3 ms·

Because the M3 Air seems like a step backwards.

mort96 3y ago
Does it? Is the performance per watt of the M3 SoC worse than the performance per watt of the M2? Is the average and peak performance of the M3 MacBook Air worse than that of the M2 MacBook Air? If not, how is this a step backward?
- xyzzy_plugh 3y ago
  The gap between the Pro is increasing over generations. M2 to M3 Air isn't as significant as it should be.
  - mort96 3y ago
    The gap is increasing because these chips get a higher performance (and power) ceiling. That's a good thing. It means that the MacBook Pro -- a machine with a much better cooling solution -- can get much better performance. The M1 SoC didn't have a high enough performance ceiling to really take advantage of the MacBook Pro cooling solution, so it wasn't much faster than the Air. That was a bad thing. "M2 to M3 Air isn't as significant as it should be" might still be true though. How did you arrive at this conclusion? What benchmarks are you basing your opinion on? What is the actual improvement from M2 to M3 according to the metrics you care about, and what do you think the improvement should have been?
GeekyBear 3y ago
> the M3 Air seems like a step backwards The reviews certainly don't say so. > The M1 and M2 generally performed the same for light and medium-sized tasks whether they had active cooling fans on them or not, and the M3 acts the same way. Compared to the M1, a fully enabled M3 with eight CPU cores and 10 GPU cores running some typical benchmarks has roughly 25 to 30 percent faster single-core CPU performance, 35 to 40 percent faster multi-core performance, and between 45 and 65 percent better graphics performance, depending on the test. The numbers speak for themselves, though—however fast it throttles, a passively cooled M3 runs faster than an M1 or M2, and it stands up well against modern actively cooled laptops with Intel and AMD CPUs inside. But if you regularly stress the CPU and GPU, you're probably leaving a bit of the M3's performance on the table relative to the same chip in the $1,599 MacBook Pro. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/03/review-apples-efficient-m3-macbook-airs-are-just-about-as-good-as-laptops-get/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/03/review-apples-effici...
- ajross 3y ago
  > The reviews certainly don't say so. Linked article is literally a review that says so.
  - mort96 3y ago
    No? The linked article is saying that the M3 MacBook Air is less powerful than the M3 MacBook Pro, and yeah, you can sustain higher power consumption for longer with a fan than without, no shit. The M3 MacBook Air is significantly more powerful than the M2 MacBook Pro, which tells us that it's a step forwards. Hacker News's title length limitation makes the title here incredibly misleading, the full title says "33% Slower Than MacBook Pro".
- xbar 3y ago
  Precisely. But if you don't spend even $200 more on the Macbook Pro to get 16GB, you are leaving a bit of the M3's performance on the table due to swapping. So, $1799. Or step up to the M3 Pro with 18GB at $1999. And on the Air you could drop that same improvement in. So, $1,299. Which says to me that from $1000 to $2000 there are a variety of ways to get satisfactory performance out of a long-battery M3 Macbook. A corollary is that there is no way to get everything (unlimited multitasking, unthrottled renders, no swapping, no IO constraints) you could want out of a $999 Macbook Air M2/8GB/256GB.

Does it? Is the performance per watt of the M3 SoC worse than the performance per watt of the M2? Is the average and peak performance of the M3 MacBook Air worse than that of the M2 MacBook Air? If not, how is this a step backward?

xyzzy_plugh 3y ago
The gap between the Pro is increasing over generations. M2 to M3 Air isn't as significant as it should be.
- mort96 3y ago
  The gap is increasing because these chips get a higher performance (and power) ceiling. That's a good thing. It means that the MacBook Pro -- a machine with a much better cooling solution -- can get much better performance. The M1 SoC didn't have a high enough performance ceiling to really take advantage of the MacBook Pro cooling solution, so it wasn't much faster than the Air. That was a bad thing. "M2 to M3 Air isn't as significant as it should be" might still be true though. How did you arrive at this conclusion? What benchmarks are you basing your opinion on? What is the actual improvement from M2 to M3 according to the metrics you care about, and what do you think the improvement should have been?

GeekyBear 3y ago

> the M3 Air seems like a step backwards The reviews certainly don't say so. > The M1 and M2 generally performed the same for light and medium-sized tasks whether they had active cooling fans on them or not, and the M3 acts the same way. Compared to the M1, a fully enabled M3 with eight CPU cores and 10 GPU cores running some typical benchmarks has roughly 25 to 30 percent faster single-core CPU performance, 35 to 40 percent faster multi-core performance, and between 45 and 65 percent better graphics performance, depending on the test. The numbers speak for themselves, though—however fast it throttles, a passively cooled M3 runs faster than an M1 or M2, and it stands up well against modern actively cooled laptops with Intel and AMD CPUs inside. But if you regularly stress the CPU and GPU, you're probably leaving a bit of the M3's performance on the table relative to the same chip in the $1,599 MacBook Pro. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/03/review-apples-efficient-m3-macbook-airs-are-just-about-as-good-as-laptops-get/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/03/review-apples-effici...

ajross 3y ago
> The reviews certainly don't say so. Linked article is literally a review that says so.
- mort96 3y ago
  No? The linked article is saying that the M3 MacBook Air is less powerful than the M3 MacBook Pro, and yeah, you can sustain higher power consumption for longer with a fan than without, no shit. The M3 MacBook Air is significantly more powerful than the M2 MacBook Pro, which tells us that it's a step forwards. Hacker News's title length limitation makes the title here incredibly misleading, the full title says "33% Slower Than MacBook Pro".
xbar 3y ago
Precisely. But if you don't spend even $200 more on the Macbook Pro to get 16GB, you are leaving a bit of the M3's performance on the table due to swapping. So, $1799. Or step up to the M3 Pro with 18GB at $1999. And on the Air you could drop that same improvement in. So, $1,299. Which says to me that from $1000 to $2000 there are a variety of ways to get satisfactory performance out of a long-battery M3 Macbook. A corollary is that there is no way to get everything (unlimited multitasking, unthrottled renders, no swapping, no IO constraints) you could want out of a $999 Macbook Air M2/8GB/256GB.