Exploring Apple Silicon’s local AI performance with the Mac Studio and M4 Max — M4 Max beats GB10 and Strix Halo in decode throughput, but memory bandwidth isn't everything
Does higher memory bandwidth make for the best local AI platform?
When judging the efficiency of Apple Silicon or any other platform, one might be tempted to just glance at a power meter like a Kill-a-Watt with the system under load and leave it at that, but instantaneous power draw isn’t the right metric when judging the efficiency of a system for a given task.
Task energy (the amount of power consumed over time) is much more informative. A system that needs a lot of power but finishes a task quickly may consume less task energy and is therefore more efficient than one that consumes a moderate amount of power but takes much longer to finish a job.
To judge inference efficiency, we set up a fixed-length workload with gpt-oss-120b using llama.cpp and llama-benchy: first processing a 2048-token prompt against a 32768-token context depth, then generating 1024 output tokens. We chose that context depth to ensure that our test ran long enough to collect useful data. We recorded this data in watt-hours so that it reflects both energy consumed and time to completion.
At least in this synthetic workload, the M4 Max is more efficient than Strix Halo, but the sheer prompt-processing speed of GB10 lets it finish much faster and use less total power than the Mac Studio does, even though it’s outputting fewer tokens per second in the decode stage.
This test once again suggests that fixating on tokens-per-second throughput alone is perhaps not ideal for judging a system’s inference performance. An ideal LLM inference system would have both high prompt processing speeds and high tokens-per-second throughput for the shortest possible inference turn.
We’re curious how Apple’s latest M5 Max GPU would perform on this workload, as the company claims big gains on prefill compared to the M4 Max and has given that chip even higher memory bandwidth than the M4 Max. If that’s true, the combination of fast prefill and high tokens-per-second on decode would likely make the M5 Max competitive with GB10, if not an outright leader here.
We also gauged idle and load noise levels of these systems to see what it’s like to share space with them. For reference, the noise floor in our testing environment is about 32.6 dBA. We measure sound pressure levels at a distance of 18” from these systems to approximate what it’s like to work with them on top of a desk.
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
The Mac Studio is impressively quiet both at idle and under load. It barely raises the noise level in our testing environment at idle, and under load, its fans are barely perceptible. Practically any other noise you make or hear in your space will be louder. This is superlative performance.

As the Senior Analyst, Graphics at Tom's Hardware, Jeff Kampman covers everything that has to do with graphics cards, gaming performance, and more. From integrated graphics processors to discrete graphics cards to the hyperscale installations powering our AI future, if it's got a GPU in it, Jeff is on it.
-
Kindaian There are some significant issues with using a mac though, specially in terms of service setup and containers (no gpu passthrough for containers under macos due to cpu/hardware limitations).Reply
If those are not important to you, then the comparison is fair i would guess. BUT also one consideration is the price in relation to the performance. -
splus I don't get it - why would you test the old M4 Max Studio when there's a new M5 Max MacBook, which is better and faster, especially for AI? And, as you said, the M4 Max Studio configuration you tested basically isn't even available any more?Reply -
JamesJones44 Reply
Prior to Apple limiting the M4 Max Studios RAM I would have argued 256 GB of VRAM would be better for a pro user than the M5 Max 128 GB. However, with Apple cutting that option, I agree, the M5 Max 128 GB MBP would have been a better comparisonsplus said:I don't get it - why would you test the old M4 Max Studio when there's a new M5 Max MacBook, which is better and faster, especially for AI? And, as you said, the M4 Max Studio configuration you tested basically isn't even available any more? -
splus Reply
It's good to have more memory, but this hardware and its memory bandwidth is simply too low for larger models. It would be too slow to be useful. 256 or 512 GB would be useful only with much faster chip (like M5 Max or Mx Ultra) and with much higher memory bandwidth. M4 Max doesn't have either. Same applies to the Spark and Ryzen 395. 128 GB is their practical and usable max limit.JamesJones44 said:Prior to Apple limiting the M4 Max Studios RAM I would have argued 256 GB of VRAM would be better for a pro user than the M5 Max 128 GB. However, with Apple cutting that option, I agree, the M5 Max 128 GB MBP would have been a better comparison -
Dmtrii I don't understand how you're testing Geekbench multi-core! Either Windows is broken (I don't know, I haven't used it for 10+ years) or you chose the wrong power profile.Reply
Here's my result of Geekbench 7 for the Strix Halo 128GB (Framework, Linux, Performance profile) - https://browser.geekbench.com/v7/cpu/1327
More than 30 000 for multi-core!
The same was for Geekbench 6 - every time I got 15% better results in multi-core 🤷♂️ -
Bikki @Jefferey Lamma.cpp does not natively support mlx, it supports metal but not Mlx. Ollama or Llm studio do.Reply
On Ollama new mlx backend, Qwen prefill speed increases by 1.5x and decode 2-3x on m4 pro compared to old version that uses llama.cpp backend.
Ps: I’m currently an AI engineer, gladly contributr to AI article’s process unpaid. contact me at bik.huynguyen gmail
Ref: https://ollama.com/blog/mlx