4 ms·

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 impr

by 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.
  - developerDan 3y ago
    Sure it might be faster but in context it doesn’t feel like a significant improvement. The base M3 and the M3 Max have fairly large gains over their predecessors, but the M3 Pro doesn’t have nearly as large of a gain (this is all mentioned in the article). It stands out and it’s pretty clear that Apple wants people to “upgrade” to the Max which comes with a +$800 margin. I’m holding judgement until I see real world performance benchmarks vs synthetic but I fully understand everyone’s reservations with the M3 Pro.
    - JohnBooty 3y ago
      Sure it might be faster but in context it doesn’t feel like a significant improvement. So they can't just make things faster in an objective way. They have to make you "feel" a certain thing. It stands out and it’s pretty clear that Apple wants people to “upgrade” to the Max which comes with a +$800 margin. Few thoughts there. 1. Well, they certainly won't mind if you buy the Max. No argument there. 2. As for Apple's intentions I think they were extremely honest during the initial presentation itself. The market for these machines are primarily M1 and Intel Mac users. Very few people upgrade their laptops every single year. 3. The M2 lineup was a bit weird, right? If I am remembering correctly there was not a clear case for the M2 Max versus the M2 Pro. I think the M3 lineup is a bit of a correction there. While I certainly wish every chip got like, a million times faster... the product tiers here seem less confusing.
acdha 3y ago
> Not a lot of people make a laptop purchase decision over 6%. How many people make laptop purchase decisions over performance any more? I’d think the GPU boost and things like AV1 are going to matter more, which is probably why Apple focused on them.

by ajross 3y ago

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.
- developerDan 3y ago
  Sure it might be faster but in context it doesn’t feel like a significant improvement. The base M3 and the M3 Max have fairly large gains over their predecessors, but the M3 Pro doesn’t have nearly as large of a gain (this is all mentioned in the article). It stands out and it’s pretty clear that Apple wants people to “upgrade” to the Max which comes with a +$800 margin. I’m holding judgement until I see real world performance benchmarks vs synthetic but I fully understand everyone’s reservations with the M3 Pro.
  - JohnBooty 3y ago
    Sure it might be faster but in context it doesn’t feel like a significant improvement. So they can't just make things faster in an objective way. They have to make you "feel" a certain thing. It stands out and it’s pretty clear that Apple wants people to “upgrade” to the Max which comes with a +$800 margin. Few thoughts there. 1. Well, they certainly won't mind if you buy the Max. No argument there. 2. As for Apple's intentions I think they were extremely honest during the initial presentation itself. The market for these machines are primarily M1 and Intel Mac users. Very few people upgrade their laptops every single year. 3. The M2 lineup was a bit weird, right? If I am remembering correctly there was not a clear case for the M2 Max versus the M2 Pro. I think the M3 lineup is a bit of a correction there. While I certainly wish every chip got like, a million times faster... the product tiers here seem less confusing.

acdha 3y ago

> Not a lot of people make a laptop purchase decision over 6%. How many people make laptop purchase decisions over performance any more? I’d think the GPU boost and things like AV1 are going to matter more, which is probably why Apple focused on them.