Hard disagree. Fan noise is only if you are pushing performance beyond what the Pro is capable of, and it’s not like you’re doing that all day every day. Throttling same…and you’re still getting better performance than you would from the Pro with much better portability than the 16.
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.
M3 Max Low-Power Mode is INSANE
- Thread starter macduke
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Hard disagree. Fan noise is only if you are pushing performance beyond what the Pro is capable of, and it’s not like you’re doing that all day every day. Throttling same…and you’re still getting better performance than you would from the Pro with much better portability than the 16.
Part of this is the Pro's extra pair of e-cores. Many of us don't especially want them (we'd have preferred two more P-cores, as in the M1 and M2 Pros) - but e-cores ARE extremely efficient per amount of work done (thus the name), so if your criterion is pretty much "amount of computing per battery charge", pushing as much work on to e-cores as possible is the way to go (absent factors like running the screen for longer, since the work takes longer).
Another part of the story may be that the M3 Max really seems to cool better in the 16" case, while the Pro is very comfortable as a 14" machine.
Another part of the story may be that the M3 Max really seems to cool better in the 16" case, while the Pro is very comfortable as a 14" machine.
Do you have anymore info/updates to give on the battery life of the M3 Pro v Max? I want to know whether turning on Low Power mode on the M3 Max will basically give it the same battery life as the M3 Pro. If so, then I would buy M3 Max because it means I could get the best of both worlds, stay on Low Power normally, but use High Power when needed. If the M3 Max still drains more battery than M3 Pro, then there is a true benefit to getting the Pro over the Max.
The low power mode disabling 120Hz isn't a big loss on these miniLED panels as their grey-to-grey response times are so high that they're unable to update the screen anywhere close to 120 times a second which would require less than 10ms response times. On the M1 and M2 models at least they were more than TWICE as high actually making the content refresh less often than 60 times per second so even 60Hz leads to smearing compared to faster 60Hz monitors (like for example 1ms OLED ones).
They improved it going from M1 to M2 and might have improved it further on M3, but this first-gen miniLED tech Apple uses to produce fantastic HDR experiences certainly won't slice the response times in half suddenly.
In fact, for a lot of content on these Macbooks you'll actually be at 60Hz as the apps need to explicitely support it, and then it's up to the apps what part of their content they show in 120Hz. Ventura is the first OS that even gives me 120Hz support in Chrome, when I got this Mac back in 2021 not even Apple's own Safari had it. And Firefox to this day stutters enough that despite technically supporting 120Hz it won't be smooth (might be due to addons, but a lot of you will be running Firefox for the addon support).
And especially for video that's typically shot in 24/30/60fps the 120Hz are useless, and fast motions in video would smear due to the bad panel response times regardless.
There's still plenty performance left for office work or browsing, so there shouldn't be any tasks waiting around longer because of the reduced frequencies. But if you really had to compile something at 100% CPU usage it would likely be better to turn off low battery mode temporarily so the task can be finished quickly and then reenable it afterwards. Just generally speaking CPUs are more efficient getting the job done as quick as possible so they can return to a low powerstate as quick as possible. Forcing a chip to remain at 100% load in such a restricted power mode will just prevent it from going back to its more efficient low power state.
Also, low power mode serves as a handy shortcut for the user as well since it combines a couple settings like disabling 120Hz all at once and then restores the previous settings once you leave low power mode. So for users that aren't too tech savy and might not know their Mac even has 120Hz capabilities or what that is, they wouldn't know that it eats up more power.
They improved it going from M1 to M2 and might have improved it further on M3, but this first-gen miniLED tech Apple uses to produce fantastic HDR experiences certainly won't slice the response times in half suddenly.
In fact, for a lot of content on these Macbooks you'll actually be at 60Hz as the apps need to explicitely support it, and then it's up to the apps what part of their content they show in 120Hz. Ventura is the first OS that even gives me 120Hz support in Chrome, when I got this Mac back in 2021 not even Apple's own Safari had it. And Firefox to this day stutters enough that despite technically supporting 120Hz it won't be smooth (might be due to addons, but a lot of you will be running Firefox for the addon support).
And especially for video that's typically shot in 24/30/60fps the 120Hz are useless, and fast motions in video would smear due to the bad panel response times regardless.
You are correct, however the feature still works because it presumes you won't do any power intense tasks on purpose. Maybe the OS is refreshing the spotlight search database or an app is updating in the background, there are many invisible background tasks that can and will spike the CPU usage temporarily. And unless you have low power mode enabled it will make the OS power up the fast cores of the M1/M2/M3 chips to their maximum frequency to get these tasks done as quick as possible. With low power mode the OS instead will first of all minimize that activity to begin with, and then it will also restrict the cores from powering up to their fastest states.
There's still plenty performance left for office work or browsing, so there shouldn't be any tasks waiting around longer because of the reduced frequencies. But if you really had to compile something at 100% CPU usage it would likely be better to turn off low battery mode temporarily so the task can be finished quickly and then reenable it afterwards. Just generally speaking CPUs are more efficient getting the job done as quick as possible so they can return to a low powerstate as quick as possible. Forcing a chip to remain at 100% load in such a restricted power mode will just prevent it from going back to its more efficient low power state.
Also, low power mode serves as a handy shortcut for the user as well since it combines a couple settings like disabling 120Hz all at once and then restores the previous settings once you leave low power mode. So for users that aren't too tech savy and might not know their Mac even has 120Hz capabilities or what that is, they wouldn't know that it eats up more power.
I think it is reasonable for buyers to expect the 14 inch M3 Max to have battery life that was at least as good as the 14 inch M1 Pro. Apple rated the M1 Pro for 11 to 17 hours of use on battery, whereas the M3 Max is rated by Apple for 15-22 hours. In my experience both laptops fall far short of this in real world use and the M3 Max is noticeably worse than the M1 Pro. At this point Apple's Wireless Web tests need beefing up a bit - they used to be a fairly decent guide to battery life, but not any more.
The M3 Max can definitely pull more power than the M1 Max when doing anything intensive. The fans on my M3 Max spin up faster and maintain a higher speed while draining the batteyr faster than my M1 Max MBP when running FCPX. It just finishes faster, but there's a cost. Kinda conflicted in keeping it and just going back to my M1 Max MBP, but the screen is a little faster refresh, it finally has decent wifi (the MBP M1Max wifi is slower than my prior 2019 MBP 16 with my network - Wifi 6E fixed this), the 2TB storage and 64gb of ram that I want (I was in a hurry for a trip when I got my M1Max so it was the 32/1TB stock model), but even after the Apple Trade in, I'm still having to eat over $3000 after taxes so it's kinda of a tough decision.
Nothing scientific. I've decided to keep the 14/30 M3 Max, and returned the M3 Pro this am.
I'm going to keep this easily for 3-4 years, and would hate to be hampered by performance long term.
I'm plugged in most of the day, but my testing seems to indicate I'll get a good 8-10 hours on it in Low Battery Mode with my 100's of Tabs and apps open. Which I'm ok with.
If I rein in my multitasking, chrome tabs, The best I could hit was about a 7% per hour battery burn when I had chrome with a single tab watching a YT video going at 70% brightness. So if you're typing a note, working in an app with minimal processing, that's potentially around 14 hours, I don't think I'd be able to get past that.
I'll always leave low battery mode on when I'm on a battery, even if I had the M3 Pro, I'd leave the low battery mode on.
Wouldn't a max on 'low power mode' be less performant than a pro at factory 'regular' mode? I gather that from look at the benchmarks above and in that video. For example, GB SC is slower.
Also, as an aside - is there a context switching or delay cost in having to find which one of one hundred open tabs is the one you want to look at?
Last edited:
The 14" M3 Max machines do indeed run warmer, with higher fan noise, and throttle a bit more than the 16" models. Now, you may not personally care about that happening...but it's a fact. And it's one of the reasons why many people shy away from the 14" versions of that machine when they are fitting the top M3 Max into it.
I’m not disputing facts, I’m disagreeing with your opinion that it's a mistake and a waste to run a Max chip in the 14" chassis.
The reason many people think it’s a waste to run the highest-level M3 Max in the 14” chassis is because you can easily run into a situation where you are not getting the full performance from the chip, something that you can more easily do in the slightly larger 16” version. Or at the least, you’re dealing with a lot more fan noise. You’re paying all of that money…and then gimping yourself on noise levels and likely throttling.
For a simple 2” more in size and a bit more weight, you get more out of your investment…something that is a no-brainer if your machine is docked much of the time. And most others who use their 16” models on-the-go simply adjust to the slighter bigger footprint.
All these temps have little value without mentioning the ambient temperature. Where I live, the temperature in the room can easily be 29C (84.2F). With everything else being the same, the temperature of my Mac would be higher comparing to Mac operating in a 23C (73.4F) room.
I own both the 16 and 14 inch MBPs and it may only be a 2" screen size difference, but in terms of how it feels in the hand the difference is pretty huge, to the point where I don't see myself getting a 16 inch MBP again unless I know it's going to be nearly always used as a desktop.
I think the case for having M3 Max in the 14 inch MBP is for many users now greater because M3 Max improves on both CPU and GPU performance over the M3 Pro, unlike the M1 and M2 equivalents.
That 2" more and bit more weight is cumbersome enough for me to have switched from a 16" to a 14", and I don't see myself going back. Keep in mind that there's also a price premium. Ultimately, I think we agree that everyone should purchase what's best for them.
The 14" Max is a worthy purchase if you want the 14" form factor but still value performance. I'm not trying to squeeze every ounce of possible performance out of the M3 Max, I just want the most performant 14". The Pro is not as performant as the Max. The 16" is not as portable as the 14". For my use, the 14" Max makes the most sense. Do the fans run loud and does the chip throttle? Only when I'm pushing it to the absolute limit, and it's still more performant than the Pro. Fans are not spinning for casual and most business use cases. Is the battery life less than the Pro? Yes, but with low power mode, I can still get 15 hours of battery...more than enough for my needs.
Look at my Post #14, Low Batt Mode in most things still performs better than an M3 Pro in most settings.
I'm keeping the M3 Max, the heat and battery life stuff has kinda calmed down, I think a lot was the initial setup and whatever processes in the background.
Entirely possible - that always creates panic around new Mac (or worse yet, iPhone) introductions. We've had many rounds of "the new iPhone is burning my hand and gets 4 hours of battery life" followed (in most cases) a couple of days later by "it's settling down".
So I think as soon as you sync it up to icloud >
Messages start downloading and I believe they all have to be reparsed for search.
Photo library starts redownloading and all the images need to be rescanned for all that AI fun.
I think it's stuff like that ^.
But yeah, if you're starting out full naked, then it's probably gonna be fine and fast.
I agree with this. i have used both sizes extensively and far far prefer the 14 as a laptop.
The 16 is great on the desk though.
But my conclusion was just get studio displays for home and office, then it doesn't matter.
Plus get a desktop if you really need to be doing sustained heavy work, unless you have to be mobile all the time.
Yes, there will be stuff happening like that and if you launch spotlight it will tell you there if its indexing at the current time.
In response to the indexing question, check Activity Monitor (or use iStat Menus) - you'll be able to see if background processes are chewing up CPU or memory.
The desktop question is interesting right now, and often in Apple history (at other times, there are great desktops). Right now, all the desktops except the iMac are a generation behind many of the laptops. In some parts of the lineup, it doesn't matter (M2 Pro and M3 Pro are pretty much equivalent, so an M3 Pro Mac Mini will probably have only minor improvements - buying an M2 Pro at full or nearly full price makes sense).
At the upper end (Mac Studio and Mac Pro), buying a desktop right now really doesn't make sense. The M3 Max is a substantial boost over the M2 Max - close, in fact, to the M2 Ultra). The M2 Max and Ultra are still great chips, and well worth buying at a discount (and CERTAINLY worth using for YEARS if you own them now). It probably doesn't make sense to buy them right now at current new prices (the AppleInsider price guide is showing discounts of only $200-300 on most configurations), because we have a strong sense that their replacements will be half again as fast. I'd want a discount closer to 1/3 than to 10% in that situation...
The desktop question is interesting right now, and often in Apple history (at other times, there are great desktops). Right now, all the desktops except the iMac are a generation behind many of the laptops. In some parts of the lineup, it doesn't matter (M2 Pro and M3 Pro are pretty much equivalent, so an M3 Pro Mac Mini will probably have only minor improvements - buying an M2 Pro at full or nearly full price makes sense).
At the upper end (Mac Studio and Mac Pro), buying a desktop right now really doesn't make sense. The M3 Max is a substantial boost over the M2 Max - close, in fact, to the M2 Ultra). The M2 Max and Ultra are still great chips, and well worth buying at a discount (and CERTAINLY worth using for YEARS if you own them now). It probably doesn't make sense to buy them right now at current new prices (the AppleInsider price guide is showing discounts of only $200-300 on most configurations), because we have a strong sense that their replacements will be half again as fast. I'd want a discount closer to 1/3 than to 10% in that situation...
I think people forgot how hot intel macs ran... the current 14" "warm" temp is nothing compared to the intels.. right? haha
