16 M3 max base vs. upgraded compared

[buran-energia]

A comparison between 16 inch M3 max base and upgraded models:

- base/14-core draws less power in benchmarks and therefore make less fan noise, but strangely had a bit worse battery life

I'm more curious about the same tests being done between 16 inch M3 Max 14/30c and 16 M3 pro (pref. 36GB RAM, 1TB). Was it done? If 16 M3 pro is significantly more cool, less noisy and has better battery than even the binned Max, then I'd maybe prefer it over the Max.

 

[FrankySavvy]

Here are the key points of the video above

The full M3 Max Chip (16/40) is:

10.6% Faster - Geekbench Multicore Score
26% Faster - Geekbench Metal Score
25.2% Faster - Cinebench GPU
16.5% Faster - Multicore CPU Performance

Real World Tests

31% Faster - Wildlife Extreme Gaming FPS
3.1% Faster - Blender 3D Rendering
53% Faster - Logic Pro Music Production
6.5% Faster - XCode Programing
4.5% Faster - Lightroom Photo Editing Export
0% Difference - Final Cut Pro Video Render Export


I know they said it wasn't that big of a difference and not to upgrade, but it seems in real world tests for Gaming, Music Production it is a pretty substantial difference. For Programing, Photo Editing, 3D Rendering and Video Editing there are just slight improvements. So it all depends on what you use your computer for.

I am tempted for the gaming improvements as I feel like in the next year triple A games will start to natively come to the Mac, also with options like Crossover and Parallels most games are able to run. I am sick of having a PC just for gaming in the house, I hate windows so much......

 

[EDS66]

A comparison between 16 inch M3 max base and upgraded models:

- base/14-core draws less power in benchmarks and therefore make less fan noise, but strangely had a bit worse battery life

I'm more curious about the same tests being done between 16 inch M3 Max 14/30c and 16 M3 pro (pref. 36GB RAM, 1TB). Was it done? If 16 M3 pro is significantly more cool, less noisy and has better battery than even the binned Max, then I'd maybe prefer it over the Max.

Their recommendations did not make sense. The unbinned one was 11 percent faster in multitasking performance, much better for audio work, and better for gaming (not that matters much.) I think the battery performance results were either a fluke or they did not account for everything in their tests. Of course fan speeds could have had something to do with that.

Saving $500 when spending this amount and not getting the superlative product does not make any sense. Actually, I've noticed that lately their reviews have not not shown the same rigor that the channel had a couple of years ago.

 

[Paul Deemer]

I went with the base max model and have been happy so far. I figured with the base in the 16 inch it would be less of a heater than the full max with 10 more GPU cores and extra 2 CPUs. Anyway I have been very happy with it and plan on using 4tb external drive later on for video editing. The temps just surfing the web and doing normal office tasks are all in the low to mid 30's celsius range. The fans have only come once this week and that was when I ran the 3dmark benchmark and that was only time the fans turned on. I was originally going to get the Fat Max then upgrade to 64 gig ram but I am glad I saved $700 and didn't do it because for my use case I did not need it and its running super cool in the 16 inch model.

 

[EDS66]

I went with the base max model and have been happy so far. I figured with the base in the 16 inch it would be less of a heater than the full max with 10 more GPU cores and extra 2 CPUs. Anyway I have been very happy with it and plan on using 4tb external drive later on for video editing. The temps just surfing the web and doing normal office tasks are all in the low to mid 30's celsius range. The fans have only come once this week and that was when I ran the 3dmark benchmark and that was only time the fans turned on. I was originally going to get the Fat Max then upgrade to 64 gig ram but I am glad I saved $700 and didn't do it because for my use case I did not need it and its running super cool in the 16 inch model.

 

[FrankySavvy]

Just an update for gaming at least. This is what I found in my testing.

I side by side tested a 16" M3 Max with the 14/30 36gb Ram (Silver) and 16" M3 Max with 16/40 48gb Ram (Space Black). This was specifically for gaming.

I have to say there wasn't much of a difference in my testing with the benchmarks and games I had at my disposal. The 3D Mark Wildlife Extreme was the only benchmark with a notable difference. From my experience the standard Wildlife Extreme was more realistic to my findings. Only a negligible FPS boost overall.

Here is what I found:

3D Mark Benchmarks:

3D Mark Wildlife Extreme Unlimited

M3 Max 14/30 - 24221 Score | 145.0 FPS
M3 Max 16/40 - 31718 Score | 189.9 FPS

3D Mark Wildlife Extreme

M3 Max 14/30 - 19652 Score | 117.7 FPS
M3 Max 16/40 - 19999 Score | 119.8 FPS



Dawn of War II Benchmark (Crossover)
1728 x 1117 Resolution - Ultra Settings

M3 Max 14/30 - 23.25 Avg FPS | 45.05 High FPS | 10.05 Low FPS
M3 Max 16/40 - 24.63 Avg FPS. | 46.62 High FPS | 13.91 Low FPS


Dawn of War III Benchmark (Parallels)
1728 x 1117 Resolution - Ultra Settings

M3 Max 14/30 - 39.54 Avg FPS | 86.96 High FPS | 12.39 Low FPS
M3 Max 16/40 - 40.93 Avg FPS | 95.00 High FPS | 16.82 Low FPS


Dawn of War II Benchmark (Native)
2560 x 1600 Resolution - Ultra Settings

M3 Max 14/30 - 113.92 Avg FPS | 255.74 High FPS | 58.12 Low FPS
M3 Max 16/40 - 103.12 Avg FPS | 235.82 High FPS | 46.71 Low FPS


Dawn of War III Benchmark (Native)
2560 x 1600 Resolution - Ultra Settings

M3 Max 14/30 - 46.76 Avg FPS | 60.64 High FPS | 34.62 Low FPS
M3 Max 16/40 - 44.10 Avg FPS | 60.00 High FPS | 30.00 Low FPS


Shadow of the Tomb Raider Benchmark (Crossover)
1728 x 1117 Resolution - High Settings

M3 Max 14/30 - 81 Avg FPS | 104 High FPS | 62 Low FPS
M3 Max 16/40 - 87 Avg FPS | 109 High FPS | 66 Low FPS


Starcraft II Observed (Crossover) - Standard 1v1
1728 x 1117 Resolution - Extreme Settings

M3 Max 14/30 - 32 Avg FPS | 43 High FPS | 19 Low FPS
M3 Max 16/40 - 37 Avg FPS | 51 High FPS | 19 Low FPS


Starcraft II Observed (Native) - Standard 1v1
1920 x 1200 Resolution - Ultra Settings

M3 Max 14/30 - 37 Avg FPS | 119 High FPS | 22 Low FPS
M3 Max 16/40 - 38 Avg FPS | 119 High FPS | 24 Low FPS


Diablo IV Observed (Crossover) - In Dungeon
1728 x 1117 Resolution - Highest Settings

M3 Max 14/30 - 55 Avg FPS | 80 High FPS | 32 Low FPS
M3 Max 16/40 - 58 Avg FPS | 80 High FPS | 34 Low FPS


For the observed findings there was almost no difference in performance as the games were being played. A few FPS differences here and there in the FPS counter. No differences affected gameplay in anyway, only way I could tell the difference was by observing the FPS counter.

What is amazing is all these games are not optimized for Apple Silicon, that shows strong promise for the future of gaming on the Mac!

In conclusion if you're buying the M3 Max 16/40 for gaming, it really is not worth it in real world use. Save the $500-$600 bucks.

 

[Paul Deemer]

Looks like you reversed by mistake the Dawn of War III Benchmark (Native) results? They show opposite of what they should be?

 

[FrankySavvy]

Looks like you reversed by mistake the Dawn of War III Benchmark (Native) results? They show opposite of what they should be?

Nope that's what they were. Here is photo proof.

Space Black is the M3 Max 16/40
Silver is the M3 Max 14/30.

 

[EDS66]

Just an update for gaming at least. This is what I found in my testing.

I side by side tested a 16" M3 Max with the 14/30 36gb Ram (Silver) and 16" M3 Max with 16/40 48gb Ram (Space Black). This was specifically for gaming.

I have to say there wasn't much of a difference in my testing with the benchmarks and games I had at my disposal. The 3D Mark Wildlife Extreme was the only benchmark with a notable difference. From my experience the standard Wildlife Extreme was more realistic to my findings. Only a negligible FPS boost overall.

Here is what I found:

3D Mark Benchmarks:

3D Mark Wildlife Extreme Unlimited

M3 Max 14/30 - 24221 Score | 145.0 FPS
M3 Max 16/40 - 31718 Score | 189.9 FPS

3D Mark Wildlife Extreme

M3 Max 14/30 - 19652 Score | 117.7 FPS
M3 Max 16/40 - 19999 Score | 119.8 FPS



Dawn of War II Benchmark (Crossover)
1728 x 1117 Resolution - Ultra Settings

M3 Max 14/30 - 23.25 Avg FPS | 45.05 High FPS | 10.05 Low FPS
M3 Max 16/40 - 24.63 Avg FPS. | 46.62 High FPS | 13.91 Low FPS


Dawn of War III Benchmark (Parallels)
1728 x 1117 Resolution - Ultra Settings

M3 Max 14/30 - 39.54 Avg FPS | 86.96 High FPS | 12.39 Low FPS
M3 Max 16/40 - 40.93 Avg FPS | 95.00 High FPS | 16.82 Low FPS


Dawn of War II Benchmark (Native)
2560 x 1600 Resolution - Ultra Settings

M3 Max 14/30 - 113.92 Avg FPS | 255.74 High FPS | 58.12 Low FPS
M3 Max 16/40 - 103.12 Avg FPS | 235.82 High FPS | 46.71 Low FPS


Dawn of War III Benchmark (Native)
2560 x 1600 Resolution - Ultra Settings

M3 Max 14/30 - 46.76 Avg FPS | 60.64 High FPS | 34.62 Low FPS
M3 Max 16/40 - 44.10 Avg FPS | 60.00 High FPS | 30.00 Low FPS


Shadow of the Tomb Raider Benchmark (Crossover)
1728 x 1117 Resolution - High Settings

M3 Max 14/30 - 81 Avg FPS | 104 High FPS | 62 Low FPS
M3 Max 16/40 - 87 Avg FPS | 109 High FPS | 66 Low FPS


Starcraft II Observed (Crossover) - Standard 1v1
1728 x 1117 Resolution - Extreme Settings

M3 Max 14/30 - 32 Avg FPS | 43 High FPS | 19 Low FPS
M3 Max 16/40 - 37 Avg FPS | 51 High FPS | 19 Low FPS


Starcraft II Observed (Native) - Standard 1v1
1920 x 1200 Resolution - Ultra Settings

M3 Max 14/30 - 37 Avg FPS | 119 High FPS | 22 Low FPS
M3 Max 16/40 - 38 Avg FPS | 119 High FPS | 24 Low FPS


Diablo IV Observed (Crossover) - In Dungeon
1728 x 1117 Resolution - Highest Settings

M3 Max 14/30 - 55 Avg FPS | 80 High FPS | 32 Low FPS
M3 Max 16/40 - 58 Avg FPS | 80 High FPS | 34 Low FPS


For the observed findings there was almost no difference in performance as the games were being played. A few FPS differences here and there in the FPS counter. No differences affected gameplay in anyway, only way I could tell the difference was by observing the FPS counter.

What is amazing is all these games are not optimized for Apple Silicon, that shows strong promise for the future of gaming on the Mac!

In conclusion if you're buying the M3 Max 16/40 for gaming, it really is not worth it in real world use. Save the $500-$600 bucks.

But what about the fan noise?

 

[zack1234]

Just an update for gaming at least. This is what I found in my testing.

I side by side tested a 16" M3 Max with the 14/30 36gb Ram (Silver) and 16" M3 Max with 16/40 48gb Ram (Space Black). This was specifically for gaming.

I have to say there wasn't much of a difference in my testing with the benchmarks and games I had at my disposal. The 3D Mark Wildlife Extreme was the only benchmark with a notable difference. From my experience the standard Wildlife Extreme was more realistic to my findings. Only a negligible FPS boost overall.

Here is what I found:

3D Mark Benchmarks:

3D Mark Wildlife Extreme Unlimited

M3 Max 14/30 - 24221 Score | 145.0 FPS
M3 Max 16/40 - 31718 Score | 189.9 FPS

3D Mark Wildlife Extreme

M3 Max 14/30 - 19652 Score | 117.7 FPS
M3 Max 16/40 - 19999 Score | 119.8 FPS



Dawn of War II Benchmark (Crossover)
1728 x 1117 Resolution - Ultra Settings

M3 Max 14/30 - 23.25 Avg FPS | 45.05 High FPS | 10.05 Low FPS
M3 Max 16/40 - 24.63 Avg FPS. | 46.62 High FPS | 13.91 Low FPS


Dawn of War III Benchmark (Parallels)
1728 x 1117 Resolution - Ultra Settings

M3 Max 14/30 - 39.54 Avg FPS | 86.96 High FPS | 12.39 Low FPS
M3 Max 16/40 - 40.93 Avg FPS | 95.00 High FPS | 16.82 Low FPS


Dawn of War II Benchmark (Native)
2560 x 1600 Resolution - Ultra Settings

M3 Max 14/30 - 113.92 Avg FPS | 255.74 High FPS | 58.12 Low FPS
M3 Max 16/40 - 103.12 Avg FPS | 235.82 High FPS | 46.71 Low FPS


Dawn of War III Benchmark (Native)
2560 x 1600 Resolution - Ultra Settings

M3 Max 14/30 - 46.76 Avg FPS | 60.64 High FPS | 34.62 Low FPS
M3 Max 16/40 - 44.10 Avg FPS | 60.00 High FPS | 30.00 Low FPS


Shadow of the Tomb Raider Benchmark (Crossover)
1728 x 1117 Resolution - High Settings

M3 Max 14/30 - 81 Avg FPS | 104 High FPS | 62 Low FPS
M3 Max 16/40 - 87 Avg FPS | 109 High FPS | 66 Low FPS


Starcraft II Observed (Crossover) - Standard 1v1
1728 x 1117 Resolution - Extreme Settings

M3 Max 14/30 - 32 Avg FPS | 43 High FPS | 19 Low FPS
M3 Max 16/40 - 37 Avg FPS | 51 High FPS | 19 Low FPS


Starcraft II Observed (Native) - Standard 1v1
1920 x 1200 Resolution - Ultra Settings

M3 Max 14/30 - 37 Avg FPS | 119 High FPS | 22 Low FPS
M3 Max 16/40 - 38 Avg FPS | 119 High FPS | 24 Low FPS


Diablo IV Observed (Crossover) - In Dungeon
1728 x 1117 Resolution - Highest Settings

M3 Max 14/30 - 55 Avg FPS | 80 High FPS | 32 Low FPS
M3 Max 16/40 - 58 Avg FPS | 80 High FPS | 34 Low FPS


For the observed findings there was almost no difference in performance as the games were being played. A few FPS differences here and there in the FPS counter. No differences affected gameplay in anyway, only way I could tell the difference was by observing the FPS counter.

What is amazing is all these games are not optimized for Apple Silicon, that shows strong promise for the future of gaming on the Mac!

In conclusion if you're buying the M3 Max 16/40 for gaming, it really is not worth it in real world use. Save the $500-$600 bucks.

how is the battery life on both and which ones better.

 

[Appletoni]

how is the battery life on both and which ones better.

That' a very good question.
Can somebody do the Stockfish 14.1 benchmark? Then we will find it out:

What will a MacBook 2024 offer compared to the high-end maxed out laptops 2024?

It was 2013 when i upgraded from 4 to 8 GB. And 2021 when i got 16GB. So i guess it will be another 30+ years till i will be in need for that 3 digits amount of ram

forums.macrumors.com