Rogue01

Great review on the M3 Max version of the MacBook Pro.  Apple's tax on RAM and SSD is extortion, especially since they know it cannot be upgraded later.  But a smokin' fast MacBook.

fishwhisperer said:

I think Apple changed how the industry used to think in the WinTel era: entry level chips for entry level laptops/desktops, mid power chips for high end laptops and mid level desktops, and high power chips for desktop/tower workstations. Apple's thinking is, you get each level of chip in every configuration: M series entry level laptop/desktop (MBA/mini/iMac), M Pro/Max mid level chip laptop/desktop (MBP, Apple Studio), M Ultra high end chip for desktop/ tower (Apple Studio, Mac Pro), with the interesting point of the last generation Max performance being similar to the previous generation Ultra performance.

The end result is the M3 Max MBP, compares nicely to M2 Ultra Apple Studio. Now you can have the performance you want, in the format you want. You could not do that before.

But you don't get each level of chip in every configuration.  I want a high performance M Max CPU in an iMac.  Sorry, Apple won't sell you that, and they refuse to make it.  The M3 Max, except for the GPU, outperforms the Mac Pro, which they advertised as the fastest Mac ever.  Now you can get that performance in half the price in a MacBook Pro, so they just cannibalized the sales of the Mac Pro by introducing the M3 Max without the M3 Ultra.  Who knows when that will arrive.  Why buy the Mac Studio desktop when the MacBook Pro is now faster?  Apple's product release is a nightmare.  Some models get M3 and other models continue to use CPUs that are over a year old for the same prices.  The iMac and MacBook Pro get the M3, but the Air and mini don't get an M3???  It is a convoluted mess.

mike1 said:

timmillea said:

Next on the culling list is the Mac Studio. When a 14" MacBook Pro can outshine a Mac Pro in reported benchmarks, then the entire M3 SoC family can be fitted to a Mac Mini. There is simply no need for the Studio. 

Wow. That is a ridiculous conclusion. Everyone should stop developing new computers and chips now. timmillea has decreed that computers can no longer get faster/smaller/more efficient or better in any way. Do you seriously not believe that the Studio, Pro with M4 and M5 or whatever is coming won't have better benchmarks than the current M3?!

Actually it is not so ridiculous considering the M3 Pro is only 6% faster than the M2 Pro, and intentionally hobbled by Apple to upsell their other computers.  The M3 Max has the huge increase in performance, but the M3 Pro was hobbled with two less performance cores, one less GPU core, and 25% slower memory bandwidth than the M2 Pro.  Why would Apple do this when they claim Apple Silicon is so great?  So a MacBook Pro with M3 Max will be faster than a Mac Studio with M2 Pro and M3 Pro.  So the 3nm process for the M3 Pro did absolutely nothing for the chip.  If Apple maintained the 8 core performance and 4 core efficiency with the same GPU core and same memory bandwidth, the M3 Pro would be a much better chip.  So don't assume the M4 or later would be surprisingly better when everyone thought the M3 was going to be this huge performance boost.  Only true if you look at the M3 and M3 Max.  M3 Pro is a waste.

mikethemartian said:

It’s going to be 27.5” and it is coming out 15 days after you buy your 24”.

I was thinking 27.1" and Apple will claim it is the 'All New iMac' and so revolutionary.

I would hardly call the 24" iMac 'well received' with consumers.  Within a few months of release, the Apple refurb store was full of them due to customer returns.  It was a downgrade from the 27" that supported 128GB of RAM, more ports, high-end GPU, higher SSD storage, and a 5K larger display.  Sad that the only upgrade is an M3, without even offering the M3 Pro or M3 Max.  I would never buy an iMac again with these specs.  Too limiting.