The bandwidth isn't exactly the same. It's a bit more nuanced. OWC has a good writeup of why they don't make Thunderbolt 4 storage, only docks. https://www.owc.com/blog/whats-the-difference-between-thunderbolt-3-and-thunderbolt-4
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple M3 Pro Chip Has 25% Less Memory Bandwidth Than M1/M2 Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The bandwidth isn't exactly the same. It's a bit more nuanced. OWC has a good writeup of why they don't make Thunderbolt 4 storage, only docks. https://www.owc.com/blog/whats-the-difference-between-thunderbolt-3-and-thunderbolt-4
So next year they can say "The M4 Pro has 33% more memory bandwidth than the M3 Pro".
So the lowest cost to get into a M3Pro is $2k... if you don't want to get that bandwidth hit and go M3Max the lowest costs jumps to $3200... so basically right now unless you *REALLY* need all the juice you can get they way to go is a M2Max (which I've seen for 3K Eur... that includes a 21% VAT).
I've got a Max'd out M1 and it's still more than I need for heavy development and design work... I've made the joke that this will last me until 2025... though will be semi-retired before then
I've got a Max'd out M1 and it's still more than I need for heavy development and design work... I've made the joke that this will last me until 2025... though will be semi-retired before then
If Apple “crippled” the M3 Pro to “force” people to buy the M3 Max, what will they do with all the M3 Pro chips they produced? Flush them down the toilet?
I'm guessing they are pushing the M1 to M3 comparison in part because they are focusing on (1) people still on Intel-based Macs who remain on the fence about moving to Apple Silicon; and (2) to entice those using M1-series Macs who want more memory or performance for what they already do to move to M3. It is not necessary for most M2-using folks to upgrade at this time.
Work laptops are supposed to last 2-3 yrs. The best combo is an m2 mac mini and a Lenovo Legion gaming laptop with a 4k monitor with KVM switch and high refresh rate. Work and play is so much fun. Add Gamepass and you have everything you need.
only in the < 1TB modules.
Most pushing the SSD would have gotten larger than 512gb base version that's why not many noticed it.
Can you elaborate? If I can get an M3 Max device with the higher memory bandwidth for $3200, why is it the obvious choice to go with an M2 Max device for $3000?
Or…indulge me here…Apple wants people to buy the mid-range options as well because otherwise they’d be wasting a lot of money producing those items.
Hardly
A lot of people I know have an air and biggest complaint would be lack of pro motion
So now there's the entry level for you to purchase. Again look at $, it's cheaper than last year. Those in those group will be going from considering an 8gb air to an 8gb pro so memory won't be an issue. Ok so there's also 1 fan so potentially if your needs on the Mac get a bit more extensive you have that covered more than on an air that will throttle. Seems a bit more future proof.
Another group who would be getting the base 512, 16gb entry level m2 would now consider paying a bit more for the space black model because the base doesn't have enough ram, you on paper get an updated m3 chip and its not that much more.
If anything I see the airs now always being one processor behind
Chances are we'll see a Mac event next Oct/November where the airs get a m3 and the pros move to m4s.
I don’t think these chips being on a yearly release schedule is good. 18-24 months seems like it would work better
The people mad about this are presumably also mad that they got screwed out of 2nm as well 👀🤣
It seems fairly cut and dry to me. Apple has been countering decreasing unit sales by increasing average selling price since at least 2015 (I first noticed this with the $100 increase between the iPad Air 2 and 9.7" iPad Pro) and has now spread to most product categories Apple sells. The fact they've stopped reporting sales numbers in earnings reports and now only report revenue adds weight to this. Everything Apple does in the last 8-10 years is about maximizing revenue, even going so far as to design and produce a new 14" MBP case for the M3 version so they could cut out the 3rd USB port...
The mid-range ones won't end up in land-fill because people will buy them and they do have use cases (and Apple will tweak production to match demand).
Word is the yields on the 3nm wafers are awful to the point that TSMC is eating the cost that Apple would normally pay for the non-functioning chips. If Apple had to pay these wafer costs, the M3 SOCs would be too expensive to put in any product and keep their high profit margins. So what to do? They take advantage of TSMC, underclock the chips, and roll out “shiny new” stuff that’s only incrementally better. Everybody gets screwed, and Apple keeps its high profit margins.
Last edited:
They do it so in next year's M4 Pro presentation they can say "M4 Pro has 25% more bandwidth than M3 Pro!"
It's up from 32.
But, yeah, going further than 36 is quite pricey. You have to either get the Max for $400, then the 96 GiB for another $800 ($1200 total). Or, if you don't want that much RAM, you have to get the 16-core Max, which gives you 48 for $700.
Unit sales haven't been decreasing, certainly not since 2015. They have been decreasing a little compared to the early COVID days, sure.
Looks like aggressive binning. They're shipping M3 with 8/10/11/14/16 CPU cores and 10/14/18/30/40 GPU cores.
Along with the two-tiered bus speeds for the Max (384bit / 512bit), it does seem like they're trying to maximize the value they get out of their chip yields by tiny increments.
Along with the two-tiered bus speeds for the Max (384bit / 512bit), it does seem like they're trying to maximize the value they get out of their chip yields by tiny increments.
I wonder if the limitations are for thermal or battery life reasons? If they can get the same performance with cashing and cut down the memory clock, could they save a bit of power?
I think the change in specs is illustrative of Apple's design philosophy rather than some attempt to gimp the lower chips to push people to the upper ones.
It's most likely that Apple has specific performance goals for each model (be 10-15% faster than M2) and then scales back additional hardware (in favor of efficiency) when those goals are met.
If they continue to have a steady march of improved real performance vs their previous products, nobody is going to care if they went with 6 efficiency cores vs 4.
It's most likely that Apple has specific performance goals for each model (be 10-15% faster than M2) and then scales back additional hardware (in favor of efficiency) when those goals are met.
If they continue to have a steady march of improved real performance vs their previous products, nobody is going to care if they went with 6 efficiency cores vs 4.
Sorry - should have been clearer - I meant Apple devices in general. iPad sales peaked with the Air 2, iPhone sales peaked with the 6. I suspect Mac sales may have also slumped back to the Intel days after the combo of Apple Silicon and work-from-home.
Apple iPhone sales worldwide 2007-2023| Statista
The number of Apple iPhone unit sales dramatically increased between 2007 and 2023.
www.statista.com
Apple iPad unit sales worldwide 2010-2018| Statista
This graph shows global sales figures for Apple's iPad from the third quarter of 2010 to the company's most recent financial quarter.
www.statista.com
Thanks for shining a light on the 'why's' of it all, I was disappointed the main article just listed changes without much comment. As you say, remains to be seen how these changes play out in performance. Would like to think Apple had good reasons for it all.
Is it possible that less bandwidth is needed or even possible because the data moves much faster across the smaller chip?