Here’s mine. This is my i9 13900k installed 3 days ago with 64gb ddr5 6400 xmp at stock cpu/ram clocked to 6400. Not too shabby and $3200 w/a 4090 FE:
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.
New MacBook Pro Reviews: Scary Fast, But M3 Pro Chip Has a Catch
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Dude, can't say jealous. I think the word you were looking for is envious.
You can be jealous of something you have and fear to lose.
You can be envious of something you don't have but wish to.
Anyway, I get you. There is a huge difference in performance now between intel and AS macs.
I'd say the 'gaming' pitch is really just about Apple trying to convince current owners of perfectly capable M1 and M2 MacBook Pros that they should upgrade to a new M3 MacBook Pro because not only is it incrementally faster, but now you can 🔥GAME🔥 on it too!
Is anyone really gonna game on a Mac when you can literally run Geforce Now on your toaster *
* well not really your toaster, but most things with a screen.
* well not really your toaster, but most things with a screen.
Many of us game on the go and most hotel rooms and public wifi don't have the bandwidth and latency for a good experience.
But this belief in the unified memory is a detriment to their upper tier Mac Pro and Studios. There is just no way to upgrade the RAM in these systems. I think it would be well within Apples ability to incorporate a modular system that allows for the addition of further RAM, albeit not running as fast as that incorporated with the SoC package. So at the moment they are stuck with unified memory and then it goes to SSD for further “virtual memory”.
Honestly, an amazing computer. I love my M1 MBA. It’s still super fast, super efficient. I love the space black and midnight finishes, and I love the idea of the 15” MBA, but I just don’t need anything more than the M1 MBA. I think people forget it was notably faster in many workloads than the 2019 16” MacBook Pro.
1200watt psu and a mid-tower atx so not that much. that said, it’s used for stationary audio recording and visual productivity work along w/ some 4k gaming on the side. I use an mbp m2 for moving around and work so it’s not meant to be anything other than the monster desktop it is. I built this instead of purchasing an m2 max studio and couldn’t be happier. Also saved 50% plus $$$ and have all the machine one could ever want.
Worse colour accuracy, on the base 14" the deltaE is >3, which is off from the usual <1 on the previous Pros.In Notebookcheck tests display also have worse color gamuts
But this is the base model, not sure if there is a difference / binning against the upper tier M3 Pro M3 Max.
Looks like they are great MacBooks but no need to upgrade from M1/M2 MacBook Pros
He means we should get a spec up m3 max in our MacBooks and follow that up with a spaced up m3 ultra in the studio next year
Right. My point is many people only want laptop. I believe this is it for M3 Max for MacBook. No more new version.
Last edited:
Apple just has far too many SKUs at this point. It causes consumer confusion and bloats hardware development, software (MacOS) development, and manufacturing costs, which isn't good for consumers OR Apple. They need to converge. Ditch the Air and Mini, kill the baseline CPU, improve the mid-tier and make it your new baseline (without raising the base price), quit making anemic 8GB+512GB systems and only offer amazing base models, because a) the production cost difference is marginal, and b) amazing performance will drive adoption and profits, not milking the eleven big spenders who buy $4k+ laptops.
I know, I know, Apple doesn't need *me* to tell them how to make/sell Macs, but maybe they do.
Nah, they don't. It's clear to them there will be a raise in sales when M1 buyers will start upgrading, then M2 users, then M3 users, etc. At about M6+ release time.
All M2 and M3 models aren't meant to be an upgrade for existing M adopters, they are here to expand M chip user base.
Walking past the conspiracy theories about “Tim blocks reviewers from saying what they thingk!!11!” and “5,000 engineers conspired to upsell you by $200!” to say that I’m pretty happy with the M3 Pro. I was planning on buying an MBA 15” and now I’m considering a 14” MPB instead because for a few dollars more I’d get raytracing, plus the other advantages of the Pro line. It sort of hits a sweet spot for me, where before there was some level of compromise involved. Do I expect it to compare to my Ryzen 7/4080 setup? Of course not. Do I think raytracing and some other upgrades will help it meet my personal and professional needs for longer, and maybe open up some functional possibilities in a few years? Yeah, probably. But Raytracing with even just a 6% bump in speeds is a cool enough add-on to make me consider it. I’ll wait to see battery life scores, and probably make the call from there.
Last edited:
So, is the RAM on the M3 Pro actually slower than that of the M2 Pro?
As the M2 Pro has 200 GB/s and M3 Pro has 150 GB/s memory bandwidth, doesn't that simply per definition mean that the RAM performance is slower on the M3 Pro? Or am I missing something in understanding this?
As the M2 Pro has 200 GB/s and M3 Pro has 150 GB/s memory bandwidth, doesn't that simply per definition mean that the RAM performance is slower on the M3 Pro? Or am I missing something in understanding this?
If a highway has multiple lanes but never at any moment in time have all lanes occupied, then the next time you reduce some lanes it won’t slow things down, or will it. This is the core argument that we are having now, because the answer could go both ways.
It depends, it's usually the GPU that needs the highest amount of bandwidth, but it looks like the M3 has a better caching system for the GPU to compensate for loss of bandwidth. I guess for certain situations where you're maxing out the CPU/GPU at the same time it may cause a slight performance penalty. AMD/Nvidia have been kneecapping bandwidth between the most recent GPU generation vs. the previous one and they're still getting on par or better performance than the last gen due to better caching for the GPU
If it came with a bigger battery life improvement instead of more performance, I'd be keener, but it doesn't really.
Somebody should try one of the smart toasters (crazy concept) with a color display - they're probably running either Linux or Android. At the very least, a fridge (bigger screen) should be possible).
That's a better justification for an OLED screen or an internet connection on a toaster than any other I've heard (which comments far more on the weakness of other justifications for internet connected OLED toasters than on the utility of gaming on them)...