News Apple's About to Announce High-End M3 Ultra, M3 Max, M3 Pro Products: Report

[Admin]

Apple to significantly improve its workstation-grade M3 Max, M3 Ultra, and M3 Pro processors, but this may not be the case with M3.

Apple's About to Announce High-End M3 Ultra, M3 Max, M3 Pro Products: Report : Read more

 

[hotaru251]

I do question if apples stuff scales well like zen did.

 

[bit_user]

I do question if apples stuff scales well like zen did.

Well, the benchmarks I've seen don't suggest otherwise.

For me, the key question is whether they'll finally embrace ARMv9-A. That will mean Macs finally get SVE2, and it'll be interesting to see how that compares vs. AVX-512.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Apples bringing 32 Cores to consumers, more reason for AMD & Intel to start offering those for High End Consumer CPU tiers ^_-

 

[HideOut]

Apples bringing 32 Cores to consumers, more reason for AMD & Intel to start offering those for High End Consumer CPU tiers ^_-

You mean like the 96C/192 thread Threadripper pro?

 

[bit_user]

Apples bringing 32 Cores to consumers, more reason for AMD & Intel to start offering those for High End Consumer CPU tiers ^_-

Don't gloss over the details!

Let's take memory bandwidth. The M1 & M2 Ultra both scale up to 1024-bit memory, or the equivalent of 16 DIMMs @ 1 DIMM per channel. Of course, this is combined bandwidth for both the CPU & GPU, but it's inline with AMD's prior comments about memory being a bottleneck to adding more cores in their desktop platform.

Another key point is price. You picked on the M3 Ultra, so let's look at the cheapest Mac you can currently put a M2 Ultra in. That's the Mac Studio, with a base price of $4k. As the article shows, a M2 Ultra goes up to 24 cores (16 P + 8 E). The base spec has 64 GB of RAM and a 1 TB SSD.

So, let's spec out a 24-core x86 machine, shall we? These are Newegg prices (sold by newegg):

• Xeon W7-2495X ($2130)
• ASUS Pro WS W790-ACE ($886)
• 4x Crucial 16 GB ECC RDIMM (4x $84 = $336)
• 1 TB Samsung 990 Pro ($85)
• RTX 4070 ($530)

So, the total comes to $3667. Okay, so I ran out of money before the case, PSU, and OS. However, as soon as you add basically any option to the Mac Studio, you can be assured its price will shoot up. Alternately, we could save a lot by going with the 20-core Xeon W7-2475X ($1750), which is probably still not a bad match against Apple's 16 P + 8 E cores.

The point is that the M3 Ultra is meant as a workstation-grade option. They do not sell it in laptops or Mac Minis. Understand what you're comparing against.

P.S. I don't mean to pick on Intel, here. I'd welcome someone else to price out a 24-core ThreadRipper system.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Don't gloss over the details!

Let's take memory bandwidth. The M1 & M2 Ultra both scale up to 1024-bit memory, or the equivalent of 16 DIMMs @ 1 DIMM per channel. Of course, this is combined bandwidth for both the CPU & GPU, but it's inline with AMD's prior comments about memory being a bottleneck to adding more cores in their desktop platform.

Another key point is price. You picked on the M3 Ultra, so let's look at the cheapest Mac you can currently put a M2 Ultra in. That's the Mac Studio, with a base price of $4k. As the article shows, a M2 Ultra goes up to 24 cores (16 P + 8 E). The base spec has 64 GB of RAM and a 1 TB SSD.

So, let's spec out a 24-core x86 machine, shall we? These are Newegg prices (sold by newegg):

• Xeon W7-2495X ($2130)
• ASUS Pro WS W790-ACE ($886)
• 4x Crucial 16 GB ECC RDIMM (4x $84 = $336)
• 1 TB Samsung 990 Pro ($85)
• RTX 4070 ($530)

So, the total comes to $3667. Okay, so I ran out of money before the case, PSU, and OS. However, as soon as you add basically any option to the Mac Studio, you can be assured its price will shoot up. Alternately, we could save a lot by going with the 20-core Xeon W7-2475X ($1750), which is probably still not a bad match against Apple's 16 P + 8 E cores.

The point is that the M3 Ultra is meant as a workstation-grade option. They do not sell it in laptops or Mac Minis. Understand what you're comparing against.

P.S. I don't mean to pick on Intel, here. I'd welcome someone else to price out a 24-core ThreadRipper system.

I was thinking more of Ryzen / Intel Core model CPU's with higher Core counts.

Imagine a Ryzen 7950XCC w/ Dual 16x Core Zen4C CCD's for a total of 32 Zen4C cores.

Or Intel with 2x options:
- 14E900K Pure 40x E-Cores ONLY CPU
- 14P900K Pure 14x P-Cores ONLY CPU

Something to whet the High End Consumer's home DeskTop option.

A CPU good enough to be your "Personal Home Server".

 

[bit_user]

I was thinking more of Ryzen / Intel Core model CPU's with higher Core counts.

Imagine a Ryzen 7950XCC w/ Dual 16x Core Zen4C CCD's for a total of 32 Zen4C cores.

I know what you want, but you can't use Apple's workstation solution to argue what Intel & AMD should be doing with their desktop CPUs.

AMD and Intel already have workstation solutions comparable to (or better than) Apple's.

 

[thestryker]

Well, the benchmarks I've seen don't suggest otherwise.

For me, the key question is whether they'll finally embrace ARMv9-A. That will mean Macs finally get SVE2, and it'll be interesting to see how that compares vs. AVX-512.

I'd be happy if there were architectural changes this go around and hope the A17 isn't an indication of the M3. If it is were bound to see similar uplift as the M2 was but with more core configuration differences.

 

[bit_user]

I'd be happy if there were architectural changes this go around and hope the A17 isn't an indication of the M3. If it is were bound to see similar uplift as the M2 was but with more core configuration differences.

Eh, the M1 and M2 were both made on TSMC N5. The M3 will use TSMC N3 (or possibly N3E), so I'd expect a bigger improvement, even without substantial architectural changes.

 

[thestryker]

Eh, the M1 and M2 were both made on TSMC N5. The M3 will use TSMC N3 (or possibly N3E), so I'd expect a bigger improvement, even without substantial architectural changes.

I was thinking N3 might be responsible for the increased core counts (assuming same power envelope at each tier).

 

[Findecanor]

You mean like the 96C/192 thread Threadripper pro?

Super-high core counts are for server workloads. Apple does not target them. On desktops and even workstations, you practically never get to use that many cores simultaneously.

 

[bit_user]

Super-high core counts are for server workloads. Apple does not target them. On desktops and even workstations, you practically never get to use that many cores simultaneously.

That feels like motivated reasoning. Plenty of workstation applications have been benchmarked that show good performance scaling on high core counts. Both Intel and AMD sell high core-count workstation CPUs (up 56-cores and 96 cores, respectively), so there must be some demand.

The real explanation is that Apple made the Ultra by pairing two Max dies. Scaling beyond 2 is hard, though. Either the number of interconnections explodes or you have to do multiple hops. That might be okay (Intel CPUs have up to 3 UPI links, enabling point-to-point connectivity for up to 4 CPUs), except that Apple put a GPU in the mix and the cross-sectional bandwidth they require is pretty insane.

IMO, the biggest issue with Apple's latest Mac Pro isn't the limited core count, nearly so much as the limited RAM. They're really shooting themselves in both feet, here. They should've done something like sourcing Nvidia's Grace CPUs or even Ampere's Altra.

 

[bit_user]

I was thinking N3 might be responsible for the increased core counts (assuming same power envelope at each tier).

TSMC is always keen to show how a new process node either gets you more performance at the same power, or lower power at the same performance. That assumes the design is unchanged, however. Well, if Apple really is repurposing essentially the same core, then performance should probably follow TSMC's guidance of 10-15% (or 18% for N3E). See the table in this article:

​

TSMC Outlines 2nm Plans: N2P Brings Backside Power Delivery in 2026, N2X Added To Roadmap

www.anandtech.com

​

 

[thestryker]

TSMC is always keen to show how a new process node either gets you more performance at the same power, or lower power at the same performance. That assumes the design is unchanged, however. Well, if Apple really is repurposing essentially the same core, then performance should probably follow TSMC's guidance of 10-15% (or 18% for N3E). See the table in this article:

​

TSMC Outlines 2nm Plans: N2P Brings Backside Power Delivery in 2026, N2X Added To Roadmap

www.anandtech.com

​

For sure for the base CPU since it's supposed to be the same core configuration. If the rest are accurate it's 50% more low power in the Pro and 50% more high power in Max/Ultra (also more GPU cores) and those were what I was thinking of.

 

[newtechldtech]

the roadmap of SteveJobs who died young before witnessing his dreams come ture ...

 

[Sippincider]

IMO, the biggest issue with Apple's latest Mac Pro isn't the limited core count, nearly so much as the limited RAM.

One of the reasons I've passed on the current 24" iMac. 16gb total system memory isn't enough going forward. Have several times that in my aging 27" Intel iMac, and "upgrading" to less isn't an option.

 

[bit_user]

the roadmap of SteveJobs who died young before witnessing his dreams come ture ...

I wouldn't call 56 young, exactly. Yes, Apple silicon was his baby, but he stil saw plenty of other successes - not only his founding of Apple and the Macintosh, but his eventual return, OS X, the iPod/iTunes, and the iPhone. Also, Pixar, which he co-founded. Few have accomplished (or overseen) more, even after living far longer. I think we can't say if his winning streak would've continued, but quite possibly he had reached his peak.

If there was an upside to his illness, it's probably that it forced him to plan for his succession. Tim Cook certainly doesn't seem as visionary, but it seems that he's at least been a good caretaker of Apple.

In case this post sounds too reverential, let me say that I wouldn't have liked to work for him. Also, he had a sketchy personal life that included shutting out his first wife & daughter. We can certainly talk about his achievements, but I don't put him on a pedestal the way some seem to.

 

[bit_user]

One of the reasons I've passed on the current 24" iMac. 16gb total system memory isn't enough going forward. Have several times that in my aging 27" Intel iMac, and "upgrading" to less isn't an option.

Macs supposedly do a very good job of making the most of what RAM they do have. They use hardware-accelerated memory compression, for one thing. It's just that for memory-intensive uses, like games and certain memory-intensive workstation or content-creation apps, that's not good enough.

You could talk to some existing M-series Mac users, with a usage pattern similar to yours, and see how well it's working out for them.

 

[JamesJones44]

Like the rumors from last year that claimed the M2 Pro would have 6 E cores (which turned out to be incorrect). I'm skeptical of the M3 Pro have 6 E cores. The E cores are clustered in the M1/M2, having 1 config with an extra 2 in the cluster seems very unlikely. Maybe Apple has found a way to turn a bad P core into an E core, but I would bet the M3 Pro ends up only have 4 E cores.

 

[JamesJones44]

You could talk to some existing M-series Mac users, with a usage pattern similar to yours, and see how well it's working out for them.

With Apple you quickly learn to go with more RAM than you think you need. If you think you need 8, go with 16. Think you need 16, go with 32. It sucks, it adds costs, but as someone who had a 2012 MacBook Pro up until last year, going with 32 GB of RAM back then served me well. Had I only done 16 I don't think it would have made it 10 years.

I went with 64 GB this time, it's probably over kill, but I don't plan on upgrading again for a long time and it worked out for me last time.

 

[bit_user]

With Apple you quickly learn to go with more RAM than you think you need. If you think you need 8, go with 16. Think you need 16, go with 32. It sucks, it adds costs, but as someone who had a 2012 MacBook Pro up until last year, going with 32 GB of RAM back then served me well. Had I only done 16 I don't think it would have made it 10 years.

I built a machine with 16 GB, 10 years ago. That much RAM seemed crazy to me. Now, all my machines have at least 16 GB. I had upgraded one of them from 8 to 16, right before the pandemic, and so glad I did!

Anyway, your 2012 Mac didn't have memory compression or a NVMe SSD that it could swap to. So, it's a slightly uneven comparison.

I went with 64 GB this time, it's probably over kill, but I don't plan on upgrading again for a long time and it worked out for me last time.

I will use 64 GB, but the only reason is that dual-rank gives a slight performance advantage and the dual-rank DDR5 DIMMs I've seen all seem to be at least 32 GB.

 

[newtechldtech]

I wouldn't call 56 young, exactly. Yes, Apple silicon was his baby, but he stil saw plenty of other successes - not only his founding of Apple and the Macintosh, but his eventual return, OS X, the iPod/iTunes, and the iPhone. Also, Pixar, which he co-founded. Few have accomplished (or overseen) more, even after living far longer. I think we can't say if his winning streak would've continued, but quite possibly he had reached his peak.

If there was an upside to his illness, it's probably that it forced him to plan for his succession. Tim Cook certainly doesn't seem as visionary, but it seems that he's at least been a good caretaker of Apple.

In case this post sounds too reverential, let me say that I wouldn't have liked to work for him. Also, he had a sketchy personal life that included shutting out his first wife & daughter. We can certainly talk about his achievements, but I don't put him on a pedestal the way some seem to.

Steve Jobs from the early days had the vision of a powerful CPU that draws low power and at the same time offers both great CPU and GPU performance from the days of the first MAC Air. Actually he opened Intel eyes to start focusing more on low voltage CPU. The Mx CPU is his vision as well . even the All in one Machine is his perfection , and the Mx CPU was the final goal.

The future is a tiny PC that can do it all and the size you can carry , not a monster huge machine ...

Also he perfected the online software/music store , and all followed him ... and his way killed 90% of software piracy as well and opened a huge market for developers all around the world to sell their software anywhere on the planet.

itunes shop that later became also software shop , started it all .. and was his innovation as well , all followed it and copied it.

not only e perfected the mobile hardware , also the software market as well for all human kind , Any developer on the planet even without resources and in poor countries can just program and sell , he united the developer world ! and made poor people RICH in any country in the world with internet connection. something that was impossible before .



and his personal life is his private life .



56 is young by today Age average ...

 

[bit_user]

Also he perfected the online software/music store , and all followed him ...

He, more than any other single individual, really turned around the music industry. It's not like others hadn't tried the idea of an online music store, but discussions got too mired down in DRM and zero-sum negotiations over rights, royalties, pricing, etc. Jobs came along and had the personality and gravitas to coalesce momentum around what he wanted to build. I believe he got music industry execs to sign onto something with far worse terms than they were prepared to accept from anyone else, simply because they believed that whatever he did would be successful and they couldn't afford not to be a part of it.

itunes shop that later became also software shop , started it all .. and was his innovation as well , all followed it and copied it.

Phone apps and app stores also weren't a totally new idea, IIRC. However, the phone ecosystem was badly fragmented before Google and Apple came along and effectively turned it into a 2-horse race.

and his personal life is his private life .

That depends on what you're trying to say about him. If you tell me he was a great man, then I would say you can't overlook the personal side of him. If you tell me he was a visionary and successful businessman, then sure, we can leave the personal out of it. I just think people should be aware that there was a dark side to him, both personally and professionally.