M3 core counts and performance

[dada_dave]

M3 Pro result finally! https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/3390128
~15000 MT

Edit: Very small MT gain over 8P+4E M2 Pro as expected https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/3390128?baseline=3396945

I wonder how the battery life under load is? I bet 6+6 is better than 8+4.

 

[Aaronage]

That SC score is a bit low; probably still indexing. I’d expect the eventual scores (SC and MC) to be a few percent higher.

Spotlight etc.
It might gain 5%ish in perfect conditions, not enough to beat M2 Pro by a significant margin.

IIt’s fine though. Slightly better than M2 Pro performance with maybe 20-25% less peak power consumption is nice.

 

[Aaronage]

Find myself questioning my M3 Pro pre-order

M3 Pro is going to hit a nice sweet spot in terms of efficiency, and performance is excellent for what I need.
But… M3 Max 14-core isn’t that much more and adds 4 x P cores, 12 x GPU cores and doubles the memory bandwidth.

I think light load efficiency matters more to me, but Max 14 core is very compelling.

 

[exoticspice1]

Find myself questioning my M3 Pro pre-order

M3 Pro is going to hit a nice sweet spot in terms of efficiency, and performance is excellent for what I need.
But… M3 Max 14-core isn’t that much more and adds 4 x P cores, 12 x GPU cores and doubles the memory bandwidth.

I think light load efficiency matters more to me, but Max 14 core is very compelling.

Its fine. You got returns up till Jan 8 2024. Try it out. I believe 6+6 will get better battery life. M3 Pro is on i5 14600-ish level.

 

[dada_dave]

Find myself questioning my M3 Pro pre-order

M3 Pro is going to hit a nice sweet spot in terms of efficiency, and performance is excellent for what I need.
But… M3 Max 14-core isn’t that much more and adds 4 x P cores, 12 x GPU cores and doubles the memory bandwidth.

I think light load efficiency matters more to me, but Max 14 core is very compelling.

I’m trying to decide between the same two configurations. Keep in mind though it is more like an $800 difference depending on what RAM configuration you got.

 

[Aaronage]

Its fine. You got returns up till Jan 8 2024. Try it out. I believe 6+6 will get better battery life. M3 Pro is on i5 14600-ish level.

Good point!

Yeah I feel like the Max is a trap for an enthusiast like me. It would be like buying a performance car to daily drive. Getting better miles/kWh is more important to me than winning drag races if that makes sense
When I had an M1 Max MBP I loved the jaw-dropping performance but missed the insane light load efficiency of a base M1. It ultimately led me to go back to a 13” Pro.

I think Pro is the right size but I’m all over that 92bn transistor monster.

Should say. I plan to use my MacBook for a mix of things - VMs/containers, IDEs, CAD, maybe some light gaming etc. - nothing that really needs the Max. My work Mac is a 13” M1 and it handles these workloads fine as is (it just gets a bit tight on memory being only 16GB)

 

[Aaronage]

I’m trying to decide between the same two configurations. Keep in mind though it is more like an $800 difference depending on what RAM configuration you got.

A local retailer (KRCS) is offering a 10% discount so it works out a little more expensive https://www.krcs.co.uk/mac/macbook-pro
E.g. 14” M3 Pro 12C 36GB/512GB is £2699 with Apple
14” M3 Max 36GB/512GB is £2789 with KRCS
Of course, this logic only works if I ignore that KRCS also discounts the M3 Pro model

 

[B01L]

...all over that 92bn transistor monster.

M3 Extreme = 368 billion transistor = Godzilla = ;^p

 

[Aaronage]

MR spotted the M3 Pro result. The comments are, of course, on fire

 

[B01L]

MR spotted the M3 Pro result. The comments are, of course, on fire

It's even worse when you consider that Mac Rumors is "reporting" on the singular M3 Pro benchmark result that was "spotted" by Max Tech, and I am sure whatever video Max Tech puts out in regards to said M3 Pro benchmark will be as bombastic as ever...

 

[Jimmyjames]

Blender 3.6.
Base M2 =110
Base M3 = 127
15% improvement.

Be aware that this version of Blender doesn’t include the changes that enable RT on Metal. That arrives with version 4 which arrives mid-November.

EDIT: Whoops! That’s the cpu result, not gpu. Apologies. Also removed the “fps”. It’s points, not fps.

 

[Yoused]

That’s the cpu result, not gpu.

127fps on the CPU only? That sounds pretty impressive to ignorant old me.

 

[Jimmyjames]

127fps on the CPU only? That sounds pretty impressive to ignorant old me.

Honestly I don’t know too much about Blender in terms of cpu only mode. I think it’s pretty good for a base M3. It’s between an i7-8700K and an i7-1260P.

Edit. To clarify Blender’s score isn’t measured in fps. It’s points.

 

[Aaronage]

Random thought. Why didn’t Apple spec the base M3 MacBook Pro with 16GB/256GB instead of 8GB/512GB? Incentivising upgrades for more storage would be less egregious. 256GB is usable, 8GB is simply not usable (no one buying this class of machine in late 2023 would consider 8GB sufficient).

The 8GB model should not exist. It really bothers me that it was deemed acceptable.

 

[exoticspice1]

Random thought. Why didn’t Apple spec the base M3 MacBook Pro with 16GB/256GB instead of 8GB/512GB? Incentivising upgrades for more storage would be less egregious. 256GB is usable, 8GB is simply not usable (no one buying this class of machine in late 2023 would consider 8GB sufficient).

The 8GB model should not exist. It really bothers me that it was deemed acceptable.

8GB is fine for web streaming, word docs and light video editing. But it shouldn't be the standard for a $1599.

The only saving grace is the fact that 14" M3 8GB comes with XDR display, if it came with an LCD it would have been DOA.

So it is the cheapest XDR display with 22 hrs battery life in a 14" form factor. The next version should definitely be 12GB minimum.

 

[theorist9]

Random thought. Why didn’t Apple spec the base M3 MacBook Pro with 16GB/256GB instead of 8GB/512GB? Incentivising upgrades for more storage would be less egregious. 256GB is usable, 8GB is simply not usable (no one buying this class of machine in late 2023 would consider 8GB sufficient).

The 8GB model should not exist. It really bothers me that it was deemed acceptable.

Nevermind, I deleted my previous answer because I realized it didn't properly address your question!

Indeed, given their strategy of offering low-end base models to incentivize upgrades, I'm not sure why they didn't have it be 8 GB/256 GB, the same as they did for the M3 iMac. Maybe the smallest SSD chip they are sourcing is 256 GB, and they didn't want to repeat the PR issue of slower SSD speeds in the base MBP (resulting from using 1 chip instead of 2).

 

[Aaronage]

I appreciate the different perspectives. I just don’t think there’s any way to rationalize Apple’s decision with the 8GB config.

8GB is fine for Air but not for Pro. Standard configs should at least be appropriate for the intended use case, right? The base M3 model is effectively CTO only as all standard configurations are 8GB

I hope you can tell I’m coming from a place of frustration. M3 MacBook Pro could’ve been a solid “gateway drug” option with 16GB, but instead this asinine decision made it worthless. It’s an own goal - it fuels the (usually unfair!) negative perception of value and tarnishes the whole range as a result.

It wouldn’t have hurt to just spec it properly. If cost is really an issue then something inessential should’ve been chopped (like XDR and ProMotion). There’s a difference between what annoys enthusiasts and what annoys most real customers. MR trolls would froth at the mouth over XDR being dropped, but most MacBook Pro customers wouldn’t consider that essential on the “entry level” machine. Real customers do, however, find 8GB a total nonstarter

(Sorry to keep hammering on this point, just drives me a bit crazy!!)

 

[dada_dave]

8GB is fine for web streaming, word docs and light video editing. But it shouldn't be the standard for a $1599.

The only saving grace is the fact that 14" M3 8GB comes with XDR display, if it came with an LCD it would have been DOA.

So it is the cheapest XDR display with 22 hrs battery life in a 14" form factor. The next version should definitely be 12GB minimum.

I appreciate the different perspectives. I just don’t think there’s any way to rationalize Apple’s decision with the 8GB config.

8GB is fine for Air but not for Pro. Standard configs should at least be appropriate for the intended use case, right? The base M3 model is effectively CTO only as all standard configurations are 8GB

I hope you can tell I’m coming from a place of frustration. M3 MacBook Pro could’ve been a solid “gateway drug” option with 16GB, but instead this asinine decision made it worthless. It’s an own goal - it fuels the (usually unfair!) negative perception of value and tarnishes the whole range as a result.

It wouldn’t have hurt to just spec it properly. If cost is really an issue then something inessential should’ve been chopped (like XDR and ProMotion). There’s a difference between what annoys enthusiasts and what annoys most real customers. MR trolls would froth at the mouth over XDR being dropped, but most MacBook Pro customers wouldn’t consider that essential on the “entry level” machine. Real customers do, however, find 8GB a total nonstarter

(Sorry to keep hammering on this point, just drives me a bit crazy!!)

So I agree with @exoticspice1 that 8GB can be a fine configuration just as you argued that 256GB of storage can be a fine storage size depending on what you want for it. But for a $1600 machine regardless of the name “pro” and it has both 8/256? That’s … limiting to put it mildly. Of course it tries to justify its price through the screen/speakers/etc… but I fully agree that at that price it should have one or the other (preferably both) specs higher.

Part of the issue here of course is that the base M3 14” is the same as the base Air/mini and shares the same upgrade path. In some ways storage would be was easier to offer a higher minimum storage tier as simply there are more of them after 256GB. But the base M3 only supports up to 24GB of RAM, which means only one less used upgrade after 16 GB which again is part of the problem.

To be honest from a purely compute perspective the base M3 in the 14” pro (again I don’t care about the name but the price) is a good idea and a perfect fit for some, but the memory/storage tiers for the base M3 are outdated and look particularly bad in that device. Again, 8/256 might be justifiable in a $600 Mac mini or maybe even $1100 Air (maybe … even then … hmmm), but not is I’ll agree dubious on the $1600 pro even with the 512 GB bump.

Personally I think the storage is easier to offer a bigger base but I agree at least one of them should’ve been higher. A base starting at 12GB of RAM for all M3 models might’ve worked (12, 18, 24? or 12, 18, 36?).

Edited to reflect that the Pro does start at 512GB not 256GB . Thanks to @jbailey for pointing out my mistake.

 

[Jimmyjames]

So I agree with @exoticspice1 that 8GB can be a fine configuration just as you argued that 256GB of storage can be a fine storage size depending on what you want for it. But for a $1600 machine regardless of the name “pro” and it has both 8/256? That’s … limiting to put it mildly. Of course it tries to justify its price through the screen/speakers/etc… but I fully agree that at that price it should have one or the other (preferably both) specs higher.

Part of the issue here of course is that the base M3 14” is the same as the base Air/mini and shares the same upgrade path. In some ways storage would be easier to offer a higher minimum storage tier as simply there are more of them after 256GB. But the base M3 only supports up to 24GB of RAM, which means only one less used upgrade after 16 GB which again is part of the problem.

To be honest from a purely compute perspective the base M3 in the 14” pro (again I don’t care about the name but the price) is a good idea and a perfect fit for some, but the memory/storage tiers for the base M3 are outdated and look particularly bad in that device. Again, 8/256 might be justifiable in a $600 Mac mini or maybe even $1100 Air (maybe … even then … hmmm), but not the $1600 pro.

Personally I think the storage is easier to offer a bigger base but I agree at least one of them should’ve been higher. A base starting at 12GB of RAM for all M3 models might’ve worked (12, 18, 24? or 12, 18, 36?).

I think 8gb might be fine for many people, however at the segment of the market Apple is serving and at the prices they sell at, a premium experience is expected.

I think it’s unacceptable to provide 8gb on a MacBook Pro and I’m not sure it’s much better on an Air. It might be ok now, but in two or three years, it could create more support headaches than the saving is worth. Not to mention what it might do to Apple’s reputation.

 

[theorist9]

8GB is fine for Air but not for Pro. Standard configs should at least be appropriate for the intended use case, right? The base M3 model is effectively CTO only as all standard configurations are 8GB

"at least be appropriate for the intended use case" is exactly right, which is why it makes sense, at least to me, that they have the same starting RAM.*

That's because the base MacBook Pro, regardless of what it's called, is essentially just an Air with a better display, two added ports (HDMI and SXDC) (but no added display support), and a fan. They both have the same level of processor (base M). So I don't see any justification, from a practical standpoint (in terms of the kinds of processing for which they are suited), to have two different starting RAM configs for the two machines.

At least that's my view. Others may think the MBP name is important, and starting an MBP with 8 GB does compromise that-- but they already did that with the 13" TouchBar MBP, which also had a base M processor. Indeed, I see the base 14" MBP as a replacement for that machine.

*Whether the starting config should be 8 GB, 12 GB, or 16 GB is a separate question: I personally think they should both start with at least 12 GB, but that's a different question from whether they should be the same or different.