- M3 ultra ultra of Apple defeats most desktop CPUs in terms of energy efficiency
- This is thanks to its arm -based instructions set compared to X86 used for desktop processors
- However, it is delayed behind the M4 Max in energy efficiency
The new Mac Studio of Apple (M3 Ultra) has received the critical acclamation of multiple reviewers thanks to its M3 Ultra processor, although it apparently lost to the M4 Max in a single nucleus processes. However, its performance capabilities are not where praise stops: a new reference point suggests that there is another equally important benefit to use the Ult Chip M3 compared to other processors in the market.
As highlighted by WCCFTECH (based on the Ars Technica Mac Studio), the Benchmark in M3 Ultra Handbrake (a video coding program that can be used to evaluate both the CPU and the GPUs) reveal that it is just a little less efficient power than its counterpart of Mac Studio M4 Max, and that it also proves to be much more efficient than other processors of desk processors Powerful This is probably due to Apple opting for an arm -based architecture instead of X86, which is used for most conventional desktop CPUs, especially those offered by Intel and AMD.
The Ars Technica analysis shows that the Mac Studio (M3 Ultra) draws 77.3W on average on the handbrake, slightly delayed behind the M4 Max variant that uses 50.2W incredibly low. While the latter is more efficient, the ultra M3 possibly compensates for it with its best performance in the processing of multiple cores based on reference points, although at a much higher price.
With respect to the X86 processors, the m-based chips are the clear victors: the main examples are the Intel Core I9-14900K using 233.6W, and the AMD Ryzen 9950x using 194.6W on average. It is worth noting that none of those who are not other arm processors among comparisons; Snapdragon x elite chips of Qualcomm are also very efficient in power, but they were probably omitted, since they are still far from the ultra M3 in terms of performance.
Buy the M3 Ultra Mac study, but the M4 Max model makes more sense for most users …
It cannot be denied that these power efficiency statements are impressive. But unless you are looking for the best absolute hardware available with deep pockets to justify it, the M3 Ultra Mac studio is exaggerated in my eyes.
It can be more powerful than the M4 Max (specifically for games and multiple nuclei processes), but I maintain that it may not be a margin significant enough to justify the expense more. The M4 Max model begins at $ 1,999 / £ 2.099 / AU $ 3,499, while the Ultra M3 begins at $ 3,999 / £ 4.199 / AU $ 6,999 – takes into account the M4 Max is not so far from the ult M3 in terms of yield, while it is also more efficient of power. I don’t know about you, but the M4 Max model seems to be the easy option here.
If the M3 Ultra Mac Studio of Apple is on its radar for its game capabilities, I would still say that the M4 Max is the reasonable option, or even the surprisingly impressive M4 Mac Mini. We all want a great performance of our hardware in some way, but it is always worth considering factors such as energy consumption and if the price is justified, and this is a perfect example of that.
