- Apple’s M3 Ultra defeats most stationary CPUs in terms of effective efficiency
- This is thanks to the arm-based instruction set compared to x86 used for desktop processors
- However, it is lagging behind M4 Max in the power efficiency
Apple’s new Mac Studio (M3 Ultra) has received critical recognition from several reviewers thanks to his M3 Ultra processor, despite the fact that he has apparently lost to M4 Max in single-core processes. However, its performance features are not where praise stops – a new benchmark suggests that there is another, equally important benefit to using the M3 Ultra chip compared to other processors on the market.
As highlighted by WCCFTECH (based on ARS Technica Mac Studio Review), the M3 Ultra’s Benchmark in the handbrake (a video coding program that can be used for benchmarking both CPUs and GPUs) reveals that it is only slightly less efficient than its Mac -Studio M4 MAX MODS – -processors. This is probably due to Apple choosing an arm -based architecture instead of the X86, which is used for most mainstream desktop CPUs, especially those offered by Intel and AMD.
ARS Technica’s analysis shows that the MAC study (M3 Ultra) draws 77.3W power on average in the handbrake, which easily hangs behind the M4 Max variant, which uses an incredibly low 50.2W. While the latter is more effective, the M3 Ultra undoubtedly compensates for it with its better performance in multi -core treatment based on benchmarks -albeit at a much higher price.
Up to x86 processors, the M-based chips are the clear victors-the primary examples are Intel Core I9-14900K using 233.6W, and AMD Ryzen 9950x using 194.6W on average. It is worth noting that none of there is no other arm processors among the comparisons; Qualcomm’s Snapdragon X Elite chips are also very effective, but were probably left out as they are still far away from the M3 Ultra in terms of performance.
Buy M3 Ultra Mac Studio if you can but the M4 MAX model makes more sense to most users …
No one denies that these power efficiency requirements are impressive. But unless you are looking for the absolute best hardware available with deep pockets to justify it, the M3 Ultra Mac studio is excessive in my eyes.
It can be more powerful than the M4 Max (specifically for game and multi-core processes), but I would argue that it may not be a significant enough margin to justify using more. The M4 Max model starts at $ 1,999 / £ 2,099 / AU $ 3,499, while M3 Ultra starts at $ 3,999 / £ 4,199 / AU $ 6,999 – Remember, M4 Max is not so far behind the M3 Ultra in terms of performance, while also more effective. I don’t know about you, but the M4 Max model seems like the easy choice here.
If Apple’s M3 Ultra Mac Studio is on your radar for its game features, I would still argue that the M4 Max is the reasonable option – or even the shockingly impressive M4 MAC Mini. We all want a good performance from our hardware in some capacity – but it is always worth considering factors such as power consumption and whether the price tag is justified and this is a perfect example of it.
