33 ms·
A few things I noticed, as I'm seeing the variety of SKUs becoming more complex. - Note that memory bandwidth is down. M2 Pro had 200GB/s, M3 Pro only has 150G
by kivlad 3y ago
A few things I noticed, as I'm seeing the variety of SKUs becoming more complex.
- Note that memory bandwidth is down. M2 Pro had 200GB/s, M3 Pro only has 150GB/s. M3 Max only has 400GB/s on the higher binned part.
- Just like the low-spec M3 14" has one fewer Thunderbolt port, it also doesn't officially support Thunderbolt 4 (like M1/M2 before it)
- The M3 Pro loses the option for an 8TB SSD. Likely because it was a low volume part for that spec.
- The M3 Pro actually has more E-cores than the Max (6 vs 4). Interesting to see them take this away on a higher-specced part; seems like Intel wouldn't do this
- sillywalk 3y agoThe 2x USB/Thunderbolt ports are on the same side. :(
- polishTar 3y agoIn addition to the reduced memory bandwidth, the M3 pro also loses 2 performance cores for only 2 more efficiency cores. M2 pro: 8 performance cores + 4 efficiency cores. M3 pro: 6 performance cores + 6 efficiency cores. Not a great trade... I'm not sure the M3 pro can be considered an upgrade
- photonerd 3y agoDepends. Is it faster? Then it's an upgrade. Has the CPU industry really managed to pull off it's attempt at a bs coup that more cores always === better? I thought we'd learned our lesson with the silly Mhz Myth already?
- throwaway2037 3y agoLet me re-write your post with the opposite view. Both are unconvincing. << Depends. Is it faster? Then it's an upgrade. Has the CPU industry really managed to pull off it's attempt at a bs coup that more MHz always === better? I thought we'd learned our lesson with the silly cores Myth already? >>
- akerl_ 3y agoI think you're misreading the comment you're replying to. Both "more cores is always better" and "more MHz is always better" are myths.
- photonerd 3y agoYup, exactly what I was saying.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- leereeves 3y agoThat makes less sense because the MHz marketing came before the core count marketing. I agree with GP that we should rely on real measures like "is it faster", but maybe the goal of exchanging performance cores for efficiency was to decrease power consumption, not be faster?
- photonerd 3y agoProbably a balance of both tbh, as it appears to be both faster AND around the same performance per watt.
- photonerd 3y agoThat's... the same view, just applied to a different metric. Both would be correct. Your reading comprehension needs work, no wonder you're unconvinced when you don't even understand what is being said.
- dimask 3y agoYes, but the number of cores in similar cpus do provide a good comparison. For example, with base M2pro at 6 p cores and base M3pro at 5 p cores, one would want ~20% faster cores to compensate for the lack of one core in parallel processing scenarios where things scale well. I don't think M3 brings that. I am waiting to see tests to understand what the new M3s are better for (prob battery life).
- rewmie 3y ago> Depends. Is it faster? The devil tends to be in the details. More precisely, in the benchmark details. I think Apple provided none other than the marketing blurb. In the meantime, embarrassingly parallel applications do benefit from having more performant cores.
- photonerd 3y agooh absolutely, I can't wait to see the benchmarks. Per the (non-numerical data) benchmarks in the video tho - it is faster. So... until other evidence presents itself, that's what we have to go on.
- grupthink 3y agoHeh, I recall seeing many posts arguing against benchmarks when all Macs equipped with an M2/8GB/256GB SSD scored much, much lower than the M1/8GB/256GB SSD. People said the synthetic benchmarks were not representative of real world use and you'd never notice the difference. 'Twas a battle of the optimists, pessimists, and realists. In reality, 'twas just Apple cutting costs in their newer product.
- rewmie 3y ago> Heh, I recall seeing many posts arguing against benchmarks (...) It's one thing to argue that some real-world data might not be representative all on itself. It's an entirely different thing to present no proof at all, and just claim "trust me, bro" on marketing brochures.
- saagarjha 3y agoFaster than what? M1 Pro? Just barely.
- meflou 3y agoReference should be M2 pro
- saagarjha 3y agoI suspect it's about equal or perhaps even slower.
- photonerd 3y ago2.5x is "just barely"? lol k.
- saagarjha 3y ago20%
- selcuka 3y ago> 2.5x is "just barely"? lol k. That's only rendering speed, and M3 Max vs M1 Max (not Pro). M3 Pro is only 30 percent faster: > The 12-core CPU design has six performance cores and six efficiency cores, offering single-threaded performance that is up to 30 percent faster than M1 Pro.
- polishTar 3y agoI guess we'll have to wait for benchmarks but I did find this interesting: Apple's PR release for M2 pro: "up to 20 percent greater performance over M1 Pro" Apple's announcement for M3 pro: "up to 20 percent faster than M1 Pro" (they didn't bother to compare it to M2 pro)
- fastball 3y agoSure, that's the title, but at least in this PR they immediately show a graph with a comparison to both. Presumably it makes more marketing sense to compare to the M1 family up front because most people that bought an M2 last year are probably not going to be upgrading to M3. They are speaking to the people most likely to upgrade.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- parl_match 3y agofwiw, i cant remember the last time i saw a company go back more than a generation in their own comparison. Apple is saying here as much as they're not saying here. M2->M3 may not be a compelling upgrade story.
- alpaca128 3y ago> i cant remember the last time i saw a company go back more than a generation in their own comparison Apple likes doing that quite frequently while dumping their "up to X% better" stats on you for minutes.
- sudhirj 3y agoIt’s absolutely not, and that’s fine. The video has statements that the machines are made to “last for years” and they want to save natural resources be making long lasting machines. I’m currently at 4 to 5 years on laptops and 3 to 4 years on phones, and even then I hand them over to kids/friends/family who get a bit more use out of them.
- trostaft 3y agoI find that frustrating with how intel markets its desktop CPUs. Often I find performance enhancements directly turning off efficiency cores...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- nabakin 3y ago> Has the CPU industry really managed to pull off it's attempt at a bs coup that more cores always === better? I thought this at first then I realized the cost-performance benefit gained from adding more cores often outweighs just improving the performance of single cores. Even in gaming. I think this is what led AMD to create their Ryzen 9 line of CPUs with 12 cores in 2019. That being said, I abhor the deceptive marketing which says 50% more performance when in reality, it's at most 50% more performance specifically on perfectly parallel tasks which is not the general performance that the consumer expects.
- 1123581321 3y agoE cores are ~30% faster and P about 15%. So the question would be how much the Es assist when Ps are maxed on each chip. In any other situation, more/better E cores should outperform and extend battery. I’m not saying that means you should want to spend the money.
- greesil 3y agoCould you not resolve these questions with benchmarking?
- polishTar 3y agoI love Apple's E cores. It just sucks that the M3 pro gains so few given the reduction in P cores. Apple's E cores take up ~1/4 the die space of their P core. If the M3 pro lost 2 performance cores but gained 4-8 efficiency cores it'd be a much more reasonable trade.
- 1123581321 3y agoI’d like to see that. Good point about die space.
- dontlaugh 3y agoI’m sure the difference is GPU.
- raydev 3y agoFunctionally, how does this impact observed performance on heavy loads like code compile or video manipulation? I doubt it's not much, and these are the low/mid-tier priced machines we are talking about. If you bought a $2k M2 machine and traded it for a $2k M3 machine, you may gain better battery life with no concessions, except for benchmark measurements (that don't affect your daily work).
- spookie 3y agoThese are not low/mid tier machines when talking about "consumer-grade".
- raydev 3y agoWithin the MacBook Pro lineup, they are objectively the low and mid-grade pricing tiers.
- brucethemoose2 3y agoIndeed, but that's a bit of an oxymoron as any Macbook Pro is not a "low/mid-tier priced machine"
- 3c6bYDXLMj 3y agoWe all know what is meant by “low/mid-tier”. This is pointless pedantry. Next someone is going to come by with the throwaway comment complaint about how OpenAI isn’t “open”.
- spookie 3y agoFair enough, I was just arguing even Mac users might not have the cash or the patience to commit into another machine. We've seen the same with Nvidia's GPUs going from the 10 to 20 series. If people don't perceive higher gains without compromises, they won't buy it.
- brucethemoose2 3y agoYeah. $2K-3K is what my 3090/7800x3D sff desktop cost (depending on whether you include the price of the TV/peripherals I already own).
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jug 3y agoThis makes going Mac Mini M2 Pro over iMac M3 feel real compelling. The respective prices of these models are in fact the same, so if you happen to have a good monitor already... (also the iMac M3 curiously doesn’t even have a Pro option.)
- Dunedan 3y agoDepends on what you consider an upgrade. As M3 cores perform better than M2 cores, I expect the M3 configuration to perform similar to the M2 one, even though it trades performance cores for efficiency cores. Apple apparently believes that its users value improved efficiency for longer lasting battery more than further improved performance.
- ricardobeat 3y agoThe new efficiency cores are 30% faster than M2, and the performance ones 20% faster, so lets do the math: M2: 8 + 4 M3: 6*1.2 + 6*1.3 = 7.2 + 7.8 That’s nearly double the M2’s efficiency cores, a little less on the performance ones. They do say the system overall is up to 65% faster, and has lower power consumption at the same performance level.
- polishTar 3y agoYou're not considering the difference in performance between the p and e cores. The math should be something more like: M2 pro = 8*3 + 4 =28 (the *3 representing that the performance cores contribute ~3x more to total system performance than the efficiency cores) M3 pro = 6*3*1.15 + 6*1.3 =28 (apple claims 15% more performance for the p cores not 20%) > They do say the system overall is up to 65% faster, and has lower power consumption at the same performance level. They don't claim either of those things. They claim the performance is 20% faster than the M1 pro. Interestingly, they made that exact same claim when they announced the M2 pro. Energy efficiency might be better, but I'm skeptical till I see tests. I suspect at least some of the performance gains on the p+e cores are driven by running at higher clock rates and less efficiently. That may end up being more significant to total energy consumption than the change in the mix of p/e cores. To put it another way, they have more e cores, but their new e cores may be less efficient due to higher clock speeds. Total energy efficiency could go down. We'll just have to wait and see but given that apple isn't claiming an increase in battery life for the M3 pro products compared to their M2 pro counterparts, I don't think we should expect an improvement.
- ricardobeat 3y agoIf you wanted to be even more accurate, you'd also have to take into account that most tasks are executed on the E cores, so having more of those, or faster, will have a much greater impact than any improvement on the P cores. It's impossible to estimate the impact like this - which is why Apple's performance claims[1] are based on real-world tests using common software for different workloads. In summary, there is supposedly improvement in all areas so the reduced P core count doesn't seem to be a downgrade in any form as the OP suggested. [1] https://www.apple.com/nl/macbook-pro/ https://www.apple.com/nl/macbook-pro/
- mastercheif 3y ago> Just like the low-spec M3 14" has one fewer Thunderbolt port, it also doesn't officially support Thunderbolt 4 (like M1/M2 before it) I believe this is due to the TB4 spec requiring support for two external displays on a single port. The base spec M series SoCs only support one external display. I’d expect the ports to work identically to a TB4 port in all other aspects.
- lathiat 3y agoI really, really wish they would fix this silly display scan-out limitation. I gave them a (frustrating) pass on the M1 given it was the first evolution from iPhone/iPad where it wouldn't have mattered. But seems silly to have made it all the way to the M3. Wanting to dock onto two displays even at the low end doesn't seem like such a niche use-case. I'm sure there is some kind of technical explanation but both Intel and NVIDIA seemed to managed 3+ scanouts even on low end parts for a long time.
- stouset 3y ago> Wanting to dock onto two displays even at the low end doesn't seem like such a niche use-case. I mean, it almost certainly is? I would guess a majority of the low-end SKUs are rarely if ever attached to one external display. Two would be rarer still.
- timschmidt 3y agoIntel has supported three external displays on integrated graphics since Ivy Bridge in 2012.
- stouset 3y agoI’m not sure what that has to do with it being a niche use-case or not.
- timschmidt 3y ago
- bufo 3y agoIt was pretty hard to saturate the memory bandwidth on the M2 on the CPU side (not sure about the GPU).
- brucethemoose2 3y agoThe GPU can saturate it for sure. Llama.cpp is a pretty extreme cpu ram bus saturator, but I dunno how close it is (and its kind of irrelevant because why wouldn't you use a Metal backend).
- sunpazed 3y agoWell, Metal can only allocate a smaller portion of “VRAM” to the GPU — about 70% or so, see; https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/tech-talks/10580 https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/tech-talks/10580 If you want to run larger models, then CPU inference is your only choice.
- __loam 3y agoAren't these things supposed to have cores dedicated to ml?
- brucethemoose2 3y agoThey are not as fast as the GPU (but much lower power). Also, not many implementations can even use it.
- azinman2 3y agoYou’re thinking of the neural engine. I’m not sure that llama.cpp makes use of this. They’d have to turn it into a CoreML model to do so.
- brucethemoose2 3y ago> Note that memory bandwidth is down. M2 Pro had 200GB/s, M3 Pro only has 150GB/s. M3 Max only has 400GB/s on the higher binned part. Is this because they are not populating all the memory channels, or just using lesser memory ICs? If its the former... thats annoying. It just makes their products worse for artificial segmentation and very little cost savings.
- ChuckMcM 3y agoI'm wondering now if Apple tracks this sort of stuff in their released machines. I know my iPad always asks me if I want to send stats to Apple (and I always say no). So let's say that enough people do, then do they have a good idea of how often all the performance cores are used? Max memory B/W consumed? Stuff like that. Back when I was at Intel there were always interesting tradeoffs between available silicon/thermal/margin resource and what made it into the chip. Of course Intel didn't have any way (at that time) to collect statistics so it was always "... but I think we should ..." not a lot of data.
- threeseed 3y agoApple shares anonymous usage data by default on all their operating systems and users are asked again on every major update. Given that there has never been any public incidents about it and what we know about similar defaults I would be surprised if Apple is getting less than 95% opt-in rate. But I suspect at high-end they only really care about the performance of a few dozen professional apps e.g. Logic or Final Cut. And at the low-end it's likely just efficiency.
- rickdeckard 3y ago> Given that there has never been any public incidents about it and what we know about similar defaults I would be surprised if Apple is getting less than 95% opt-in rate. A 95% opt-in rate is INSANELY high for any type of usage-stat opt-in, everything above 50% is usually outstanding. What is known about "similar defaults"?
- yipbub 3y agoIt seems like the comment above is describing out-out and the it pesters you to opt-back in if you opt-out.
- ballenf 3y agoThat's not how it works. You get asked the question again on every update, regardless of what you chose the last time. So there are people who were opted-in that change their minds. My friends and family opt-in rate is <50%. And most of them are non-technical.
- nordsieck 3y ago> The M3 Pro loses the option for an 8TB SSD. Likely because it was a low volume part for that spec. That's not super surprising to me. Apple loves to charge stupid prices for storage and memory. Maybe it's worth it for lots of people to have the convenience of built in storage at the lower levels, but I have to imagine that most people would want 8TB of SSD would rather just get an external solution for... much less.
- bdavbdav 3y agoYeah I can imagine that’s an incredibly niche setup. Maybe if you were editing on the go or similar, but even then, TB drives seems like a more pragmatic choice.
- masklinn 3y ago> seems like Intel wouldn't do this Wouldn’t do what? Intel has more E-cores than P-cores on most of their range, and especially on the higher end e.g. on raptor lake S the i9 all have 16 E and 8 P, the i7s have 8:8, only the lower end of the i5 (below 13500) have more P than E cores. And the i3 have no E cores. The story is somewhat similar on mobile (H and HX), a minority of SKUs have more P than E, and none of them in P and U. In fact that was one of the things which surprised me when Intel started releasing asymmetric SMT, they seemed to bank heavily on E cores when mobile and Apple had mostly been 1:1 or biased towards P cores.
- 3c6bYDXLMj 3y agoWell, when your P is still quite E, I guess it’s a different equation :).
- globular-toast 3y agoI think you confirmed what you were replying to. Intel makes the numbers get bigger as you go up, regardless of whether that makes the most sense.
- masklinn 3y agoOh yeah I misread the comment. Although that’s not quite true either e.g. on raptor lake H, the upper i5 (13600H) has 8 E cores while the low range i7 (13620H) has 4, but the i7 has 6 P-cores versus 4. The base frequencies also get lower as you move from i5 to i7. And you have less GPU EU (80 -> 64).
- signa11 3y ago> Note that memory bandwidth is down. M2 Pro had 200GB/s, M3 Pro only has 150GB/s. M3 Max only has 400GB/s on the higher binned part. just contrasting this with the recent TR4 announcements from AMD, apparently their PRO variants top (theoretically at least) at around 325GB/s (non-pro versions are half of this), so just from that perspective alone M3 Max's might be better ? i always have the naive assumption here that keeping the-beast i.e. the cpu fed with data is much better for overall performance than just clock-rates etc.
- delfinom 3y agoThe SKUs are becoming more complex because they are probably learning why Intel/AMD have so many SKUs. Making complex chips at scale results in a range of less-than-ideal chips. This drives a the need to segment and bin chips into different SKUs to reduce losses, rather than trying to sell one SKU and throw awaying the anomalies.
- cwingrav 3y agoI think what Apple is pushing for is computing efficiency. It still gets faster but with much less power. Focusing on performance solely would be the wrong way to evaluate these chips. https://www.tomsguide.com/news/apple-m3-chip https://www.tomsguide.com/news/apple-m3-chip
- nordsieck 3y agoI think it's a bit more nuanced than that. There's a reason they didn't just stick an A series chip in their laptops and call it a day - they want more performance even if it comes at the cost of efficiency. It's probably better to say that Apple is pushing performance within a relatively restricted power envelope. Just to illustrate my point - if m3 had exactly the same performance as m1, but with 1/2 the power draw, I don't think many people would have been happy even if it would have been an amazing increase in computing efficiency.
- hospitalJail 3y agoThis drives me crazy. Apple plays the market like Nintendo. Pick something that no one cares about, do it better than anyone else, and make a big deal about it. I dream of a world where instead of a marketing company becoming a top 3 tech company, a tech company would have. Wonder what they would have done for their laptop... Or maybe this is just an inevitable outcome of capitalism/human biology where a veblen goods company will become a top player in a market. (I have my own Google and M$ complaints too)
- musictubes 3y agoSo Apple is the most successful company because they prioritize things that no one cares about? I dunno, if a there was marketing company that could design the likes of the M series chips along with the mobile versions, develop a full technology stack from programming language and compiler, custom chips, through to shipping whole devices at unimaginable scale would make me wonder what technology companies were doing. What other “tech” company really compares from a hardware perspective? Samsung? Dell? AMD? Love them or hate them, there’s no denying that Apple has serious technical chops. One day people will only hate Apple for reasonable things, today’s not that day apparently.
- avidphantasm 3y agoWish that you could get the 16-core CPU with the smaller Max GPU, but alas I just ordered one anyway.
- jackmott42 3y agoThe max is probably only going to be in desktops, so better to use the die area for other things than E cores
- paulpan 3y agoThe new M3 14" MBP seems to be a red herring - why does it even exist? Why not just refresh the MBA instead? An obvious rule of thumb is for "Pro"-branded laptops to only use "Pro"-branded chips. It's what they follow for the iPhone lineup, but I suppose iPad Pros also use non-Pro chips. Just seems like a very confusing SKU to create, and definitely something Steve wouldn't approve of.
- mrcwinn 3y agoI personally struggle with the 14". It feels too small to be productive on, at least for coding. Anyone else experience this? And yet, the MBA's screen in comparison is serviceable and nice, but nothing outstanding. That's the case for the MBP 14 (when the 16 is just too large and bulky).
- soupdiver 3y ago> I personally struggle with the 14". It feels too small to be productive on, at least for coding. Anyone else experience this? absolutely not... working for 10 years on 13/14 and never _felt_ that way I get this is personal ;)
- jonpalmisc 3y agoI find it to be the perfect size actually. Easily in a backpack and is light, and can use it on the couch, etc. comfortably. I’d never buy a 16” laptop.
- anoother 3y agoI find the 14" perfect, but I also find a tiling window manager (universally) vital.
- davepeck 3y agoAbsolutely love my 14” M2 pro and use it daily for coding. Perfect size/weight for the backpack, and endless battery at the local coffee shop.
- kjkjadksj 3y agoThe old 15” was like the perfect dimensions. It practically had the footprint of the present 14”, maybe even smaller. Apple made a big deal about how their new chips run so cool, yet they made the pro laptops as fat as they were in 2012 again so clearly thermals were an issue.
- cyanydeez 3y agoUnfortunately, I don't see apple doing anything but price discrimination using mostly number goes up.