M3 Ultra Chip's Massive 80-Core Graphics Performance Revealed in Benchmark Result - MacRumors
Skip to Content

M3 Ultra Chip's Massive 80-Core Graphics Performance Revealed in Benchmark Result

by

Apple's new M3 Ultra chip can be configured with a massive 80-core GPU, and an early benchmark result offers a look at its graphics performance.

M3 Ultra Chip
In one Geekbench 6 result for the new Mac Studio, the M3 Ultra with an 80-core GPU achieved a Metal score of 259,668, up from 222,582 for the M2 Ultra chip with a 76-core GPU in the previous-generation Mac Studio. If that single result is accurate, then the M3 Ultra offers up to 16% faster graphics performance than the M2 Ultra.

This means the M3 Ultra offers the best graphics performance of any Apple chip ever.

In the 16-inch MacBook Pro, the highest-end M4 Max chip with a 40-core GPU has an average Metal score of 187,460, so the M3 Ultra appears to offer up to 38% faster graphics performance than the M4 Max based on the one result.

A few other Geekbench 6 results for the M3 Ultra chip with an 80-core GPU show Metal scores in the 195,000 range. We believe those results are inaccurate, as it would not make any sense for the score to be that low.

As for CPU performance, we previously reported that the M3 Ultra is up to 10% faster than the previous-fastest M4 Max chip.

The new Mac Studio is available to pre-order now on Apple's online store, and it will launch in stores on Wednesday, March 12. In the U.S., pricing starts at $1,999 for M4 Max configurations, and at $3,999 for M3 Ultra configurations.

Related Roundup: Mac Studio
Tags: Benchmarks, Geekbench
Buyer's Guide: Mac Studio (Caution)
Related Forum: Mac Studio

Top Rated Comments

phuklok1 Avatar
phuklok1
14 months ago
note they don't compare to AMD or NVIDIA GPU performance. It really, really sucks the M-series of Macs can no longer use external GPUs. This really screwed up our workflows. Would be great if Apple still produced or supported a new x86 (AMD/Intel) option if they were intent of gimping M chip based macs this way.

It is requiring our organization to move off of Apple products for workstations and I am really going to miss the integration and UI of Mac OS when working on these. (And on downtime, I personally miss being able to use parallels for some gaming sessions on high end GPUs.)
Score: 17 Votes (Like | Disagree)
L
Lounge vibes 05
14 months ago

Apple should release a new generation when all variants of the chip are actually ready, and all MacBooks and Desktops can be updated at the same time. Simple.
I like how some people think that new chips are just a button push away.
Like Apple can just push the “M4Ultra” button and all of a sudden it’s developed packaged put in computers, assembled, and ready to go.
There are no chip manufacturers that work that way.
Score: 15 Votes (Like | Disagree)
obviouslogic Avatar
obviouslogic
14 months ago

The surprising point is that this situation was caused by not updating the Mac Studio last year. Had they updated it to M3 Max and M3 Ultra, they could have skipped the M4 this year if it won’t have an Ultra version. But somebody had the idea of skipping the update and now they pay for it. Anyway, in my case this has been good for me, as I can now get a M4 Max Studio, more powerful and with more RAM than if they had updated it last year.
You can’t update something you don’t have. Apple has stated it takes a long time to produce these Ultra chips. Probably because they have to wait for fab lines to open up on the newer process nodes. It makes much more sense to start with smaller chips (A-series) when nodes are new and volume is low, because you can fit more on each wafer. Then work your way up to larger and large chips as production picks up.

If I had to guess what the issue was, is that TSMC didn’t want to dedicate too many fabs for N3B because Apple was the only client using it. So Apple didn’t have the capacity to produce the M3 Ultra until after [almost] everything was moved to M4. This is made more evident because Apple just released two other products that still make use of that older node; the A16 (iPad), M3 (iPad Air) and now the M3 Ultra in the Mac Studio. Seems they’re trying to squeeze what they can from that node to maximize costs.

Either way, if these benchmarks are true, it is a bit disappointing compared to what everyone was expecting, which would’ve been a beast of an SoC in a M4 Ultra.

I think the M3 Ultra is going to mainly appeal to the A.I. crowd with 512MB memory and 32 neural engine cores.
Score: 12 Votes (Like | Disagree)
GMShadow Avatar
GMShadow
14 months ago

Pretty sure Apple is just saving the M4 Ultra launch for the Mac Pro 2025. That would give the Mac Pro the edge over the Mac Studio moving forward with the Mac Studio always being a generation behind with the Ultra lineup.

My preference would be to just ditch the Mac Pro in favor of the Mac Studio. But I think Apple needs to do this to justify the Mac Pro's existence over the Mac Studio moving forward.
There's no UltraFusion interconnect on the M4 Max. Apple engineering also said that means no M4 Ultra.
Score: 11 Votes (Like | Disagree)
obviouslogic Avatar
obviouslogic
14 months ago

Apple should release a new generation when all variants of the chip are actually ready, and all MacBooks and Desktops can be updated at the same time. Simple.
Is it though?
Score: 8 Votes (Like | Disagree)
switz Avatar
switz
14 months ago
Since the M4 was intentionally designed without the webbing to make an Ultra chip, that means they were working on perhaps a new major single chip idea that failed and the emergency response was to quickly clone a M3 Ultra out of the M3 parts bins. Maybe the memory capacity increase option was always in the M3 chip? Was upping the USB-C to V5 in the chip design?

Otherwise, we have to go with the assumption Apple created the M3 Ultra chip for their own server farm(s) probably without the fancy Mac Studio enclosure.

The more I read, the less I am inclined to acquire this generation of Ultra Mac Studio even though I can afford it.
Score: 8 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Read All Comments