- Apple M3 Ultra Bat Most Office Processors in terms of energy efficiency
- This is thanks to its set of instructions based on ARM compared to X86 used for desktop processors
- However, it is lagging behind the M4 Max in energy efficiency
Apple’s new Mac Studio (M3 Ultra) has been praised from the criticism of several criticisms thanks to its M3 Ultra processor, despite its apparently loss against M4 Max in monocoeing processes. However, its performance capacities are not where praise stop – a new reference suggests that there is another advantage, just as important to use the M3 ultra chip compared to other market processors.
As the WCCFTECH (based on the ARS Technica Mac Studio review) points out, the M3 Ultra reference in Handbrake (a video encoding program that can be used to compare processors and GPUs) reveal that it is only slightly more efficient than other Mac Studio M4 office processes. This is probably due to Apple Optant for an architecture based on an arm instead of X86, which is used for most traditional office processors, especially those offered by Intel and AMD.
ARS Technica’s analysis shows that the Mac Studio (M3 Ultra) attracts 77.3 W of power on average in the handbrake, slightly lagging behind the M4 Max variant which uses a 50.2 W. Although the latter is more efficient, the M3 Ultra probably compensates with its best performance in multi -core treatment based on benchmarks – although at a much higher price.
Against X86 processors, Much -based fleas are the clear winners – the main examples are the Intel Core i9-14900K using 233.6W, and the Ryzen 9950X AMD using 194.6W on average. It should be noted that none of the other Arm processors among comparisons; The Snapdragon X Elite of Qualcomm chips are also very powerful in power, but have probably been omitted because they are still far from the tastes of the M3 Ultra in terms of performance.
Buy the M3 Ultra Mac Studio if you can, but the M4 Max model has more meaning for most users…
It is undeniable that these allegations of electricity are impressive. But unless you are looking for the best absolute material 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 (especially for the game and multi-core processes), but I would say that it may not be a significant margin to justify expenses. The M4 Max model starts at $ 1,999 / £ 2,099 $ 3,499 at the M3 Ultra starts at $ 3,999 / £ 4.199 / 6 999 $ in – Keep in mind that the M4 Max is not so far behind the M3 Ultra in terms of performance, while being more extensive. I don’t know about you, but the M4 Max model seems to be the easy choice here.
If Apple’s M3 Ultra Mac Studio is on your radar for its game capacities, I would always say that the M4 Max is the reasonable option – or even the M4 Mac Mini, shocking M4 Mac. We all want great performance of our equipment to a certain extent – 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.
