M3 Pro vs M2 Pro cpu performance

[Natrium]

I noticed in the keynote slide for the M3 Pro the cpu comparison to the M2 Pro is missing:

It was either an oversight or left out intentionally. The former seems highly unlikely. This suggests the cpu performance improvement is likely negligible compared to M2 Pro. But why would this be the case, considering the base M3 and M3 Max cpu performance have improved significantly (as in non negligible)?

 

[leman]

They cut two performances cores from the M3 Pro. It does seem likely that the new 6+6 config won’t bring any major improvements over the previous 8+4. This is likely to convince people to upgrade to the more expensive Max.

This revenue optimization honestly leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Apple can afford to absorb that small hit per system. I think it would make more sense in long term to take the hit but deliver a better system.

 

[MayaUser]

I think Apple was right that now they have a macbook pro for more type of users...the M3 Pro should be different by quite some margins from both M3 and M3 Max....but, the prices are the only ones that doesnt sustain that analogy
This is should be front the start, now its too late since people will compare to last generations that doesnt had this same path
Now if you are not using ray tracing/mesh shading your M2 pro is almost the same and like leman said kind of force you to to with the M3 Max or to wait at least one more generation

 

[Populus]

I noticed in the keynote slide for the M3 Pro the cpu comparison to the M2 Pro is missing:

View attachment 2304796

It was either an oversight or left out intentionally. The former seems highly unlikely. This suggests the cpu performance improvement is likely negligible compared to M2 Pro. But why would this be the case, considering the base M3 and M3 Max cpu performance have improved significantly (as in non negligible)?

Thanks for opening a thread for this specific case. Last night, before going to sleep, the only thing I could spot was that the M3 Pro had 3 billion fewer transistors than the M2 Pro.

I’m eager to see how the benchmarks compare between both of them, but in the meantime, I’ve had my own thoughts.

@deconstruct60 this morning mentioned on the Mac mini thread that probably this has something to do with a bigger iPad Pro. Well, the obvious is that this new M3 Pro is more efficiency focused, so maybe Apple plans to leave the M3 for the iPad Air lineup, and use the new M3 Pro on the entire iPad Pro lineup. Seems too crazy? Okay, chill, it’s just an idea.

 

[MayaUser]

At this point, i dont think Apple can go with thinner laptops.

 

[EagleDrama]

So, just to be sure.
There's probably not a lot of difference between the M2 Max and the M3 Max, except for better Raytracing on the M3?

So the M3 would only make sense, if I'm a gamer?


Background to my question: I want to buy my first MacBook this year and am now quite unsure if I should just get a refurbished M2 Max, or just go for the M3 right away...

 

[Populus]

So, just to be sure.
There's probably not a lot of difference between the M2 Max and the M3 Max, except for better Raytracing on the M3?

So the M3 would only make sense, if I'm a gamer?


Background to my question: I want to buy my first MacBook this year and am now quite unsure if I should just get a refurbished M2 Max, or just go for the M3 right away...

You’re talking about the Max category, right? This thread focuses on the M3 Pro vs M2 Pro because in this case, there’s a significant change with fewer transistors, and fewer Performance cores, but this cannot be applied to the M3 Max vs M3 Max case, as the M3 Max has indeed 26 billion transistors more than the M2 Max, and the M3 Max actually has up to 12 Performance cores, up from the 8 Performance cores that the M2 Max. Also, the thread is focused on the CPU cores, which is where there’s a significant change in the philosophy of the M3 Pro; we’re not talking about the GPU.

So the anomaly here -if you want to call it that way- is the Pro System on a Chip, not the Max.
What is being talked here about the anomalies from the M3 Pro, I think, cannot be applied to the M3 Max.

EDIT: And while we are at it, regarding your question, even tho it is off-topic, I’d say the M3 Max is not only interesting for gamers, because aside from the new GPU architecture with this new caching system and the Ray Tracing, it increases the performance cores from 8 to 12. So if you need raw CPU power, there you go, the M3 Max is plain better, as long as your tasks can be efficiently parallelized.

 

[EagleDrama]

You’re talking about the Max category, right?
(...)What is being talked here about the anomalies from the M3 Pro, I think, cannot be applied to the M3 Max.

Right, thanks! Still found your answer very helpful

 

[caribbeanblue]

They cut two performances cores from the M3 Pro. It does seem likely that the new 6+6 config won’t bring any major improvements over the previous 8+4. This is likely to convince people to upgrade to the more expensive Max.

This revenue optimization honestly leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Apple can afford to absorb that small hit per system. I think it would make more sense in long term to take the hit but deliver a better system.

One upside to this is that more apps are going to benefit from the higher per-core performance of the M3 Pro than any disadvantage it could have with its multicore performance against the M2 Pro, if it has any. But in terms of multicore improvement, it is indeed not big.

 

[dgdosen]

I noticed in the keynote slide for the M3 Pro the cpu comparison to the M2 Pro is missing:

View attachment 2304796

It was either an oversight or left out intentionally. The former seems highly unlikely. This suggests the cpu performance improvement is likely negligible compared to M2 Pro. But why would this be the case, considering the base M3 and M3 Max cpu performance have improved significantly (as in non negligible)?

The M3 Pro:

- Lower memory bandwidth
- Fewer transistors
- Fewer P cores

Strange decisions. Now I want to see benchmarks.

 

[MayaUser]

Its easy, if you can take advantage of ray tracing/mesh in your apps/work there is no need to upgrade from M2 Pro

 

[bcortens]

The M3 Pro is an exercise in de-contenting - Tim Cook's Apple has finally found a way to bring their stinginess on RAM and Storage to the silicon itself! The M3 Pro really should have 8 Performance cores as that would be a nice midway point between the M3 Max and the base M3. It also really should have 200GB of memory bandwidth but the de-contenting continues with the M3 Max memory bandwidth so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

These chips are really impressive from a performance per core perspective but the overall packaging captures the very worst of what we hate from NVIDIA (trimming down the memory bus bandwidth, cutting down the number of cores) and brings it to the Mac.

 

[dugbug]

The M3 Pro is an exercise in de-contenting - Tim Cook's Apple has finally found a way to bring their stinginess on RAM and Storage to the silicon itself! The M3 Pro really should have 8 Performance cores as that would be a nice midway point between the M3 Max and the base M3. It also really should have 200GB of memory bandwidth but the de-contenting continues with the M3 Max memory bandwidth so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

These chips are really impressive from a performance per core perspective but the overall packaging captures the very worst of what we hate from NVIDIA (trimming down the memory bus bandwidth, cutting down the number of cores) and brings it to the Mac.

de-contenting? lol lets not get hyperbolic. Just wait for the benchmarks and feedback before freaking out over 'packaging'. You don't even know if the pro would fully utilize that bandwidth they dropped.

Also recall there are THREE chips now in the 14/16 pro lineup. They increased the value proposition at the bottom with a base M3, ideally for road warriors that want maximum battery life and the extra ports but don't care about much else.

 

[leman]

Strange decisions. Now I want to see benchmarks.

I think they are trying to differentiate more between Pro and Max, most likely in the hope of boosting Max sales. I would be fine with it too, it's just a shame this is achieved by gutting the Pro rather than just boosting the Max. But there also might be other revenue optimisation going on here (like reducing the die size for Pro to cut manufacturing costs).

 

[reklex]

they want that base model M3 Max to sell more to people who are on the fence with the M3 Pro chip configs.

The 14 core CPU and 36GB RAM does it.

It’s clever but prices are up, which is annoying anyway.

 

[Natrium]

I think they are trying to differentiate more between Pro and Max, most likely in the hope of boosting Max sales. I would be fine with it too, it's just a shame this is achieved by gutting the Pro rather than just boosting the Max. But there also might be other revenue optimisation going on here (like reducing the die size for Pro to cut manufacturing costs).

The strange thing is that on Apple.com the M3 Max/Pro are not compared to each other. They’re only compared to their M1/2 and Intel predecessors. If the strategy is to push buyers from the Pro to the Max, you would expect Apple to really emphasize the difference in performance between the Pro/Max.

 

[reklex]

The strange thing is that on Apple.com the M3 Max/Pro are not compared to each other. They’re only compared to their M1/2 and Intel predecessors. If the strategy is to push buyers from the Pro to the Max, you would expect Apple to really emphasize the difference in performance between the Pro/Max.

Because the gains are marginal for them and only useful if they also do graphic and video work.

 

[bcortens]

de-contenting? lol lets not get hyperbolic. Just wait for the benchmarks and feedback before freaking out over 'packaging'. You don't even know if the pro would fully utilize that bandwidth they dropped.

Also recall there are THREE chips now in the 14/16 pro lineup. They increased the value proposition at the bottom with a base M3, ideally for road warriors that want maximum battery life and the extra ports but don't care about much else.

The only reason there are three chips in the 14” pro chassis is because they want to ship an M3 with a fan. The base M3 14” is a replacement for the old 13” and should be compared against it (it is a big upgrade)

Edit: it is decontenting - complain it is hyperbolic, assert that the lost core count doesnt matter, whatever, the fact is the Pro model got worse from a CPU perspective …

 

[pgolik]

They cut two performances cores from the M3 Pro. It does seem likely that the new 6+6 config won’t bring any major improvements over the previous 8+4.

So, the 12 core M3pro lost two P cores, but gained 2 E cores. Can this mean that it will not be significantly faster than the 12 core M2pro, but gain some efficiency? Can subsequent generations of macOS and other software delegate more tasks to the E cores?

 

[leman]

Can subsequent generations of macOS and other software delegate more tasks to the E cores?

E-cores are already used if you are running a demanding multi-core workload, so they are not wasting space if that's what you are asking. It has been observed in the other thread that Apple likely moved from a 4-core cluster design to 6-core cluster design. Additional E-cores are likely there to help with multi-core performance while also conserving manufacturing costs.

 

[JimmyG]

I noticed in the keynote slide for the M3 Pro the cpu comparison to the M2 Pro is missing:

View attachment 2304796

It was either an oversight or left out intentionally. The former seems highly unlikely. This suggests the cpu performance improvement is likely negligible compared to M2 Pro. But why would this be the case, considering the base M3 and M3 Max cpu performance have improved significantly (as in non negligible)?

Apparently some folks watched a different presentation than the rest of us.

 

[Natrium]

Apparently some folks watched a different presentation than the rest of us.

View attachment 2304933 View attachment 2304930 View attachment 2304931 View attachment 2304932 View attachment 2304935 View attachment 2304934 View attachment 2304936 View attachment 2304933 View attachment 2304930 View attachment 2304931 View attachment 2304932 View attachment 2304935 View attachment 2304934 View attachment 2304936

The discussion here is specifically about the CPU component of the M3 Pro and not its GPU, Neural Engine, Image Processor or the M3 Family (M3, M3 Pro and M3 Max) CPU in general...

 

[deconstruct60]

Apparently some folks watched a different presentation than the rest of us. ....

View attachment 2304930

...

View attachment 2304931

In the M1 era the rule of thumb was that 4 E = 1 P worth of performance. If one M3 E-core is worth 1.5 M1 E-cores then effectively have 6*1.5 = 9 . 9/4 = 2.25 of the older era P cores worth of performance. ( for for one 4 core E cluster (4 * 1.5) / 4 = 1.5 old P ) That isn't 'bragging rites' kind of performance versus 2024 competitor P cores , but it is actually a very respectable amount of performance ( i.e., you don't 'have to' escalate some workloads up to P cores to get work done).


That is enough "horsepower" that for some workloads they may not need to turn the P cores on at all. Or just one halfed , 2-core P-cluster ( which consumes less power than a full 4 core).

What Apple appears to have is in the M3 Pro is P cores with a 4 cluster + 2 cluster setup and E cores in, surprise surprise , 4 cluster + 2 cluster set up. So the M3 Pro can limbo down to just a M3 ( 4 + 4 ) or even lower ( 2 + 2 ) just fine saving substantive power ( non use clusters off ) while still running very interesting workloads ( e.g., say it is image processing , NPU , and/or GPU dominated ).


And for the M3 P cores single threaded there is uplift over both M1 and M2. In a 2 + 4 , 2 + 2 subcontext can go faster with less power consumed. That is kind of the point for a laptop if trying to significant extend battery life.


The Pro is more 'well rounded' for a diverse set of workloads than either the M3 or M3 Max. Probably why it is tagged 'Pro'.

 

[deconstruct60]

@deconstruct60 this morning mentioned on the Mac mini thread that probably this has something to do with a bigger iPad Pro. Well, the obvious is that this new M3 Pro is more efficiency focused, so maybe Apple plans to leave the M3 for the iPad Air lineup, and use the new M3 Pro on the entire iPad Pro lineup. Seems too crazy? Okay, chill, it’s just an idea.

It would be something closer to a "iPad Ultra" , but something closer to a Microsoft Surface Pro (e.g., take the 14" screen off the MBP 14" , thicken it past what is normal for iPad, but still somewhat thin with active cooling. and perhaps been back the GPU at the extreme edge a bit).

There is a very good chance that the Qualcomm X Elite is going to get tossed into a variety of Windows tablets. Some with active cooling. The X Elite will fit into a broad number of enclosures. So will the M3 Pro if Apple chose to do so.

The M3 Pro could be run in modes of 2P+2E , 2P+4E , 4P+4E , 4P+6E so it could operate in a smaller thermal envelope if those fit the workloads engaged in some contexts. It 'smells' like a package that could be put into a product with a smaller battery than a MBP 14" and still get decent battery life.

It could be a quieter Mini Pro , but I really don't think the Mini Pro was really 'desperate' for those thermal envelope flexibility. It just looks like there is yet another product they want to toss this into. And I suspect it is not yet another laptop.


P.S. at the end of the "Scary Fast" video the credits listed that the whole thing was "shot on iPhone and edited on a Mac". If there was a 'iPad Ultra 14" + M3 Pro' then probably could have done the whole thing on that one device.
( camera , field video monitor , storage ( internal or to external USB-C SSD) , daily/quick edit workstation , finish with resolve .... all in one 'slab' mounted to a shooting gimbal. )

 

[deconstruct60]

The M3 Pro is an exercise in de-contenting - Tim Cook's Apple has finally found a way to bring their stinginess on RAM and Storage to the silicon itself! The M3 Pro really should have 8 Performance cores as that would be a nice midway point between the M3 Max and the base M3. It also really should have 200GB of memory bandwidth

TSMC N3B wafers cost substantially more. Apple doesn't control that pricing. There external forces pushing Apple toward a smaller die. The M3 Pro needs to be smaller than the M2 Pro if Apple is going to hit the same end user price targets.

N3E trades some density for lower upfront wafer costs , but the die also grow ( especially cache/SRAM higher percentage area ones ). The wafers are cheaper, but buying more wafers to get the same number of working dies.
[ The hype in these forums that N3 was going to bring a big explosion in core counts was not grounded in the context that more cores means more cache ... and cache wasn't really shrinking. So more cache would mainly mean bigger dies. Costs were always likely to nix that. ]


The M3 Pro also is less of a "M3 Max with less GPU cores" than the M1/M2 iterations. It has its own 'big picture' layout so it likely has more of its own R&D overhead.

There is less bandwidth but they also trimmed off 2 P cores and some GPU cores they were using for yield management ( M2 there were 20 cores on die , but never turned all of them on. )

Tossing the extra RAM package does save costs for Apple , but it also lower power consumption also (which is a Pref/Watt quest they are on).

The bandwidth will come back on another iteration when go to LPDDR5X (or better).

I suspect on mixed workloads the real 'all day' battery life is longer with the M3 Pro than the M2 Pro. ( of course the video consumption metric is up since vast majority of that doesn't even run through CPU or GPU cores at all and is in no way memory bandwidth constrained at all.). M2 Pro when pushed it very hard for long periods of time the battery tended to snag faster than M1 ( doing more but consuming more also). M3 Pro is likely more balanced.