Would have bought an M4 Ultra Studio - decided not to get the M3 Ultra or maxed out Max - anyone else?

[M4M]

Like many people I don't really need an Ultra, but wanted to buy one nonetheless - and I would have had it been an M4, but I do not want last year's chip with poorer: single core performance, power consumption, resale value and being one year/generation closer to being phased out. I contemplated the 128GB version of the M4 Max, but the cost (for the unbinned version) is so close to the Ultra that it just feels like a rip-off or us being pushed into buying something that we might not have otherwise. As I said, like most people, I don't really 'need' an Ultra or maxing out a Max.

Pretty sure most people would have been happy to wait a little bit long for a M4 Ultra, and it seems this is yet another 'lets screw as much money as we can out of people' scheme from Tim Cook/Apple, perhaps as a way to promote sales of the Mac Pro if it magically gets it first/at the end of the year. Who knows. But what I can confidently say is that people would have preferred an M4 Ultra.

I'll consider getting a base M4 Max to tie me over for now. I guess many others will skip the M3 ultra or the maxed out Max too, in the hope it might prompt Apple to start giving people what they want again.

 

[OldMike]

Wow, I am thinking the same exact way. I agree with you word for word.

I have been going through the configurations, trying to make justifications for each model, and currently thinking of going base M4 Max for now. I have other Xeon machines with 128GB RAM each that I was going to move off of and consolidate to a Mac Studio Ultra - but now I am thinking I will just continue with my current setup and do this next time around.

The Microcenter deal of $600 off of the M3 Ultra has pushed me close to pulling the trigger - but as you have said, it just does not feel right since it feels like I am buying a previous gen model. The Mac Studio Ultra should be a clear winner in every type of workload - but compared to the M4 Max, that is just not the case.

If Apple's trade in program was better, I would be more willing to take what they are offering and upgrade when the next versions come out. From what I am seeing, Apple trade in is a big slap in the face and makes jumping for a current Mac Studio Ultra less appealing.

I am going to be fair and not use MSRP pricing, since sale and education pricing can usually be found at other retailers. The following is how trade in would probably shake out, base on what Apple is offering in trade on M2 Mac Studios.

Apple Trade In on a Base Mac Studio M2 Max 32GB/512GB SSD is $910. The cost was $1799 education (or sale) pricing two years ago.
Retained 51% of value after two years
$889 loss in two years, $444.50 loss per year

Base M2 Ultra 64GB/1TB SSD Apple trade in is $1220. The cost was $3599 education (or sale) pricing two years ago.
Retained 34% of value after two years
$2379 loss in two years, $1189.50 loss per year

Now if I were doing video production or similar, the time savings would justify the yearly loss since more work could be performed with the new M3 Ultra, and the loss would be a small fraction of how much money the machine would produce over a two years time. Personally, I do development work and the same justifications cannot be applied.

 

[SepticUG]

I only got offered 940 eu as trade-in for my unit that was 6200 EU, take that (m2U, 2TB, 128GB)
I will wait it out for the M4U or M5M and in no way I would go for a M3U when M5 is about to drop.

M4U I would have done, 25% single core increase, 50% multicore and replace a 1,75 year old machine, but it is what it is

 

[picpicmac]

but I do not want last year's chip with poorer: single core performance, power consumption, resale value and being one year/generation closer to being phased out.

The M4 Max burns hotter than the M3 Ultra, btw.

As for resale value: both will likely depreciate about the same, but an Ultra with more memory will likely always be valued more.

As for marching down the path of obsolescence: Apple has now a well-worn path of when their computers become "obsolete" and again I think both of the Studios introduced this month will march down that path hand-in-hand.

it seems this is yet another 'lets screw as much money as we can out of people' scheme from Tim Cook/Apple, perhaps as a way to promote sales of the Mac Pro if it magically gets it first/at the end of the year.

The victim-think that is so common on the internet leads one to making poor decisions (as is so common in life when one can't escape one's own programming from childhood.) Tim Cook is not victimizing you. Apple has allegedly (I don't read French) stated that the M4 did not have the design to make an Ultra chip. And there is no reason to expect Apple to do something with the Mac Pro until that actual thing appears.


You've already stated that you don't need an Ultra, so it is unclear why you are even struggling with this.

Those of us (like myself) who do need a new computer will go through the tradeoffs the various models pose. For most of us that is likely going to be the price first and foremost.

 

[davewolfs]

I picked up the base for $1699. Personally I think that is a very fair deal for an Apple product with that chip + amount of memory. Is it a perfect configuration no. But is it worth it to pay an extra $900-$1200 to have the perfect config - I am not so sure. I've been able to get by with a Mini that has 24GB (although that always hits yellow) so I think the base might be ok and I might have to manage when it's not.

 

[whwang]

M4 Ultra? Apple hints there will be no M4 Ultra. Even if there is, when it is out, it will face the same situation of M5 Max. Same goes for M5 Ultra vs M6 Max, unless Apple changes its pattern again. We can never know. Just buy what you really need now. The wait game will never end.

 

[M4M]

Wow, I am thinking the same exact way. I agree with you word for word.

I think we will see more and more videos like this one, where people are finding it hard to recommend the M3 Ultra:

"They have basically set it up for failure by basing it on last year's chip"

"The Ultra chip as it exists now, is fatally flawed"

 

[MacPoulet]

And yet people bought Mac Pros with Xeons, and Xeons tend to be based off the previous generation consumer chip. When you're working in the higher end, stability and reliability are more important than raw speed.

 

[Boil]

I'm holding out for the all-new Mac Pro Cube, powered by the all-new Mn (??...M5/M6...??) Extreme, with 1TB of RAM...! ;^p

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Like many people I don't really need an Ultra, but wanted to buy one nonetheless - and I would have had it been an M4, but I do not want last year's chip with poorer: single core performance, power consumption, resale value and being one year/generation closer to being phased out. I contemplated the 128GB version of the M4 Max, but the cost (for the unbinned version) is so close to the Ultra that it just feels like a rip-off or us being pushed into buying something that we might not have otherwise. As I said, like most people, I don't really 'need' an Ultra or maxing out a Max.

Pretty sure most people would have been happy to wait a little bit long for a M4 Ultra, and it seems this is yet another 'lets screw as much money as we can out of people' scheme from Tim Cook/Apple, perhaps as a way to promote sales of the Mac Pro if it magically gets it first/at the end of the year. Who knows. But what I can confidently say is that people would have preferred an M4 Ultra.

I'll consider getting a base M4 Max to tie me over for now. I guess many others will skip the M3 ultra or the maxed out Max too, in the hope it might prompt Apple to start giving people what they want again.

Sorry but IMO your post seems illogical (which could just be my own ignorance). You wanted an M4 Ultra but do not want an M3 Ultra (with its available up to 500 GB RAM) so you may get a base M4 Studio? Makes no sense to me. What do you intend to do 2026 and beyond that is so CPU-intensive that you want an M4 Ultra but can do without even 128 GB RAM when buying an M4 Max Studio? Serious question (gaming, 3D?).

Any kind of images-related work will already be taking good advantage of 64 GB RAM in 2025 before the life cycle of a new box even starts. Any LLM work craves RAM.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

I think we will see more and more videos like this one, where people are finding it hard to recommend the M3 Ultra:

"They have basically set it up for failure by basing it on last year's chip"

"The Ultra chip as it exists now, is fatally flawed"

I do not watch clickbait UTube videos, but I will guess that the video did not compare an M3 Ultra with 500 GB RAM running a LLM or similar as part of their sensationalism.

 

[whwang]

And yet people bought Mac Pros with Xeons, and Xeons tend to be based off the previous generation consumer chip. When you're working in the higher end, stability and reliability are more important than raw speed.

What you said is very correct for Xeons. But for Mx Ultra, does buying the previous generation product gain you stability and reliability?

 

[krell100]

Pity there's not an option for M4M with a 60 or 80 core GPU, the M4M has a spectacular CPU but mediocre GPU. Conversely the M3U has a 'reasonable' CPU and a strong GPU. It's kind of pick your poison, neither option ticks all boxes.

 

[Matt2012]

I was super disappointed too after waiting for soooo long.
I use PC more nowadays (as Apple are behind in desktop) and there was even talk of an M5 Ultra so to get an previous gen M3, was a real kicker.
I was still tempted with M3 Ultra but the more reviews I watch, unless you are into AI/LLM, its not a good buy and the spec I would have gone for was over £6000... with just a 2TB SSD.
Resale would be awful on it too.
So, I went for another PC I've just built and despite paying scalper prices for a 5090 card, Its still worked out close to £400 cheaper for a complete system than the M3 Ultra and that includes the inflated 5090 price, the brand new AMD 9950X3D CPU and 18TB of super fast M.2 storage (x1 2TB /x2 8TB).
I'll still use my Apple laptop but can't help feel Apple just don't really care about higher end desktops anymore.

 

[ThailandToo]

Ordered an M3 Ultra Mac Studio with 512GB Memory and 16TB SSD for the purpose of AI. I feel like it’s a bargain. Also pre-ordered the Nvidia Digits Founders Edition today 128GB VRAM and 4TB SSD.

I get why people want it to say M4 Ultra, but in reality the M-series are all great. The real point of it is AI or GPU capabilities and encode decode for video editors. If you’re not in those markets, you’re not going to be happy. But for me, 512GB of RAM is enough to go for it.

 

[FatLouie]

Like many people I don't really need an Ultra, but wanted to buy one nonetheless - and I would have had it been an M4, but I do not want last year's chip with poorer: single core performance, power consumption, resale value and being one year/generation closer to being phased out. I contemplated the 128GB version of the M4 Max, but the cost (for the unbinned version) is so close to the Ultra that it just feels like a rip-off or us being pushed into buying something that we might not have otherwise. As I said, like most people, I don't really 'need' an Ultra or maxing out a Max.

Pretty sure most people would have been happy to wait a little bit long for a M4 Ultra, and it seems this is yet another 'lets screw as much money as we can out of people' scheme from Tim Cook/Apple, perhaps as a way to promote sales of the Mac Pro if it magically gets it first/at the end of the year. Who knows. But what I can confidently say is that people would have preferred an M4 Ultra.

I'll consider getting a base M4 Max to tie me over for now. I guess many others will skip the M3 ultra or the maxed out Max too, in the hope it might prompt Apple to start giving people what they want again.

Honestly...did you wake up yesterday and simply feel the need to complain about Apple? For a person who "I don't really need an Ultra, but wanted to buy one nonetheless", but could "consider getting a base M4 Max to tie me over for now", has too much money to be complaining.

 

[DaniTheFox]

I would only consider purchasing an Ultra if I require or need either of the following features:

- Two monitors with a refresh rate of 120Hz or more
- 256GB of memory or more

 

[Bug-Creator]

The situation with the M3 Ultra Studio is pretty much the same as it was with the M2 Ultra MacPro.
Lots of people whining bout a product that never would have made sense for them and wasn't even targeted at them.

I'm pretty sure the lack of an Mx-Extreme (read the chip that would have made sense in the Pro) the late release of the M3Ultra and the M4Ultra being MIA are all for the same reason: Apple couldn't make them with good enough yields.
There is also the notion that early M3Max lack the connection to pair them to an Ultra (same seems to be the case with the M4Max) which suggest that having it on there caused problems reducing yields even for the single Max chips.

I for one can see no reason why Apple wouldn't have made an M4Ultra Studio if the could. Pricing could and would be even higher while more people would buy it.

 

[MacPoulet]

What you said is very correct for Xeons. But for Mx Ultra, does buying the previous generation product gain you stability and reliability?

It’s quite possible. There’s likely a good reason an M4 Ultra wasn’t released and it could very well be because it was unstable. Only Apple knows.

Though when we look at how previous Ultras have been released, they were always last to come out on the current gen platform, and then the next generation comes out a short while later, so effectively the Ultras are almost always a bit behind on the silicon generation.

Now watch the Mac Pro come out with an M5 Extreme to prove me totally wrong this summer.

 

[leifp]

I was (am?) one of those weirdos who thought Apple might reset their release timing to coincide with computing in general: start with the fastest then trickle down…

I am due for a new computer late this year/early next and looked forward to humming and hawing over whether to get an M5 version of the MBPro or Studio. Thanks to their early (-er; I expected June, like many others) release but of well out of spec (compared to what I assume the M5 will offer, particularly the Ultra version) Studios, I’m 99% decided to snag myself a MBPro.

 

[Anaxarxes]

Like many people I don't really need an Ultra, but wanted to buy one nonetheless - and I would have had it been an M4, but I do not want last year's chip with poorer: single core performance, power consumption, resale value and being one year/generation closer to being phased out. I contemplated the 128GB version of the M4 Max, but the cost (for the unbinned version) is so close to the Ultra that it just feels like a rip-off or us being pushed into buying something that we might not have otherwise. As I said, like most people, I don't really 'need' an Ultra or maxing out a Max.

Pretty sure most people would have been happy to wait a little bit long for a M4 Ultra, and it seems this is yet another 'lets screw as much money as we can out of people' scheme from Tim Cook/Apple, perhaps as a way to promote sales of the Mac Pro if it magically gets it first/at the end of the year. Who knows. But what I can confidently say is that people would have preferred an M4 Ultra.

I'll consider getting a base M4 Max to tie me over for now. I guess many others will skip the M3 ultra or the maxed out Max too, in the hope it might prompt Apple to start giving people what they want again.

I think I would first focus on what I need.

What type of work I'm doing and what processor would allow me to handle this workload faster and more efficiently. And how much I'm going to utilize the computer on these tasks per day (hrs)

I think if the answer is like 50% of the time the machine will be on multithreaded renders/encodes/exports - I would go with M3 Ultra

If less than 20% of the time the machine will be doing these high powered tasks, I'd save my money and go with M4 Max (heck even M4 Pro Mac Mini maybe)

 

[throAU]

"They have basically set it up for failure by basing it on last year's chip"

"The Ultra chip as it exists now, is fatally flawed"

If you actually need what the Ultra brings to the table (400+ GB of VRAM), there is no alternative south of 6 figures.

The simple reality is that unless you need hundreds of gigabytes of memory accessible to a GPU, the M4 Max or Pro are likely sufficient. Or you're going to be running a server farm.

If you want M4 generation, the M4 max exists.

The M3 Ultra is not fatally flawed at all.

People whining that it is M3 generation are doing just that... whining. If you need what the ultra provides, it's a total bargain! If you're contemplating an M4 Max to "tide you over" or whatever you're clearly not needing an Ultra today and are just really throwing money at things without much thought as to requirements.

 

[Bug-Creator]

I'd save my money and go with M4 Max

OP also mentions the idea that support for the M3Ultra might be dropped before the M4Max which suggest he plans to keep the system multiple years.

With the way Apple prices upgrades and the way base models keep their value any form of future proofing is a bad idea.

If you feel a base Mini might get a bit tight in 2 years, don't go for the Pro one. Either go base and replace it after 2 years or go one up to the base Studio and keep that for 4 years.

Buying an Ultra should only be a consideration if you really need that power right now and if that power will pay for it self with 1 year.

 

[cateye]

Like many people I don't really need an Ultra

Thread was over in the first sentence.

Apple makes what it wants to make balancing its cost, what it can sell the product for, and its marketability. What you “want” doesn’t enter into it at any point for any Apple product.

 

[Siliconguy]

As per a very good discussion last week, there is no such thing as an 'unbinned' CPU. They are all tested and sorted into a bin.

What you mean is you want the top bin, or as they used to say, the 'top of the line' CPU. What that is depends on what you need. More cores often comes with lower clock speed since there is a limit to how much heat the design can dissipate.