4 ms·

Feels like we’ve gone from “it’s just better, it’s obviously better you can see with your eyes and feel it as you use it” when M1/2 dropped. To trying to justi

Feels like we’ve gone from “it’s just better, it’s obviously better you can see with your eyes and feel it as you use it” when M1/2 dropped. To trying to justify why the M3 is 20% faster than the M1 and the M2 was also 20% faster than the M1 and weirdly Apple is only comparing it to their older processor. Like people, maybe it’s just an underwhelming update… no need to pretend it’s not.

dmix 3y ago
Every Apple update that’s not a new product/major revision people rush to HN to say how underwhelmed they are. This says more about the high bar they set for announcements and people’s own expectations… rather than how steady and efficient progress works in reality. This is what product iterations look like, M2 only came out a year ago and M3 is a notable speed increase and just as important bump in battery life (22hrs is insane for the performance you get). They compared to M1 and intel because people almost always wait 1-2 cycles before upgrading because MacBooks easily last 2yrs under heavy use and it’s an expensive upgrade.
runjake 3y ago
1. I think you set your expectations too high. 2. I assume Apple compared the M3 to M1 because most of the customers they are targeting are still on the M1. M2 customers bought a computer less than a year ago and that pool of people is relatively small compared to the number on M1 today.
- mcphage 3y ago
  > I think you set your expectations too high. Well, they did announce it in an event called "scary fast". I mean there's always marketing exaggeration, but I did expect more than trying to understand if it's even faster at all. Otherwise I'm not entirely certain what the point was.
  - whynotminot 3y ago
    Literally the only point of confusion here is M3 Pro versus M2 Pro, where Apple seems to have simply made different choices around what the Pro chip should be. M3 Max is a massive gain over M2 Max. And M3 is a nice improvement over M2. Hope that helps.
    - mcphage 3y ago
      That does, actually. Thanks.
  - stetrain 3y ago
    It felt like half the event was listing different types of workload and saying that the new chips were 15-20% faster than the M2 generation at that task, and 30-40% faster than the M1 generation. The only real exception to that is the M3 Pro, which is closer to the performance of the M2 Pro at a reduced core count.
  - runjake 3y ago
    > Well, they did announce it in an event called "scary fast". It was the night before Halloween. > I mean there's always marketing exaggeration Apple's marketing people are notorious for exaggeration. > I did expect more than trying to understand if it's even faster at all Their stated performance improvements seem to be accurate. Although I'm surprised at how much faster the M3 Max seems to be. > I'm not entirely certain what the point was. The point was this year's revisions with a speed bump. They do this almost every year. That said, early benchmarks are indicating that the M3 Max performance is on par with the M2 Ultra. I consider that “scary fast” myself.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  > 2. I assume Apple compared the M3 to M1 because most of the customers they are targeting are still on the M1. I feel like this is giving Apple the benefit of the doubt. Most people here wouldn't say the same of Intel if they started comparing to 2 or 3 generations ago. No, most likely they're comparing to M1 because it's the biggest difference that is still plausible to explain.
pohl 3y ago
The M3 Max performs similarly to an M2 Ultra. That feels pretty big to me as a current M1 Max user.
- steve1977 3y ago
  It’s also more expensive than a M2 Max or M1 Max if I’m not mistaken.
  - stetrain 3y ago
    14" MBP with the highest M2 Max configuration, 64GB RAM, 1TB SSD was $3899. A new model with the same configuration is also $3899.
    - steve1977 3y ago
      Interesting, they seem to be bit more expensive where I live, although I cannot compare them 1:1 (spec'd one with M2 Max 30 Core GPU and 64 GB RAM some months ago, however for 64 GB RAM I would need to go with the M3 Max 40 Core GPU now, so not a fair comparison) Edit: But in any case, the difference would not be huge from what I can see, so I guess my point is moot
    - speedgoose 3y ago
      Wow, that’s overpriced for such low specs.
      - grecy 3y ago
        Please show me a laptop from another manufacturer that has similar specs, similar screen, similar battery life that costs less.
        speedgoose 3y ago
        It’s more that those specs are not worth the price bump. I have a M1 that is slightly less capable but cost much much less. I use it to access machines that are faster than this M3 laptop when needed.
rahoulb 3y ago
I bought my M1 MacBook Pro not long after they were released. It's approaching 3 years old which is a pretty standard age for people to start looking at a replacement - I guess that's why they're comparing it to the M1. Slight tangent - even though the MBP has been struggling to handle my dev work (partly because the codebase I'm working on has grown significantly in the last two years) I won't be upgrading. Work bought me a MacStudio (M2 Max), which mainly runs headlessly on my desk (also running Homebridge and plugged into my big speakers for AirPlay). This means I'm keeping the MBP as my portable machine (using VSCode's remote extensions and/or CodeServer to do dev work from wherever). I also have a late-2015 27" iMac at the office (with OpenCore Legacy Patcher so it can run whatever the latest macOS is called nowadays). This also works perfectly well now all the hard stuff is done on the MacStudio - and the screen is still lovely. (My previous 27" iMac was in active service for 10 years, although it was almost unusable towards the end). Another tangent - I bet that's why they're not doing the larger "pro" iMacs. If it weren't for VSCode Remote Extensions and OCLP, I would have ended up with a beautiful monitor that was essentially useless (as was my original 27" iMac). People who need that extra power should probably avoid all-in-ones and I won't be getting one again. But for most people, who tend to have a single machine, a comparison to the 3 year old equivalent seems pretty fair to me.
- bee_rider 3y ago
  Comparing against the device 2 generations back does seem to make more sense from a “should I upgrade” point of view, and seems like a fine thing to put in marketing slides (as well as comparisons vs current peers, since that’s relevant to the question of “what should I upgrade to.” The lackluster year-to-year is a bit of a bad sign WRT the long term trajectory, but they’ve been doing this successfully for quite a while, they’ve recovered from worse I suspect.
- dnissley 3y ago
  Oldest MBPs with an M1 are from late 2021, so only 2 years old.
  - rahoulb 3y ago
    Those were the redesigned M1 Max/Pro versions. Mine is the M1-with-touchbar (same design as the intel version) which was released at the same time as the M1 MacBook Air - late 2020.
fouc 3y ago
The apple marketing compared their m3 to both m2 and m1, saying it was 50% faster than m1, and 30% (or 20%?) faster than m2
stetrain 3y ago
20% performance increases generation over generation, every 18 months or so, seems pretty great to me. If people were expecting gains like the Intel to M1 transition on an annual basis I'm not sure that was ever realistic.
Frost1x 3y ago
>Like people, maybe it’s just an underwhelming update… no need to pretend it’s not. "Buy the new M3, a small incremental improvement on the M1/M2" would probably get a lot of people fired as a marketing campaign. While I agree with you, we live in a reality where hype, hyperbole, misleading, and intentionally manipulative information is accepted and common place for selling things. It sure would be nice to look at a product or service and get a clear comparison without having to read between the lines, pick out subtle vague language usage, and keep up with the latest propaganda techniques but alas, it's everywhere. On the bright side it should teach everyone you shouldn't trust the majority of information at face value, which is a useful skill in life. On the downside we continuously erode trust in one another and I worry it's wearing on social structures and relationships everywhere as more people see and mimic these behaviors everywhere for everything.
fsociety 3y ago
Why would you market to people who just bought an M2 Pro this year? Those who are going to upgrade, will anyways. Seems silly to market to people telling them to buy new multi-thousand dollar laptops every year.
- creativenolo 3y ago
  Yeah and in addition, people know Intel to Apple silicon was a massive leap, so why market how much fast it is than the intel version. That play has been played. The stats compare to m2 are there. They are just not the headline/summary.
lostlogin 3y ago
Most of the customers are going to be Mac users, and I’ll bet that most already have M series machines. Comparing M3s to old Intel Macs would also be lame, and a fairly meaningless comparison. It would be interesting to know how many people compare M series performance to Intel performance when buying, as those are usually going to be different markets surely?

dmix 3y ago

Every Apple update that’s not a new product/major revision people rush to HN to say how underwhelmed they are. This says more about the high bar they set for announcements and people’s own expectations… rather than how steady and efficient progress works in reality. This is what product iterations look like, M2 only came out a year ago and M3 is a notable speed increase and just as important bump in battery life (22hrs is insane for the performance you get). They compared to M1 and intel because people almost always wait 1-2 cycles before upgrading because MacBooks easily last 2yrs under heavy use and it’s an expensive upgrade.

runjake 3y ago

1. I think you set your expectations too high. 2. I assume Apple compared the M3 to M1 because most of the customers they are targeting are still on the M1. M2 customers bought a computer less than a year ago and that pool of people is relatively small compared to the number on M1 today.

mcphage 3y ago
> I think you set your expectations too high. Well, they did announce it in an event called "scary fast". I mean there's always marketing exaggeration, but I did expect more than trying to understand if it's even faster at all. Otherwise I'm not entirely certain what the point was.
- whynotminot 3y ago
  Literally the only point of confusion here is M3 Pro versus M2 Pro, where Apple seems to have simply made different choices around what the Pro chip should be. M3 Max is a massive gain over M2 Max. And M3 is a nice improvement over M2. Hope that helps.
  - mcphage 3y ago
    That does, actually. Thanks.
- stetrain 3y ago
  It felt like half the event was listing different types of workload and saying that the new chips were 15-20% faster than the M2 generation at that task, and 30-40% faster than the M1 generation. The only real exception to that is the M3 Pro, which is closer to the performance of the M2 Pro at a reduced core count.
- runjake 3y ago
  > Well, they did announce it in an event called "scary fast". It was the night before Halloween. > I mean there's always marketing exaggeration Apple's marketing people are notorious for exaggeration. > I did expect more than trying to understand if it's even faster at all Their stated performance improvements seem to be accurate. Although I'm surprised at how much faster the M3 Max seems to be. > I'm not entirely certain what the point was. The point was this year's revisions with a speed bump. They do this almost every year. That said, early benchmarks are indicating that the M3 Max performance is on par with the M2 Ultra. I consider that “scary fast” myself.
FireBeyond 3y ago
> 2. I assume Apple compared the M3 to M1 because most of the customers they are targeting are still on the M1. I feel like this is giving Apple the benefit of the doubt. Most people here wouldn't say the same of Intel if they started comparing to 2 or 3 generations ago. No, most likely they're comparing to M1 because it's the biggest difference that is still plausible to explain.

pohl 3y ago

The M3 Max performs similarly to an M2 Ultra. That feels pretty big to me as a current M1 Max user.

steve1977 3y ago
It’s also more expensive than a M2 Max or M1 Max if I’m not mistaken.
- stetrain 3y ago
  14" MBP with the highest M2 Max configuration, 64GB RAM, 1TB SSD was $3899. A new model with the same configuration is also $3899.
  - steve1977 3y ago
    Interesting, they seem to be bit more expensive where I live, although I cannot compare them 1:1 (spec'd one with M2 Max 30 Core GPU and 64 GB RAM some months ago, however for 64 GB RAM I would need to go with the M3 Max 40 Core GPU now, so not a fair comparison) Edit: But in any case, the difference would not be huge from what I can see, so I guess my point is moot
  - speedgoose 3y ago
    Wow, that’s overpriced for such low specs.
    - grecy 3y ago
      Please show me a laptop from another manufacturer that has similar specs, similar screen, similar battery life that costs less.
      - speedgoose 3y ago
        It’s more that those specs are not worth the price bump. I have a M1 that is slightly less capable but cost much much less. I use it to access machines that are faster than this M3 laptop when needed.

rahoulb 3y ago

I bought my M1 MacBook Pro not long after they were released. It's approaching 3 years old which is a pretty standard age for people to start looking at a replacement - I guess that's why they're comparing it to the M1. Slight tangent - even though the MBP has been struggling to handle my dev work (partly because the codebase I'm working on has grown significantly in the last two years) I won't be upgrading. Work bought me a MacStudio (M2 Max), which mainly runs headlessly on my desk (also running Homebridge and plugged into my big speakers for AirPlay). This means I'm keeping the MBP as my portable machine (using VSCode's remote extensions and/or CodeServer to do dev work from wherever). I also have a late-2015 27" iMac at the office (with OpenCore Legacy Patcher so it can run whatever the latest macOS is called nowadays). This also works perfectly well now all the hard stuff is done on the MacStudio - and the screen is still lovely. (My previous 27" iMac was in active service for 10 years, although it was almost unusable towards the end). Another tangent - I bet that's why they're not doing the larger "pro" iMacs. If it weren't for VSCode Remote Extensions and OCLP, I would have ended up with a beautiful monitor that was essentially useless (as was my original 27" iMac). People who need that extra power should probably avoid all-in-ones and I won't be getting one again. But for most people, who tend to have a single machine, a comparison to the 3 year old equivalent seems pretty fair to me.

bee_rider 3y ago
Comparing against the device 2 generations back does seem to make more sense from a “should I upgrade” point of view, and seems like a fine thing to put in marketing slides (as well as comparisons vs current peers, since that’s relevant to the question of “what should I upgrade to.” The lackluster year-to-year is a bit of a bad sign WRT the long term trajectory, but they’ve been doing this successfully for quite a while, they’ve recovered from worse I suspect.
dnissley 3y ago
Oldest MBPs with an M1 are from late 2021, so only 2 years old.
- rahoulb 3y ago
  Those were the redesigned M1 Max/Pro versions. Mine is the M1-with-touchbar (same design as the intel version) which was released at the same time as the M1 MacBook Air - late 2020.

fouc 3y ago

The apple marketing compared their m3 to both m2 and m1, saying it was 50% faster than m1, and 30% (or 20%?) faster than m2

stetrain 3y ago

20% performance increases generation over generation, every 18 months or so, seems pretty great to me. If people were expecting gains like the Intel to M1 transition on an annual basis I'm not sure that was ever realistic.

Frost1x 3y ago

>Like people, maybe it’s just an underwhelming update… no need to pretend it’s not. "Buy the new M3, a small incremental improvement on the M1/M2" would probably get a lot of people fired as a marketing campaign. While I agree with you, we live in a reality where hype, hyperbole, misleading, and intentionally manipulative information is accepted and common place for selling things. It sure would be nice to look at a product or service and get a clear comparison without having to read between the lines, pick out subtle vague language usage, and keep up with the latest propaganda techniques but alas, it's everywhere. On the bright side it should teach everyone you shouldn't trust the majority of information at face value, which is a useful skill in life. On the downside we continuously erode trust in one another and I worry it's wearing on social structures and relationships everywhere as more people see and mimic these behaviors everywhere for everything.

fsociety 3y ago

Why would you market to people who just bought an M2 Pro this year? Those who are going to upgrade, will anyways. Seems silly to market to people telling them to buy new multi-thousand dollar laptops every year.

creativenolo 3y ago
Yeah and in addition, people know Intel to Apple silicon was a massive leap, so why market how much fast it is than the intel version. That play has been played. The stats compare to m2 are there. They are just not the headline/summary.

lostlogin 3y ago

Most of the customers are going to be Mac users, and I’ll bet that most already have M series machines. Comparing M3s to old Intel Macs would also be lame, and a fairly meaningless comparison. It would be interesting to know how many people compare M series performance to Intel performance when buying, as those are usually going to be different markets surely?