john-useless

I've been a Mac user since the original 1984 model … but benchmarks in recent years confuse me, given the nature of multi-core machines these days, not to mention performance vs. efficiency cores, etc. Consider these two new Mac models:

• The Mac Studio with the base M4 Max processor has a 14-core CPU with 10 performance cores and 4 efficiency cores, plus a 32-core GPU.
• The Mac Studio with the base M3 Ultra processor has a 28-core CPU with 20 performance cores and 8 efficiency cores, plus a 60-core GPU.

I understand the idea that a lot of software basically gets its work done with the CPU and that only some software is written to get its work done with the GPU. I also understand the idea that each generation of processor does its work faster — thus, M4 processors will have higher single-core scores than comparable M3 processors.

But unless those M3 processors are far, far slower than M4 processors (which isn't the case — we're not talking M1 versus M4 here), wouldn't the model with the M3 Ultra outperform the model with the M4 Max every time because the M3 Ultra has twice as many cores? I thought, perhaps mistakenly, that macOS more or less hides the number of cores from software — that is, an app sends instructions to the CPU once, and macOS takes care of giving that work to all of the cores available to it on a given machine.

I have this image in my mind of horses pulling two wagon trains full of cargo (equal amounts in each train) across the plains. One wagon train has 14 horses, and they are younger and stronger. The other wagon train has 28 horses. They're a bit weaker and more tired … but even so, they're not that much weaker, and there are twice as many of them! Wouldn't the 28-horse team (the M3 Ultra) beat the 14-horse team (the M4 Max) every time? (I suppose it's not as simple as that.)

My use case: I do a lot of editing in Final Cut Pro, mostly HD but some 4K, and some of the projects are 30 minutes long. Is it worth it for me to buy a Mac Studio with M3 Ultra? Twice as many horses which aren't that much weaker…

This will be helpful to those among your readers who have less experience in the Mac ecosystem and/or who just want all this info in one place. Thanks.

FYI to the author: There are typos in one of the paragraphs beneath your first infographic. As first published, your story reads "the Mac Studio in its M2 Max and M2 Ultra versions," but you obviously mean "M4 Max and M3 Ultra versions."

apple4thewin said:

Strange they didn’t mention that change considering they sometimes talk about the smallest updates as the biggest change ever

I often wonder how they pick certain tiny innovations to promote as huge advances while others are kind of glossed over (if you'll pardon the pun).

JinTech said:

Don’t innovate anymore my ass. 

The quote was "Can't innovate any more, my ass!" — but yes, it's definitely apt here.

Here's the original, from the Mac Pro 2013 introduction: https://youtu.be/KWkUab6IAts?si=nN459EsUs2BDUnrZ&t=148

JinTech said:

Don’t innovate anymore my ass. 

The quote was "Can't innovate any more, my ass!" — but yes, it's definitely apt here.

Here's the original, from the Mac Pro 2013 introduction: https://youtu.be/KWkUab6IAts?si=nN459EsUs2BDUnrZ&t=148