Apple Mac Studio 2025 Review
Apple has surprised everyone again! It has introduced a small and beautiful computer case called the Mac Studio that has two completely different hearts beating inside it. On one side, the M4 Max, a new generation processor, fast and efficient. On the other side, the M3 Ultra, a hornless giant and the tail of the previous generation that is made by gluing two chips together. What’s the story? Why did Apple do this and, most importantly, which one is right for you? In the Apple Mac Studio 2025 review, we are going to dissect and answer all these questions.
Apple Mac Studio 2025 Design Review
At first glance, the new Mac Studio is exactly our old friend. Apple has not touched the winning combination and has kept the same all-aluminum cube chassis. Measuring just 7.7 x 7.7 x 3.7 inches, it’s compact enough to fit on any desk, and many people will tuck it under their monitor. This incredible power-to-size ratio is an engineering feat in itself. The only downside is that it’s limited to silver, and there’s no mention of attractive Space Gray or Midnight colors.
The real magic of the Mac Studio is its cooling system. Air is drawn in through a circular inlet on the bottom of the machine, passed over the powerful chips and internal components by a very quiet fan system, and finally expelled through hundreds of tiny holes on the back of the machine. The system is designed to produce almost no noise even under the heaviest loads, a crucial feature for professionals working in quiet environments like recording studios.
But there’s a subtle but important difference: weight. The M4 Max-equipped model weighs in at 2.74kg, while the M3 Ultra is noticeably heavier at 3.64kg. That nearly 1kg difference in weight is no coincidence, and goes straight to the heart of the two machines.
This weight difference is the physical embodiment of the two different chip architectures. The M3 Ultra is built by gluing two M3 Max chips together using UltraFusion technology. This approach to achieving extreme multi-core performance inherently generates much more heat at peak workloads. To dissipate this massive heat while maintaining the Mac Studio’s famous silence, Apple had to use a much larger and heavier copper heatsink for the Ultra. In contrast, the M4 Max is cooled by a lighter aluminum heatsink. Copper conducts heat better, but it is much denser and heavier than aluminum. So the weight difference is a direct and unavoidable physical consequence of the M3 Ultra’s dual-core, power-hungry architecture. That weight tells the story of the monster inside the case.
Interestingly, the overkill cooling design in previous generations of Mac Studio models made this dual-chip strategy possible. In the M1 and M2 Ultra models, users found that the fans rarely ran at full power. This extra thermal space, designed for the hottest possible chip (the Ultra), now allows Apple to safely fit the more efficient, single-core M4 Max chip with a lighter heatsink in the same chassis. This both reduces manufacturing costs and maintains product line integrity.
An explosion of innovation is coming! Xiaomi 17, the launch date revealed
The Best Power Bank for Samsung Phones
Apple’s 2025 Mac Studio Hardware Power Review
Here we come to the heart of the matter, the battle between two different chip-making philosophies.
M4 Max: This chip is built on the second-generation 3nm manufacturing process. Its CPU cores are newer, faster (both in terms of frequency and instructions per clock cycle), and more efficient. Simply put, the M4 Max is the smarter chip of the two. • M3 Ultra: This chip is built on the first-generation 3nm process. Its power comes from scale, not innovation. Apple has used UltraFusion technology to fuse two M3 Max chips together, effectively doubling key resources.
Faster cores vs. more cores
This is the main theme of our battle. The M4 Max excels at tasks that can’t be split well across multiple cores (single-core performance), making the device feel faster and smoother in general use. In contrast, the M3 Ultra shines when a heavy task can be split into smaller pieces and fed to all of its cores simultaneously (multi-core performance).
The real superpower of the M3 Ultra isn’t just the number of cores, but its double the Media Engine and memory bandwidth. While everyone focuses on the number of CPU and GPU cores, the specs reveal that the M3 Ultra has four ProRes encode and decode engines, while the M4 Max has two. This means that for video editors working with ProRes or H.264/HEVC formats, the M3 Ultra can process twice as many video streams or encode and decode files significantly faster, completely independent of the CPU and GPU cores. Apple claims the M3 Ultra can handle up to 24 streams of 8K ProRes video, compared to 18 for the M4 Max. Similarly, the 819GB/s memory bandwidth (versus 546GB/s) is a huge advantage for graphics-intensive tasks like 3D rendering and AI, where the GPU must be fed at lightning speed.
On the other hand, the M3 Ultra is a strategic move by Apple against NVIDIA in the on-device AI market. The ability to configure the M3 Ultra with up to 512GB of integrated memory is unprecedented in a desktop PC of this size and price. NVIDIA’s high-end graphics cards, which dominate the AI market, are typically limited to 24 or 48 GB of VRAM and are very expensive and power-hungry. For AI researchers working with large language models (LLMs), memory capacity is their most important limitation. The M3 Ultra allows them to run gigantic models with hundreds of billions of parameters right on their desktop, silently and productively. This turns the Mac Studio into not just a creative workstation, but also a unique and affordable AI development machine.
Apple MacStudio 2025 Benchmark Review
Now it’s time to challenge these two giants and see what they have to say in practice. The numbers tell an interesting story. The M4 Max consistently outperforms the M3 Ultra in single-core tests with scores in the 3900-4100 range, while the M3 Ultra scores around 3200-3300. This confirms that the M4 Max feels faster in everyday tasks. In multi-core tests, the M3 Ultra pulls ahead with scores of around 28,000 versus 26,000 for the M4 Max. But the gap isn’t as big as you’d expect from the difference in core count, and it’s a testament to the greater efficiency and power of each core in the M4.
For video editors (M3 Ultra territory)
- Premiere Pro and DaVinci Resolve: For workflows that deal with heavy codecs like Blackmagic RAW or multiple streams of 8K video, the M3 Ultra’s double media engine and higher memory bandwidth are a definite advantage. Tests show that exporting is faster and playing back heavy effects like noise reduction and stabilization is smoother. In one test, rendering a 59-minute 4K concert in Resolve took about 40 minutes with the M3 Ultra and about 55 minutes with the M4 Max. • Final Cut Pro: As Apple’s own software, it’s heavily optimized for its hardware. The M3 Ultra’s additional ProRes engines make this chip the undisputed king of Final Cut Pro workflows, especially for multi-cam edits or complex timelines.
For 3D artists and special effects
- Rendering (Blender, etc.): This is a fully parallelized task. The 80 GPU cores and massive memory bandwidth of the M3 Ultra give it a significant advantage, drastically reducing render times compared to the 40 cores of the M4 Max. Blender OpenData benchmarks confirm this advantage.
Modeling and animation: These tasks are often more dependent on single-core performance. In this area, the faster cores of the M4 Max can provide a smoother and more responsive experience in the Viewport.
For developers (M4 Max strength)
Compiling in Xcode: The code compilation process is heavily dependent on single-core speed in many of its stages. For this reason, the M4 Max is generally a faster and more economical choice for most software developers, reducing build times.
For photographers
Lightroom and Photoshop: Many tasks in these apps, such as applying filters or exporting a large number of photos, rely heavily on single-core performance. As a result, the M4 Max often performs similarly to or even slightly better than the M3 Ultra in these workflows, making the more expensive chip a poor buy for photographers. In one test, Lightroom output was reported to be almost twice as fast on the M3 Ultra, but that seems to be an exception to most of the evidence pointing to the M4 Max’s single-core advantage.
The key point is that the better chip depends entirely on the type of work you do, and the choice is not a straight line with price. A photographer could pay $2,000 more for the M3 Ultra and end up getting worse performance for their main tasks than the base M4 Max. In contrast, a video editor can save hours of time by rendering an 8K timeline, making that extra $2,000 a smart investment. So the choice isn’t about good versus best, but about the right tool for the job.
Apple Mac Studio 2025 Ports Review
The most important physical difference between the two models is in the ports on the front of the device. Where Apple is smartly pushing pro users towards the more expensive model. - M3 Ultra model: On the front, this model has two Thunderbolt 5 ports with blazing speeds of up to 120Gbps and an SDXC (UHS-II) memory card slot. This is a huge boon for video editors and photographers who are constantly transferring large files from cameras and external drives. No more digging around the back of the device to connect the fastest gear.
- M4 Max: On the front, you’ll find two USB-C ports with speeds up to 10Gbps, as well as an SDXC (UHS-II) memory card slot. These ports are useful, but they’re nowhere near as fast as Thunderbolt 5.
Fortunately, both models offer the same full set of ports on the back: four Thunderbolt 5 ports, two USB-A ports (with speeds up to 5Gbps), a 10Gbps Ethernet port, an HDMI 2.1 port, and a 3.5mm headphone jack that also supports high-impedance headphones.
The choice of chipset has a significant impact on the number of monitors you can connect to the device:
- M4 Max: Supports up to five displays simultaneously (for example, four 6K monitors via Thunderbolt and one 4K monitor via HDMI).
- M3 Ultra: Supports up to eight displays simultaneously (e.g. eight 4K/6K monitors or four 8K monitors). This is a special feature for very specialized applications such as broadcast control rooms, advanced trading desks or special effects studios.
Both models are equipped with Wi-Fi 6E and Bluetooth 5.3. The only minor criticism in this area is the lack of use of the newer Wi-Fi 7 standard. To better understand the differences, see the table below:
This difference in front ports is a deliberate strategy by Apple to segment features that are directly tied to the intensity and type of intended use. Apple knows very well that the user who goes for the M3 Ultra is likely a professional video editor, special effects artist or researcher who deals with giant files on a daily basis. For these people, the ability to connect a Thunderbolt 5 SSD or a high-speed card reader to the front of the device is a significant improvement in quality of life and workflow speed. By dedicating these ports to the Ultra model, Apple creates a powerful incentive to upgrade, tying the most powerful chip to the easiest high-speed access.
Is the Apple Mac Studio 2025 worth buying?
After finishing the Apple Mac Studio 2025 review, it’s time to answer the main question.
Smart Choice: Mac Studio with M4 Max
This model is a definite choice for the vast majority of users, even professional users. Photographers, graphic designers, music producers, software developers, and most YouTubers and video editors will find the performance of this machine exceptional. Its faster single-core speed makes it seem faster for general tasks, and it’s a great value for money. For many people, paying more for the Ultra model is a waste of money.
Top-of-the-line hunter: Mac Studio with M3 Ultra
This is a very specialized tool for a specific but demanding group. We specifically list this group:
- Video Professionals: Those who work with 8K files, multi-camera editing, complex special effects, and ProRes/BRAW-based workflows, and for whom rendering and output times are critical.
- 3D and special effects artists: Those whose income depends on reducing GPU rendering times for complex scenes.
3a. AI and machine learning researchers: Those who need the maximum possible integrated memory (up to 512 GB) to run large language models on the device.
4l. Users with extreme port and display needs: Those who need more than 5 displays and for whom easy access to the Thunderbolt 5 ports on the front of the device is important.
And here’s the final answer for the user stuck between a fully-featured M4 Max (with, say, 128GB of RAM) and a basic M3 Ultra (with 96GB of RAM):
- If your main work is in software like Photoshop, Logic Pro, or Xcode, go for the M4 Max with more RAM. The extra memory and faster cores will be more useful to you.
- If your main work is in software like DaVinci Resolve, Final Cut Pro, or Blender, go for the M3 Ultra. The extra GPU cores, double the media engine, and higher memory bandwidth will give you a more dramatic performance boost, even with a little less RAM.
The new Mac Studio isn’t one computer; it’s two computers dressed in the same clothes. The M4 Max is an athletic, intelligent successor that’s great for just about anyone. The M3 Ultra is a heavyweight, expert champion built for those who fight at the absolute limits of digital creativity. Choose your fighter wisely.
