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's New MacBooks With M3 Chips Offer Up to 22 Hours of Battery Life
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
22 hrs, only on Apple TV app. UP TO 15 hrs for wireless web and only on the M3 model. For Pro and Max that drops to 12 hrs wireless web—10 hrs less than the marketing would give the impression of.
Hmm… the current *M2* 15” MBA has the exact same wireless web browsing battery life as the *M3* 14” MBP!
See https://www.apple.com/mac/compare/?modelList=MacBook-Air-M2-15,MacBook-Pro-14-M3
Up to 15 hours wireless web
Up to 15 hours wireless web
That's disappointing. Was hoping for a clear advantage with the M3. (Understand the explanations or rationalizations for why it's not, but still…) (Also, couldn't help but notice that many of the rationales are post hoc, post event, ones!)
The difference arises in Apple TV movie playback.
15”: Up to 18 hours Apple TV app movie playback
14”: Up to 22 hours Apple TV app movie playback
I supposed for people who binge TV shows most of their weekends that will make a difference! 😁
However, I didn’t realize that’s who or what the Pro series was for! 🙈 (Just kidding!)
Of course, the battery life of M1-M2-M3 is incredible, anyway… and the latest specs are with faster processors and brighter screens, so a net plus.
The scary crazy thing about that, is no one would care about having to get 48GB if the prices Apple charged for RAM and SSD weren't scary insane.well my M2 MAX that's only 7 days old just went back for a FULL refund... now I just have to wait for my space black M3MAX, which I have noted has gone up 2K in price as you cant get them under 48GB of RAM now.
I was actually thinking about getting my son a new MBA to replace his ~2014 MBA, but he doesn't really need it, and when I realised that I wouldn't feel right in buying it if I didn't get at least 16GB/1TB, and then the price tag that actually comes with, I just canned the idea.
I can only assume that Apple have done the maths to work out that they make more profit with less sales at scary insane margins, than if they sold a lot more machines at a reasonable margin.
They do, however, lose a damn lot of goodwill and brand loyalty with such greed. I would dance and cheer if a genuine competitor ever emerged.
Aaaaahhh, so that was the "scary fast" part. The actual length of the event.
Yeah, we already did that applauding when M1 came out.
Now we are scratching our heads wondering what the "scary fast" part was supposed to be.
And still wondering what the hell is with the scary insane RAM/SSD upgrade prices.
$2000 is the lowest price for a Macbook which can support 2 external displays, I'm going to have to pass again. Maybe the M4 mac will be the one for me
I think Scary Fast was focusing on the GPU's which got quite an upgrade. The RAM and SSD prices are for extremely fast memory and SSD's. They buy that at least a year in advance, and order from the manufacturer to have stock for at least a year of sales. This is because they need to do extensive testing, and can't easily switch or run after the spot prices today. Also, they make a cheap stock model, as there are many that buy this for simple tasks and don't need large RAM or SSD. I still have not found any other laptops, at lower prices that have the same speed and quality components.
"The RAM and SSD prices are for extremely fast memory and SSD's"
Yeah nah. There is nothing particularly fast about Apples RAM and SSDs these days. Nope, they are simply charging 4.5x the retail price for similar quality/speed SSD's, and more or less the same markup for RAM.
I'm not talking about other laptops, I have no idea what they have. I'm talking about off the shelf parts from my local umart.com.au (a successful, long running, physical/online computer part chain store here in Australia).
They specifically claimed same performance at half the power, compared to M1.
Without checking, my gut feeling is that what we are seeing is that the CPU power usage is so low already with the M1, that it's no longer the main culprit of battery usage. So further gains don't show up as significantly in real-world use.
I don't think they're going to be upgrading the Airs anytime soon. This new lineup looks like they will be keeping the air always on the last generation chip, and bumping the Pro up to the newest one each time a new chip comes out. So for example, they will upgrade the M2 air to M3 only when the M4 chip comes out. That would make sense, as it gives a good reason for the $600 price gap between Air and Pro, and Air users don't need the absolute newest chip.
Well, that is my point. These are not off-the-shelf items. The memory is embedded with the CPU inside the SOC, this increases the bandwith and makes the memory access fast. This will be the future direction of other SOC makers and separate memory modules will become a thing of the past.
Think of it as buying a car, you wouldn't complain that the Tesla costs more than the Kia, although both get you from A to B.
I don't understand all the complaints? The only part of all of this is that all the people on this site who kept the mantra that 3nm will be a huge upgrade over M1/M2. I kept trying to temper people's expectations because they were unrealistic.
But Boo to me for even thinking that a jump from 5nm to 3nm would not be earthshaking like going from Intel to M1.
Apple has squeezed all the efficiency they can but also need to compete on raw performance so they can't have both.
From now on we will be looking at incremental upgrades and even when you are on a new smaller process it is not a guarantee that it is a good process. Current yields on TSMC first revision of 3nm is not good otherwise we would be seeing all Macs including the airs with M3.
It is highly likely that most of what people are expecting in M3 will really be in M4 once they optimize and get all the kinks out of the 3nm process.
The memory bandwidth games Apple is playing by lowering the bandwidth may have to do with the poor yields and heat and battery consumption. Higher bandwidth eats up battery life a lot.
I think Apple actually if you think about is trying to give people more options, cutting costs where it can and at the same time not increasing pricing in a time where they certainly had to pay more to create the same products as last year. So Apple took a small hit in margins.
People seem to continue to forget Apple ram and SSD are not just added later but a part of the chip during manufacturing. This is more costly than a PC where you have socketed ram/SSD even if they are soldered. So yes, ram and SSD upgrades are scary expensive but if you want the extra bandwidth and ram/storage it isn't cheap nor a simple off the shelf part.
Since ram is non negotiable I would always add that but ssd storage can be easily augmented by a portable SSD.
To me I think the pricing isn't a problem and I am extremely happy with a 14" Pro with a regular M3 chip. To me this is the machine I have been waiting for.
But Boo to me for even thinking that a jump from 5nm to 3nm would not be earthshaking like going from Intel to M1.
Apple has squeezed all the efficiency they can but also need to compete on raw performance so they can't have both.
From now on we will be looking at incremental upgrades and even when you are on a new smaller process it is not a guarantee that it is a good process. Current yields on TSMC first revision of 3nm is not good otherwise we would be seeing all Macs including the airs with M3.
It is highly likely that most of what people are expecting in M3 will really be in M4 once they optimize and get all the kinks out of the 3nm process.
The memory bandwidth games Apple is playing by lowering the bandwidth may have to do with the poor yields and heat and battery consumption. Higher bandwidth eats up battery life a lot.
I think Apple actually if you think about is trying to give people more options, cutting costs where it can and at the same time not increasing pricing in a time where they certainly had to pay more to create the same products as last year. So Apple took a small hit in margins.
People seem to continue to forget Apple ram and SSD are not just added later but a part of the chip during manufacturing. This is more costly than a PC where you have socketed ram/SSD even if they are soldered. So yes, ram and SSD upgrades are scary expensive but if you want the extra bandwidth and ram/storage it isn't cheap nor a simple off the shelf part.
Since ram is non negotiable I would always add that but ssd storage can be easily augmented by a portable SSD.
To me I think the pricing isn't a problem and I am extremely happy with a 14" Pro with a regular M3 chip. To me this is the machine I have been waiting for.
M3 Pro Has Fewer Performance Cores, Lower Memory Bandwidth Than Previous-Generation M2 Pro, Indicating A Notable Downgrade
The M3 Pro might be fabricated on the cutting-edge 3nm process, but in specifications, Apple has downgraded the SoC compared to the M2 Pro
wccftech.com
It's not the same product. None of us know what the actual markup is, and the quality of any component isn't defined solely by type and amount. You just look at type and amount and determine it's the same. It's a perception thing reallyl. People happily pay similar amounts extra for ultra-speed RAM modules, because what they perceive is a different product. Holding it in your hand, you can see the extra cooling etc, and understand what you are paying for. With Apple, you just have a number on a piece of paper, which is not as satisfying. That doesn't mean that their markup is whichever number you just made up.
If Apple allowed you to use "off the shelf" components, the performance would be less, because the RAM would reside outside the SoC. I focus on the actual performance of the complete product, because with Apple, that's what you're buying. I don't care what the margin is on any individual part that goes into the product. Why should I?
You have a very nice Jobs quote in your signature, which I wholly agree with. Try applying that to being a customer: Stop focusing on whether the company makes money off of you, and start focusing on whether you are getting a good product for your money.
I'm looking at it this way: Imagine we agree that a 30% margin (margin, not markup) is "reasonable". Company A is very efficient in design and manufacturing, and sells you a product with a 60% margin. We don't buy that product, because their margins are unreasonable. Company B is inefficient in design and manufacturing, so they sell you a worse product at the same price, with 20% margin. We buy that product, because they priced it so they don't get rich from your money. Which was the better purchase? (In my line of business, this example is very much not exaggerated).
There are around five companies that make DRAM / NAND modules, like SK Hynix, Micron, and Samsung. They're all the same stuff at each respective tier.
Edit: duh.
Last edited:
OMG, Apple's SSD's are NOT super-duper, impressively fast. They are merely mid-upper range. The RAM they use is either the latest and greatest LPDDR RAM, or for some machines, the previous generation, so again, nothing special.
Yes, the RAM is on SoC, and I'm sure that helps with speed, but not by a great deal. The SSD's are NOT on SoC, they are an external chip, soldered to the motherboard for most Macs, except in the case of the Ultra, in which case they are plug in (but proprietary Apple chips, so you can't just self upgrade). I assume the Mac Pro is the same, but I don't know.
Putting the RAM on SoC probably does help speed, and I have no idea by how much, but I suspect by not as much as you are imagininge.
As for the 4.5x markup, that was me being generous, and based on a Samsung T7 2TB USB-C Portable SSD which I recently bought. It includes a quality aluminium case, and highish-speed USB-C cable. I recently saw a YT vid talking about this very topic, and he showed an SSD sodimm (I can't recall the particular one, but it was a high performance SSD) on Amazon, which was ~9x cheaper, and several times faster than Apple's SSD's.
The markup multiplier I am quoting is comparing single-unit, consumer, retail price. The actual markup Apple would be applying on the mass-wholesale prices they would be negotiating, would be many times more than what I am comparing to.
"You have a very nice Jobs quote in your signature, which I wholly agree with. Try applying that to being a customer: Stop focusing on whether the company makes money off of you, and start focusing on whether you are getting a good product for your money."
Well, that is the question isn't it, what is the ROI for buying these machines. As a software engineer, it is good enough for me to buy one. However, I still find it offensive that they charge so much for SSD/RAM upgrades.
And because of the price of the SSD/RAM upgrades, the 13" MBA that I would like to buy for my son, is simply not going to happen. If their SSD/RAM upgrades simply did have the 30% business margin that you say is reasonable, then the price for the spec of machine that I would want for him, would actually be doable, and I'd be buying it for him.
It's nobody else's fault if you buy a laptop and use it as a desktop. I move around all day, every day and I rely on my mac's battery. It's the only reason I'm considering buying a new M3 as the previous one - while still powerful - can't even survive half a day anymore. I drag around a 27200mAh USB-C extra battery to be able to do at least some of my work daily.
Still haven't figured out why people buy stuff they don't need. There's the iMac for those who want to sit by the desk all day.
Always the best argument: I saw something somewhere but can't remember what it was but it was amazing and so much better than anything anyone's ever see. Or at least better than anything since sliced bread. Also, comparing apples to oranges is usually not very fruitful (pun intended).