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

Apple unveils M3, M3 Pro, and M3 Max

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 1001 posts

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

#411

Post by skybrian »

paustint wrote: post #290
coverband wrote: post #241

And still starting at 8GB of RAM… Disappointed.

Seriously.... My 16gb MacBook pro M1 work machine runs out of memory constantly. I had a MacBook air 8gb and it was useless, it would freeze constantly and have crackly audio. I found that 24GB ram is really the minimum that is usable on M-series when doing any type of basic work. Likely an output of so many electron based apps which are memory hungry, but if the memory is supposedly "really fast" then I would expect…

A contrasting data point: I have an 8gb M2 and haven’t noticed any problem yet that made me wish I had more memory. I’m not using it for work, though.

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

#412

Post by claytongulick »

rickette wrote: post #84
stetrain wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've been doing more multiples of 6/12 lately, I supposed it's related to the available chip sizes for the LPDDR5X. M2 and M3 go up to 24GB M3 Pro is available in 18GB and 36GB M3 Max is available in 36GB, 48GB, 64GB, 96GB, and 128GB

Why do I need to select the most expensive M3 Max version (the one with 16 cores) to get 48 or 64 gigs of RAM. The M3 Max with 14 cores only allow 36 or 96 gigs. Just let me choose 14 cores and 64 gigs.

This kind of blows my mind.

I'm running the lowest spec m1 with 8 gigs of ram for my daily driver.

I frequently have tens of chrome browser tabs open across multiple profiles, multiple chrome debuggers, at least two or three VS code instances, multiple high memory nodejs processes, video conferencing, screen sharing and building code all at the same time - and the thing runs smoothly without a hiccup. And does it on battery! For a full work day, at least.

Weighs less than a pixie's fart.

I can't even imagine the capabilities the new m3 max has with that kind of memory and power available.

It's going to pinch, but I guess I'll be finding out in a few weeks.

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

#413

Post by frutiger »

saagarjha wrote: post #307
lathiat wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really, really wish they would fix this silly display scan-out limitation. I gave them a (frustrating) pass on the M1 given it was the first evolution from iPhone/iPad where it wouldn't have mattered. But seems silly to have made it all the way to the M3. Wanting to dock onto two displays even at the low end doesn't seem like such a niche use-case. I'm sure there is some kind of technical explanation but both Intel…

Display pipelines are expensive and take area.

Easy to say but hard to prove. How much more expensive would an MBP be if they supported it? How many fewer units would they shift?

Those are harder questions to answer. We could assume Apple crunched the numbers. Or perhaps they just stuck to the status quo.

Only an insider or decision maker (maybe that’s you) knows.

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

#414

Post by ptmcc »

footlose_3815 wrote: post #398

Letting Apple lead things in the market has gotten us to a very ugly space in personal computing. These are prohibitively expensive devices that for 95% of the use cases, a chromebook would be better-suited. All those intel machines that were so impressive in 2019 are running like crap now. All going according to plan, I'm sure. I manage a fleet of about 200 of these things. They are easy to manage, and oh-so-nice to…

Right, that is what the "Pro" moniker in Macbook Pro means

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

#415

Post by tpurves »

amusingimpala75 wrote: post #375

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

The ultras don't make a lot of sense for most professionals when, at that price point a threadripper and a 4090 would still eat it for lunch.

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

#416

Post by millzlane »

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.

I'm still using mine. Parallels can only MDM enroll the mac VM on the intel device. Apple silicon doesn't support the feature of changing the serial number. So for testing mdm profiles I have to use it or carry two devices around.

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

#417

Post by dottjt »

linguae wrote: post #312
dottjt wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what happens when there's no competition. Come up with an equivalent product with more RAM at the same price and I'll buy it. Sadly (or perhaps gladly, depending on your perspective), there just is no equivalent to a macbook for many people.

Yup, it seems that the "Apple tax" has gone up quite a bit since Apple shifted toward soldered RAM and storage for their products. You get excellent Apple Silicon chips with their performance and energy efficiency, as well as the most polished desktop OS (macOS), but it comes at a steep price, especially at non-base configurations. There seems to be plenty of deals for base-config Macs at places like Amazon and Costc…

Definitely the main thing preventing me from moving on from Mac is how bad Windows and Linux is.

Around 6 months ago I actually bought a beefy desktop PC to play around with, dual booting both Windows and Linux and they were just terrible. The default keyboard shortcuts on Windows are a joke (not to mention, the lack of an additional modifier key which is present with mac, which makes shortcuts more difficult than it needs to be).

Linux on the other hand, was so limited. People then argue that Linux is customizable, but I spent forever trying to customise it and half the time, the modifications literally don't work at all. I assume because there are so many distros and the eco-system is so fragmented that something is almost guaranteed to break.

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

#418

Post by [deleted] »

fastball wrote: post #340
polishTar wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess we'll have to wait for benchmarks but I did find this interesting: Apple's PR release for M2 pro: "up to 20 percent greater performance over M1 Pro" Apple's announcement for M3 pro: "up to 20 percent faster than M1 Pro" (they didn't bother to compare it to M2 pro)

Sure, that's the title, but at least in this PR they immediately show a graph with a comparison to both. Presumably it makes more marketing sense to compare to the M1 family up front because most people that bought an M2 last year are probably not going to be upgrading to M3. They are speaking to the people most likely to upgrade.

[deleted]

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

#419

Post by giantrobot »

boomfunky wrote: post #267
Jensson wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But others have caught up You mean others now got to use TSMC's 4nm process? These new M3 chips are probably on the 3nm process, Apple is still a generation ahead here. It looks like Apples aim is to always stay a generation ahead of its competition, I wonder how long they can keep that up since they aren't running their own fabs.

Apple signed a deal with TSMC to purchase nearly all of their available 3nm chips for the next year. Ethical or not, they positioned themselves to ensure almost no competitors could develop on 3nm until they did first since no fab on earth has the scale of TSMC. They could ride this plan for years if it pays them.

How is Apple buying all the production slots for a process in any way unethical? It's not like they're buying them and then burying the chips in a landfill. They paid TSMC's asking price for production slots. AMD or Intel could have bought those same slots but didn't. TSMC has limited capacity at 3nm, it was up for sale, Apple bought it. Where's the ethics question?
Post reply on HN