timmillea

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?!

I don't think I have ever made a decree. I wouldn't know how to.

Apple could push out the Mac Studio with an M3 Max but the Studio would remain a hideous monstrosity of a design. It should never have been conceived. It should never have been released and the sooner it goes the better. Aesthetics are far more important than specifications and the Mac Studio is aesthetically offensive. 

This is what I meant when I said there is simply no need for it to exist anymore. Apple, please relieve us of it! 

32" is the new 27". You'll pay for it but get the best all-in-one money can buy, at any price, and it should last 20+ years.

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. 

5nM/3nM = 1.6 recurring, suggesting a move from the 5nM process to the 3nM process would yield a 67% improvement in speed/power ratio. We are not seeing that.

If you delve into the TMSC public documentation on their timelines, we see it is far more complicated than the headline figures suggest. The current "3nM" process as advertised by Apple for both their A17 series and M3 series is merely a stepping stone from the previous "5nM" process, which also is not what its name says. There are probably two more generations of SOCs, As and Ms, before we actually arrive at something that can truly be called 3nM. By then, the talk will be about "2nM". 

I am happy with my M1 MBA 16GB/2TB until at least the M5 comes along. 

CelticPaddy said:

timmillea said:

Yesterday's announcement feels more like the death knell for the Studio. It always was a short-term product to cover up the lack of a Mac Pro. Now that an M3 Max can be put in a MacBook, it can be put in the Mini. The Studio should always have been Mini-sized. Only the top end Studio configurations justified the extra size and heat sinking - the lower-end Studios never did. The M3 range of Mac Minis will be coming out in a few months. They will embarrass the current Studio models, which I would expect to be quietly dropped. 

It was never a short term product 

The Mac Studio is a design monstrosity. It should never have existed. The previous design generation at Apple would never have countenanced it. 

eightzero said:

AniMill said:

It really feels like foolish to buy a Mac Studio M2 Max/Ultra right now. An M2 Max system comes to $3800…and slower than the M3 14” MBP spec’ed above.

my guess would be the M3 studio line shows up when they can actually get the chip supply. the "missed opportunity" likely caused by the chips not being available in quantity yet. and something had to come out first.

Yesterday's announcement feels more like the death knell for the Studio. It always was a short-term product to cover up the lack of a Mac Pro. Now that an M3 Max can be put in a MacBook, it can be put in the Mini. The Studio should always have been Mini-sized. Only the top end Studio configurations justified the extra size and heat sinking - the lower-end Studios never did. The M3 range of Mac Minis will be coming out in a few months. They will embarrass the current Studio models, which I would expect to be quietly dropped.