I think we're arguing at cross purposes. I agree with current storage markups I personally wouldn't buy terabytes of internal storage- of course- it makes no sense. However, if Apple priced it at market prices, then I would.
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.
M3 Pro Chip Barely Faster Than M2 Pro in Unverified Benchmark Result
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Looking forward to this coming week when we should start seeing real world tests and hands-on reviews.
Last edited:
Except that much higher performance gains were hyped for the new 3nm Apple silicon throughout the tech media and even on this very site. So far, except possibly for the M3 Max, it hasn’t happened. And it looks like Apple is deliberately crippling the M3 and M3 Pro. While I’m not that surprised and not that upset, you can’t blame many people for being disappointed.
If MacRumors and YouTubers were hyping expected M3 gains thats not Apple’s fault. Yet Apple takes the blame for someone else’s exaggerations.
How many upgrade from the same model to model+1 within a year?
If you've truly outgrown your M2 Pro you are upgrading to the M3 Max.
This article is simply clickbait and apparently, it's working.
If you've truly outgrown your M2 Pro you are upgrading to the M3 Max.
This article is simply clickbait and apparently, it's working.
I don't mind if the speed boost is modest... they said as much when they weren't comparing it to last model but two models back. You can even convince me the reduction in specs is a wash with the benefits of other specs and stuff...
But....8gb is unacceptable in a pro at that price point. Period.
But....8gb is unacceptable in a pro at that price point. Period.
I said it when the M1 came out and Apple hit the point of diminishing return for the average user. Various M1 and M2 chips boosted graphic performance or scientific computing with graphic output. I work in audio and which doesn't need much graphic so only need for the later M-serie was for the increase RAM. Apple knocked it out of the park with the M1, but boxed themselves because convincing their typical buy then need to update again and again.
Apple's new M3 Pro chip with a 12-core CPU offers only marginally faster CPU performance compared to the M2 Pro chip with a 12-core CPU, according to a Geekbench 6 result spotted today by Vadim Yuryev, co-host of the YouTube channel Max Tech. This is only a single benchmark result, so further results are needed to ensure accuracy.
Apple announced new 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro models with M3, M3 Pro, and M3 Max chips on Monday. This benchmark result appears to be for the 14-inch model, based on the "Mac15,6" model identifier listed.
The result shows the M3 Pro has a single-core score of 3,035 and a multi-core score of 15,173. If these scores are accurate, the M3 Pro is up to 14% faster than the M2 Pro in terms of single-core performance, but only up to 6% faster in terms of multi-core performance for the most demanding tasks and workflows.
Both the M2 Pro and M3 Pro are equipped with up to a 12-core CPU, but the M3 Pro has only six high-performance cores and six efficiency cores, while the M2 Pro has eight high-performance cores and four efficiency cores. 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.
By limiting the M3 Pro's number of high-performance cores, Apple has created more differentiation between the M3 Pro and the M3 Max, which has up to 12 high-performance cores. However, as a result, the M3 Pro is only marginally faster than the M2 Pro.
Geekbench 6 results from earlier this week showed that the M3 Max is up to 45% faster than the M2 Max, while the standard M3 chip is up to 20% faster than the standard M2 chip, so the M3 Pro is by far the least improved chip of the series. Of course, the M3 Pro is still a significant upgrade for those coming from an Intel-based Mac. M3 Pro is also up to 20% faster than the M1 Pro chip, which is a decent improvement.
As always, benchmarks provide a useful reference point, but real-world performance can vary.
The new MacBook Pro models are available to order now, and M3 and M3 Pro configurations will begin arriving to customers and launch in stores on Tuesday, November 7. M3 Max configurations will launch later in November.
Article Link: M3 Pro Chip Barely Faster Than M2 Pro in Unverified Benchmark Result
What Apple even entire computer market needs is some amazing new kind of app tech that requires a lot of CPU power to run that the masses wants.
Hardly surprising, it's got 2 performance cores less, the amazing thing is, that it's still faster in multicore!
Apple's new M3 Pro chip with a 12-core CPU offers only marginally faster CPU performance compared to the M2 Pro chip with a 12-core CPU, according to a Geekbench 6 result spotted today by Vadim Yuryev, co-host of the YouTube channel Max Tech. This is only a single benchmark result, so further results are needed to ensure accuracy.
Apple announced new 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro models with M3, M3 Pro, and M3 Max chips on Monday. This benchmark result appears to be for the 14-inch model, based on the "Mac15,6" model identifier listed.
The result shows the M3 Pro has a single-core score of 3,035 and a multi-core score of 15,173. If these scores are accurate, the M3 Pro is up to 14% faster than the M2 Pro in terms of single-core performance, but only up to 6% faster in terms of multi-core performance for the most demanding tasks and workflows.
Both the M2 Pro and M3 Pro are equipped with up to a 12-core CPU, but the M3 Pro has only six high-performance cores and six efficiency cores, while the M2 Pro has eight high-performance cores and four efficiency cores. 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.
By limiting the M3 Pro's number of high-performance cores, Apple has created more differentiation between the M3 Pro and the M3 Max, which has up to 12 high-performance cores. However, as a result, the M3 Pro is only marginally faster than the M2 Pro.
Geekbench 6 results from earlier this week showed that the M3 Max is up to 45% faster than the M2 Max, while the standard M3 chip is up to 20% faster than the standard M2 chip, so the M3 Pro is by far the least improved chip of the series. Of course, the M3 Pro is still a significant upgrade for those coming from an Intel-based Mac. M3 Pro is also up to 20% faster than the M1 Pro chip, which is a decent improvement.
As always, benchmarks provide a useful reference point, but real-world performance can vary.
The new MacBook Pro models are available to order now, and M3 and M3 Pro configurations will begin arriving to customers and launch in stores on Tuesday, November 7. M3 Max configurations will launch later in November.
Article Link: M3 Pro Chip Barely Faster Than M2 Pro in Unverified Benchmark Result
It's a design change to differentiate more from M Max
Last edited:
Glue of my Beats Flex only last around 2 years, glue of both side earbuds. You can Google it and many people reported that. So Apple does not always make long lasting hardware.
It isn’t just clickbait.
Everyone defending the choices made for the M3 Pro are defending Apple’s decision to make the value for money of the Pro worse than the M2 Pro.
Reposting since it hasn’t been adequately refuted:
M2 to M2 Pro value proposition:
2x performance cores
1.9x GPU performance
2x memory bandwidth
M3 to M3 Pro value proposition:
1.5x performance cores
1.8x GPU performance (or less due to memory bandwidth limitations)
1.5x memory bandwidth
That is a worse value for money. It doesn’t matter that it is better than the M2 Pro (and only marginally better on multi core). It doesn’t matter if this is “good enough” for most users. The point is that the M3 Pro is not a true successor to the M2 Pro because it isn’t in the same position in the lineup. Apple moved it down the lineup towards the standard M3 and further from the Max.
It is the same thing as if, hypothetically, they replaced the M3 with an M4 with only 3 performance and 3 efficiency cores, 8 GPU cores and 75 GB/s of memory bandwidth and people came on here and defended it because it offered better single threaded performance and the same multithreaded performance.
Important: This doesn’t mean I think this the M3 Pro offers poor value for money, nor do I think it is a bad chip overall.
Yeah, you actually can. If you base your information only on rumors on punditry, not official announcements, that’s on you.
I suppose that depends on how you value things. Most people don't count cores to decide value. They look at performance benchmarks, what their friends say, reviews, etc. Then they decide what they can afford.
Back in the Pentium days, a lot of people just bought a computer based on clock speed. Worked well for Intel for some time.
Not really, objectively, the position of the M3 Pro relative to M3 is worse than the position that the M2 Pro was relative to the M2.
As I keep saying, it can be good value for money, but, relative to its price and position in the lineup, it is worse than the M2 Pro was.
This is 100% true, but also true is that the benchmarks are less and less useful, or coherent.
You can look at the 8gb vs. 16gb Air or M1 vs M2 debates for examples.
What takes you to that conclusion?
Every time I see someone write something like that, I wonder if they know what system engineers do, what system planners must do, and why people buy computers.
A computer is a tool. One buys what one needs.
If you are looking at a computer as some sort of stimulant, a way to get a rush, then perhaps something more chemical is a better choice? Or maybe a new lover? Regardless, a computer is a poor choice for emotional changes.
The M3 Pro chip is made to be lower cost than an M3 Max. It also is designed for less demanding requirements.
It is poor practice to radically over-spec a product.
Also, the general public doesn't even really understand what "3nm" means.
The hobby-press, and I include websites and Youtube "content creators" in that, exist to drive eyes to their product (such as a Youtube video) and to do so said websites and content creators make claims that are often not about reality.
The goals of shrinking devices on a chip can be several.
In the case of the base M3, throughput was improved but on a smaller footprint.
In the case of the M3 Pro models, throughput was improved (but not as much as the base M3 over the base M2) and likewise the M3 Pro was shrunk (and has fewer transistor too.)
This is not "deliberately crippling".
It is good engineering.
And that there exists people who can't appreciate that is a statement about our society, not the M3.
Doubtful considering Mac fell by 1/3rd this past quarter compared to year-ago quarter.
Will be interested to see what happens to M2 Pro prices in 2 days time when the M3 is out in the wild.
Amazes me that we need all these fast CPUs, just to burn cycles tracking the users to an inch of their lives just to flog more and more adverts at people.
For example, consider this forum we’re all looking at right now. If you strip out all the tracking and advertisements, you basically have a few kilobytes of text, and a few meg of static icons and images. Something that a Pentium could easily render.
The percentage of content to everything else has been reducing year on year, and the processors have had to increase year on year, just to invade your privacy And get you to buy disposable garbage you think will improve your life, when all it actually does is put you in debt and make you unhappy your life is nothing like you see on Instagram or TikTok…. (Truth is, all that is fake anyway)
Developers are using poorly written frameworks just to use one API from that framework. Then you have all the connections to different ad tracking syndicates, all the writing to your disk with cookie tracking information.
And OS developers writing mitigations to all that intrusiveness. Virus scanners checking for malware constantly, your device constantly being probed by bad actors over the network.
Just so you can read a 3k e-mail, o read this 1 kilobyte of my post…
Gotta keep upgrading so they can pile on more garbage you don’t need and didn’t ask for, just to get the same performance you had 25 years ago…
Fabulous…
For example, consider this forum we’re all looking at right now. If you strip out all the tracking and advertisements, you basically have a few kilobytes of text, and a few meg of static icons and images. Something that a Pentium could easily render.
The percentage of content to everything else has been reducing year on year, and the processors have had to increase year on year, just to invade your privacy And get you to buy disposable garbage you think will improve your life, when all it actually does is put you in debt and make you unhappy your life is nothing like you see on Instagram or TikTok…. (Truth is, all that is fake anyway)
Developers are using poorly written frameworks just to use one API from that framework. Then you have all the connections to different ad tracking syndicates, all the writing to your disk with cookie tracking information.
And OS developers writing mitigations to all that intrusiveness. Virus scanners checking for malware constantly, your device constantly being probed by bad actors over the network.
Just so you can read a 3k e-mail, o read this 1 kilobyte of my post…
Gotta keep upgrading so they can pile on more garbage you don’t need and didn’t ask for, just to get the same performance you had 25 years ago…
Fabulous…