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

Our time with a 128GB M4 Max Mac Studio demonstrates why these systems have been so popular among local AI trailblazers. For starters, the spec we tested has an incredibly potent 16-core CPU that’s leagues ahead of both Nvidia’s GB10 and AMD’s Ryzen AI Max+ 395 in both single-threaded and multi-threaded performance.

The massive memory bandwidth advantage of the 40-core GPU configuration of the M4 Max versus Strix Halo and GB10—546 GB/s vs 273 GB/s—also translates directly to higher tokens-per-second throughput in local LLM workloads. The M4 Max’s LLM inference performance is by far the highest of any unified memory platform we’ve tested.

Mac Studio M4 Max

(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

But our tests demonstrate that there’s much more to delivered performance than that raw bandwidth figure. Depending on the model you choose, you might see the M4 Max generate as few as 27% more tokens per second or as many as 82% more TPS than an Nvidia GB10 box, at least with the llama.cpp inference engine.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware

This result emphasizes that you can’t just eyeball memory bandwidth and conclude that twice the bandwidth means twice as many tokens per second for LLM inference. Testing actual workloads remains essential.

And the Mac Studio doesn’t totally wipe the floor with the competition in our tests. For work like image generation, the Nvidia GB10 GPU still holds a large advantage over the M4 Max. Apple claims this workload will perform significantly better on the most recent M5 Max with its latest GPU architecture.

Beyond its impressive raw performance with LLMs and in general processing tasks, the Mac Studio is a master class in industrial design. It looks distinctly classy on a desk, and its cooling design keeps it incredibly quiet. Under load, it’s barely louder than the Nvidia GB10-powered Dell Pro Max and Ryzen AI Halo are at idle. And when the Studio itself is idling, it’s practically silent. This level of performance in such a compact, quiet, and refined chassis is incredibly impressive.

There’s one major asterisk, though: the ongoing RAMpocalypse means that even if you do want to use a Mac Studio as a foundation for your local LLMs, these systems are no longer available in the configuration that we tested.

A Studio with the high-end M4 Max as seen in this review currently tops out at 64GB of RAM for $5299, and the M3 Ultra version tops out at 96GB (with an even higher 819GB/s of memory bandwidth) for the same price. But neither of these configurations are available from stock, and lead times for both are about two months out, meaning that you practically can’t buy a Mac Studio new right now.

If you really want to try out local AI on Apple Silicon with a large memory pool to match, the best current option may be a MacBook Pro with an M5 Max inside, which is still readily available from stock, still allows you to get up to 128GB of RAM, and benefits from Apple’s latest GPU architecture with dedicated Neural Accelerators for matrix math operations.

But depending on your SSD choice, a 128GB M5 Max MacBook Pro with the highest-end 16-core CPU and 40-core GPU is still a $7K to $10K system today. Even in today’s world of rising prices for access to frontier models, that’s a lot of tokens from the cloud – and, almost assuredly, more intelligent ones – than anything you can get from a single 128GB system from any vendor.

But if you’re dead-set on a single Apple Silicon system with the most memory possible, and you want it now in order to ride the local AI wave, a maxed-out M5 Max MacBook Pro is your only ticket at the moment. Given the refinement and flexibility of the Mac Studio as a desktop or server, we can only hope Apple brings that chip to this system, too.

TOPICS
Jeffrey Kampman
Senior Analyst, Graphics

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).

    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.
    Reply
  • 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
    splus 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?
    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
    Reply
  • splus
    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
    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.
    Reply
  • 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.

    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 🤷‍♂️
    Reply
  • Bikki
    @Jefferey Lamma.cpp does not natively support mlx, it supports metal but not Mlx. Ollama or Llm studio do.

    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
    Reply