Jinx!Wow, even though the MacBook Air wasn't updated with M4, all the existing models (including the M2 MacBook Air!) have been updated to start at 16GB of RAM. It was about time Apple fixed this issue with the base models, the amount of RAM was severely constraining the base models.
Agreed the Studio is a very hard sell currently.I really wish they had offered an additional M4 max SKU for the mini lineup but likely I'm wondering if there would be thermal constraints with the new enclosure. The likelihood is that we'll see M4 studio in the spring for that one.
I'm probably the only one, but I'm excited to see what improvements were made to the 12mp front facing camera of the new macbooks. That's been my biggest pet peeve of the M1, M2 and M3 macbook pros.
Other than that - I loved the updates this week.
As I said in another thread, I'm struggling post M4 Pro and Max to understand why anybody would opt for the M2 Studio or M2 Mac Pro lineups with these new M4 machines. Especially now with thunderbolt 5 options what exactly is the target audience of the Mac Pro or Studio in November December 2024 when you could buy M4 Max Macbook pro's or M4 Pro Mac minis ...
It’s not a great advert I agree. Yesterday’s Mini one was better.I gotta say though that the final 3d 'pinky promise' video at end of their presentation for 'M4 Power' was next level cringe for me. Apple marketing is missing a beat with the latest advert campaigns. I think it would have had more effect for me if they said something like 'this advert was created and runs in real-time on M4 Max'. Outside of that I just found myself scratching my head thinking SNL could have a lot of fun with this!
I miss the days of powermac G4 pentagon adverts, the intel snail, the i'm a mac and I'm a pc days!
I really wish they had offered an additional M4 max SKU for the mini lineup but likely I'm wondering if there would be thermal constraints with the new enclosure. The likelihood is that we'll see M4 studio in the spring for that one.
Huh, so Gurman was right? Seems like M4 Pro is a chop of a M4 Max with two P-cores disabled after all. It makes sense economically I suppose. Still, I was hoping we would see Apple challenging desktop CPUs with this.
I have to disagree. I think putting more CPU cores in the Max would just make the thermal situation uncomfortable (by Apple's standards). The die will be interesting to see if there are extra disabled cores in the Pro die or if the Pro die in addition to being chopped also has a slightly different cluster configuration. I believe @mr_roboto's point was that it wouldn't be too hard for Apple to do that. I actually feel it's the Pro CPU that is awkward here, again I would have preferred them trade a couple of CPU cores for more GPU cores.Yes. I feel the Max is the least impressive update of the week, relatively speaking. The Pro feels like the sweet spot.
Yeah in that case I think even in highly multicore scenarios the top end M4 Max should still be challenging x86 desktops, maybe not the 9950X/285V but certainly the 9900x and maybe 265K. Take CB R24 for instance, a benchmark that heavily favors large core/thread counts: the 9900X gets 1,700 points roughly while the 265K is about 2,000 points while the M3 Max is about 1600. At 20% improvement the M4 Max should be much better than the 9900X while maybe on par with, maybe slightly slower than the 265K. Geekbench 6 which deliberately doesn't scale as well with threads should favor the M4 Max even more. So I'd say 12 P-core and 4 E-cores is already more than enough for Apple's top end laptop. There may be no kill like overkill but even so ...546 GB/s. 20% YoY performance improvement claimed vs M3 Max (which means it’s probably higher).
“Apple says M4 Max is the fastest laptop chip in the world.”
Stay tuned.
Yeah they really should updated the RAM in the M3 generation. I would've liked them update the storage tiers in the M4. Maybe M5 ...Wow, even though the MacBook Air wasn't updated with M4, all the existing models (including the M2 MacBook Air!) have been updated to start at 16GB of RAM. It was about time Apple fixed this issue with the base models, the amount of RAM was severely constraining the base models.
I really wish they had offered an additional M4 max SKU for the mini lineup but likely I'm wondering if there would be thermal constraints with the new enclosure. The likelihood is that we'll see M4 studio in the spring for that one.
I'm probably the only one, but I'm excited to see what improvements were made to the 12mp front facing camera of the new macbooks. That's been my biggest pet peeve of the M1, M2 and M3 macbook pros.
Other than that - I loved the updates this week.
As I said in another thread, I'm struggling post M4 Pro and Max to understand why anybody would opt for the M2 Studio or M2 Mac Pro lineups with these new M4 machines. Especially now with thunderbolt 5 options what exactly is the target audience of the Mac Pro or Studio in November December 2024 when you could buy M4 Max Macbook pro's or M4 Pro Mac minis ...
Yeah the M2 Ultra is in a really awkward position right now. It's a bit crazy that it won't be updated until *at least* January (probably later).As I said in another thread, I'm struggling post M4 Pro and Max to understand why anybody would opt for the M2 Studio or M2 Mac Pro lineups with these new M4 machines.
I just feel like in the Pro price tier the CPU power is overkill while the GPU power is a little underwhelming. I mean the GPU is okay and at 2 extra cores plus a speed bump should be a nice boost over the M3 Pro, but I feel like it could be pushed a little more.
Yeah in that case I think even in highly multicore scenarios the top end M4 Max should still be challenging x86 desktops, maybe not the 9950X/285V but certainly the 9900x and maybe 265K.
I just feel like in the Pro price tier the CPU power is overkill while the GPU power is a little underwhelming.
I agree. It seems that Apple is going for their old formula of "really fast CPUs and kind of meh GPU". I understand where this comes from, but it is a bit disappointing for those who need more GPU performance. Curious to see how Cyberpunk runs on the Pro version.
I agree. It seems that Apple is going for their old formula of "really fast CPUs and kind of meh GPU". I understand where this comes from, but it is a bit disappointing for those who need more GPU performance. Curious to see how Cyberpunk runs on the Pro version.
Hopefully the fact that it’s getting ported will yield significantly better performance than relying on Crossover.There are folks who have done tests with the M3 Pro and GPTK to see how 2077 runs. It’s not too bad. Not stellar, but playable.
Agreed, especially if it integrates with Metal upscaling. I was just more trying to set a baseline expectation.Hopefully the fact that it’s getting ported will yield significantly better performance than relying on Crossover.
You know they never ported The Witcher 3 to the Mac, fascinating that they are doing so with Cyberpunk 2077, same engine I think (or at least CP 2077 is the upgraded RED engine relative to TW3 and the next Witcher game will be on Unreal - not guaranteed to have a Mac port quickly, but more likely).Should probably be in the gaming section, but Cyberpunk 2077 is coming to macOS early next year.
Just Announced — Cyberpunk 2077: Ultimate Edition Coming to Mac!
Available early next year on Macs with Apple silicon, the Ultimate Edition will launch on the Mac App Store and Steam.www.cyberpunk.net
I agree. It seems that Apple is going for their old formula of "really fast CPUs and kind of meh GPU". I understand where this comes from, but it is a bit disappointing for those who need more GPU performance. Curious to see how Cyberpunk runs on the Pro version.
Meanwhile, I’m over here happy with where the CPU in the Pro landed.
I see it somewhat differently. GPU *is* the primary differentiation on the pro end. For someone like me who does relatively light photo work (other than PixInsight), code, and some CAD, throwing GPU at the problem doesn’t really help me much here. But not having to buy a bunch of GPU for my use cases is a benefit because I can use that money to feed PixInsight’s voracious appetite for scratch space.
There are folks who have done tests with the M3 Pro and GPTK to see how 2077 runs. It’s not too bad. Not stellar, but playable.
Hmmm ... I dunno a small form factor machine with a good GPU could be a nice sell to attract more people to the platform and again I feel like 8 M4 performance cores is already really powerful.I think for most people buying the Mini, more cpu is probably more useful than more gpu. I would love huge gpu improvements personally, but that doesn’t seem to be the case for the majority.
Hopefully the fact that it’s getting ported will yield significantly better performance than relying on Crossover.
I'm too slow.Agreed, especially if it integrates with Metal upscaling. I was just more trying to set a baseline expectation.
No way to know that until we see die shots. I'm guessing he was wrong, but my original idea that the 10P Pro has 12 cores with two fused might be right, in which case he could be right as well.Huh, so Gurman was right? Seems like M4 Pro is a chop of a M4 Max with two P-cores disabled after all. It makes sense economically I suppose. Still, I was hoping we would see Apple challenging desktop CPUs with this.
I thought it was hilarious.I gotta say though that the final 3d 'pinky promise' video at end of their presentation for 'M4 Power' was next level cringe for me. Apple marketing is missing a beat with the latest advert campaigns. I think it would have had more effect for me if they said something like 'this advert was created and runs in real-time on M4 Max'. Outside of that I just found myself scratching my head thinking SNL could have a lot of fun with this!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.