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

M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

eclecticlight.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 419 posts

Re: M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

#11

Post by andreasley »

stuff4ben wrote: post #2

This is good to know. I worry about the longevity of these new M-series processors from Apple since they're so (relatively) new. What is the usable lifespan of a base M1-MacBook Air for example? I guess I'll find out since I just bought one for my kid who is a junior in HS and I'm hoping this will last until they graduate college.

For a while now, the lifespan of Apple devices has mostly been limited by Apple stopping to provide software updates. Most Macs from 20 years ago still work fine today. If some component died, it was usually the hard drive or the power supply in my experience.

Apple Silicon will definitely be the architecture best supported by Apple for the foreseeable future. There is no downside to it in terms or reliability or longevity.

Re: M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

#12

Post by dmix »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #8

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.

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.

Re: M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

#13

Post by llm_nerd »

cubefox wrote: post #3

This seems to be a lot of effort to rationalize the surprisingly small performance increase from M2 to M3. Initially the assumption was that M2 to M3 would be a bigger step than M1 to M2, not a smaller one. Perhaps TSMC 3nm is showing the limits of scaling?

Apple seems to be focusing on efficiency more than anything, and maybe a little more market segmentation where the lesser chips are less competitive with the bigger chips. The Pro offers fewer performance cores, trading them for efficiency cores. It has reduced memory bandwidth.

From a generational perspective, the M3 Max is offering the same level of performance as the M2 Ultra. That's amazing as the m3 max is 12p/4e vs 16p/8e in the m2 Ultra. The M3 Ultra should be a substantial lift.

Re: M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

#14

Post by [deleted] »

dewote wrote: post #4
stuff4ben wrote: post #2

This is good to know. I worry about the longevity of these new M-series processors from Apple since they're so (relatively) new. What is the usable lifespan of a base M1-MacBook Air for example? I guess I'll find out since I just bought one for my kid who is a junior in HS and I'm hoping this will last until they graduate college.

For context my M1 Air feels as good as the day I bought it and it's just about to hit 3 years old. I kept my previous 2014 MBP for 6 years and I can't see this one being any different.

[deleted]

Re: M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

#15

Post by jmull »

It seems like the M3 favors efficiency and thermals over raw power. This makes sense for the devices they've put it in.

I wonder if we're going to see different processors (M3X or M4) for the next release of the pro desktops, that favor power over thermals and efficiency?

Maybe there will be a kind of tick-tock, with odd numbered processors favoring efficiency and even numbered processors for power?

M3, M5, M7 for the laptops

M4, M6, M8 for the pro desktops

?

Re: M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

#16

Post by SXX »

stuff4ben wrote: post #2

This is good to know. I worry about the longevity of these new M-series processors from Apple since they're so (relatively) new. What is the usable lifespan of a base M1-MacBook Air for example? I guess I'll find out since I just bought one for my kid who is a junior in HS and I'm hoping this will last until they graduate college.

I bought M1 Air 256GB with 16GB RAM on release for light web development and professional 2D gamedev on Unity. Still using it till now and it's really really durable hardware and I've been usign it daily for 3+ years.

With so little RAM had to sacrifice ability to properly run VMs, but yet till this day there just no comparable hardware on market.

8GB versions though... Certainly Apple should be damned for selling laptops with 8GB RAM in 2023 when my x220i ran 16GB in 2011. At some point they will all become e-waste due too little RAM or dead soldered SSD because of extreme swapping.

Re: M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

#17

Post by runjake »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #8

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.

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.

Re: M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

#18

Post by Zetobal »

cubefox wrote: post #3

This seems to be a lot of effort to rationalize the surprisingly small performance increase from M2 to M3. Initially the assumption was that M2 to M3 would be a bigger step than M1 to M2, not a smaller one. Perhaps TSMC 3nm is showing the limits of scaling?

It's a tick and some people... especially marketing departments want to sell it as a tock.

Re: M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

#19

Post by stuff4ben »

SXX wrote: post #16
stuff4ben wrote: post #2

This is good to know. I worry about the longevity of these new M-series processors from Apple since they're so (relatively) new. What is the usable lifespan of a base M1-MacBook Air for example? I guess I'll find out since I just bought one for my kid who is a junior in HS and I'm hoping this will last until they graduate college.

I bought M1 Air 256GB with 16GB RAM on release for light web development and professional 2D gamedev on Unity. Still using it till now and it's really really durable hardware and I've been usign it daily for 3+ years. With so little RAM had to sacrifice ability to properly run VMs, but yet till this day there just no comparable hardware on market. 8GB versions though... Certainly Apple should be damned for selling la…

8GB of RAM ought to be enough for anybody right? I'm hoping that's true for someone who spends most of their time in Google Docs or Word and the occasional light web browsing. This MBA replaced a Chromebook which really was on its last legs.

Re: M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores

#20

Post by pohl »

jmull wrote: post #15

It seems like the M3 favors efficiency and thermals over raw power. This makes sense for the devices they've put it in. I wonder if we're going to see different processors (M3X or M4) for the next release of the pro desktops, that favor power over thermals and efficiency? Maybe there will be a kind of tick-tock, with odd numbered processors favoring efficiency and even numbered processors for power? M3, M5, M7 for th…

Doesn't prioritizing efficiency and thermals make sense for any device? Even a desktop has moments when it's doing almost nothing but has tasks that can adequately be handled by an E core where powering up a P core is overkill. Doesn't being efficient mean that more of the thermal budget can be held in reserve for when it's actually needed? Don't desktop users desire for their powerful machine to also be quiet?
Post reply on HN