As is, BASE, then PRO/MAX (Fall) then (MAX)/ULTRA in these two the next spring or summer. Yes, we can mix in select Mac tags to frame it as BASE, then PRO/MAX, then more BASE and sometimes MAX/ULTRA but I'm focused on just chip releases which seems to be a BASE, PRO & MAX together and lastly ULTRA. And I propose flipping BASE & ULTRA to better fit the various goals of both consumers and Apple Inc. themselves.
Else, at least in my case, I don't pay up for ULTRA again... unless... ULTRA is truly ULTRA... meaning the next-gen MAX doesn't supersede it only up to 6 months later. ULTRA needs to be "king" (of power) for at least a year... else I'd suggest just about anyone wait for M-next MAX, which does get about a year+ most years. And that buyer can spend about HALF of the cost to buy the power "King" for that year+.
Gurman’s rumor is of a “variation” for the M4 Max in the base Studio, so it seems like it could be a sort of Max+ — Max, but with additional GPU cores and the interconnect wiring for the Ultra. Like the relationship between the Pro and the Max in M1/M2.Ah, you're right—thanks for the correction! I just double-checked, and the base and Pro/Max Macs were indeed released at the same time for both the M3 and M4. It was only with the M1 and the M2 that the base Macs came first (by 11 months for the M1, and 7 months for the M2).
So I should reformulate my question to ask why Apple doesn't release the Max Studio at the same time as the lower-end desktop Macs. As you say, the lower-end desktops (Mini, iMac) shouldn't be getting the latest generation of chip before the higher-end one. With the Ultra Studio, they have an excuse, because that's a different and more complicated chip.
But they don't have a chip-based excuse with the Max Studio, since the Max chip is already available. Unless they plan to redesign the Studio's case, there's no product design reason not to release the Max Studio at the same time as the Max MBP.
It's possible the reason is that initial production of the Max chip is limited, but I'm guessing the Max Studio isn't a high-volume item. My guess is that it's thus instead a business decision: That if they release the Max Studio well before the Ultra Studio, customers who might otherwise have gone for the higher-profit Ultra will instead purchase a Max.
OTOH, I suppose they could surprise us by putting an even more advanced gen-4 chip than the Max in the base Studio--e.g., maybe the Studio and Pro will be getting different versions of the Hidra.
Sorry, I'm not following what you mean by "Max+ — Max, but with additional GPU cores and the interconnect wiring for the Ultra". Do you have a reference for this?Gurman’s rumor is of a “variation” for the M4 Max in the base Studio, so it seems like it could be a sort of Max+ — Max, but with additional GPU cores and the interconnect wiring for the Ultra. Like the relationship between the Pro and the Max in M1/M2.
Here Gurman is saying the M4 Ultra will simply be 2 x the current M4 Max, at least in terms of GPU and CPU core counts. So if they are using the current M4 Max in the Ultra, why would they have a an entirely different M4 Max for the Studio?Instead it will be equipped with the highest-end version of the M4 chip, codenamed "Hidra." Based on the description of the chip, it could be positioned as an "Ultra" or "Extreme" chip. Gurman has said the M4 Ultra chip in the next Mac Pro will "probably" have up to a 32-core CPU and up to an 80-core GPU, which would be double the M4 Max's up to 16-core CPU and up to 40-core GPU.
My "Max+" is a reference to Gurman's actual older statement, as follows: "For the Mac Studio, Apple is testing versions with both a still-unreleased M3-era chip and a variation of the M4 Brava processor." I read that as the unreleased M3 chip being experimental, and the Brava "variation" being an M4 version of that.Sorry, I'm not following what you mean by "Max+ — Max, but with additional GPU cores and the interconnect wiring for the Ultra". Do you have a reference for this?
Here Gurman is saying the M4 Ultra will simply be 2 x the current M4 Max, at least in terms of GPU and CPU core counts. So if they are using the current M4 Max in the Ultra, why would they have a an entirely different M4 Max for the Studio?
I.e., if they were to make a new M4 Max variant for the Studio, with more than 40 GPU cores, wouldn't they use that in the M4 Ultra as well? The fact that Gurman is saying the M4 Ultra will have only 80 GPU cores seems to indicate he thinks they won't be making a new high-GPU M4 Max for the Studio.
They are money makers per unit, but they lack the volume sales and hence why they get pushed to the bottom of the queue I suspect. Basically they get done when everything else that sells in volume has been sorted and I can't see Apple changing that. For enthusiasts that buy these for themselves or a small SOHO business that can be disappointing, but for other larger businesses not so much. Where they appear in the product refresh cycle and what cool new toy is coming down the road is just not that relevant. Meeting current business requirements so they can make money today is.As a Studio ULTRA owner, I don’t buy it again if it is last in line for a generation of chips. Why? Because the M5 MAX will likely have comparable power for a much lower price, released only up to about 6 months later.
IMO: time to flip the order, preserving the all-important FALL releases as is but making Studio & PRO be FIRST with M5 MAX & ULTRA and thus can be “most powerful Mac” for longer than only a few months. Basically the concept flips ULTRA & MAX releases with BASE releases, leaving PRO & MAX releases exactly where they are now.
Why would Apple be interested? Presumably, these are the most profitable Macs on a per-unit-sold basis. Anyone buying one of these instead of MBpro MAX for “most power” are prob buying only 1 Mac that year anyway. So Apple makes more profit on any upward “cannibalization” per unit sold, while still getting the volume revenue by selling the Fall releases right on schedule. In other words, conceptually this slightly bumps up that small percentage that buy Studio or Pro in pursuit of “most powerful” Mac, yielding more profit in those sales for Apple. The Fall crowd still buys in big numbers. A revised Spring crowd feels the pull to step up too vs. waiting for “cheapest” Macs, knowing the next gen chips arrive right behind them. If that “pull” also works on some of them, they too are presumably buying more profitable Macs. 💰💰💰
Else, for me anyway, I don’t pay way up for it again when just a few months of patience will deliver M5 MAX. I understand that others will feel differently- just MY own opinion here.
It sounds like you're saying the M4 Max in the MBP doesn't have an Ultrafusion interface, while the one designed for the Studio will. But do we know for certain the M4 Max in the MBP doesn't have an Ultrafusion interface? Is this something you can tell from the die shots? Were they able to identify this interface on the die shots of the M1 and M2 Max?You've got one Max without the interconnect, and one with it. You've got one Max without the interconnect, and one with it. They are mostly the same, but it's an opportunity to do some things differently for the Studio/Ultra.
Ummm Ok, let me restate the question:Interesting question, but just to be clear, I was talking about a kit for replacing an M2 board with an M4 board. Since the memory is on the logic board, it would be built into the kit.
My point (above) is logic board upgrades are possible now but it's not happening. So it's never going to happen.Why won’t it happen? It could still be the case — everything is on one huge board, switching it out is easily done.
An upgrade kit would just need the logic board and the Thunderbolt card. Internal SSD(s) could be brought over from the old board.
Oh, I see. I can be a bit thick. They are available now for repairs (obviously) — it would be interesting to see the prices, just as a baseline. I wonder if it’s like the Mac Studio, where (as I understand it) they won’t sell you an upgrade for a repair, you can only get a replacement for what you have.My point (above) is logic board upgrades are possible now but it's not happening. So it's never going to happen.
Superior compared to x86 cpus, but only matches mid-level gpus, while the cpu and the gpu competes for the bandwidth. UMA only saves you from copying between system and video ram, but that's a diminishing advantage as the tasks get longer and more complex.Isn’t the memory bandwidth already superior due to SoC? I’m doing AI development also, and the dependency on CUDA sucks, but if the Silicon architecture is superior I’m hoping it will encourage the development of alternatives.
They need to do the MacBook Air in colors like the iMac, FFS.
I really think they should offer nano texture option on the air.
It's likely to be used outside, etc. and it really is a decent upgrade for that!
A lot of good points, especially about the Mac Studio parts only being replaceable with what the machine had (no upgrades). Apple parts distribution controls this via serial number when ordering replacements. Yes, repair parts are lower margin, but parts are parts so upgrade kits are technically possible. Apple would just have to create new SKUs for upgrades and they could sell at a higher margin. So the only thing preventing this even now is Apple doesn't want to do it.Oh, I see. I can be a bit thick. They are available now for repairs (obviously) — it would be interesting to see the prices, just as a baseline. I wonder if it’s like the Mac Studio, where (as I understand it) they won’t sell you an upgrade for a repair, you can only get a replacement for what you have.
But the Macintosh has a long history of upgrade kits, at least in the beginning. I think I’ll argue that there’s a difference between replacing a part and upgrading a part, and while Apple doesn’t sell replacement parts at retail profit margins, they would be selling these hypothetical upgrade kits at retail prices. So they’re not the same thing.
No, we don’t know one way or the other. It’s just a theory, based on circumstances and a specific rumor. I don’t know of any M4 Max die shots that have been published. You also ask a good question about whether or not an actual die shot would be useful. For M1/M2/M3 we had Apple’s own die-shot graphics (illustrating relative sizes) to compare with any actual die shots. We don’t have that for M4, at least not as yet. We could still see the graphics in the Mac Studio/Pro launch presentation.It sounds like you're saying the M4 Max in the MBP doesn't have an Ultrafusion interface, while the one designed for the Studio will. But do we know for certain the M4 Max in the MBP doesn't have an Ultrafusion interface? Is this something you can tell from the die shots? Were they able to identify this interface on the die shots of the M1 and M2 Max?
You've got one Max without the interconnect, and one with it. They are mostly the same, but it's an opportunity to do some things differently for the Studio/Ultra.
OK, I think I was able track down what's going on with the rumors:No, we don’t know one way or the other. It’s just a theory, based on circumstances and a specific rumor.