First Benchmark Results Surface for M3 Chip in New Macs

[MrGimper]

Reading this on my 16" i9 with 64GB RAM and 2TB SSD, which I am surprised still works

TBH I'll probably keep an eye out and jump on an M2/M3 with 32GB and 1TB when the prices drop and/or hit Apple refurb.

 

[polaris20]

Did they discontinue the MacBook Air M1?

Still for sale.

 

[tweaknmod]

How does this compare to a base 14" M1 Pro?

It’s faster.

 

[Username-already-in-use]

So let me get this straight, a laptop with m3 max will be faster than a mac studio with m2 max? Seems like anyone who bought a mac studio m2 max in the past 1-2 months got taken for a ride.

angry about SPEC BUMPS

 

[Allen_Wentz]

It is easy to estimate this.

1. look at Apple's "Activity Monitor" while doing what you normally do with your Mac. Look at the average CPU utilization. Let's say it sits at 10%.
2. Look at the increase in speed of the new CPU. Let's say this is 20%
3. Multiply the two together to see the real-world speedup. In this case, it would be about 2%.

What this means is that if your normal workload does not stress the CPU, a fast CPU is not very important. But if Activity Meter told you that the CPU utilization was about 95% then a 20% faster CPU would give you a 19% real-world speed boost.

It gets worse. Some things can not be sped up. For example, I am right now writing a design document for a software project. A faster CPU will not allow me to write faster. In general, most tasks we do can't be sped up because the speed is limited by the user.

Yes the user's brain is often limiting. But for those doing creative activities like visual design work sometimes a few nanoseconds less latency as an image adjustment processes or whatever can have huge impact on the designer's creative process. Orders of magnitude, not "2%." Which is why visual design folks have always pushed at the hardware envelope.

Folks who do not actually do design work often simplistically look at how fast a video processes or whatever, but it is hella more complex than that. Apple has been fully aware of this since the last century. E.g. the PPC 8500 was a special top end box specifically aimed at graphics users.

 

[netkas]

M1 - 3.2 GHz
M2 - 3.66 GHz
M3 - 4.00 GHz

So half of 20% speed boost is due to higher clocks.
only 10% for wider arch and better branch prediction

 

[ric22]

To me, it would make more sense to put the the plain Jane M3 in the MacBook Air, and have the MacBook Pros have only the Pro and Max versions. That would help differentiate the two lines of laptops.

Also wish the iMac got the Pro and Max. Maybe bring back the iMac Pro at 27" or 32", and do the same thing as the MacBooks: plain Jane in the "regular" iMac and Pro and Max in the iMac Pro.

This is just me daydreaming, and know it'll never happen, but I'd love to see what Apple would do with a blade server setup. From the various graphics Apple has shown of the motherboards of its AS Macs, the motherboard's pretty small. Optimize it for a blade server setup, and you could probably fit a boatload of them in a regular 42U rack.

I agree. Would have been nice if the lowest end "Pro" had pro specs. By the time you have sensible RAM and storage in it, the gimped base Pro isn't much cheaper than the one with the M3 Pro chip.

 

[smulji]

I agree. Would have been nice if the lowest end "Pro" had pro specs. By the time you have sensible RAM and storage in it, the gimped base Pro isn't much cheaper than the one with the M3 Pro chip.

The lowest end Pro does have Pro specs. Just not all of them

 

[eropko]

for me it was 2 pound weight that was huge! i have back pain and it helped out a lot. the macbook pro 14 i carry is 3.5 pounds.

I think Air 13 is just 350 grams heavier.

 

[StudioMacs]

I'm yet to see M1Max running at full fan RPMs, not even speaking about throttling.

You probably can make them throttle, if your daily productivity routine is running furmark non-stop.)

After Effects would like to say Hello

 

[eropko]

I agree. Would have been nice if the lowest end "Pro" had pro specs. By the time you have sensible RAM and storage in it, the gimped base Pro isn't much cheaper than the one with the M3 Pro chip.

Apple marketing usually pushes you into buying middle to high models in lineup. They are always trying to predict and manipulate demand a bit to better manage production and stock.

 

[wilhoitm]

you will be able to buy similar Intel based machines with 14 series processors and Nvidia chipsets. When it comes to getting real computer work done that requires speed.. no one cares about colours and size and power draw.

Speak for yourself. There is no such thing as getting real work done on a Windows machine! Micrososoft can have a chip 10 times as fast, but a horrific User Expereince! Windows has always gotten in its own way!

 

[eropko]

After Effects would like to say Hello

Does it throttle Max chips?

 

[polaris20]

you will be able to buy similar Intel based machines with 14 series processors and Nvidia chipsets. When it comes to getting real computer work done that requires speed.. no one cares about colours and size and power draw.

All the Intel Macs are discontinued though.

 

[ric22]

The lowest end Pro does have Pro specs. Just not all of them

It has *some* pro specs. It's still artificially gimped to make people think the next model up is better value.

 

[woolypants]

I bought my MBP 16in M1 Max a little 15 months ago, and already Apple's two generations ahead of it. OK, so I wasn't a day-one purchaser of the laptop. But I also wasn't buying it years after its release.

I do wonder a little what Apple's aiming for with such rapid hardware iteration.

There must be a grand plan. A destination must be in mind. What is it?

I always thought it would be something to do with AI or VR, but for that to be true, we'd be looking for signs like Apple exponentially boosting the neural engine. That isn't really happening.

I suspect Apple sees this internally as a CPU architecture roll-out. iPhone gets the new architecture first. Pro portable Macs get it next. The reason it's not marketed that way is because nobody would buy a laptop that evolves from a mobile phone chip. Nonetheless, that's what Apple's doing.

 

[PsykX]

The M3 Ultra will be twice as good as the best PC processor and M3 Max will be just as good. 💯

 

[polaris20]

There must be a grand plan. A destination must be in mind. What is it?

Faster computers? I'm just guessing here.

 

[eropko]

I bought my MBP 16in M1 Max a little 15 months ago, and already Apple's two generations ahead of it. OK, so I wasn't a day-one purchaser of the laptop. But I also wasn't buying it years after its release.

It's still a SUPER capable laptop, so why focus on it being "obsolete". It'll be more than enough to carry you through until M6 comes out (or more).

 

[Darren.h]

The chip needed to be increased all the way to 4GHZ just to squeeze 20 percent more power?? M3?

What a joke. Thats where the 20 percent is coming from. The Frequency increase.

Not the switch to 3nm.

APPLE. liars.

 

[Velli]

I bought my MBP 16in M1 Max a little 15 months ago, and already Apple's two generations ahead of it. OK, so I wasn't a day-one purchaser of the laptop. But I also wasn't buying it years after its release.

I do wonder a little what Apple's aiming for with such rapid hardware iteration.

There must be a grand plan. A destination must be in mind. What is it?

I always thought it would be something to do with AI or VR, but for that to be true, we'd be looking for signs like Apple exponentially boosting the neural engine. That isn't really happening.

I suspect Apple sees this internally as a CPU architecture roll-out. iPhone gets the new architecture first. Pro portable Macs get it next. The reason it's not marketed that way is because nobody would buy a laptop that evolves from a mobile phone chip. Nonetheless, that's what Apple's doing.

Why would they have a "destination"? It's all about continuous growth, there is no end. Ever since I started being interested in tech somewhere in the 90's, people have been looking for the "right" time to buy a computer, the point where it stops improving so my new purchase can be the best product for the next five years. Spoiler: It won't happen.

Also: I'd say the Vision Pro is a pretty big "sign" that Apple is making a significant bet on VR.

The last paragraph sounds like you only just realised what Apple's CPU strategy has been for the last three years?

 

[eropko]

The chip needed to be increased all the way to 4GHZ just to squeeze 20 percent more power?? M3?

What a joke. Thats where the 20 percent is coming from. The Frequency increase.

Not the switch to 3nm.

APPLE. liars.

Power consumption allegedly stays the same. So increase of frequency didn't lead to increase in consumption. This is the switch to 3nm.

 

[Velli]

The chip needed to be increased all the way to 4GHZ just to squeeze 20 percent more power?? M3?

What a joke. Thats where the 20 percent is coming from. The Frequency increase.

Not the switch to 3nm.

APPLE. liars.

While people are trying to say that a 6 GHz Intel CPU proves that Macbooks aren't "Pro"

 

[Homy]

So a Macbook with base M3 8 cores at 4.05 GHz and 5W with the single-core score 3076 is close to the best Intel desktop system with i9-14900K 24 cores at 6 GHz and 35W to 78W with 3409? That's 7-15 times less power usage. Like Borat said Naaajjss!

 

[ignatius345]

IMO, we’ve gotten to a point where no one really NEEDS to upgrade if they already bought into Apple Silicon. Buying a Mac has become like buying an iPhone: you can wait and buy it when you need it and not sooner. My M1 machine is still fantastic and I feel no need to upgrade. It will be at least a couple of more years before I buy another Mac.

One thing to consider, though: OS and software upgrades will eat away at your resources over time. My M1 Macs feel great now, but by the time we get to macOS Ojai or whatever in 2025, they may well be "getting slow" as they try to keep up with software bloat. It's happened to me with every Mac I've ever owned, going back more years than I care to admit.