Apple M3 Pro Chip Has 25% Less Memory Bandwidth Than M1/M2 Pro

[MacRumors]

Apple's latest M3 Pro chip in the new 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro has 25% less memory bandwidth than the M1 Pro and M2 Pro chips used in equivalent models from the two previous generations.

Based on the latest 3-nanometer technology and featuring all-new GPU architecture, the M3 series of chips is said to represent the fastest and most power-efficient evolution of Apple silicon thus far. For example, the 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro with M3 Pro chip is up to 40% faster than the 16-inch model with M1 Pro, according to Apple.

However, looking at Apple's own hardware specifications, the M3 Pro system on a chip (SoC) features 150GB/s memory bandwidth, compared to 200GB/s on the earlier M1 Pro and M2 Pro. As for the M3 Max, Apple says it is capable of "up to 400GB/s." This wording is because the less pricey scaled-down M3 Max with 14-core CPU and 30-core GPU has only 300GB/s of memory bandwidth, whereas the equivalent scaled-down M2 Max with 12-core CPU and 30-core GPU featured 400GB/s bandwidth, just like its more powerful 12‑core CPU, 38‑core GPU version.

Notably, Apple has also changed the core ratios of the higher-tier M3 Pro chip compared to its direct predecessor. The M3 Pro with 12-core CPU has 6 performance cores (versus 8 performance cores on the 12-core M2 Pro) and 6 efficiency cores (versus 4 efficiency cores on the 12-core M2 Pro), while the GPU has 18 cores (versus 19 on the equivalent M2 Pro chip).

Additionally, while the M3 chip's 16-core Neural Engine has the same number of cores as the one Apple featured in the 3nm-based A17 Pro chip that debuted in the iPhone 15 Pro series in September, it's comparatively weaker on paper in terms of maximum achievable throughput, which is measured in trillions of operations per second (TOPS).

According to Apple, the M3 Neural Engine is capable of 18 TOPS, whereas the A17 Pro Neural Engine is capable of 35 TOPS. It's hard to say for certain, but it is possible that the iPhone 15 Pro requires a higher performing Neural Engine for features like computational photography and Face ID, whereas the M3 can compensate in other areas like machine learning by utilizing its additional GPU cores.

Taken together, it's presently unclear what real-world difference these changes make to M3 performance when pitted against Apple's equivalent precursor chips in various usage scenarios, especially given that the latest processors include new Dynamic Caching memory allocation technology which ensures that only the exact amount of memory needed is used for each task.

This opaqueness is not helped by the fact that Apple advertises the power of the new M3 Pro and M3 Max chips by repeatedly emphasizing comparisons to the M1 Pro and M1 Max, rather than the more recent M2 variants, against which performance gains appear more modest. Hopefully we will learn more in time when the first thoroughgoing third-party benchmarks become available.

The new MacBook Pro models are available to order now, and they will begin arriving to customers and launch in stores on Tuesday, November 7. Be sure to check out our MacBook Pro announcement coverage for all the details.

Article Link: Apple M3 Pro Chip Has 25% Less Memory Bandwidth Than M1/M2 Pro

 

[ProfessionalFan]

This is a move to push people towards the Max I guess

 

[MarcoPohlo]

This is a move to push people towards the Max I guess

I have to pick max if only for the sheer CPU core count itself. They succeeded.

 

[widestload]

Well they don't want to make it too good do they, otherwise where would then M4 have to go for its gains? (Sorry, I'm cynical )

 

[iMean]

Hmm...so when the M8 arrives, there will be 40 efficiency cores and 0 performance cores 🧐

 

[everlast3434]

I heard this is the best chip they’ve ever made!

 

[MrGimper]

Whole thing stinks of rush job TBH.

 

[iLuddite]

So Halloween it’ll make you go, “boo.”

 

[kiranmk2]

The mid-range models are too good, so they are nerfing them to push people to spend more on the top end models. Clearly done to boost the revenues in the short term in the face of declining sales (via increased revenue per device).

As I have said before (and will say again), this strategy does work well if you are popular and make good products, but eventually you will push people past the point where they are willing to spend more and sales/revenue will fall off a cliff.

 

[return2sendai]

7K for a laptop? Hello Cliff.

 

[pappl]

- Still 8GB base RAM
- IMHO Minor performace upgrades compared to other systems (not Intel base systems but nVidia systems)
- Still no AV1 Encoder 🤦‍♀️
- Reduced mem bandwith

Come on, where is the PRO?

nVidia was way ahead compared to M2, i don't see any change with M3.
This will not end well, and all the marketing ********ting (see event intros) make me angry.

 

[kiranmk2]

Well they don't want to make it too good do they, otherwise where would then M4 have to go for its gains? (Sorry, I'm cynical )

They're not doing this to boost the M4: they're much shorter term than that. This is to push people to spend more than they would have on the M2 range. People who got enough performance from the M2 Pro are now "encouraged" to spring for the Max chip. People who were likely to go for the 13" MBP with M2 are now pushed towards the M3 MBP (or M3 Pro MBP) for "just a few $100 more" and even people who were looking at the 15" MBA are now being steered towards the M3 MBP to get sustained performance, promotion screen, multi-monitor support for just an inch less screen and 40 g more weight.

 

[Jony Ive and Co.]

This is outrageous. Apple should improve raw specs with every iteration, not go backwards in terms of memory bandwidth and Neural Engine. I'd expect the number of CPU cores to increase IN ADDITION to performance and efficiency gains for each individual core.

And it's also ridiculous whenever I see them not comparing with the direct predecessor (i.e. M2). They should squarely compare M3 against M2, and this goes for A17 Pro too when they compared it against A14 instead of A16. Same with comparing against "the most popular Windows PC" etc

 

[sirdir]

I disagree! Who thinks 350 vs 400 GB/s is of any importance for his work will get the top tier model anyways.
For 99.9% of the users, it doesn’t make any difference.

 

[DempaX]

I bought MBP because I want to use multiple external screens but not editing vids. Didn't need M2 so picked up a greatly discounted M1 Max config with 32G/1TB which is plenty for me and should last for some more years. The "space black" colour looks nice but M3 Max not worth it to upgrade...for me. Plenty of ppl who will be happy with it though, especially if coming from Intel Mac. Just the pure silence, even under load is a bliss.

I'll probably recommend 14" with M3 Pro base though instead of 15" Air. 15" Air not cheap cheap to upgrade to similar ram/hdd.

 

[RamGuy]

It seems like the architectural difference between M1, M2, and M3 is minuscule. And there is no architectural difference within the same SKU. Going from MX, to MX Pro, to MX Max, to MX Ultra is more or less about upping the core counts, and when this is not possible, they end up fusing multiple SoCs.

Nothing wrong with any of this, of course. But I would have expected more advancement on the architectural part itself. Pretty much all improvements seem linked to improvement in process technique and the possibility of adding more transistors using the same amount of space—barely any improvements to the cores themselves.

 

[whateverest]

Probably a sign for a M4 design with a single max performance core on top. So three different core types as others do as well. Manufacturing process wise, as well as recent low improvement of effifiency / performance cores might require that.

 

[sunny5]

Even Max also has slower bandwidth with a specific option.

 

[brgjoe]

Going to watch this. Am looking at the M3 Pro Chipped Macbook and see if this has any effect on performance. That's why I am waiting to order until some hands on tests get done with this thing.

 

[andrewxgx]

This is a move to push people towards the Max I guess

yep, upselling at its finest
anyone buying, you either go M3 or M3 Max
M3 Pro is basically useless unless you want the GPU power

 

[Matrix1776]

Trick or Treat, Apple went with a trick.

I still ordered a 16” space black Pro. For $2K, I’ll give it a try.

 

[Lihto]

And yet still M1 macbook 8gb bought at 800$ kick ass of everything in photoshop, capture one... People buy smart and what you truely need

 

[prime17569]

Some posters in other places have suggested that this is due to a combination of yield issues + changing the bus width of the RAM + available SKUs of RAM chips.

The M3 Pro and lower-tier Max appear to be using triple-channel RAM as opposed to the quad-channel of previous years.

The tradeoff that Apple seems to have made here is lower bandwidth in favor of more memory (6 or 12 GiB per channel rather than 4 or 8). Whether that is a good tradeoff remains to be seen.

It is also worth mentioning that -- when looking at the die shots from the keynote -- the M3 Pro chip appears to be a completely different chip design that is more similar to the M3 in layout than a cut-down M3 Max.

Notably, the M3 Max retains the cut line in its die that was used in previous generations to make a Pro chip (by cutting off the extra GPU cores). This, and the fact that the Max chip MacBooks will only be available later, may also point to yield issues that required a new design for the Pro chip.

 

[BootsWalking]

Apple destroyed Intel and has since adopted Intel's profit-maximizing, slow-walk, tech strategy.

 

[Substance90]

Early 2022 I got an 16" M1 Max / 32GB / 2 TB for 3900 €
The equivalent model from the M3 line costs 4700 € 🫤