Sure, but in that case why does it specifically need to be faster than other people? If you were satisfied with your 4090, why does being in the top 1% matter? I just don’t see why having that top of the line label is so important.
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 Pro Chip Benchmark Results Reveal an Extremely Impressive Performance Feat
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Don't forget about the encoders (along with extra GPU power). 2X to 4X speed improvements, depending. Lots of prosumers/professionals are gated by certain encode/decode activity.
Also, no doubt that the new Mac mini is going to be better for the majority. That was true with the M2 series, and it seems like it is more so with M4, even accounting for all this AI stuff. But there is still clearly a need for something beyond it. Maybe the M4/M5 Mac Studios and Mac Pros will not only have what we all suspect with M4/M5 (faster and more cores, updated encode capability, better monitor support) . . . maybe they will add things like a 40 or 100Gb Ethernet option. I was surprised that TB5 made an appearance; I am not counting other further IO advancements. TB5 and more than 10Gb controllers are clearly not that expensive anymore. Indeed, six TB5 ports might just eliminate the practical need for any Mac Pro tower. A TB5 breakout box/dock connected to one port for more common connections, one port for monitors, plus a couple ports for really high-end storage devices, if my quick calculations are correct, should be practical more than what is available via the two x16 and four x8 PCIe slots in the tower. And the current Mac Studio has six (though the Mac Pro does have eight, plus the PCIe slots), so hopefully an update would have at least that. At least with regards to what Apple was saying they were needed for with regard to storage, network, and low-latency/high-bandwidth audio.
Also, no doubt that the new Mac mini is going to be better for the majority. That was true with the M2 series, and it seems like it is more so with M4, even accounting for all this AI stuff. But there is still clearly a need for something beyond it. Maybe the M4/M5 Mac Studios and Mac Pros will not only have what we all suspect with M4/M5 (faster and more cores, updated encode capability, better monitor support) . . . maybe they will add things like a 40 or 100Gb Ethernet option. I was surprised that TB5 made an appearance; I am not counting other further IO advancements. TB5 and more than 10Gb controllers are clearly not that expensive anymore. Indeed, six TB5 ports might just eliminate the practical need for any Mac Pro tower. A TB5 breakout box/dock connected to one port for more common connections, one port for monitors, plus a couple ports for really high-end storage devices, if my quick calculations are correct, should be practical more than what is available via the two x16 and four x8 PCIe slots in the tower. And the current Mac Studio has six (though the Mac Pro does have eight, plus the PCIe slots), so hopefully an update would have at least that. At least with regards to what Apple was saying they were needed for with regard to storage, network, and low-latency/high-bandwidth audio.
Same reason why Apple keeps adding stuff to their chip with Max Ultra Pro Extreme suffix? People bought them so they can have the fastest Mac ever, for whatever reasons.
Problem is 4090 is NVidia's end game for 2 years now and kept its promise. Apple just kept bashing their last gen Pro Max Extreme chip like a cheap toy. I have no problem with Apple kept pushing the limit, but having an M4 Pro running circles around M3 Max in just a year? Apparently a "Max" level chip means nothing.
This comment with more than a dozen likes complaining about tech advancing too fast amazes me. You folks need to come to grips with tech always advancing, and not "feel much gutted when the next gen chip is launched." Sheesh.
Last edited:
I don’t understand these complaints about M series chips getting “too fast too quick. This has happened before. In the early days of x86 you could expect that if you bought top of the line CPU next year it’s gonna be totally eclipsed by whatever comes out, that was guaranteed.
We are at that point again with ASi.
We are at that point again with ASi.
You suggest regarding Max chip devices that "People bought them so they can have the fastest Mac ever." I would suggest instead that people buy them to do real work.
Was the 16 + 40 core M3 Max not the fastest Apple chip as well when it came out...?
Hence, I said this is a bad time to get an M series chip. I don't want to go back to "that point" when people kept getting left out 100% slower just after a year. I'd just wait for things to go to "recent days of x86"?
Not for long.. apparently 14 + 20 M4 Pro is enough to outperforms that a year later. Max chip is just that, nothing.
Folks who want "slower paced, boring updates" need to find a different industry than tech to watch. Buggy whips perhaps.
I know, just like that slow breeze iPhone annual updates. Thank you 👌🏼
Not for bragging... but so that you can have a faster card than others. Sounds like bragging.
That's traditionally how tech has worked, though. The 3090 referenced up thread had an MSRP of $1500 and then later the 4070 came out for $600 and similar performance.
The issue isn't that Apple is increasing performance too much year over year. The issue is that, for whatever reason, Apple releases the Ultra chip last, so by the time they get around to it, there's only a few more months until the next generation releases. Then add in that they never updated the Mac Studio to M3, it's a poor choice lately unless you really need the RAM or GPU cores. This is in contrast to
If you're someone who cares about not being "dwarfed" by "peasant" chips, I'll give you some advice: Never buy the Ultra, and probably never buy the Max either.
Perhaps you'd like to switch back to Intel, whose latest generation of chips is in some cases worse than the previous generation for more money?
Last edited:
Welocome to tech. Y'all need to get over your fear of next year being better, because it always will be. And next year it also will want more RAM...
There's 2 types of Apple customers. One buys to get a rush of consumerism, only to feel ripped off because the rush is over, the other buys them to get real work done and will use the machine until they need to upgrade for work reasons. I buy Apple products when I need them, not when Apple releases them.
And who knows how long that might be? If you need a Mac you cannot really worry about these things too much.
ummmm tech enthusiasts have always cared about benchmarks because it generally correlates with real-world performance, so... starting day one
Your whole train of logic is illogical, because most folks buy computers to compute with; i.e. do real work. Waiting for tech growth to slow down is not getting any work done, not paying any bills.
Yes it could be a few years or more, but I'm glad at least we're on the same page and you acknowledge that Apple is on that phase now. M chip being advancing so fast year over year just like "early days of x86". That's one good example, I don't like it but you seem excited. That makes two of us 🤝
Slightly off-topic but M-series related. I seem to remember around the time of the M1 launch (maybe before) people saying that any iPhone app or game should now be compatible with a Mac because of the similar/shared chip architecture. But that never really happened. Any ideas why?
We all know that sky is blue, and tech is always getting better and faster over years. But just like @StellarVixen posted above, Apple silicon is currently on "early days of x86" phase where every year gives you huge improvement and I don't like it. Maybe you do, and that's fine too. We don't have to agree with each other 👌🏼
Yeah I had the feeling these results aren't even close to reflecting heavily multi-threaded workloads, considering even the M3 Pro is almost 75% as fast as the M2 Ultra in this benchmark.
You are way wrong when you suggest that "there's no such thing as "longevity" on these recent Macs." There is certainly longevity for the real work people do. Your problem may be that you look at Macs as benchmarking devices instead of as real work tools.
E.g. I have an M2 Max Mac that this benchmark suggests the new M4 Pro beats. So what? My box still easily runs my workflow and (with 92 GB RAM) I see no signs that will change soon. I applaud the strong new M4s that beat my M2! They indicate Apple is doing its job well.
Last edited:
Most are compatible, but many, if not most, developers don't allow it. Apple gives the option for developers to disallow running iOS/iPadOS apps on macOS. For example, the iPad versions of Baldur's Gate (1 and 2) can be run on Mac, even though there's Mac versions of those games already. Meanwhile, banking apps and many other games don't allow this, whether for security, support, or licensing reasons (e.g., the developer is only authorized to create the mobile port, and a different developer has already created the Mac version for release on Steam). It never quite materialized like how many hoped, and now we also have iPhone Mirroring (which my banking app doesn't work through either). If you search, you can find people finding ways to install iOS apps despite not being "allowed" to (a popular one was so people could play Genshin Impact).
The improvements are just no where near as significant as you are making out even if we accepted your premise.
I’m still confused as to whether you want Apple to innovate slower or not.
Or whether you just think that the top model should be avoided by most people. Which is far less controversial.