the Studios? This is ridiculous.
Speaking for myself, I'm still really happy with my M2Max Studio, but it seems insane now not to at least release the MxMax Studios along with the MxMax MacBook Pros. In fact if anything I doubt the usefulness of there *being* an MxUltra Studio - maybe that should just be a Mac Pro thing.
Speaking for myself, I'm still really happy with my M2Max Studio, but it seems insane now not to at least release the MxMax Studios along with the MxMax MacBook Pros. In fact if anything I doubt the usefulness of there *being* an MxUltra Studio - maybe that should just be a Mac Pro thing.
When I finally buy the M4 Mac Mini Pro, it will be a major update over my i7 2018 mini.
I think the upgrades in the next generation entry level Studio, with the M4 Max, will be a great price-performance option. It’s the upgrade to the Ultra chip where Apple prices are crazy!
Depends what you are doing.
In ComfyUI Flux generation the M3 Max is something like 6 times slower than a desktop 3090 and 9 times slower than a 4090.
It's going to take a long time to catch up with those power hungry desktop GPUs. Can only be done if Apple makes a power hungry GPU card for the Mac Pro.
What does performance over time look like? How long until the MacBook throttles? Is this taking into account the much faster (and potentially larger) RAM? What about with a real workload and not a benchmark?
The numbers are fun to look at but what does it actually look like in real life?
The numbers are fun to look at but what does it actually look like in real life?
The M3 Max is already better than the M2 Ultra especially on Ray tracing workflows. I use it regularly for GPU tasks.
The first Geekbench 6 benchmark results for the high-end M4 Max chip with a 16-core CPU surfaced today, and they show that the chip is up to 25% faster than the high-end M2 Ultra chip with a 24-core CPU in terms of peak multi-core CPU performance.
M4 Pro chip benchmark results already surfaced in the Geekbench 6 database on Thursday. Based on the results available so far, the M4 Max appears to be up to 20% faster than the M4 Pro in terms of peak multi-core CPU performance.
Here is a comparison of the results (averaged):
M4 Max is now the fastest-ever Apple silicon chip in the Geekbench 6 database, surpassing the M2 Ultra that Apple released in the Mac Studio and Mac Pro in June 2023.
- MacBook Pro with M4 Max (16-core CPU): 26,675 multi-core score (highest result), 26,445 multi-core score (3 results)
- Mac mini with M4 Pro (14-core CPU): 22,094 multi-core score (11 results)
- Mac Studio with M2 Ultra (24-core CPU): 21,351 (More than 600 results)
As we mentioned in our previous reporting, you can now purchase a Mac mini with a 14-core M4 Pro for $1,599 in the U.S. and get similar to faster peak performance than a Mac Studio with the 24-core M2 Ultra, a configuration that starts at $3,999. And if you want up to 25% faster performance than the M2 Ultra, the 16-inch MacBook Pro with the 16-core M4 Max starts at the same $3,999 price as the Mac Studio.
Article Link: M4 Max Chip Up to 25% Faster Than M2 Ultra in First Benchmark Res
May it be the ultimate computer and better than the M5 from Star Trek TOS.
The M3 Max has ray-tracing hardware accelleration. There are graphics based scenarios where the M2 Ultra will still be more powerful just baed on it's raw grunt alone.
Either way I don't think anyone who has owned a computer for a year should suddenly think the M2 Ultra is slow or not worth it - I bet they've not thought that at any point of use in the last year!
Hmm. New user with a username suggesting possible anti-Apple bias who is criticizing Apple?
In the last part of my studies, I had a part time job at the High Performance Computing-centre at the university, where we worked with various Crays - both the traditional vector based one and the massively multi-parallel ones with an absurd number of Alpha processors
The leader there called HPC a Time Machine - it made possible today what you could with powerful workstations in the future.
It is if you work in blender. Right now for me the only advantage the Ultra has are the media encoders/decoders. The performance isn’t THAT MUCH BETTER for everything else, and the M3 Max pulls ahead already. I’d rather have blender be super fast and some things take an extra second.
M4 Max 16-core iGPU about 15% faster than M3 Max 16-core iGPU so it explains why marketing only compared with M1 and M2 to make the gains more impressive than it is.
Have been listenig this for decades. At 99% there is a direct correlation with "use cases", well see in a few days if this is also true this time.
Said this, in my most exigent workflow, i would say I never got a 50% of what my Macbook Pro M1 16" is able.
This is amazing. Time to upgrade my M1 Max Studio next summer.
Going forward, for the Max to be viable, it needs to up its GPU performance. We have come to a time when most consumers will have no problem with any new computer for basic tasks, but I think if Apple wants to attract more consumers, from both Mac and Windows side to the higher-end Max devices, they have to up their GPU game. That's for graphics work, gamers, and AI. That's a sizable low-hanging group of untapped potential who go elsewhere for their computing needs and that Apple has yet to capture.
Since Apple is supposedly working on their own server chips for hosting their own AI and using the same architecture as dual-use chips for the consumer side, it looks like they are of the same thought.
Going forward, for the Max to be viable, it needs to up its GPU performance. We have come to a time when most consumers will have no problem with any new computer for basic tasks, but I think if Apple wants to attract more consumers, from both Mac and Windows side to the higher-end Max devices, they have to up their GPU game. That's for graphics work, gamers, and AI. That's a sizable low-hanging group of untapped potential who go elsewhere for their computing needs and that Apple has yet to capture.
Since Apple is supposedly working on their own server chips for hosting their own AI and using the same architecture as dual-use chips for the consumer side, it looks like they are of the same thought.
Last edited:
Either you're sarcastic or you're a troll?
I never buy fresh food; after a couple of weeks it's already surpassed by the produce you have to smell and look if there's funk at the edges.
Yeah and that's fine - with rendering we're often splitting hairs on a few seconds this or that way anyway.
If somone is making music and loading in multi gigabyte libraries to RAM you're still going to need an Ultra for that. Horses for courses - there was no M3 Max mini or Studio either so if you wanted a desktop rather than a laptop you didn't have much choice.
The good thing is that laptops (at least in Apple land) are as powerful (or more so) as desktops now rather than a portable imitation.
