Apple's newMac Studio (M3 Ultra) has received critical acclaim from multiple reviewers thanks to its M3 Ultra processor, despite apparently losing out to the M4 Max in single-core processes. However, its performance capabilities aren't where the praise stops - a new benchmark suggests there is another, equally important benefit to using the M3 Ultra chip compared to other processors on the market.

As highlighted byWccftech (based on theArs Technica Mac Studio review), the M3 Ultra's benchmark in Handbrake (a video encoding program that can be used for benchmarking both CPUs and GPUs) reveals that it's only slightly less power efficient than its Mac Studio M4 Max counterpart - and it also proves to be far more efficient than other powerful desktop processors. This is likely due to Apple opting for an Arm-based architecture instead of x86, which is used for most mainstream desktop CPUs, notably those offered by Intel and AMD.

Ars Technica's analysis shows that the Mac Studio (M3 Ultra) draws 77.3W of power on average in Handbrake, slightly lagging behind the M4 Max variant which uses an incredibly low 50.2W. While the latter is more efficient, the M3 Ultra arguably makes up for it with its better performance in multi-core processing based on benchmarks - albeit at a much higher price.

Up against x86 processors, the M-based chips are the clear victors - the prime examples are the Intel Core i9-14900K using 233.6W, and the AMD Ryzen 9950X using 194.6W on average. It's worth noting that none of there aren't any other ARM processors among the comparisons; Qualcomm's Snapdragon X Elite chips are also highly power-efficient, but were likely omitted as they’re still a long way off the likes of the M3 Ultra in terms of performance.

Buy the M3 Ultra Mac Studio if you can, but the M4 Max model makes more sense for most users…

There’s no denying that these power-efficiency claims are impressive. But unless you're looking for the absolute best hardware available with deep pockets to justify it, the M3 Ultra Mac Studio is overkill in my eyes.

It might be more powerful than the M4 Max (specifically for gaming and multi-core processes), but I'd argue it may not be a significant enough margin to justify spending more. The M4 Max model starts at $1,999 / £2,099 / AU$3,499 while the M3 Ultra starts at $3,999 / £4,199 / AU$6,999 - bear in mind, the M4 Max isn’t that far behind the M3 Ultra in terms of performance, while also being more power efficient. 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 gaming capabilities, I would still argue the M4 Max is the reasonable option - or even the shockingly impressive M4 Mac mini. We all want great performance from our hardware in some capacity - but it's always worth considering factors like power consumption and whether the price tag is justified, and this is a perfect example of that.