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

61–70 of 419 posts

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

#61

Post by stuff4ben »

alpaca128 wrote: post #54
stuff4ben wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm using an M2 Air with 16GB and M1 Mini with 8GB. On the 8GB machine I have to restart Firefox every few days because otherwise it completely fills up RAM + Swap and the entire system starts getting sluggish. It's a very noticeable bottleneck while on the 16GB Macbook I don't really think about memory usage. I would not recommend the 8GB variant to anyone who plans on using it for more than a couple browser tabs an…

> I would not recommend the 8GB variant to anyone who plans on using it for more than a couple browser tabs and some light tasks.

Which is basically all my kids do. Less than 10 tabs, nothing else.

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

#62

Post by svnt »

hajile wrote: post #60
brigadier132 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it a 15% increase? I really don't consider any double digit percent increases to be small.

Actual IPC increase is 1-2%. The rest is from ramping the clockspeeds. This is a problem because power consumption goes up exponentially with frequency. Go up too high and they'll be doing what AMD or Intel does where a single core is using 50+ watts to hit those peak numbers.

Power is polynomial (it goes with the square of frequency), not exponential.

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

#63

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#64

Post by abrouwers »

strangescript wrote: post #45
pohl wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The M3 Max performs similarly to an M2 Ultra. That feels pretty big to me as a current M1 Max user.

Exactly, how are people overlooking this. Its like saying I am going to drop a near silent windows laptop, that is thin and cool, oh and has BETTER performance than last year's desktop windows machines.

I agree it's impressive, in the same way Ferrari announcing a new super car is impressive. But, I drive a hatchback, and was just hoping they'd cave on 8gb/256gb for ram/storage, or support for multiple monitors.

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

#65

Post by runjake »

mcphage wrote: post #30
runjake wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I think you set your expectations too high. Well, they did announce it in an event called "scary fast". I mean there's always marketing exaggeration, but I did expect more than trying to understand if it's even faster at all . Otherwise I'm not entirely certain what the point was.

  > Well, they did announce it in an event called "scary fast".
It was the night before Halloween.

  > I mean there's always marketing exaggeration
Apple's marketing people are notorious for exaggeration.

  > I did expect more than trying to understand if it's even faster at all
Their stated performance improvements seem to be accurate. Although I'm surprised at how much faster the M3 Max seems to be.

  > I'm not entirely certain what the point was.
The point was this year's revisions with a speed bump. They do this almost every year.

That said, early benchmarks are indicating that the M3 Max performance is on par with the M2 Ultra. I consider that “scary fast” myself.

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

#66

Post by arcticbull »

diffeomorphism wrote: post #34
pohl wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Not really, no. Case in point: https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Ryzen-9-7940HS-analysis-Ze... Adjusting the TDP from 80W all the way down to 35W costs you relatively little in performance and gives you about the same efficiency as an M2 Pro. That is not done because it does not sell. > Don't desktop users desire for their powerful machine to also be quiet? No. That is not an "also" but an "instead". People claim the…

> That is not done because it does not sell.

It's not done because it doesn't sell in the PC market. Apple's kind of your only choice and if they say you're getting perf/W you're getting perf/W :)

> People claim they would make that trade-off but that is just not the case.

It's not 2 dimensional, tdp vs noise. It's tdp vs size vs noise vs price. You get a large ATX mid-tower and throw some Noctua 140mm fans in there and you won't hear a thing as it dispenses 1KW of heat into your feet area.

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

#68

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#69

Post by steve1977 »

stetrain wrote: post #46
steve1977 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s also more expensive than a M2 Max or M1 Max if I’m not mistaken.

14" MBP with the highest M2 Max configuration, 64GB RAM, 1TB SSD was $3899. A new model with the same configuration is also $3899.

Interesting, they seem to be bit more expensive where I live, although I cannot compare them 1:1 (spec'd one with M2 Max 30 Core GPU and 64 GB RAM some months ago, however for 64 GB RAM I would need to go with the M3 Max 40 Core GPU now, so not a fair comparison)

Edit: But in any case, the difference would not be huge from what I can see, so I guess my point is moot

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

#70

Post by speedgoose »

stetrain wrote: post #46
steve1977 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s also more expensive than a M2 Max or M1 Max if I’m not mistaken.

14" MBP with the highest M2 Max configuration, 64GB RAM, 1TB SSD was $3899. A new model with the same configuration is also $3899.

Wow, that’s overpriced for such low specs.
Post reply on HN