4 ms·

"The first Apple M3 Pro chip benchmarks have leaked! It’s actually slower than the M2 Max based on margin of error. M3 Pro: 15,173

"The first Apple M3 Pro chip benchmarks have leaked! It’s actually slower than the M2 Max based on margin of error. M3 Pro: 15,173 M2 Max: 15,242" An alternate, and in my opinion more accurate and relevant, way of phrasing this would be: "Very cool! The new *mid-level* chips perform as well (within <1%) as the old *performance-tier* chips, so you get more performance for less money - or more perf for the same money." In what world is this not a good thing? Pretty solid annual incremental upgrade. Of course I understand why people are underwhelmed with the incremental M2 and M3 gains, after the groundbreaking M1. Now that Apple have got all of that groundbreakingness out of the way, yeah, sure, it's going to be a while before something really groundbreaking again -- but that usually happens with entirely new architectures, and new architectures don't just fall out of the sky on an annual basis. And yeah, maybe we all hoped for more from the 3nm process. Look at the annual incremental performance increases seen from AMD and Intel. The M3's progress compares favorably. I read some 14th-gen Intel benchmarks and they were mostly indistinguishable from 13th-gen benchmarks.

gigatexal 3y ago
Exactly. A mid level part being basically equivalent to a top tier part from last generation is a huge win imo.
- scosman 3y ago
  Yup. And good bump in single core performance, which you'll notice for most use cases. So really mid level part beats top tier part from last generation.
ajross 3y ago
People are picking on that lede tweet somewhat unfairly. Numbers in the rest of the article say that the same benchmark run between the two "pro" variants improves only 6%. And that's actually quite disappointing for a chip that's supposed to be a on a new semiconductor node. Not a lot of people make a laptop purchase decision over 6%. > Look at the annual incremental performance increases seen from AMD and Intel and I think these gains compare pretty favorably. I read some 14th-gen Intel benchmarks and they were pretty indistinguishable from 13-gen benchmarks. Exactly, because Raptor Lake and Alder Lake were fabbed on the same process (10nm++/Intel7, the name changed over the period for marketing reasons). That wasn't supposed to happen here, it was supposed to be new stuff.
- formerly_proven 3y ago
  > (10nm++/Intel7, the name changed over the period for marketing reasons) People like to pick on this change a lot but these names have been marketing for decades, and other fabs (including TSMC and GloFo) named nodes more advanced than they were purely to look better (iirc - GF 14nm was much closer to Intel's 22nm than to 14nm, Samsung 8nm performed way worse than TSMC N7 etc.) - meanwhile "Intel 10ESF" aka "Intel 7" is actually very similar in most metrics to TSMC N7, though is more amenable to higher clocks. If anyone wants to loose braincells over this, Wikipedia editors are (still) having an epicly long debate over this since the name was changed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:7_nm_process#Intel_7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:7_nm_process#Intel_7
- greendave 3y ago
  > People are picking on that lede tweet somewhat unfairly. Numbers in the rest of the article say that the same benchmark run between the two "pro" variants improves only 6%. And that's actually quite disappointing for a chip that's supposed to be a on a new semiconductor node. Not a lot of people make a laptop purchase decision over 6%. The M3 Pro has been neutered - the normal M2 Pro* was 8 Performance + 4 Efficiency cores (same as the Max) whereas the M3 Pro is just 6 P + 6 E cores. If you want the full complement of CPU cores on the M3, you have to get the Max variant. *There was a special 'low' end M2 pro that only had 6 + 4 cores.
  - JohnBooty 3y ago
    The M3 Pro has been neutered Neutered? What a strange way to describe a chip that is about faster than its predecessor in most benchmarks. You're strangely focusing on an implementation detail rather than actual performance. https://www.theverge.com/23944344/apple-macbook-pro-14-2023-review-m3-specs-battery-ports https://www.theverge.com/23944344/apple-macbook-pro-14-2023-... If a car company replaced a 4.0 liter internal combustion engine with a 3.8 liter engine that outperformed its predecessor, would you say that they "neutered it" because hey, you're getting 0.2 less liters of displacement? For me to call something "crippled" or "neutered" or some such it would have to have actual functionality removed, or a meaningful reduction in actual performance. This is the opposite of that. If you want to call the M3 Pro an underwhelming upgrade relative to the M2 Pro, that's your right and I don't really disagree with you, but I also think it compares pretty favorably to the annual incremental upgrades from Intel and others.
Hamuko 3y ago
The difference between the M2 Pro and M2 Max was quite subtle, especially on the CPU department. Same exact CPU cores except the Pro had a binned variant with two P cores disabled. The biggest difference between the two was on the GPU front. If they're testing the CPU, then the M2 Pro and M2 Max should have similar performance (assuming non-binned M2 Pro).
runeks 3y ago
Yet another way of phrasing: The six performance cores in the M3 Pro are on par with the eight performance cores in the M2 Max. That’s a per-core performance increase of 1/(6/8)=+33% (ignoring the efficiency cores because I have no idea how they contribute to performance).

gigatexal 3y ago

Exactly. A mid level part being basically equivalent to a top tier part from last generation is a huge win imo.

scosman 3y ago
Yup. And good bump in single core performance, which you'll notice for most use cases. So really mid level part beats top tier part from last generation.

ajross 3y ago

People are picking on that lede tweet somewhat unfairly. Numbers in the rest of the article say that the same benchmark run between the two "pro" variants improves only 6%. And that's actually quite disappointing for a chip that's supposed to be a on a new semiconductor node. Not a lot of people make a laptop purchase decision over 6%. > Look at the annual incremental performance increases seen from AMD and Intel and I think these gains compare pretty favorably. I read some 14th-gen Intel benchmarks and they were pretty indistinguishable from 13-gen benchmarks. Exactly, because Raptor Lake and Alder Lake were fabbed on the same process (10nm++/Intel7, the name changed over the period for marketing reasons). That wasn't supposed to happen here, it was supposed to be new stuff.

formerly_proven 3y ago
> (10nm++/Intel7, the name changed over the period for marketing reasons) People like to pick on this change a lot but these names have been marketing for decades, and other fabs (including TSMC and GloFo) named nodes more advanced than they were purely to look better (iirc - GF 14nm was much closer to Intel's 22nm than to 14nm, Samsung 8nm performed way worse than TSMC N7 etc.) - meanwhile "Intel 10ESF" aka "Intel 7" is actually very similar in most metrics to TSMC N7, though is more amenable to higher clocks. If anyone wants to loose braincells over this, Wikipedia editors are (still) having an epicly long debate over this since the name was changed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:7_nm_process#Intel_7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:7_nm_process#Intel_7
greendave 3y ago
> People are picking on that lede tweet somewhat unfairly. Numbers in the rest of the article say that the same benchmark run between the two "pro" variants improves only 6%. And that's actually quite disappointing for a chip that's supposed to be a on a new semiconductor node. Not a lot of people make a laptop purchase decision over 6%. The M3 Pro has been neutered - the normal M2 Pro* was 8 Performance + 4 Efficiency cores (same as the Max) whereas the M3 Pro is just 6 P + 6 E cores. If you want the full complement of CPU cores on the M3, you have to get the Max variant. *There was a special 'low' end M2 pro that only had 6 + 4 cores.
- JohnBooty 3y ago
  The M3 Pro has been neutered Neutered? What a strange way to describe a chip that is about faster than its predecessor in most benchmarks. You're strangely focusing on an implementation detail rather than actual performance. https://www.theverge.com/23944344/apple-macbook-pro-14-2023-review-m3-specs-battery-ports https://www.theverge.com/23944344/apple-macbook-pro-14-2023-... If a car company replaced a 4.0 liter internal combustion engine with a 3.8 liter engine that outperformed its predecessor, would you say that they "neutered it" because hey, you're getting 0.2 less liters of displacement? For me to call something "crippled" or "neutered" or some such it would have to have actual functionality removed, or a meaningful reduction in actual performance. This is the opposite of that. If you want to call the M3 Pro an underwhelming upgrade relative to the M2 Pro, that's your right and I don't really disagree with you, but I also think it compares pretty favorably to the annual incremental upgrades from Intel and others.

Hamuko 3y ago

The difference between the M2 Pro and M2 Max was quite subtle, especially on the CPU department. Same exact CPU cores except the Pro had a binned variant with two P cores disabled. The biggest difference between the two was on the GPU front. If they're testing the CPU, then the M2 Pro and M2 Max should have similar performance (assuming non-binned M2 Pro).

runeks 3y ago

Yet another way of phrasing: The six performance cores in the M3 Pro are on par with the eight performance cores in the M2 Max. That’s a per-core performance increase of 1/(6/8)=+33% (ignoring the efficiency cores because I have no idea how they contribute to performance).