News Apple Debuts MacBook Pros with 3nm M3 Pro and M3 Max, New 24-inch iMac

[Admin]

The entire M3 family of chips uses 3nm EUV process tech.

Apple Debuts MacBook Pros with 3nm M3 Pro and M3 Max, New 24-inch iMac : Read more

 

[thestryker]

The 30% and 50% faster claims are referring to the M3 vs M1 for M3 vs M2 they are 15%/30%. Apple added AV1 decoding. The memory configurations look different so I'm curious about bus width.

 

[newtechldtech]

I am still waiting for the 31 inch iMac Apple ...

 

[Murissokah]

Comparing performance to Intel based macs looks like an obvious attempt at pushing meaningless marketing numbers instead of discussing real improvements. From the presentation it seems like a incremental improvement, if you are in the market for a new mac now you'd probably want that, but I see no reason to upgrade from m1 or m2.

 

[ezst036]

Hyperthreading?

 

[hotaru251]

8GB ram on base model in 2023.....and people still think thats fine. Applefanbase are a lost cause e_e

 

[JamesJones44]

Hyperthreading?

I don't think so. As far as I'm aware these do not support SMT in any form

 

[artk2219]

I don't think so. As far as I'm aware these do not support SMT in any form

Correct, arm doesn't have anything with smt. SMT really only makes sense in an architecture like x86 where the cores can spend some time waiting around for data. There is less of that with arm so theres no reason for it, you just add more cores since they're relatively efficient. 128GB is still not much for a professional workload Apple, there are projects that will chew through that in a moment, they really need to find a way to allow users to add more RAM. I guess if you're coming from an M1 mac it looks like it may be a decent upgrade. If you're on an Intel Mac pro, I don't know that Apple is going to get you a decent replacement any time soon. You may want to consider moving platforms if you're looking for an upgrade on the mac pro, Linux has been up to wonderful things in the last few years if you can't make that hop to Windows.

 

[JamesJones44]

These configurations make me curious about two things when looking at the M2 and M2 Pro. Memory bandwidth and the loss of P core count on the M3 Pro.

The memory bandwidth according to the tech specs page went down for every model except the high end M3 Max (the base M3 Max is 300 GB/s vs 400 GB/s on M2/M1 Max).

The P core count on the M3 Pro went down to 6 P cores max, the M1/M2 Pro could have 8 P cores. It does pick up 2 additional e cores.

These two things make me wonder if the top end M3 Pro really has better performance overall than the top end M2 Pro or if Apple's charts were comparing the top end M3 Pro (6 P core, 6 E core) to the bottom end M2 Pro (6 P core, 4 E core). I guess we will have to wait and see once people can bench these themselves.

 

[thestryker]

The memory bandwidth according to the tech specs page went down for every model except the high end M3 Max (the base M3 Max is 300 GB/s vs 400 GB/s on M2/M1 Max).

The standard M3 seems to still have 100GB/s memory bandwidth, but it is interesting to see that both M3 Pro SoCs have 150GB/s and the 300/400GB/s split on the M3 Max.

These two things make me wonder if the top end M3 Pro really has better performance overall than the top end M2 Pro or if Apple's charts were comparing the top end M3 Pro (6 P core, 6 E core) to the bottom end M2 Pro (6 P core, 4 E core). I guess we will have to wait and see once people can bench these themselves.

The hardware spec changes really make apple's already shady benchmarking practices look way worse.

The new M3 Pro having fewer transistors makes me wonder if the M2 Pro was the most common chip sold and this is more of a bottom line move than optimal design. I'm also a bit surprised they're still using LPDDR5 instead of LPDDR5X, but perhaps their memory controller doesn't play nice or the economics didn't work out.

 

[drtweak]

What math is this? 4+3=8 lol

 

[P.Amini]

What math is this? 4+3=8 lol

A typo in the article, not a big deal but I hope the author notice it.

 

[ezst036]

8GB ram on base model in 2023.....and people still think thats fine. Applefanbase are a lost cause e_e

To be fair, MacOS is not nearly as RAM heavy as Windows is.

But 8GB is still plenty fine on Linux though. So it really does actually kind of depend. At boot Gnome or KDE are only going to use around 1GB of ram, leaving 7 of it free for use. (depending on the distro, too, I suppose)

 

[hotaru251]

To be fair, MacOS is not nearly as RAM heavy as Windows is.

its unified ram.....split between gpu & cpu...

and apple can't be upgraded after as its baked into the SoC.

8GB is still plenty fine on Linux though

and how many ppl are paying Apple pricetag and want to run linux on it???


and 8GB aint gonna get you far gaming nor doing actual work.

 

[Order 66]

and 8GB aint gonna get you far gaming nor doing actual work.

Who is going to game on a Mac in the first place? I understand 8gb not being enough, but people aren’t buying macs to game on them.

 

[ezst036]

its unified ram.....split between gpu & cpu...

and apple can't be upgraded after as its baked into the SoC.

I know. It doesn't change the fact that MacOS - while yes its heavy - it's not nearly as heavy as Windows. 8GB would be crazy for all you people out there in Windows world. When you say:

8GB ram on base model in 2023.....and people still think thats fine. Applefanbase are a lost cause e_e

That's actually a statement on Windows and you didn't even realize it.

 

[hotaru251]

Who is going to game on a Mac in the first place? I understand 8gb not being enough, but people aren’t buying macs to game on them.

Apple has been pushing it for M3.

I also said work. (8GB aint gonna do you anything for blender, fluidworks, rendering, PS, etc.

. It doesn't change the fact that MacOS - while yes its heavy - it's not nearly as heavy as Windows.

that wasnt the topic.

8GB would be crazy for all you people out there in Windows world.

8GB is an issue no matter your OS....doubly so in apple silicon due to it being in the SoC & you are unable to ever add more.

a statement on Windows

again its a general thing. If someone puts 8GB in a windows laptop its ofc also bad but at least you can add to it & it isnt shared with graphics.

Memory is cheap. Apple taxes the crap out of memory upgrades "because they can". You shouldnt be getting anything lower than 16GB for PC over a grand.

 

[Order 66]

again its a general thing. If someone puts 8GB in a windows laptop its ofc also bad but at least you can add to it & it isnt shared with graphics.

You might be able to upgrade it if it isn't soldered to the board. It is also shared with the graphics if said laptop doesn't have dedicated graphics.

 

[hotaru251]

You might be able to upgrade it if it isn't soldered to the board

.....no.

Apple's silicon effectively has the memory as part of the SoC.
literally impossible to upgrade & what you get at purchase is what you are stuck with for that machines lifetime.

only outlier was the imac w/M1which had normal ram

 

[Order 66]

.....no.

Apple's silicon effectively has the memory as part of the SoC.
literally impossible to upgrade & what you get at purchase is what you are stuck with for that machines lifetime.

only outlier was the imac w/M1which had normal ram

That wasn't what I was referring to, although you are right. I was referring to the fact that you can upgrade any laptop RAM as long as it is SODIMM.