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

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

#371

Post by blep-arsh » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 2:22 AM UTC

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #258

blep-arsh wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 contracto…

I'm not on the road, I just tend to move around even when at home/in the office. Lower power consumption also means the laptop is silent and barely warm, and a tiny 30W charger is perfectly sufficient. Unrelated, but another thing about the Macbook Pro is how unexpectedly good its mics, speakers, and camera are. I used to have quite an AV setup but I can't complain about the built-ins nowadays.

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

#372

Post by HumblyTossed » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 2:22 AM UTC

rewmie wrote: post #299

latchkey wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any reason for not upgrading?

> Any reason for not upgrading? Why is this sort of question always framed as if people have to provide a justification for not buying a new model, as if spending money on the new shiny without any reason is normal or desirable? We live in a day and age where hardware bought a decade ago still packs enough punch to run most of today's software without any hiccup. Why would anyone waste their cash to replace something…

Because capitalism, that’s why. Capitalists have convinced people it is a moral imperative to continue to spend constantly.

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

#373

Post by brucethemoose2 » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 2:22 AM UTC

Is this still ARMv8?

I think ARMv9 SKUs from others are just around the corner, and that's going to be a pain point for Apple.

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

#374

Post by addaon » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 2:23 AM UTC

LeoPanthera wrote: post #54

addaon wrote: post #26

What's with the 36 GB option? The other memory configs (16 GB, 64 GB) are still clean powers of two. Size suggests that they're using ECC-capable memory but using the extra width intended to support ECC for data... but why would this only apply to a single size? Part availability? EDIT: Digging this a bit, it's not (one or more) 72-bit wide busses with 2^32 words as I'd expect as a gray-beard, it's (probably) six 32-…

64 GB chips that failed testing? That's one way to increase yield. Clive Sinclair did that trick back in the 80s.

Doesn't look like it. Memory ICs are tested before packaging, and then are packaged in stacks. While I'm sure there's some loss in packaging, probably not enough to justify this level of binning; and most of the failures that would happen at this stage would potentially interfere with signal integrity for the whole stack.

Instead, it looks like after the 8-high stacks that I knew about, manufacturers went to 12-high stacks. There are 16-high stacks available too, but looks like there's a lot more backside thinning needed to keep the same Z height so cost goes up disproportionately and 12-highs are a reasonably sweet spot for capacity per dollar.

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

#375

Post by amusingimpala75 » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 2:24 AM UTC

Just wait for M3 Ultra which in past generations is literally just 2 Maxs. Imagine 256 of GB unified RAM (oh and I guess the 32-core CPU and 80-core GPU, though those aren't as impressive). Really would love to know how much that is going to cost

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

#376

Post by brucethemoose2 » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 2:24 AM UTC

kivlad wrote: post #160

A few things I noticed, as I'm seeing the variety of SKUs becoming more complex. - Note that memory bandwidth is down. M2 Pro had 200GB/s, M3 Pro only has 150GB/s. M3 Max only has 400GB/s on the higher binned part. - Just like the low-spec M3 14" has one fewer Thunderbolt port, it also doesn't officially support Thunderbolt 4 (like M1/M2 before it) - The M3 Pro loses the option for an 8TB SSD. Likely because it was a…

> Note that memory bandwidth is down. M2 Pro had 200GB/s, M3 Pro only has 150GB/s. M3 Max only has 400GB/s on the higher binned part.

Is this because they are not populating all the memory channels, or just using lesser memory ICs?

If its the former... thats annoying. It just makes their products worse for artificial segmentation and very little cost savings.

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

#377

Post by fckgw » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 2:24 AM UTC

avereveard wrote: post #355

Can they drive two monitors this time?

The 14" and 16" Macbook Pros have always been able to drive 2+ displays. The new ones updated today continue this feature. Hope this helps.

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

#378

Post by zeusk » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 2:25 AM UTC

spookie wrote: post #329

lukasb wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ...

Yes, the tiled-based architecture of their "GPU" is undeniably less performant. Even comparing to lesser GPUs.

Nvidia is tile based since Maxwell

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

#379

Post by pentagrama » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 2:25 AM UTC

The M1 bar here shouldn't be at the middle? https://www.apple.com/newsroom/images/2023/10/Apple-unveils-...

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

#380

Post by fastball » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 2:26 AM UTC

addaon wrote: post #26

What's with the 36 GB option? The other memory configs (16 GB, 64 GB) are still clean powers of two. Size suggests that they're using ECC-capable memory but using the extra width intended to support ECC for data... but why would this only apply to a single size? Part availability? EDIT: Digging this a bit, it's not (one or more) 72-bit wide busses with 2^32 words as I'd expect as a gray-beard, it's (probably) six 32-…

I prefer that tbh. If I'm frequently saturating 16GB of memory in the previous gen and it is time for an upgrade, I probably don't need literally double the memory, but 24GB would be nice.