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
Apple updates have become so lazy, nothing really changes they could of done more new stuff to the machines the main selling points to older ones is slightly brighter display even tho a firmware update can do that or download app like vivid and change it higher your self and a new colour that’s it, give us real innovation. Face ID newer design etc
Personally, I don’t think so. The Mac desktop line is already fairly differentiated with specific machines for specific segments. We have the Mac Mini with M2 and the iMac for entry level, the M2 Pro Mac mini for the next level, the Mac Studio with Max chip, and finally the Mac Studio with Ultra chip. That’s four distinct segments that seem like they don’t need any further differentiating. If there’s one machine that’s out in the cold, it’s the Mac Pro, which seriously needs an Extreme chip to separate it from the Mac Studio Ultra, but I can understand Apple not making an M2 Extreme since the Mac Pro is such a niche product. They simply didn’t feel the R&D expense was worth the sales they would get.
Some will say there’s a missing iMac. I still think there’s no 27” iMac because Apple had intended it to be a replacement for both the Intel 27” iMac and the iMac Pro, which would have required putting an Ultra in a slim chassis. I think Apple failed in their attempt and split the iMac 27” into two pieces with the failed chassis turned into the Studio Display and the Mac Studio replacing the guts of the iMac. Rumors have it Apple is still working on a 32” iMac. Perhaps the larger enclosure will allow Apple to sufficiently cool an Ultra chip. They may also be waiting for Thunderbolt 5 to become ubiquitous in order to drive a 6K display at 120Hz or higher.
Hi everyone
First post here!
Geekbench6 Multicore Scores:
M3 8 Cores (4 power cores) ~ 11700 (2900/ P-core)
M3Pro 12 Cores (6 power cores) ~ 15100 (2500/ P-core)
M3 MAX 16 Cores (12 power cores) ~ 21300 (1800/ P-core)
...I think that M3Pro is not bad at all!!!
First post here!
Geekbench6 Multicore Scores:
M3 8 Cores (4 power cores) ~ 11700 (2900/ P-core)
M3Pro 12 Cores (6 power cores) ~ 15100 (2500/ P-core)
M3 MAX 16 Cores (12 power cores) ~ 21300 (1800/ P-core)
...I think that M3Pro is not bad at all!!!
But the only thing anyone talks about is how fast the M3 Max is, as if that increase in performance was somehow relevant to anything "M3". It's so silly that all YouTubers focus on are the top end models which 99% of users don't need. "Woah Apple's M3 KILLS the M2!", but only if you got the M3 Max, otherwise calm the hell down.
let’s be real these machines are aimed at those coming from older machines anyways. Those pros that have bought the M2 Pro are the same type of people who will still go for the M3 Pro if that’s what they need. Apple aren’t designing Macs and M processessor for the small minority of annual upgraders.
Average M2 Pro score is around
2675 / 13000. That’s about a 20/12% improvement for the M3 Pro.
In fact, the M3 Pro is faster in ST and slightly faster in MT than the M2 Max.
What does that tell you? That the Max model is no longer a pure GPU upgrade as it used to be. Like it or not.
This is also clearly visible from the die shots (Pro no longer a cut down Max model).
Hard to believe the intellectual level on this forum to be honest.
It wouldn’t suprise me at all if the Studio from now on won’t get the Ultra version, but only the Max. Ultra reserved for Mac Pro. Max reserved for Studio. Mac Mini gets base or, maybe, even Pro.
2675 / 13000. That’s about a 20/12% improvement for the M3 Pro.
In fact, the M3 Pro is faster in ST and slightly faster in MT than the M2 Max.
What does that tell you? That the Max model is no longer a pure GPU upgrade as it used to be. Like it or not.
This is also clearly visible from the die shots (Pro no longer a cut down Max model).
Hard to believe the intellectual level on this forum to be honest.
It wouldn’t suprise me at all if the Studio from now on won’t get the Ultra version, but only the Max. Ultra reserved for Mac Pro. Max reserved for Studio. Mac Mini gets base or, maybe, even Pro.
It's rushed because of Intel Meteor and Snapdragon X both rumored to be faster than M2.
Direct CPU comparaison just does not make any sense anymore.
That assumes that the e-cores don't factor into Geekbench results, which I don't believe is true.
I mean… "rumored product that'll ship mid-2024 is faster than product that shipped early 2023, and has already been replaced" is just not that big a deal.
As for Intel, I suspect Meteor Lake's power draw will still be a lot higher.
We may not like what Apple has done with the M3 Pro, but the end result is that the lineup is now more "logical" than before. The M1/M2 Pro and Max were too similar in performance in most tasks, and the gap between these and M1/M2 was much larger. Now, the M3 Pro is about 50% faster than M3, and the M3 Max is about 50% faster than M3 Pro. Also, the M3 Pro is sufficiently faster than the M2 Pro to justify its existence and also has the new GPUs.
The M1/M2 Pro used to be kind of a "M1/M2 Max Lite" (same everything except memory bandwidth and a few GPUs), and now the M3 Pro is a "M3 on steroids" (50% or more of everything; P and E cores, memory bandwidth and GPUs).
Disappointing, but makes sense to me.
The M1/M2 Pro used to be kind of a "M1/M2 Max Lite" (same everything except memory bandwidth and a few GPUs), and now the M3 Pro is a "M3 on steroids" (50% or more of everything; P and E cores, memory bandwidth and GPUs).
Disappointing, but makes sense to me.
8 year old Intel Mac and I got the Max. For the next 8 years, I tell myself.
Or, to put that another way: in 25 months, single-core went up 27.7%, and multi-core 24.3%. And because the M1 Pro only had two efficiency cores, not six, and because the performance of those efficiency cores is way up, battery life has probably improved a fair bit.
If given the choice, yeah, I would probably prefer a setup of 8/4 or maybe 7/5. Really, the bigger pain point for me is that I can't get, say, 48 GiB RAM instead of "just" 36.
But overall, still quite good.
If given the choice, yeah, I would probably prefer a setup of 8/4 or maybe 7/5. Really, the bigger pain point for me is that I can't get, say, 48 GiB RAM instead of "just" 36.
But overall, still quite good.
The downside of the SoC approach is the lack of flexibility. What if I want more CPU power and/or RAM but don't care at all about the GPU?
Yep. They were literally a chopped version of the Max. You can tell from the die shots — basically the bottom third sawed off.
The M3 Pro, instead, is a different layout.
Expectations are moot when the majority of critics here are not buying a new Mac regardless.
If you all want significant year over year improvements, then vote with your wallets and upgrade your Mac’s every year. Otherwise, the sort of increments you are expecting is just not sustainable, both from a technological or profit standpoint.
"I have a lot of weird stereotypes in my head and would like to share them with the crowd."
Snapdragon will be released in a year....
It wasn't rushed, Apple have release cycles and they stick to them. Every year they release a new chip, no matter how big or small the improvement is.
Current node is dead, just release something on it and move forward adapting the designs to the new, future proof node. If A18 is bad then they should be worried.
If you drive your car at 10 miles an hour without any braking, your MPG is gonna be great. In fact, if it’s a permanent downhill slope, without using heating or any entertainment, it’s gonna be fantastic.
