M3 Pro Chip Barely Faster Than M2 Pro in Unverified Benchmark Result

[ender78]

It isn’t about absolute increasss, though those are lower than they should be. It is also about the fact that Apple moved the Pro down the performance stack without changing the price. All the arguments about how N3 cost money apply equally to M3 and M3 Max but we aren’t seeing anyone call for them to be decontented to make up for this cost.

If people were consistent you’d have a point. If Apple had also removed some corres from the base M3 and the Max you’d have a point. Making one of their products worse relative to its position in prior years is not defensible if the same arguments don’t work when looking at the rest of the product stack

You're right about consistency, but there are no fixed tiers. Apple has been heavily criticized in the past for too little differentiation in their line up. Now that they re-arranging the line-up to have better differentiation, they get the same criticism. On the day that they decide to make a purchase, the buyer needs to evaluate their needs and buy the machine that they can afford.

The fact that millions of Mac users are still well served by the Intel machines, proves that the baseline for what most people need for performance is much lower than what some here are asserting is required.

Apple's pricing for SSD upgrades is unreasonable, we are expected to pay far more for the storage than it costs Apple. Apple gets to decide what their products cost. We they buyers of this hardware enable them to do this.

 

[smulji]

Now, with this release, there are four distinct product categories within the laptop lineup. You have 1) students and non-professional users, 2) the entry level Pro for light business users like product managers or marketing people, 3) moderate pro users, and 4) high-end pro users.

You have a point and I get why Apple did what they did but I think this is one too many product lines. Regarding the entry-level pro user, in many (if not most) offices I've worked at these days, people are using two external displays, minimum. That automatically eliminates the MBA / M3 MBP models. So if these users want to use a Mac on the road and at work, they automatically have to jump to the M3 Pro models. I would personally just cap it at 3 lines;

1. Non-professional users (MBA)
2. Prosumers (M3 Pro)
3. High-end pro users (M3 Max)

 

[ender78]

I have 256Gb SSD. 143 Gb free. I even have a Windows virtual machine installed.

With iCloud Drive, iCloud Photo Library, Apple Music and other streaming services, a lot of us don't need local storage.

Lol, how dare you suggest that your use case is viable How do you sleep at night knowing that you could have spent 5x on your machine and have gotten zero performance increase in Safari and Apple Music.

 

[smulji]

The 5-core Pro doesn't really fit a space where anything has been before - it's more than a base chip, but less than the previous smallest Pro.

That model is essentially a binned version.

 

[ender78]

I buy Apple products for home and work purposes knowing they're expensive. I can afford them. 🤷🏼‍♂️ Doesn't mean I'm not intelligent enough to grasp that they're expensive for what they are. I'm sorry for you if you aren't. 😞

And the only person that gets to decide the value of those purchases is you !

 

[smulji]

"So while the M3 Pro is manufactured with TSMC's 3nm process, compared to 5nm for the M2 Pro, the chip's resulting performance gains are diminished due to it having two fewer performance cores. The M3 Pro also has 25% less memory bandwidth and one fewer GPU core compared to the M2 Pro."

The paragraph above is the reason why the difference between M2 Pro and M3 Pro is not that much. I believe, Apple has strategically made the decision to put more mileage between the Pro and Max chips and this will be the path going forward.

Agreed. To add to that, the M3 got a nice performance boost coming from the M2, and even significantly more so when compared to the M1.

 

[MrMacintoshIII]

Someone’s butthurt 😂😂😂

Yup! I wonder who!

 

[smulji]

I honestly think most Mac users don’t care about ‘performance’ or ‘cores’. They want to be seen drinking coffee with the latest MacBook. Only way to show you have the latest is buy black. So base black M3pro will be the biggest seller. Look at MKBHD, he’s even said his current MacBook is great. But he will ‘need’ black. That’s the majority of buyers.

After spending so much on a MBP, how can you afford coffee?

 

[ender78]

Apple has to cut prices if they expect to actually sell these things.

Do they? They sell everyone they can make at these prices.

 

[ender78]

And just like that we're back to the Moore's law

More transistors is not proportional to more raw performance. There are billions of transistors in the various encode engines of the silicon that won't show up on the Geekbench score. Moores Law states that the transistor count doubles every two years not performance.

 

[smulji]

The entire tech space is dunking on Intel's 14th gen processors but Apple will get a pass with M3 being a flop.

Why?

The M3 chip is not a flop though.

 

[ikramerica]

This used to be true, but these days, you can also just buy AppleCare+ as a monthly or annual subscription.

I also can't find it right now, but I believe a recent environmental report of theirs said Macs typically get upgraded every four to five years.

But, yeah, I agree with your point. The key audience for M3 Pro are people who still have an Intel Mac.

For desktop use where it’s a SOHO or single person operation, most won’t upgrade unless:
1. Their workflow is heavily rendering or compiling focused to the point they can get more output with a new machine that makes up for the costs.
2. New essential software versions require a newer machine.
3. The machine is having issues and is out of warranty.
4. The new machine is at least 2x as fast in NORMAL use to make it simply a productivity play.

So if you rely on the machines to output overnight, during lunch, while at a meeting or on a break, etc and the new machine will do that faster resulting in $1000s in man hours saved, then a new machine makes sense.

Or if your workflow speeds up in constant use allowing more actual productivity in a day, it makes sense.

In a larger business, they just buy some machines each year and replace the oldest, sometimes shifting the machines so the mission critical staff has the most powerful if it’s cost effective to use the manpower to make those shifts.

 

[Beau10]

So M3 cores are (~20%) faster, this model is just more of a differentiator from the Max by going all in on the efficiency cores: hopefully this will lead to crazy long battery life if the machine isn't doing performance intensive work, and if it is, the performance will still be amazing. Perfect positioning between the M3 and M3 Max, in my opinion.

Confoundingly it doesn't according to Apple's marketing - the M3 Pro has the same max wireless web rating for both the 14" and 16" as the M2 Pro (12 and 15 hours respectively). Considering this improved by an hour moving from M1 Pro to M2 Pro it's a pretty big letdown.

I imagine there is some improvement in practice, esp. when pushed, but I wouldn't hold my breath for anything substantial.

 

[ender78]

How many decades can you be making laptops and still not figure out an optimal lineup that caters to a broad range of uses. What is their market research department doing?

Apple silicon is theirs and the have so much control. Yet the Mac Pro uses a SoC that limits it in so many ways. They need SoC for some macs and a different design for the higher end for scalability and upgradability.

The market and user needs change so there is no magic "Lineup Formula". Every year what they release is their best EDUCATED attempt at finding that balance.

On a recent WAN SHOW, Linus Sebastien of Linus Tech Tips (one of the most popular YouTube channels covering the PC Scene) admitted that his views on upgradeability were changing. He acknowledges that "most people" never upgrade their computers but simply buy new ones.

The "optimal lineup for a broad range of users" may not have any need for upgradeability.

EDIT: Spelling

 

[ksj1]

I buy Apple products for home and work purposes knowing they're expensive. I can afford them. 🤷🏼‍♂️ Doesn't mean I'm not intelligent enough to grasp that they're expensive for what they are. I'm sorry for you if you aren't. 😞

I buy them because I view them as a value. If you believe they are so expensive, what exactly are you comparing them to?

I ask because there is no comparable product in the PC laptop world. Sure, there are more powerful laptops, but they throttle on battery and still have terrible battery life. There are PC laptops with decent battery life as well, though their performance suffers.

There is also the fact that Mac owners generally get more life out of their purchase.

 

[0lf]

And yet, when a new generation is introduced, we normally expect it to be a straightforward next step, the M3 Pro has too many asterisks to be a straightforward next step.

nope.
You do not ask Apple to make an M3 as a straightforward next step from M1 Max just because it is new gen. Why ? Because you do not identify M1 max user as the target for M3.
Same here. M2 pro users are not the target. It does not have to be straightforward for them.

So, why make the new product ?
M3 and M3 max seems to be more substantial updates. I suppose it is simpler for Apple to move the whole chip family instead of keeping the M2 pro until M4 pro is ready.

Is it a downgrade ? Does people who are looking for a new computer in this performance class have to rush on the remaining M2 pro products ?
It does not seems so.

People does not complain on M2 pro perf, nor battery life. When there is no problem there is no solution. Then comes the complains that apple bring no solution to the non existent problems.

 

[ender78]

Many folks only see Apple as a "do no wrong" company so will defend all the product decisions regardless of how asinine they are. I mean, 8/256 as the base in 2023...

Could it be better, sure, is more than 8GB/256 required for some users, absolutely not. The fact that there is a broad sector of the market where that base configuration is more than what most people need is a realization not an excuse that that config makes sense. No one is forced to buy the base config. Why should those users that don't need more, those that will NEVER use more than 8GB or RAM be forced to buy a machine with a higher base than what they need.

 

[Darajavahus]

Then why M3 Pro have the same battery life as M3 Max?

 

[hans1972]

But you /are/ defending 8/256 even if you don't see that yourself. The component costs from 8 to 16GB and 256 to 512GB are negligible in volume shipments. In fact, component sourcing of lower spec chips is often more EXPENSIVE than volumes of the higher spec part. Apple makes terrible decisions to keep their bottom line profit at the customer's cost.

The reason why we defend 8/256 as the default is because Apple would increase the base price if they startet to include 16/512 as the base.

I would never need 512 and I happy I can have a cheaper Mac instead of being forced to buy more than I need.

 

[ender78]

Posers with MacBooks, absolutely 100 percent. They are a high end consumer good. It’s part of their marketing.

When you buy an Apple product part of the payment you make is the Apple tax for buying “high end”.

Apple has this weird following which no other company really has. It had it way back in the 90s.

Rolex, Mercedes, BMW, Lulu Lemon ... all these companies make a good that can be found cheaper for a "comparable" product.

"High End" for me is a computer that I cannot hear, my i9 MBP sounded like a jet engine when doing ingest in Lightroom, I have NEVER heard my M2 Pro Mac mini. To me there is great value in that silence.

Apple has a loyal following because they make hardware that lasts a very long time. Is it a little bit cultish, sure. Is it founded on a history of making great hardware, I believe it is.

 

[smulji]

The M3 Max sounds amazing. It will help sell a lot more Max Macbooks and Mac Studios. They obviously want more people to upgrade to the Max by trying to reposition the chip triad.
Previously the base Macbook 14" Pro was a far better value than upgrading the base Airs, and especially the 13" "Pro" It was so good that it was a better value than upgrading to the Max. I don't think they want that. They want to reposition each chip to a specific demo to get them to upgrade. At this point, to me, i do not think ANYONE should upgrade to any of the non-Max "Pro" versions. I think most people should just wait for the base M3 Airs and skip the Non-Max pros. ESPECIALLY skip the $1500 Macbook "Pro", I think it's bonkers that YouTubers are pushing this version. Absolutely nuts. If you do not require the performance, skip it and save some money with the M3 Airs.

If you're coming from an M1 Pro or Intel-based Mac, the non-Max pro models are still a great choice. But I do agree your take regarding the $1,600 M3 MBP

 

[smulji]

That's assuming the Air will get the M3 at all. I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't, because yield issues seem to be driving a lot of decisions with the M3: don't offer it at all (at least at first) on by far the biggest-selling Mac, and do max out the cores on the high end, which doesn't sell much.

So, the Air might skip the M3 and get the M4 next summer, with a different TSMC process variant. They might call that SoC the M3 Plus or whatever.

Great point and wouldn't surprise me one bit.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

Do they? They sell everyone they can make at these prices.

Apple most certainly does not sell every one they make at retail. If that were the case, there wouldn't be tons of deals on the M1 Pro MBP14 and 16 every other day for $1000+ off.

 

[hans1972]

8GB isn't a disaster for the average user on Mac, I totally agree. 256GB base storage however is a spit in the face whether Mac or PC.

I would never need 512 Gb unless I change occupation.

I have 256Gb and have 143 Gb free.


With cloud services you don't all or the full version of your data on your computer.

 

[ender78]

Not enough faster to want to upgrade.

So don't. Those still on Intel that want to upgrade, will get better value for their money today than they would have 10 days ago.