I meant in general - no matter which generation you are on, you can be pretty confident that 3 years later you still have a good computer. Which allows you to spend a little extra to update the specs, or get an MBP rather than MBA, or get a Mac in the first place rather than a cheap Windows PC. It's healthy for the platform as a whole, to have iterations every year rather than revolutions every third year - even though it may seem more boring.For us M1 Pro owners, yes!Especially those of us that have taken advantage of some really incredible deals on 14 and 16" M1 Pro models these past few months.
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
So 2 years ago memory bandwidth was (supposedly) worth sacrificing repairability for, but now they admit isn't not really a big deal for 99.999% of users...
Stop integrating the bloody RAM for no ****ing reason other than building cheaper stuff and fleecing us! Socket the RAM and storage, or wait for the EU to demand it 😅
Stop integrating the bloody RAM for no ****ing reason other than building cheaper stuff and fleecing us! Socket the RAM and storage, or wait for the EU to demand it 😅
Same here. I have always upgraded my laptops on a 2 two year cycle, but I don't think I need to do that with this one. It's great.
I beg to differ. IMO, nobody should buy the $1,599 M3. It only has 8 GiB RAM. So you're already at $1,799. (If you're OK with just 8, you should probably be getting the Air instead.)
What do the $200 extra for the Pro buy you?
- RAM goes up further, to 18
- Thunderbolt 4 instead of 3; a third Thunderbolt port
- a 5/6 core configuration instead of 4/4
- faster memory
- 14 GPU cores instead of 10
- support for two external displays, not one
My read of the die shots is that it's three different layouts this time.
But then people will have nothing to complain about. Tim didn't announce that every Apple customer was getting a magic pony.. so they're upset.
Exactly. My work Lenovo has 16GB of RAM, and my 8GB M1 still smokes it. The Lenovo is sitting right next to me right now, with a screen not bright enough to comfortably use it at this spot (my kitchen), while my no-fans MBA doesn't even have the brightness all the way up. If I actually start using the Lenovo, the fans will turn on and the screen will dim even further after an hour or so. I'll take a good screen over more RAM 7 days a week. I can wait 3 more seconds for my Excel sheet to load (which is theoretical, because it's actually faster!), but I can't just wait for the Lenovo screen to get brighter. Some people have a "base level" of RAM that they feel they need. I have a "base level" of physical qualities of the computer, that I simply cannot find a Windows PC that meets, regardless of price. Apple "should" give us 16GB as standard? OK, I'll start complaining about that when the competitors give me good screens, a touchpad that actually feels good to use, no fan-noise, decent speakers, and a battery that gets me through the day. And that's just the hardware.
If 16GB was standard, the moaners would just moan about something else, because they are not computer enthusiasts, but moaning enthusiasts.
Rant over (for now).
Exactly! There is more to a computer than RAM. I would never buy base anything from Mac or PC side. But if I did I would prefer the Mac’s screen, build, trackpad, OS itself over some more RAM.
People don't know that because it isn't true they've tierd the SSDs. The 256, 512 and 1Tb system are the same SSD, just there are 1 in 256, 2 in the 512 and 4 in the TB. But it is the same 256 SSD model in each of them.
Do y’all think Apple will put the slower ssd in the base model pro pro or just stick that one in the base model m3?
Huh? You do know new wafers are being fabricated every day, it's not like TSMS has 20M of them sitting on a shelf, so as the sales go so do the production requests. The point is, people who want high performance now have to select the M3Max since the M3Pro is barely more powerful than the current M2Pro. Read the specs for the details.
I just looked at the CPU performance numbers that Apple is claiming for the M3 family and it appears that the base M3 and the M3 Max are both faster than their M2 counterparts. But, that's kind of expected.
However, they omit the CPU performance of the M3 Pro against the M2 Pro and it looks like the M3 Pro CPU isn't any faster than the M2 Pro (perhaps even somewhat slower). So, CPU-wise it looks like the M3 Pro hasn't gained any performance.
This could be because of the slower memory architecture or perhaps because of the change in the mix of performance versus efficiency cores (the M2 Pro was split 8/4, the M3 Pro is split 6/6). Of course, it could be because of both the change in memory and the cores. The base M3 remains 4/4 just like the M2.
For graphics, all of the new M3s are faster (according to Apple).
So, as for peak CPU performance the M3 Pro is definitely not an upgrade over the existing M2 Pro. But, as a total package the M3 Pro probably does do better in terms of performance per watt. That could be okay for MacBook Pro users but not so nice for those looking for a new Mac mini Pro.
However, they omit the CPU performance of the M3 Pro against the M2 Pro and it looks like the M3 Pro CPU isn't any faster than the M2 Pro (perhaps even somewhat slower). So, CPU-wise it looks like the M3 Pro hasn't gained any performance.
This could be because of the slower memory architecture or perhaps because of the change in the mix of performance versus efficiency cores (the M2 Pro was split 8/4, the M3 Pro is split 6/6). Of course, it could be because of both the change in memory and the cores. The base M3 remains 4/4 just like the M2.
For graphics, all of the new M3s are faster (according to Apple).
So, as for peak CPU performance the M3 Pro is definitely not an upgrade over the existing M2 Pro. But, as a total package the M3 Pro probably does do better in terms of performance per watt. That could be okay for MacBook Pro users but not so nice for those looking for a new Mac mini Pro.
For $1799 you do not get a M3 Pro chip, you get the M3. To get the M3 Pro, it's still $1999, which is the same price as M1 Pro and M2 Pro.
Fortunately, I picked up a 14" MBP M1 Pro with 1TB SSD (and extra cpu and gpu cores) for $1399 a month ago from Amazon. I got more for less than $1599 yesterday than I can get today.
Last edited:
Here is a wild idea. What if Apple redesigned the M3 Pro so that it could be used in the iPad Pro? That would kind of make sense, next year they get to announce the new iPad Pro with the M3 Pro instead of the base M3.
Apple claims that the M3 CPU cores can deliver the same performance as the M1 at only half of its power. So, maybe the M3 Pro could be used in the iPad.
This would also allow them to easily increase the memory to 12GB and 24GB over the current 8GB/16GB.
Apple claims that the M3 CPU cores can deliver the same performance as the M1 at only half of its power. So, maybe the M3 Pro could be used in the iPad.
This would also allow them to easily increase the memory to 12GB and 24GB over the current 8GB/16GB.
I still use my ten-year-old MacBook for everything. Sure, I doubled the RAM as insurance when I bought it, but for the most part, it gets the job done. Battery life is fine. So anyone thinking of buying one, you're going to get your money's worth as long as you plan to hold onto it.
Think that was directed to my comment... actually I mentioned 3000Eur (I'm in the EU)... that includes VAT... actually was a bit off... here are the choices... based on this actually the M1 is really the way to go... at least here... in the US YMMV... though older model deals tend to be better back home):
MacBook Pro 14 inch M3 Max 36GB 1TB SSD - 4049 w/VAT (3346 w/o VAT)
MacBook Pro 14 inch M2 Max 32GB 1TB SSD - 3099 w/VAT (2561 w/o VAT)
MacBook Pro 14 inch M1 Max 64GB 2TB SSD - 3099 w/VAT (2561 w/o VAT)
I actually don’t like the new colour, but I totally get your point. I checked what it would cost for le to get a MBP with M3 Pro chip with specs I need, it’s 100€ more now. I’m definitely not regretting my MBP M2Pro. And I’ll be honest, I was getting a little nervous prior to the event.
A lot of people jumping off the bridge before they have any real life benchmarking. I'm not surprised though. It happens every year.
Has this got anything to do with Apple buying the TSMC N3B process rather than the upcoming N3E process? Seems like N3B is more expensive with lower yields hence Apple trimming for cost savings.
Seems a bit strange rushing this out of the gate 10 months after the M2? Apple appeared to be the only manufacturer taking up N3B.
Seems a bit strange rushing this out of the gate 10 months after the M2? Apple appeared to be the only manufacturer taking up N3B.
What I meant is the speeds for SSDs, for example, M1Pros had higher speeds on 512gb storage than M2Pro speeds with the same storage. The read/write speeds have been halved on 512GB SSDs from M1Pro to M2Pro.
Adding hardware mesh and ray tracing is an architectural difference. I'm frankly not sure if the dynamic caching is hardware or software, but I'd have to say hardware.