The comparison to the cost of a threadripper processor is really compelling. It’s kind of crazy that a high end Mac can be a better value proposition than a high end PC, but here we are.

Spencer314 said:

So, only pay the M3 Ultra if you need a lot of GPU performance, or a lot more RAM than you can attach to an M4 Max (or for some reason need double the displays). The Ultra does so far seem to be most underwhelming part of the Apple Silicon family. 

It seems that way when looking at Geekbench 6, but I hope most people who are seriously considering the Ultra would realize that Geekbench 6 might not be the right benchmark to look at. 

It's not that there's anything wrong with GB6, it's just that it is focused on the performance of a single program using multiple cores. But if you are seriously considering paying the premium for a 32 core processor, there's a good chance that your workloads involve multiple programs running at the same time and/or 'embarrassingly parallel' workloads, in many simultaneous programs (or threads) run independently of each other. 

Put another way, GB6 is really more appropriate for mainstream consumer or prosumer users, it's not necessarily the best benchmark for high-end workstation or server type use cases. 

Interestingly, GB5 might actually be the better benchmark for people who can really benefit from a bunch of cores. That's because the multicore GB5 just runs multiple copies of the single thread version of the benchmark concurrently, so it is a good test of an embarrassingly parallel workload. 

If you look at the multithread GB5, you'll see that the M2 Ultra is faster than the M4 Max, which is not what you see with GB6. 

rob53 said:

I thought the M3 was no longer being manufactured, it was just stop-gap version with significant limitations in manufacturing. 

I was a little surprised by that, too, but I have a hypothesis.. 

Both Apple and Intel reserved a fair bit of TSMC capacity for N3B. If either or both of them ended up not using the full capacity they reserved, it would mean TSMC has a fab not being fully utilized. I wonder if Arrow Lake, in particular, might be selling far worse than Intel anticipated, freeing up capacity. 

gwmac said:

This is what I and a lot of other 27 inch iMac owners have been waiting on.  My only remaining decision is what monitor to buy. I want to get at least a 32 inch so was considering the

Dell UltraSharp 32 4K Thunderbolt Hub Monitor - U3225QE

Does this seem like a good monitor to pair with my new studio? I get a $200 Dell credit every 6 months with my Amex Business Platinum card so that will knock it down to $749. 

When I switched from my 27 inch iMac to a Mac mini, I bought exactly that monitor. I put it on my desk next to my iMac and was severely disappointed in the quality. I tried using it, but gave up after a few days and sent it back. I just couldn't stomach the loss in quality. I'm not a graphics / video professional and I never thought of myself as being very picky about monitors, but I guess I'm pickier than I realized.  I ultimately bought the Apple Studio Display instead. 

I think part of my issue was that going up in size while going down in resolution (and down in brightness) really is not a good idea. I have a 4k Dell 27" display that I occasionally use with a Windows laptop (which actually cost more than the 32" monitor, at least when I bought it), and while it's not as good as the Studio Display, it's not as bad as the model you're considering. 

The Studio Display isn't perfect -- the built in web-cam really is sub-par -- and for the price it really should have a great camera. But I'd still rather pay more for the Studio Display and get the quality I was accustomed to on my iMac than settle for the Dell. 

Would have been nice to get M4 Ultra, but the Studio with the base M3 Ultra looks pretty appealing to me. 

I work for a private firm that has lost a lot of revenue due to arbitrary DOGE contract cancellations, so my job is currently at risk. But if I can hold onto my job, I might spring for that base Ultra.