M3 core counts and performance

[dada_dave]

"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.

I get what you’re saying and I agree up to a point but there is some precedent here - albeit with core counts rather than RAM/storage for both core counts and storage. The 14” MacBook Pro may start with the same RAM/storage specs as the base M3 13” Air/mini but at least historically the M2 Air/mini started with 2 fewer GPU cores - same with the 15” Air and the base storage has been bumped up. Now we don’t know what the new generation of Airs/minis will look like yet, but it stands to reason it’ll be the same. Part of this is because of the necessity of driving a larger display but part of it is differentiating based on base expectations of the base for each device.

But yes I think we’re all in agreement that the base M3 model should’ve had 12GB of RAM. I’m not entirely certain what the upgrade path should’ve been - 12 to 18 seems obvious but after that 24 seems too close to 18 while 36 seems too large for a machine of this purpose. Maybe just two tiers? 12 and 24?

Failing that, offering 512GB SSD on the base 14” pro would’ve been was pretty easy to do. At least one of the specs should’ve been was bumped, at least for the $1600 machine. I dunno.

Anyway, I think we’re all in agreement the base Pro is underwhelming/overpriced for the RAM specs. The base M1 may not have been but that was 3 years ago and the it wasn’t offered in the 14” Pro so this wasn’t an issue. The old 13” Pro was cheaper and older in every sense so it didn’t seem as egregious. Apple has been slow is update RAM configurations for awhile and their upgrade prices have always been, with a few notable exceptions, not great. This isn’t new. But it is annoying. The M1 generation started out with really strong base value propositions in each tier, but again Apple can be slow to update the specs around its SOC.

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

 

[exoticspice1]

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.

Nothing could be worse than what the butterfly keyboards did to Apples reputation. If you got the 8gb model that's on you for not researching your needs but the butterfly keyboards were 1001% on Apple. That era of Apple which was coming off the craze of the iPhone and they barely cared about the Mac and it showed.

 

[Cmaier]

Nothing could be worse than what the butterfly keyboards did to Apples reputation. If you got the 8gb model that's on you for not researching your needs but the butterfly keyboards were 1001% on Apple. That era of Apple which was coming off the craze of the iPhone and they barely cared about the Mac and it showed.

argh, these years of using my m1 MBP almost had me forgetting that godforsaken keyboard. They sucked so bad.

 

[jbailey]

Failing that, offering 512GB SSD on the base 14” pro would’ve been pretty easy to do. At least one of the specs should’ve been bumped, at least for the $1600 machine. I dunno.

I’m just going to note that all of the new MacBook Pros have at least 512 GB SSD.

 

[theorist9]

This is personal preference but: While the feel of the M1 MBP's KB and trackpad are each decent, I find they still don't feel as nice as those on my 2014 MBP. Specifically, I think the M1's KB travel, while certainly better than the butterfly's, is still too limited. And its trackpad doesn't seem to move at all—I suspect they are doing it haptically-only, which isn't a true substitute for actual physical travel.

 

[dada_dave]

I’m just going to note that all of the new MacBook Pros have at least 512 GB SSD.

So they do oh boy I am very tired - at least that’s what I’ll chalk it up to. That required both misreading @Aaronage ‘s post and ignoring what was right in front of me while looking at the store page. Special. Good job me. Edited previous posts. Thanks for the correction!

 

[Aaronage]

argh, these years of using my m1 MBP almost had me forgetting that godforsaken keyboard. They sucked so bad.

I genuinely miss butterfly! I admit I’m in a minority on that, and Apple was right to drop it

Butterfly keyboards are so snappy and tactile, I find them so pleasing to type on. I’m holding on to my 12” MacBook partly because I love the keyboard.

My favourite Mac keyboard is the one introduced with the aluminium iMacs in 2007ish. The current Magic Keyboards are all over the place in terms of quality in my experience. Magic Keyboard for iPad feels the best (might even be GOAT), MacBooks don’t feel quite as tight and snappy as iPad, and Bluetooth Magic Keyboards feel pretty bad (super mushy, loose and cheap feeling).

 

[jbailey]

I genuinely miss butterfly! I admit I’m in a minority on that, and Apple was right to drop it

Butterfly keyboards are so snappy and tactile, I find them so pleasing to type on. I’m holding on to my 12” MacBook partly because I love the keyboard.

I always liked the feel of the butterfly keyboard but it still was terrible. I’d type a paragraph and I’d find multiple t’s, duplicate e’s, and nearly every sentence completed with a double-space even though I only hit the spacebar once. Awful.

 

[Andropov]

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.

Strongly agree on both parts. Even for the MacBook Air, I think it’s unacceptable. Everything else on the computer is so much better/faster that handicapping it with 8GB of RAM is absurd. That’s not even enough for a good experience surfing the web if you don’t use Safari. To me, the 8GB configs should be avoided at all costs, for all users.

Nothing could be worse than what the butterfly keyboards did to Apples reputation. If you got the 8gb model that's on you for not researching your needs but the butterfly keyboards were 1001% on Apple. That era of Apple which was coming off the craze of the iPhone and they barely cared about the Mac and it showed.

To be fair I don’t think users should necessarily have any kind technical understanding on this. Apple should provide balanced configuration for their products, it’s not unreasonable to expect a $1600 laptop to be able to do a bit more than light work without throwing out of memory warnings. And necessities can change over time. I bought a 16GB M1 Pro MacBook Pro on launch and a couple years later I switched to a new job where I have to regularly compile an Xcode project that usually causes Xcode’s build service to use more than 30GB of memory. Not saying MacBooks should be prepared for all future needs but even if somehow 8GB is enough, almost any minor change in daily use (needing to use a different program, an app converting from native to Electron…) can break your setup.

 

[Jimmyjames]

Blender score for M3 Max (Gpu) = 3030!. Version 3.6 so I’m assuming no ray tracing. That is a massive improvement of around 50%. If Apple’s figures of a 2x improvement from rt hold, that could yield 6000. Around a 3080 ti desktop card. Better than any laptop card except the 4090. Please tell me if I’ve made a mistake.

Cpu score M3 Max = 414, M2 Max = 254. 62% increase. Massive.

 

[Souko]

Reviews are out Dave2D benchmark results.

 

[Jimmyjames]

Cinebench 2024 gpu test score tripled from M2 Max. From sixcolors.com no idea if this includes rt.

 

[Andropov]

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.

Oh, this is a very interesting point I had missed. I was focusing mostly on performance, so the M3 Pro looked like the “weakest” upgrade. However, being 6P+6E instead of 8P+4E means it’s going to be so much more power efficient than the M2 Pro. Improved process node + newer µArch + higher fraction of the multi core performance achieved by the more efficient E cores. It’s now “weaker” it’s just balanced more towards efficiency this time. Hmm, interesting.

Reviews are out Dave2D benchmark results.

Solid upgrade after all. Improved battery life and significantly higher scores (sometimes dramatically so, mostly for GPU).

Cinebench 2024 gpu test score tripled from M2 Max. From sixcolors.com no idea if this includes rt.
View attachment 27138

This would be an example of a dramatic performance increase

 

[Aaronage]

Cinebench 2024 gpu test score tripled from M2 Max. From sixcolors.com no idea if this includes rt.
View attachment 27138

That is exciting to see. The graphics uplift this generation is looking impressive so far!

 

[Jimmyjames]

That is exciting to see. The graphics uplift this generation is looking impressive so far!

Impressive on complex tasks. Less so on simple tasks. Which makes sense.

 

[Aaronage]

Impressive on complex tasks. Less so on simple tasks. Which makes sense.

Absolutely. I’m not sure how it compares to NVIDIA in these compute/rendering workloads (not familiar enough with these tests), but if it shrinks the gap that’s a huge win.

 

[exoticspice1]

Cinebench 2024 gpu test score tripled from M2 Max. From sixcolors.com no idea if this includes rt.
View attachment 27138

Yes it does. The latest Cinebench 2024 update includes RT support for M3 family.

Maxon Redshift and Cinebench Optimized for Mac Lineup with M3 Family…

With the new GPU of M3, features like hardware-accelerated ray tracing offer outstanding performance in Redshift rendering.

www.maxon.net

 

[Jimmyjames]

Big discrepancy between geekerwan and sixcolors in terms of cb2024. Six colours claim 13000+ and geekerwan claim under 10000. Hmmm

Also confused by the uplift rt gives. I was thinking around 6000 or close if sixcolors results hold up. If it’s actually closer to geekerwan, their comparison to the 4060 equals over 4000, which is still very good, but less than a doubling of Peru that Apple suggested.

 

[Aaronage]

Source:

 

[Andropov]

Just realized the situation with the 8GB of base memory for the M3 is even worse. All the base M3 iMacs start with 8GB of memory, even the most expensive configuration ($1,699). All configurations above 8GB are built to order. WTF.