Yup. Since I have 5K60 and 6K60 at home, your ThinkPad T440 wouldn't do me any good.
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.
Macs With M3 Chip Still Officially Support Only a Single External Display
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The entry-level M3 MacBook Pro is a 14" aimed at a high level content consumer. Content creators buy the 16" model, which supports 2 external monitors in addition to the built in display. If they need more than 3 screens running simultaneously, they would upgrade to the M3 pro or max, both of which support 4 external. You get what you pay for. You pay for what you need.
I bet any amount of money that since the m3 chip runs at a blistering 4GHZ the iMac will have thermal throttling issues.
www.notebookcheck.net
Single-fan vs dual-fan iMac 24: M1 Apple Silicon's performance potential in 7-core base model spoiled by thermal throttling in benchmark battery
A battery of benchmarks has revealed the potential performance differences between the 2021 Apple iMac 24 with a single fan and the higher-end model with two fans. The dual-fan iMac 24 gained around a 10% performance advantage over the single-fan model, which struggled to keep its M1 Apple...
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Yes, but everything we're seeing now is mostly trickling out of Apple Marketing and "friends of Apple" influencer "reviews." That guy- who I view as generally more fan-leaning than anti-fan- found his facts and information through careful comparisons of Apple's own information. And it wasn't all bashing. There were many positive things highlighted about the new Macs too. I would definitely not frame him as some kind of anti-Apple guy. IMO: he's a bit too forgiving himself at times.
Do I think M3 Macs are broadly better than M2 and early Macs? Yes. That's not the issue. The issue is why are these seemingly artificial limits put on these chips when competitors selling computers for so much less CAN support multiple screens? Why does M3 get engineered with some steps back after establishing some impressive standards in prior generations? With M2, it was "half speed" SSD. With M3, it's a variety of things that reduce/step back/take away. Why?
The general answer is to make each transaction even more profitable. If I'm a shareholder (first), that's just great as long as everyone will keep right on buying anyway... even rationalizing such stuff to other consumers. If I'm a consumer first- and I am- I want to take the greatness of what was and either maintain or improve in newer generations. I don't want half speed SSD. I don't want slower memory bandwidth. I don't want to 'save $100' by spending $300 more. Etc.
Broad benchmarks are- if as shared so far- better. How much better would they be without stepping things already established in M1 and M2 DOWN for M3? IMO: a consumer should look at it like that. Apple and shareholders love the cost subtractions while upping the average price paid per unit. That's more money NOT buying Mac tangibles but flowing into corp coffers and shareholder value.
You want M1 memory bandwidth in M3? Max out the tier and pay $500 more for M1 bandwidth. I don't know how to look at that through a consumer lens and be happy about it. I have a M1 now a few years old and it will be faster in this way than all but the most expensive M3 offering, which will only match this metric available in M1. Apple made a huge deal about memory speed with M1 & M2... only to slow it for most of M3.
"20% faster than M1 but M2 was already 20% faster than M1 too... so no net gain there."
Early benchmarks are up... but how much better could M3 benchmarks be without the cuts?
Last edited:
Whether it's artificial or a real limitation, it doesn't matter. If you need more than one external display, the M3 Macs aren't for you, there are other Macs Apple can sell you.
Assigning motives or reasoning behind something unprovable is tiring and pointless.
Assigning motives or reasoning behind something unprovable is tiring and pointless.
Starting price is $1299. You can get a 16GB version for $1500, and a 16GB/512GB fir $1699.
Did you remember that this includes a 4.5K monitor with a higher resolution than any PC even near its class?
The greed of offering an allin with a better and higher performance than virtually anything in its price class?
Yeah I think even the intel MacBook Airs could do two, and my 2015 MBP can do many. This seems absurd.
I will make you same bet that very few users ever notice or care.I bet any amount of money that since the m3 chip runs at a blistering 4GHZ the iMac will have thermal throttling issues.
Single-fan vs dual-fan iMac 24: M1 Apple Silicon's performance potential in 7-core base model spoiled by thermal throttling in benchmark battery
A battery of benchmarks has revealed the potential performance differences between the 2021 Apple iMac 24 with a single fan and the higher-end model with two fans. The dual-fan iMac 24 gained around a 10% performance advantage over the single-fan model, which struggled to keep its M1 Apple...
That’s complete nonsense. Plenty of pro’s need local GPU and CPU power. Apple’s entire Silicon strategy is built around local resources.
Yes it’s absurd that a vastly improved product isn’t vastly improved at every single thing.
Our vehicles have paddle shifters, don't be tempted to upgrade to a higher trim level to have them. The only time they are useful is to downshift while towing (or maybe when carrying a heavy load of lumber, tile, ... in a van), as to not be totally dependent on the brakes, you can engine brake down hills, a bit while leaving a highway, coming to anticipated stops, etc. Beyond that, they're useless really, no point in trying to shift 7 or 9 gears manually on an automatic when you can barely feel or hear the engine. Just let the auto do its thing and get the best fuel economy.
Anyway.
I do think they would have added 2-monitor support this year, if the 3nm process hadn't been so expensive.
Many of the potential upgrades they could have added to the chips this year were canceled due to the high cost of producing just a minimal chip. They even had to cut some things (memory channels, performance cores, etc) just to keep the price the same.
Many of the potential upgrades they could have added to the chips this year were canceled due to the high cost of producing just a minimal chip. They even had to cut some things (memory channels, performance cores, etc) just to keep the price the same.
Any Intel Mac running >1 4K display off its iGPU is gonna be laggy as hell and get hot. No thanks.
They've already killed the iMac for me long ago with M1. They forces you to buy Mac Studio setup seperately with the monitor only because of pure greed. I don't mind using a PC at home anymore. An entry level Macbook is enough for other things.
The answer is there are always tradeoffs. Should entry level M chips devote more resources to performance and efficiency for everyone or to address a dual monitor use case only a tiny fraction of users care about?
Especially when for a very moderate price they can upgrade to get dual monitor support? And when there is DisplayLink for the cheapskates.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
The video is comparing tangible specs of prior generations to new M3 and, among much praise and gush for some good things, identifying what stepped back from prior versions. It uses hard facts sourced from Apple's own information vs. opinion, conjecture, hype, etc. Most specs are those that Apple chose to highlight themselves when selling prior generations... so they should be as important for M3 as they were for M1 & M2.
Apple themselves made a very big, prominent deal about memory bandwidth for M1 and M2. It held a prime spot on the pitch page. Now that it has been cut, it's like that was not big deal. Was Apple disingenuous for stressing it for M1 & M2 but then almost hiding the cut in slower M3? Or is it OK to isolate improvement benefits in marketing while ignoring things that did not progress or stepped back? Yes, that is how marketing works. However...
Consumers are usually more interested in both pros & cons. Marketers and fans will bend over backwards to focus on the positives but a consumer can't make good decisions if any negatives are hidden from them. Personally, I'd rather know the stuff in the video than be surprised by any of it later.
Again, I look at these M3s and see them as great new Macs. To those who buy one, good for you. They should be amazing Macs. Etc. Those views are NOT destroyed by also knowing things that are not so rosy. In fact, knowing some negatives can be very helpful in choosing the RIGHT Mac instead of the wrong one.
Last edited:
Wrong. Most businesses now have dual monitor setups and many want to replicate that at home. In fact many businesses give their employees dual monitors for home use. The notion that dual monitors are for professionals is outdated bs.
Why stop there. The Macintosh II from 1987 could support 6 if you could afford enough NuBus cards.
This is so dumb. They upgraded the 13 inch MBP to a better, larger screen and a much faster processor and it still supports the same number of external monitors. That’s forward progress buddy.
Artificial... a 3 trillion dollar company has the means to do things right, they just dont give a rats ass.
FFS, the world is more than people twerking on youtube, and people watching people twerking on youtube. Ditch that content-creator nonsense when talking about pro usage, please. Unless Apple wants to go back to the days when it was virtually exclusive for graphics studios.