Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

First Geekbench for base M3

cpnotebook80 said:
I noticed that no one mentioned about the openCL scores on Geekbench unless i missed it on here. I do see an openCL scoreif you search for apple m3 and its 92855 almost similar to the Rx 6800XT. It is still below the M2 ultra at 118830. So a 25% difference behind the Ultra and 15% higher than the M2 Max score of 80000 on that same page.
Click to expand...
We don't really talk about OpenGL or OpenCL because those are deprecated legacy technologies in macOS receiving no driver updates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lokkison, cpnotebook80, Populus and 1 other person
Darren.h said:
WOW! so they Goa boost the frequency to a 4GHZ just to squeeze 20 percent more power than the M2.

What a JOKE.

We were all told 3nm was going to be revolutionary and a big performance increase.

Totally over hyped.
Click to expand...
In the jump to 3nm they obviously chose EFFICIENCY as their main benefit. Hence being able to up the frequency to 4.05 MHz for the increased performance whilst keeping power draw the same… Think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: That70sGAdawg
cpnotebook80 said:
I noticed that no one mentioned about the openCL scores on Geekbench unless i missed it on here. I do see an openCL scoreif you search for apple m3 and its 92855 almost similar to the Rx 6800XT. It is still below the M2 ultra at 118830. So a 25% difference behind the Ultra and 15% higher than the M2 Max score of 80000 on that same page.

For the metal scores, i do not see any yet, but from the site the M2 ultra is at 208621 and M2 max at 131851 but the leaked metal score shows 158466, 27% behind the M2 ultra and close to 18% ahead of the M2 Max. Of course we compare desktop vs notebook performance but overall gpu is 15-18% than M2 max i guess in opencl and metal that too being compared against the higher end M3 Max version one would think.
Click to expand...
The figures for Apple chips in the OpenCl and Metal tables can be misleading because of the fact that there are different versions of each chip.

I’m pretty sure that this figures of 208,621 for the M2 Ultra, for example, is a "blended" figure based on both 60 and 76 core versions. There are distinct values for each version in the GB 'Mac benchmarks' section (220,000 for 76 cores). Whereas the thirty or so GB6 Compute scores (OpenCL and Metal) for the Mac15,9 with the M3 Max all seem to be the 16/40 core version.

The Metal scores for the 16/40 M3 Max are in the range 152-158,000, so less than 10% above the higher-tier M2 Max (144,000 for the Studio).
 
Neon_M said:
First M3 Pro Multi-Core score from Geekbench: 15173

Mac15,6 - Geekbench

Benchmark results for a Mac15,6 with an Apple M3 Pro processor.
browser.geekbench.com browser.geekbench.com
Click to expand...
Interesting...definitely feel a tiny bit better now about my M3 Pro purchase. Based on this score the M3 Pro beats the M2 Max....I think thats pretty good, but I can understand if some people would be disappointed and expecting more.
 
great result for the M3 Pro. Here you can really see the effect of the 3nm process with a nice balance with some additional speed and less power. Product differentiation is also better now with 3 distinct chips.
 
Screenshot 2023-11-05 at 11.10.17.png
I have compiled the averages and comparisons to previous two gens on same/similar chassis. Wish we had the binned M3 Pro already, but rough math shows it will be slightly lower than M2 Pro full.

I think overall this gen’s improvement is great. The Pro becomes more of a general purpose tier with potentially better battery life than previous.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: wojtek.traczyk, DrunkenHercles, Chuckeee and 4 others
Chancha said:
Is there? By binned I mean the 11core version with one less P core. The score with full 12 cores is already listed in my table.
Click to expand...
The 11 core version hasn’t yet debuted, but the regular M3 Pro is quite a bit faster than the M2 Pro.
 
altaic said:
The 11 core version hasn’t yet debuted, but the regular M3 Pro is quite a bit faster than the M2 Pro.
Click to expand...
It is a bit, but it is also true that the increase is not by the same margin as previous time. The folks in the front page post are having a blast in that thread now, lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chuckeee
altaic said:
The 11 core version hasn’t yet debuted, but the regular M3 Pro is quite a bit faster than the M2 Pro.
Click to expand...
In single core performance sure, multi core is about the same speed. For a new gen at the same price this isn’t a win.

The pro moved down the product stack and stayed the same price. That’s not a good thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chuckeee and streetfunk
bcortens said:
In single core performance sure, multi core is about the same speed. For a new gen at the same price this isn’t a win.

The pro moved down the product stack and stayed the same price. That’s not a good thing.
Click to expand...
There's also the GPU improvements like RT. 3nm is expensive
 
ggCloud said:
There's also the GPU improvements like RT. 3nm is expensive
Click to expand...
Then why did the m3 get more transistors? Why did they add nearly 30 billion transistors to the max (67 billion in m2 max vs 96 billion in m3 max)?
N3 is expensive but that applies to the whole product stack. Only one product is in a worse position relative to the other products in the stack relative to previous generation, the m3 pro.

As I said in another thread, I believe both, that the m3 pro is a great chip, and that it is a worse value vs the m3 than the m2 pro was vs the m2.
 
bcortens said:
Then why did the m3 get more transistors? Why did they add nearly 30 billion transistors to the max (67 billion in m2 max vs 96 billion in m3 max)?
N3 is expensive but that applies to the whole product stack. Only one product is in a worse position relative to the other products in the stack relative to previous generation, the m3 pro.

As I said in another thread, I believe both, that the m3 pro is a great chip, and that it is a worse value vs the m3 than the m2 pro was vs the m2.
Click to expand...
Because that's how yields work, they clearly wanted more M3 Pro does at a reasonable price.
The M3 Pro is standard in the 14" and 16" than M3 Max.

The M3 will go into 8 different products so they can't skimp on that.
 
ggCloud said:
Because that's how yields work, they clearly wanted more M3 Pro does at a reasonable price.
The M3 Pro is standard in the 14" and 16" than M3 Max.

The M3 will go into 8 different products so they can't skimp on that.
Click to expand...
So basically m3 pro is a compromise product then? The m3 max is better the m3 is better and the pro is worse relative to m3 than m2 pro was relative to m2

You can’t have it both ways, if yeilds matter so much then they should be most concerned with the mainstream product where they will lose the most money. If yields don’t matter because they can’t make the base model worse why are you defending the repositioning of the pro?

Look, as I keep saying, the pro is a great chip, but it is a worse value compared to where it used to be.
 
bcortens said:
So basically m3 pro is a compromise product then? The m3 max is better the m3 is better and the pro is worse relative to m3 than m2 pro was relative to m2

You can’t have it both ways, if yeilds matter so much then they should be most concerned with the mainstream product where they will lose the most money. If yields don’t matter because they can’t make the base model worse why are you defending the repositioning of the pro?

Look, as I keep saying, the pro is a great chip, but it is a worse value compared to where it used to be.
Click to expand...
The M3 Max is their flagship. Compromise on that chip it will effect Mac Studio and Mac Pro. The M3 Ultra is 2 M3 Max's does that's the the M3 Pro is the only odd one out.

That's my guess, we will see how M4 family turns out.
 
ggCloud said:
The M3 Max is their flagship. Compromise on that chip it will effect Mac Studio and Mac Pro. The M3 Ultra is 2 M3 Max's does that's the the M3 Pro is the only odd one out.

That's my guess, we will see how M4 family turns out.
Click to expand...
I would guess that Apple's Mx SoC is still evolving. M1 & M2 likely provided Apple will a lot of how these SoCs are used in the wild and M3 is a fine-tuning of the architecture based on what they have learnt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: streetfunk and leman
Confused-User said:
Perhaps you couldn't tell the difference between a ten minute compile and an eight minute one. But if you're doing builds ten times a day, that's twenty more minutes you're not staring at a wall, playing solitaire, catching up on slack, etc. That's a roughly 4% increase in productivity, and the person paying your salary can see that...

(Yes, the numbers are made up, but the argument stands.)
Click to expand...
Not disagreeing with you. Most of what I build are small services, both locally and remote, in many nvim/tmux panes. If something takes > 5 minutes, I'll offload or automate somehow. So, from my perspective, it's all gravy.

I think as soon as you're doing multiple builds in a day and bottlenecked by your computer for multiple minutes, one can (and should) justify the cost of a Max chipped laptop, let alone a Pro laptop.

If I spec out a 'nicely equipped' dev laptop at what I can spec as "up to 36GB" of memory and a 1TB drive, that comes out to:
- M3 4P/4E/10GPU/24GB/1TB: 2,1999
- M3 Pro 6P/6E/18GPU/36GB/1TB: 2,799
- M3 Max 10P/4E/30GPU/36/GB/1TB: 3,199

Even at a 50% difference in prices from low to high, It's still only a range of $1k! over a year - that's $19 a week or around $4 day. Hell that's justifiable for someone making minimum wage (Apple, feel free to hire me for your cost justification upsell team 🙂). If one can justify a Pro, I'm sure one can justify Max. I'd say even more so with Apple purposefully degrading the Pro as compared to a Max.
 
  • Like
Reactions: streetfunk, mr_jomo and Confused-User
dgdosen said:
Not disagreeing with you. Most of what I build are small services, both locally and remote, in many nvim/tmux panes. If something takes > 5 minutes, I'll offload or automate somehow. So, from my perspective, it's all gravy.

I think as soon as you're doing multiple builds in a day and bottlenecked by your computer for multiple minutes, one can (and should) justify the cost of a Max chipped laptop, let alone a Pro laptop.

If I spec out a 'nicely equipped' dev laptop at what I can spec as "up to 36GB" of memory and a 1TB drive, that comes out to:
- M3 4P/4E/10GPU/24GB/1TB: 2,1999
- M3 Pro 6P/6E/18GPU/36GB/1TB: 2,799
- M3 Max 10P/4E/30GPU/36/GB/1TB: 3,199

Even at a 50% difference in prices from low to high, It's still only a range of $1k! over a year - that's $19 a week or around $4 day. Hell that's justifiable for someone making minimum wage (Apple, feel free to hire me for your cost justification upsell team 🙂). If one can justify a Pro, I'm sure one can justify Max. I'd say even more so with Apple purposefully degrading the Pro as compared to a Max.
Click to expand...
Totally right, and the compile gains for the M3 Max this time are pretty sweet:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back