Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

First Apple M3 Pro Benchmarks Show Surprisingly Low Multi-Core Gains over M2 Pro

extremetech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 83 posts

Re: First Apple M3 Pro Benchmarks Show Surprisingly Low Multi-Core Gains over M2 Pro

#61

Post by dangus »

megraf wrote: post #27

I have a work issued M1 Max, which has an incredible amount of computational power. I wanted a personal computer, and purchased an identical machine, M1 Max, 64Gig, whatever. I realized 4 days later that it wasn't possible for me to push my personal machine anywhere near this machines limits. I returned it, and bought an extremely cheap ($240?) MacBook Pro, i5 - 2017. It hasn't slowed me down, and my strategy is to u…

And now your platform is going to stop getting OS builds potentially as soon as next year because Apple switched to a new architecture. There’s a reason that system cost less than an iPad.

Apple was basically begging Intel users to upgrade to Apple Silicon at the most recent keynote. I think Sonoma is the last Intel build. Apple drops a ton of technical baggage if they can stop supporting Intel.

The machine you should have purchased is the M1 MacBook Air. You can find a used one in the $500-600 range or a new one in the $700’s and it will smoke the 2017 Intel system while returning double the battery life and making zero noise with its fanless design. It’s comfortable on a lap and doesn’t get hot.

Look, it’s bad that technology is disposable, but if you buy a Mac you are getting ~8-10 years of feature updates and an additional ~2 years of extended support security updates. Maybe after that you’ve got OpenCore Legacy, but that won’t help you if Apple doesn’t release binaries on your processor architecture.

If you buy a PC you’ve got a system that is better designed for alternative operating systems and long-term support. But when you buy a Mac that’s just part of the deal, you’re in the platform. I consider my Mac system to be more of a leased tool and I’ve accepted its limited lifespan as part of the compromise of that platform.

If you buy Apple’s previous architecture you’re getting a much worse experience, and there’s history to back up that fact. What you did was equivalent to buying an iBook G4 in 2008. Your system is going to either be a brick or a jankier-than-average Linux box in 2-3 years (i.e., a ThinkPad makes a better Linux box than a MacBook).

Finally, if you don’t even use iCloud or an Apple ID I’m not sure what the appeal of a Mac is in the first place, especially one that isn’t on a particularly unique or advantageous architecture. I’ve got a Mac because I prefer an iPhone and I’m kind of stuck with it if I want to send texts from my computer. If you’re not even using anything involving an Apple ID you might as well be on Linux or Windows.

Re: First Apple M3 Pro Benchmarks Show Surprisingly Low Multi-Core Gains over M2 Pro

#62

Post by fmajid »

sgjohnson wrote: post #14

It was a deliberate choice to differentiate between Pro and Max There's a 45% performance uplift between M2 Max and M3 Max in benchmarks. You still get more performance between M2 Pro and M3 Pro. And you get significantly more if you're upgrading from M1 Pro.

The M2 Pro was a barely crippled M2 Max.

The M3 Pro is a properly crippled M3 Max.

It's called market segmentation, and Apple is very good at it, but in the early days of M1 (and M2, which is just a warmed-over M1) they didn't have the engineering time to make 4 tiers (Base, Pro, Max, Ultra) and had to do a half-assed job of chopping off part of the Max to make the Pro. With M3, the Pro is its own design, with carefully designed limitations to force you to the Max.

Re: First Apple M3 Pro Benchmarks Show Surprisingly Low Multi-Core Gains over M2 Pro

#63

Post by tristor »

megraf wrote: post #27

I have a work issued M1 Max, which has an incredible amount of computational power. I wanted a personal computer, and purchased an identical machine, M1 Max, 64Gig, whatever. I realized 4 days later that it wasn't possible for me to push my personal machine anywhere near this machines limits. I returned it, and bought an extremely cheap ($240?) MacBook Pro, i5 - 2017. It hasn't slowed me down, and my strategy is to u…

Honestly, you made an incredibly irrational choice. You went from what is likely a $2500 machine to a $250 machine that is more than 10x worse, but you could have gone from a $2500 machine to a $1200 machine that is less than 2x worse by buying a new M1 MBA or similar instead.

The fact you seem proud of this choice and are holding it out as some sort of virtue as if the difference between an Intel Mac from 2017 and an M1 Mac is inconsequential clout chasing is the cherry on top. The efficiency gains alone in the higher performance and lower power usage make running a non-M1 Mac an environmental loss in comparison, considering that as you so clearly point out, Mac's have extremely long usage lifespans.

Re: First Apple M3 Pro Benchmarks Show Surprisingly Low Multi-Core Gains over M2 Pro

#64

Post by twh270 »

bearjaws wrote: post #55
whywhywhywhy wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> MacBook Pro, i5 - 2017 Sorry but this is the worst machine Apple has made in possibly around 20 years. Feels heat constrained in it's own chassis, fan turns on at the drop of a hat, battery not big enough for sustained work and started durning off at 20% on older units when you open a video call, charger it ships with not powerful enough to jump start from empty without a 5 minute wait, keyboard feels gross makes t…

Is there a name for this type of person? Who will just waste any amount of time possible to get a 1% performance improvement. I see it all the time in the overclocking community, and more seldomly in the portable space.

In my young years I had little understanding of the value of time, and would spend an inordinate amount of time on eking out that last little bit of perfection (whatever "perfect" looked like to me, anyway).

Bragging rights fits in here as well for a certain cohort. "Oh, you got 5.551Ghz, not bad but I'm at 5.5511Ghz".

Another classic example of this is uptime bragging for some linux fans, as a way to both one-up each other and to one-up the Windows community, which (more so in the past) had pretty awful uptimes due to various bugs and the need to reboot after making config changes. (We used to joke: "You have moved your mouse, please reboot Windows for this change to take effect.")

I think most people in this kind of community though just enjoy tinkering and maximizing performance/whatever.

Re: First Apple M3 Pro Benchmarks Show Surprisingly Low Multi-Core Gains over M2 Pro

#65

Post by developerDan »

JohnBooty wrote: post #56
greendave wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Efficien…

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-... If a car company replaced a 4.0 liter internal combustion engine with a 3.8 liter engine that outperformed its predecessor, would y…

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.

Re: First Apple M3 Pro Benchmarks Show Surprisingly Low Multi-Core Gains over M2 Pro

#66

Post by konart »

megraf wrote: post #27

I have a work issued M1 Max, which has an incredible amount of computational power. I wanted a personal computer, and purchased an identical machine, M1 Max, 64Gig, whatever. I realized 4 days later that it wasn't possible for me to push my personal machine anywhere near this machines limits. I returned it, and bought an extremely cheap ($240?) MacBook Pro, i5 - 2017. It hasn't slowed me down, and my strategy is to u…

I don't think buying a new Macbook (or any computer) sooner than after 5-7 years of use is pretty meaningless for most cases.

But going for a 2017 one is simply strange considering the differences in all areas. I switched from 2019 Pro to M2 Air and it's simply wonderfull. It's twiceas powerfull and completely silent and cold.

2019s Pro was good, but it's not nearly as fast for photo editing and hot as hell even if you just code in nvim.

Re: First Apple M3 Pro Benchmarks Show Surprisingly Low Multi-Core Gains over M2 Pro

#67

Post by adolph »

mort96 wrote: post #13
Apocryphon wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a tweet embeds no link, can it really be clickbait?

Yeah I would phrase it as "clickbait article about engagement bait tweet". Point stands.

It's baiting all the way down. A proc family iterates; the meaning of a digit change is debated; the bicycle-for-a-mind's bell tolls.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

https://www.themarginalian.org/2011/12/21/steve-jobs-bicycle...

Re: First Apple M3 Pro Benchmarks Show Surprisingly Low Multi-Core Gains over M2 Pro

#68

Post by wkat4242 »

greendave wrote: post #50
ajross wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 Efficien…

Yet apologists proclaim it's a good thing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38125771

Re: First Apple M3 Pro Benchmarks Show Surprisingly Low Multi-Core Gains over M2 Pro

#69

Post by JansjoFromIkea »

s3p wrote: post #43
JansjoFromIkea wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Way outside of my field of knowledge but would it be around prioritizing battery life above all else on the pro? Would also nudge people who _need_ the higher power features to not stick with Pro too, obviously.

That confuses me because shouldn't those people just get an M3? and then those who get the M3 Pro want better performance. I don't understand the 'pro' naming scheme means if they're not serious about making it pro.

Isn't it basically the same reason loads of things will have sizing options along the lines of medium/large/massive instead of small/medium/large.

At this stage I'd say "Pro" in terms of Macbooks is is more likely to be for people who want something more powerful or a bit fancier than an Air than people who need something more powerful, so there needs to be another level above that

Re: First Apple M3 Pro Benchmarks Show Surprisingly Low Multi-Core Gains over M2 Pro

#70

Post by greendave »

JohnBooty wrote: post #56
greendave wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Efficien…

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-... If a car company replaced a 4.0 liter internal combustion engine with a 3.8 liter engine that outperformed its predecessor, would y…

The M3 Pro has been restricted to prevent it from competing with the Max on CPU performance. Whereas the M2 Pro and M2 Max were essential identical on CPU performance (with the exception of the 10-core M2 Pro which was only standard on the low-end 14" model).

To me that feels like neutering.

Doesn't mean it's a bad chip/machine but clearly the product marketing people made the call here.

Post reply on HN