Apple unveils M3, M3 Pro, and M3 Max • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple unveils M3, M3 Pro, and M3 Max

#251

Post by lukasb » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 1:42 AM UTC

nateb2022 wrote: post #69

jdprgm wrote: post #11

I don't understand why they don't update the entire lineup whenever a new chip comes out, especially if really only swapping the chip in the macbook pro and imac here. On a separate note does anyone have any insight on how unified memory compares to vram in the context of machine learning performance? Considering an H100 with 80GB costs like $30k a maxed out macbook pro with 128gb unified memory for $5k is interestin…

The M2 Ultra tops out at 800GB/s unified memory bandwidth. A 4090, on the other hand, has 1,008 GB/s. On the PC side, dual-channel DDR4-6400 offers a bandwidth of 102 GB/s.

They're not really directly comparable due to the architectural differences, right? For pure rendering workflows I'm sure the 4090 is faster, but for anything that hits the CPU ...

Re: Apple unveils M3, M3 Pro, and M3 Max

#252

Post by Jensson » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 1:42 AM UTC

nomel wrote: post #220

TylerE wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feels like it's moved super fast. I just bought an M1 Studio earlier this year.

Almost four years now, for M1. I get the impression that people are used to Intel’s stagnation that we were stuck with for some time.

And more importantly, these improvements are mostly thanks to TSMC's progress. You could predict the M3 already late 2022 when TSMC announced that they were starting mass production of their 3nm process. We knew that it would be a huge improvement based on the specs we had back then and roughly how long it takes to ramp up.

https://pr.tsmc.com/english/news/2986

Re: Apple unveils M3, M3 Pro, and M3 Max

#253

Post by linguae » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 1:42 AM UTC

scrlk wrote: post #7

Base 14" M3 MBP comes with 8 GB RAM at $1599 USD. That's pretty stingy.

What's even worse are the upgrade prices: $200 to go to 16GB and $400 to go to 24GB. Anything more than that requires upgrading to the M3 Pro model, which has a base price of $1999 and a base 18GB of RAM. Upgrading to 36GB costs an additional $400.

I waited for today's announcement because I'm in the market for a laptop with 32GB of RAM. Today's announcement looked really tempting! However, $2399 + AppleCare + sales tax for the 36GB M3 Pro MacBook Pro is too much for me, and so it looks like it's either a refurbished M2, a Framework laptop, or a ThinkPad for me.

Re: Apple unveils M3, M3 Pro, and M3 Max

#254

Post by greesil » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 1:43 AM UTC

1123581321 wrote: post #236

polishTar wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In addition to the reduced memory bandwidth, the M3 pro also loses 2 performance cores for only 2 more efficiency cores. M2 pro: 8 performance cores + 4 efficiency cores. M3 pro: 6 performance cores + 6 efficiency cores. Not a great trade... I'm not sure the M3 pro can be considered an upgrade

E cores are ~30% faster and P about 15%. So the question would be how much the Es assist when Ps are maxed on each chip. In any other situation, more/better E cores should outperform and extend battery. I’m not saying that means you should want to spend the money.

Could you not resolve these questions with benchmarking?

Re: Apple unveils M3, M3 Pro, and M3 Max

#255

Post by latchkey » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 1:43 AM UTC

andrewprock wrote: post #250

ezfe wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still know a number of my colleagues who haven't jumped onto the Apple Silicon machines despite our 2019 Intel machines being out of warranty (and thus eligible for replacement) for two years now

I'm still using a 2015 macbook for my personal daily driver. I have to plug it in regularly, but otherwise it works just fine for everything except video editing.

Any reason for not upgrading?

Re: Apple unveils M3, M3 Pro, and M3 Max

#256

Post by akerl_ » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 1:44 AM UTC

throwaway2037 wrote: post #223

photonerd wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends. Is it faster? Then it's an upgrade. Has the CPU industry really managed to pull off it's attempt at a bs coup that more cores always === better? I thought we'd learned our lesson with the silly Mhz Myth already?

Let me re-write your post with the opposite view. Both are unconvincing. I thought we'd learned our lesson with the silly cores Myth already? >>

I think you're misreading the comment you're replying to. Both "more cores is always better" and "more MHz is always better" are myths.

Re: Apple unveils M3, M3 Pro, and M3 Max

#257

Post by Detrytus » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 1:44 AM UTC

Jensson wrote: post #165

chipgap98 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are the new 3nm chips from TSMC, right?

They didn't say, but since their A17 is 3nm this is almost guaranteed to be 3nm. The 3nm process is the big improvement, the M1 and M2 were TSMC 5nm and 4nm which was basically the same thing. The performance improvements here is roughly what you would expect if you knew the specs of TSMC 3nm chips.

They DID say it, right at the beginning. All the M3 chips are 3nm.

Re: Apple unveils M3, M3 Pro, and M3 Max

#258

Post by FirmwareBurner » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 1:44 AM UTC

blep-arsh wrote: post #237

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. But, me and everyone I know keeps their laptops plugged in most of the time at work or at home, so not everyone needs all day battery life.

I didn't care much about the battery life but not having to be tethered to the nearest wall wart is unexpectedly convenient even when working from home. I also appreciate the laptop not being a hot air blower.

I use laptop at my desk at home or my desk at the office where the power cable is within reach so it's always plugged in.

What use would be 20h of battery life for me?

I don't do the whole coding in the coffee shop or on the beach lifestyle, and even if I did, 8h of battery life is plenty for that since I can't spend 20h in the coffee shop.

There's probably a bunch of workers who are always on the road like contractors for whom this is a benefit.

Re: Apple unveils M3, M3 Pro, and M3 Max

#259

Post by leereeves » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 1:44 AM UTC

throwaway2037 wrote: post #223

photonerd wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends. Is it faster? Then it's an upgrade. Has the CPU industry really managed to pull off it's attempt at a bs coup that more cores always === better? I thought we'd learned our lesson with the silly Mhz Myth already?

Let me re-write your post with the opposite view. Both are unconvincing. I thought we'd learned our lesson with the silly cores Myth already? >>

That makes less sense because the MHz marketing came before the core count marketing.

I agree with GP that we should rely on real measures like "is it faster", but maybe the goal of exchanging performance cores for efficiency was to decrease power consumption, not be faster?

Re: Apple unveils M3, M3 Pro, and M3 Max

#260

Post by pier25 » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 1:44 AM UTC

bischofs wrote: post #81

They kept mentioning performance relative to intel Macs which makes me think there is a large cohort of people sticking to their x86 rigs due to compatibility. Being able to run an x86 linux or windows VM is still a requirement for me.

Who knows but my guess is that the x86 requirement is probably for a minority of users.

Lots of people are probably sticking to Intel Macs simply because the averege user doesn't care about performance and will keep using a computer until it dies.