Sounds like MBA is the right level for youThe 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.
Nope, I think it’s a very carefully planned job to squeeze profits or to scale up better.Whole thing stinks of rush job TBH.
M1 MacBook Air is still a helluva laptop, but even more so at the sub-$1000 price-point.And yet still M1 macbook 8gb bought at 800$ kick ass of everything in photoshop, capture one... People buy smart and what you truely need![]()
Whoa. This report seems to show the old switcharoo is back.
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, according to 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 M3 Max, Apple says it is capable of "up to 400GB/s," which is because the 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 iteration.
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 chose to emphasize the power of the new M3 Pro and M3 Max chips by repeatedly comparing them to the M1 Pro and M1 Max, rather than its 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
Or perhaps, more accurately, Apple is hitting the same design limitations that Intel and others in the industry are facing (coupled with losing a fair amount of top chip design talent to Nuvia).Apple destroyed Intel and has since adopted Intel's profit-maximizing, slow-walk, tech strategy.
You’ll likely see the much more capable M2 model, drop to sub $1000 for Black Friday.M1 MacBook Air is still a helluva laptop, but even more so at the sub-$1000 price-point.
This is the first time the Pro and Max have been differentiated in terms of CPU performance. Something that slipped past most people is that while the M3 Pro remains a 12 core chip it has a 6/6 performance/efficiency core count versus the 8/4 count of the M2 Pro. Part of me wonders if that, coupled with using triple channel vs quad channel RAM is the reason behind the changes to memory bandwidth.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.
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
Especially for the iMac since this upgrade was minimal.The best is to buy M1 in clearance
I heard this is the best chip they’ve ever made!
I think Apple realized the 3nm node wasn't as great as they were expecting and the die was cast so might as well release these before the end of the year. I think if the M3 had kick-butt performance (30+% improvement) Apple would have held a big daytime event in January to launch these chips and not a nighttime web-only event.Nope, I think it’s a very carefully planned job to squeeze profits or to scale up better.
Heck, the 15" m2 already did last week at Best Buy.You’ll likely see the much more capable M2 model, drop to sub $1000 for Black Friday.
Might be related to the fact that most of the original chip designers of m1 have now left the company :/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.
You've pretty much answered yourself there. It's a decent upgrade from an M1 or an Intel Mac but only really quite small from M2.very interesting how they compare to M1 not M2, I would love to see why this is , so those of us with m2's don't go out and buy an m3 max studio thinking its going to be a big leap, when in reality its microscopic..
Intel was three generations behind TSMC, so your statement is decidedly less accurate.Or perhaps, more accurately, Apple is hitting the same design limitations that Intel and others in the industry are facing (coupled with losing a fair amount of top chip design talent to Nuvia).