Here Are All the M3 Macs Still Expected This Year

[theluggage]

The mac mini's pricing makes zero sense, the apple price ladder has really gone to the deep end. If I just want a somewhat more powerful mac mini with m2 pro and 32 gb ram, the price jumps to $1700....

I think the your argument hangs on being more likely to find a base-spec Studio on special offer than a CTO maxed-out Mini. If you just stick with Apple list prices it looks more sensible - I don't see a problem with the idea that maxing out the options on one 'standard' model brings it close to the price of the next model up: the options are there if you just need more RAM or just more storage - choose more than one or two and it makes sense to look at the next model.

Not that I'm defending the amount Apple charges for RAM/storage updates - which is rapidly becoming indefensible - but those are "wired in" to Apple's overall price strategy (and have increasingly little to do with component costs - they've been the same for years, even when the 'components' were bog-standard DIMMs available retail from Crucial at 1/3 of the price...) - but if those change the whole price structure will probably get a reshuffle.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the M3-series Mini/Studio - since the M3 Max seems to be a more substantial upgrade from the M3 Pro than was the case with M2 Pro/Max.

 

[mode11]

Well, it's December 2023, so that presumably no longer applies.

I meant in the general sense that Mac buyers have to choose from what's available, rather than what they would ideally buy. The modern equivalent would be someone who wants a 27" iMac, but winds up buying e.g. a mini + a 5K monitor.

The higher-end iMacs - with 27" screen and powerful CPU/GPU combos - were a much later arrival (~2009) and while they're great machines in themselves, the (post-Jobs) decision to use them to largely replace the low/mid-level Mac Pro (which was subsequently priced-out into "serious callers only" land) was problematic.

I suspect a big part of why these Macs were popular was the lack of a mini-tower in the Mac range. The Mac Pro was priced way too high for most home users, and whilst Xeons are great for MT performance, most home users are better off with the higher ST performance of a fast i7 anyway.

In my mind, Apple was hoping to reinvent the Mac Pro into something that was less of a burden for them to make. First, by turning it into a small cylinder. Then when that didn't work out, fitting a Xeon into a Space Grey iMac. Then when that didn't hit the spot, resigning themselves to making a tower, but doubling the price to make it worth their while.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the M3-series Mini/Studio - since the M3 Max seems to be a more substantial upgrade from the M3 Pro than was the case with M2 Pro/Max.

Yeah, I suspect the base Studio will go up a few hundred quid / dollars.

 

[theluggage]

I bought the last intel based maxed-out CTO 27 imac. The price was around $3000. Today there is no such thing. If I buy an M2 studio and don't think about the ultra processor and up the spec to the max, the price is $3200. But on top of that I have to buy a monitor for $1800.

Fully tricked out (in terms of CPU and GPU) 2020 iMac Pro with 10 core i9: $3199 (source EveryMac.com)
...but that only has 8GB RAM and if you get the 32GB upgrade from Apple for parity with the base Studio that's an extra $600 (yeah... but bear with me on that).

Now, what Studio model is a fair comparison? The $2200 model with the full 12 CPU/38 GPU M2 Max significantly outperforms the i9 in most respect, the only sticking point being whether the GPU is up to your particular application (odds are it will thrash the iMac on some tasks, but be unimpressive on others). It's not really possible to compare like-for-like between Intel and Apple Silicon, but I don't think you really need to go beyond the base Studio to get a sensible upgrade from a high-end iMac. In some ways - such as Thunderbolt I/O bandwidth and display support - the M2 Max Studio is in iMac Pro territory and the M2 Ultra is up there with the $7k+ iMac Pro configurations.

So, your iMac would cost $3800 if you bought the RAM from Apple, c.f. $2200 for a M1 Max Studio and $1600 for a Studio Display which comes to. er... £3800. I don't think that is a coincidence.

Now, OK - a sensible person would have bought 3rd party RAM for the iMac and saved several hundred bucks, and YMMV whether the M2 Max's GPU is really equivalent to the 5700 XT in the iMac (Apple would doubtless say "yes!") - but if you're asking "why doesn't Apple still make a 5k iMac" - if they did you'd probably be facing the same dilemma between M2 Max or a huge price jump to the M2 Ultra just to get more GPU and the same sort of price bump for the RAM you needed (the DIY upgrade option was always going away with Apple Silicon).

As I said in another post, I'm not defending Apple's indefensible RAM upgrade prices - but they're baked into Apple's pricing strategy (see the 'not a coincidence' above) and have little to do with component costs, so if they do change it will probably mean a major overhaul of all the base specs & prices.

 

[mode11]

Now, what Studio model is a fair comparison? The $2200 model with the full 12 CPU/38 GPU M2 Max significantly outperforms the i9 in most respect, the only sticking point being whether the GPU is up to your particular application

The problem with these kind of comparisons is that sure, a 2023 Studio is faster than a 2020 iMac, but that ignores industry-wide improvements in computer performance. A 2023 Intel iMac, were it to exist, would likely be using an i9-13900 and RX7700 XT at the high end.

People don't like to feel that despite spending the same money, they've gone down in the range, relatively speaking. E.g. if they bought a high-end iMac last time, they shouldn't be looking at a base model Studio this time, for the same cash.

 

[theluggage]

but that ignores industry-wide improvements in computer performance. A 2023 Intel iMac, were it to exist, would likely be using an i9-13900 and RX7700 XT at the high end.

...if you want a Mac from an alternate universe where Apple are still using Intel CPUs and AMD graphics, that's a whole other discussion. A perfectly good discussion for another thread maybe, if you're debating whether to dump Apple Silicon for PC - but for better or worse, Apple are using Apple Silicon now, not Intel. You can't compare the actual Mac Studio with a fantasy 2024 Intel iMac from somewhere over the rainbow.

People don't like to feel that despite spending the same money, they've gone down in the range, relatively speaking. E.g. if they bought a high-end iMac last time, they shouldn't be looking at a base model Studio this time, for the same cash.

Why do you think the base Mac Studio is "down range"?

Range-wise the Studio is closer to the re-launch of the much lamented entry/mid level Mac Pro - as it existed from 2006 until 2019, which always used to start - price and power wise - pretty much where the iMac range left off. It's really not a replacement for the cheaper i5/i7 5k iMacs: there's the 24" iMac and (now much expanded) Mac Mini range for that.

 

[xbjllb]

The Studio is a video production machine, but how many people do that?

Uh, at least several million more than did 10 years ago?

 

[mode11]

...if you want a Mac from an alternate universe where Apple are still using Intel CPUs and AMD graphics, that's a whole other discussion. A perfectly good discussion for another thread maybe, if you're debating whether to dump Apple Silicon for PC - but for better or worse, Apple are using Apple Silicon now, not Intel. You can't compare the actual Mac Studio with a fantasy 2024 Intel iMac from somewhere over the rainbow.


Why do you think the base Mac Studio is "down range"?

Range-wise the Studio is closer to the re-launch of the much lamented entry/mid level Mac Pro - as it existed from 2006 until 2019, which always used to start - price and power wise - pretty much where the iMac range left off. It's really not a replacement for the cheaper i5/i7 5k iMacs: there's the 24" iMac and (now much expanded) Mac Mini range for that.

Having looked into the figures, I agree with your analysis actually. I had suspected that comparing the current Studio to an older Intel iMac was overly flattering to the former. But if we focus on the GPU, the key upgrade for the 27" iMac, we can use Blender benchmarks as a comparison. The 5700XT gets 978, whereas an M2 Max gets either 1445 (30c) or 1758 (38c). The current AMD chip in that class, the 7700XT, gets 1986. So it's fair to say that a top-end 2023 27" iMac, if that form factor were still it to exist, could be adequately covered by the 38c M2 Max. Especially as iMac GPUs were likely down-clocked a little to save power.

The only significant disparity in cost comes down to RAM, as you acknowledge, given that in the past you had the option of going third-party. But that ship has sailed for Macs in general.

At the end of the day, CTO iMacs with the best GPUs were never great value. The thin chassis placed significant limitations on cooling, so regardless of what you spent on upgrades, you'd wind up with something pretty mid-range.

 

[theluggage]

whereas an M2 Max gets either 1445 (30c) or 1758 (38c). So it's fair to say that a top-end 2023 27" iMac, if that form factor were still it to exist, could be adequately covered by the 38c M2 Max. Especially as iMac GPUs were likely down-clocked a little to save power.

...and if you hold your horses for the M3 Max, according to the site you referenced that gets 2880 (30 cores) or 3462 (40 cores) - possibly blender benefits from the hardware ray tracing? YMMV with other software. However, looking at the MacBook Pro Max prices, they suggest that it is going to go up to about $2400 for the base M3 Max (albeit with more RAM and storage than the M2 had). It's a pity that Apple can't roll out its processor upgrades across the line more quickly, although I suspect that the Studio range is likely waiting for the M3 Ultra (or its replacement).

At the end of the day, CTO iMacs with the best GPUs were never great value. The thin chassis placed significant limitations on cooling, so regardless of what you spent on upgrades, you'd wind up with something pretty mid-range.

The other thing about the Studio is that although they're not silent at idle, they're very very quiet and never get much louder whereas the iMac - although silent at idle - gets quite noisy as soon as you started loading the CPU and GPU.

The value of a 5k iMac has always hung on how much the display and all-in-one-ness are worth to you. Apple may have made the Studio Display a bit too expensive, but a 5k display with Apple's "fit and finish" probably wouldn't retail for less than $1000 - that was always the iMac's main "value proposition" - but then not everybody wants a single 27" 5k display, and nothing is worth $1000 if you don't need it. All-in-one is nice and neat... unless you need lots of external peripherals dangling off the back, at which point the shine starts to rub off. I don't think the people jonesing for a 32"+ iMac have thought through what it is going to be like reaching round the back to plug in a USB cable... So the issue with the iMac was that it was great if it was exactly what you wanted, not so great if you wanted something different, such as a 3rd party display or dual display setup. I think the iMac ceased to make sense as the main "power user" Mac option as soon as Apple themselves launched the pro XDR display - something you might well want if you're also shelling out for a powerful GPU (...or there's a 32" 6k Dell that's a bit cheaper).

So there's one group of committed Mac users who bought an iMac because it was everything they wanted, and another group of committed Mac users who bought an iMac because it was the only viable desktop Mac at the time. Count me in the latter group, and I think the current range of Mac Minis and Studios is a massive improvement over what Apple was offering from ~2016-2022. My M1 Studio has been a great upgrade from the highish-end iMac I bought in 2017, and while the dual, matching 4k display set up I use isn't quite as crisp as the old 5k screen, it is actually far better suited to my needs (and cost well under £1000).

 

[mode11]

Agree with pretty much everything there.

It's a pity that Apple can't roll out its processor upgrades across the line more quickly, although I suspect that the Studio range is likely waiting for the M3 Ultra (or its replacement).

That, and it would be understandable if Apple prioritises fulfilling demand for laptops first, given they completely dominate Mac sales (as the recent pie-chart that's been floating around has shown).

I think the iMac ceased to make sense as the main "power user" Mac option as soon as Apple themselves launched the pro XDR display - something you might well want if you're also shelling out for a powerful GPU (...or there's a 32" 6k Dell that's a bit cheaper).

The XDR was / is a very expensive display - even before you've bought the stand. I wouldn't have thought there would be too much crossover with iMac users. I do agree though that the Studio not only obsoletes the high-end iMacs, it was also what many people were asking for, i.e. to separate the computer and display (for all sorts of benefits).

My M1 Studio has been a great upgrade from the highish-end iMac I bought in 2017, and while the dual, matching 4k display set up I use isn't quite as crisp as the old 5k screen, it is actually far better suited to my needs (and cost well under £1000).

Yeah, the insistence on 220dpi means their desktop displays use very niche resolutions, and hence cost a fortune. 5K is arguably overkill at 27", and making the minor sacrifice of using 4K screens means the world's your oyster in terms of affordable, high quality displays.

 

[theluggage]

The XDR was / is a very expensive display - even before you've bought the stand. I wouldn't have thought there would be too much crossover with iMac users.

...we're talking about high-end iMac users paying well over $3000 for their computers (by the time you add sensible RAM and storage) or (up to 2021) iMac Pro users paying $5000-$8000. Most of those systems out-performed the base $6000 2019 Mac Pro. So I think it's conceivable that people buying expensive computers would also be in the market for expensive displays to do them justice. Of course, it doesn't make sense alongside a computer already welded to a 5k display - which was kinda my point.

...and, yeah, the XDR is expensive. Yes, the price of the stand is beyond a joke, and yes, Apple were really taking the mickey when they tried to compare it to a $20k dual-layer reference display (with individual dimmable pixels) but it's still a rare 6k display, with local dimming, that doesn't really have any competition (AFAIK the cheaper Dell doesn't have the same HDR chops). I don't see any reason why only Mac Pro users would consider it.

 

[mode11]

...we're talking about high-end iMac users paying well over $3000 for their computers (by the time you add sensible RAM and storage) or (up to 2021) iMac Pro users paying $5000-$8000. Most of those systems out-performed the base $6000 2019 Mac Pro. So I think it's conceivable that people buying expensive computers would also be in the market for expensive displays to do them justice. Of course, it doesn't make sense alongside a computer already welded to a 5k display - which was kinda my point.

There's a big difference in price between a $3000 iMac and an $8000 iMac Pro. A user of the latter might buy a $6000 display; I doubt the former would.

It's not that either iMac isn't a powerful machine, or that they wouldn't compete with an entry level Mac Pro in terms of performance. It just seems unlikely that someone would spend a lot more on their monitor than the computer itself. Incidentally, I doubt many people used a base Mac Pro; a computer like that only makes sense if specced up in one direction or another. A typical config would surely have been $8000+, even before they've bought the wheels.

...and, yeah, the XDR is expensive. Yes, the price of the stand is beyond a joke, and yes, Apple were really taking the mickey when they tried to compare it to a $20k dual-layer reference display (with individual dimmable pixels) but it's still a rare 6k display, with local dimming, that doesn't really have any competition (AFAIK the cheaper Dell doesn't have the same HDR chops). I don't see any reason why only Mac Pro users would consider it.

Sure, everyone would like one - they're clearly awesome monitors. I'm sure there are workflows that benefit from a high-end HDR monitor, but don't need especially high-end processing (e.g. grading HDR footage). But the XDR also seems like a luxury monitor - especially during the time when it was the only Retina monitor Apple made.

 

[smulji]

If we're talking about 12 month upgrade cycles then the M4 would be due in October/November, 12 months after the M3.

The M3 was delayed because TSMC's 3nm process node was delayed. That's not something Apple can directly control unless they want to release successive iterations on the same process node like what Intel was panned for doing with its 14nm process.

Given that TSMC's 3NE process is ready for production it seems reasonable we could see the M4 this fall, but it will still take several months to update the entire product line.

I think it'll be closer to a 1.5 year cycle. M1 was introduced Fall 2020, M2 in June 2022, the M3 / M3 Pro / M3 Max in Fall 2023. Based on this, I think we'll see M4 / M4 Pro / M4 Max during 1H of 2025.

 

[chucker23n1]

If we're talking about 12 month upgrade cycles then the M4 would be due in October/November, 12 months after the M3.

The M3 was delayed because TSMC's 3nm process node was delayed.

Based on the update intervals of the A*X SoCs, and the M* SoCs so far, I think they're shooting for something closer to 15 or 18 months, not 12.

 

[mode11]

You’d think Apple would want to release new laptops at the same time each year e.g. September. That may not be possible of course.

 

[ric22]

Based on the update intervals of the A*X SoCs, and the M* SoCs so far, I think they're shooting for something closer to 15 or 18 months, not 12.

I think they were shooting for 12, like with iPhone, but failed to hit that target. They've probably been a bit disappointed by the progress they've been able to make since M1.

 

[ric22]

Quite why all devices to be updated with an M3 processor- MacBook Air, MacMini, iMac- weren't released together is beyond me.

It does make sense to realise the Pro/Max devices a few months sooner as they're more premium, however, but then all Pro/Max devices should also come out in unison with each other.

Meanwhile, Apple almost seem to begrudgingly produce the Ultra.

 

[ric22]

It exists because the cards world goes far beyond graphics cards... all kinds of speciality hardware that needs a card slot(s)... and Apple apparently doesn't want to just cede all of that to PC.

Yes, there could be some kind of Mac Studio Thunderbolt card slot case... like one could do with graphics cards before Silicon... but markets with deep pockets must be rich enough to motivate Apple to make a Mac Pro body with card slots, even if that "Pro" will not support third party graphics cards.

There's also customers that need RAM beyond the upper limit of what Mac Studio can offer.

I'd be curious how many hundred Mac Pros Apple is able to sell each year...

 

[bradman83]

Based on the update intervals of the A*X SoCs, and the M* SoCs so far, I think they're shooting for something closer to 15 or 18 months, not 12.

I think 12 months is their target, but the M1 launched in the middle of Covid supply chain disruptions and TSMC hitting their own 3nm stumbling blocks. It's been widely rumored that the M1 Pro/Max MBPs were supposed to have launched at WWDC 2021 but had to be delayed until the fall, and even then Apple struggled to keep up with demand because of lockdowns in China and other supply chain issues. Those issues didn't fully abate until the end of 2022.

To me it's telling that Apple launched the M3, Pro, and Max all at the same time, 10 months after the M2 Pro/max came out (and updated the 15" Air 9 months into its lifespan). The real question will be if we see the M3 Ultra at WWDC, 12 months after the M2 Ultra debuted.

 

[aj_niner]

After 5 years I look forward to the next gen 32" 6K display parts to find its way into a iMac 32" 6K M4 Pro 36GB 1TB for under $3.5k.

 

[bradman83]

Quite why all devices to be updated with an M3 processor- MacBook Air, MacMini, iMac- weren't released together is beyond me.

It does make sense to realise the Pro/Max devices a few months sooner as they're more premium, however, but then all Pro/Max devices should also come out in unison with each other.

Much of this comes down to TSMC's capacity to produce chips on its bleeding-edge process node. The N3 node is used for both the M3 family and the A17, and has been plagued with yield issues. Apple likely launched the M3 in lower volume models first because that's what TSMC was able to supply them alongside the chips needed for the iPhone 15 Pro.

I also suspect the Air was delayed by a few months because the 15" model launched with the M2 chip just this past summer (either the 15" M2 Air was delayed or the M3 was supposed to launch in the summer). The 8-9 month upgrade cycle on that model is already fairly short by Apple's standards, and it doesn't make sense to upgrade the 13" Air and leave the 15" hanging.

 

[chucker23n1]

You’d think Apple would want to release new laptops at the same time each year e.g. September. That may not be possible of course.

I think they would prefer it (they've mostly aligned their software to an annual schedule, and of course iPhone and Apple Watch), but the implications are far-reaching.

For the Watch, they seem to be OK occasionally using an older core design. For the Mac, that isn't really an option, except for lower-end Macs. So they'd have to develop the M*, M* Pro, and M* Max pretty much in tandem with the A*. That ultimately slows them down / limits their flexibility.

 

[chucker23n1]

I think they were shooting for 12, like with iPhone, but failed to hit that target.

Perhaps. I figured the M* is more a continuation of the A*X, which seemed to be roughly on an 18-month schedule. But that could be more of a function of iPad Pro sales, and Mac sales as a whole are presumably higher.

They've probably been a bit disappointed by the progress they've been able to make since M1.

I'm increasingly concerned that they haven't really evolved the p-core design much since the A14/M1.

To me it's telling that Apple launched the M3, Pro, and Max all at the same time, 10 months after the M2 Pro/max came out (and updated the 15" Air 9 months into its lifespan).

I suspect that wasn't the original plan. Or if it was, it's weird that they didn't also upgrade the Air.

 

[raythompsontn]

I'd be curious how many hundred Mac Pros Apple is able to sell each year...

I would wager the sales are in the tens of thousands, maybe more.

Any studio doing any kind of CGI is going to have several of the machines. Think of movie studios naturally. But also consider those companies producing videos for advertisements. Add in companies that do huge number crunching, simulations, and I suspect the number can get quite large. And there are probably a few that just want the biggest and baddest machine they can get.

When I was visiting the university office where I used to work, I passed a room that had probably a dozen of those machines set up. When I was in the Apple Store for four hours with a sale problem for my MacBook, I saw two people walk out with those machines.

This unscientific and biased observation makes me believe the numbers are larger than in the hundreds.

 

[ric22]

Much of this comes down to TSMC's capacity to produce chips on its bleeding-edge process node. The N3 node is used for both the M3 family and the A17, and has been plagued with yield issues. Apple likely launched the M3 in lower volume models first because that's what TSMC was able to supply them alongside the chips needed for the iPhone 15 Pro.

I also suspect the Air was delayed by a few months because the 15" model launched with the M2 chip just this past summer (either the 15" M2 Air was delayed or the M3 was supposed to launch in the summer). The 8-9 month upgrade cycle on that model is already fairly short by Apple's standards, and it doesn't make sense to upgrade the 13" Air and leave the 15" hanging.

Mac chips are just a drop in the ocean compared to iPhone Pro chips, though...

 

[wmy5]

Any chance Thunderbolt 5 shows up on the Mac Studio and maybe the Mac Pro?

First PC with Thunderbolt 5 has already been announced: https://press.razer.com/product-news/introducing-razer-blade-18-2024/

It is very likely that Thunderbolt 5 will be present in M4 Macs.