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

621–630 of 1001 posts

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

#621

Post by ranguna »

etchalon wrote: post #265
miohtama wrote: post #126

> With the M3 family of chips, hardware-accelerated ray tracing comes to the Mac for the first time. Ray tracing models the properties of light as it interacts with a scene, allowing apps to create extremely realistic and physically accurate images. This, along with the new graphics architecture, allows pro apps to deliver up to 2.5x the speed of the M1 family of chips. Does this mean we can finally play Cyberpunk 20…

No. It's nowhere near as powerful as desktop Nvidia cards. It's about as powerful as a PS5.

I'd be impressed if it was as powerful as a ps5.

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

#622

Post by Dunedan »

polishTar wrote: post #195
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…

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

Depends on what you consider an upgrade. As M3 cores perform better than M2 cores, I expect the M3 configuration to perform similar to the M2 one, even though it trades performance cores for efficiency cores. Apple apparently believes that its users value improved efficiency for longer lasting battery more than further improved performance.

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

#623

Post by 3c6bYDXLMj »

masklinn wrote: post #603
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…

> seems like Intel wouldn't do this Wouldn’t do what? Intel has more E-cores than P-cores on most of their range, and especially on the higher end e.g. on raptor lake S the i9 all have 16 E and 8 P, the i7s have 8:8, only the lower end of the i5 (below 13500) have more P than E cores. And the i3 have no E cores. The story is somewhat similar on mobile (H and HX), a minority of SKUs have more P than E, and none of the…

Well, when your P is still quite E, I guess it’s a different equation :).

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

#624

Post by 3c6bYDXLMj »

rickdeckard wrote: post #579
threeseed wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple shares anonymous usage data by default on all their operating systems and users are asked again on every major update. Given that there has never been any public incidents about it and what we know about similar defaults I would be surprised if Apple is getting less than 95% opt-in rate. But I suspect at high-end they only really care about the performance of a few dozen professional apps e.g. Logic or Final Cu…

> Given that there has never been any public incidents about it and what we know about similar defaults I would be surprised if Apple is getting less than 95% opt-in rate. A 95% opt-in rate is INSANELY high for any type of usage-stat opt-in, everything above 50% is usually outstanding. What is known about "similar defaults"?

It’s a step in a setup wizard. Whilst it’s explicitly asked, and far from dark pattern territory, it’s designed in such a way that I wouldn’t be surprised by a 95% opt-in rate.

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

#625

Post by globular-toast »

masklinn wrote: post #603
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…

> seems like Intel wouldn't do this Wouldn’t do what? Intel has more E-cores than P-cores on most of their range, and especially on the higher end e.g. on raptor lake S the i9 all have 16 E and 8 P, the i7s have 8:8, only the lower end of the i5 (below 13500) have more P than E cores. And the i3 have no E cores. The story is somewhat similar on mobile (H and HX), a minority of SKUs have more P than E, and none of the…

I think you confirmed what you were replying to. Intel makes the numbers get bigger as you go up, regardless of whether that makes the most sense.

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

#626

Post by ffgjgf1 »

stouset wrote: post #284
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…

> Wanting to dock onto two displays even at the low end doesn't seem like such a niche use-case. I mean, it almost certainly is? I would guess a majority of the low-end SKUs are rarely if ever attached to one external display. Two would be rarer still.

It’s a bit funny though that their competitors don’t seem to have any issues supporting this on pretty much all of their products.

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

#627

Post by 3c6bYDXLMj »

brucethemoose2 wrote: post #471
raydev wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Within the MacBook Pro lineup, they are objectively the low and mid-grade pricing tiers.

Indeed, but that's a bit of an oxymoron as any Macbook Pro is not a "low/mid-tier priced machine"

We all know what is meant by “low/mid-tier”. This is pointless pedantry. Next someone is going to come by with the throwaway comment complaint about how OpenAI isn’t “open”.

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

#628

Post by 3c6bYDXLMj »

duped wrote: post #453
spookie wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are not low/mid tier machines when talking about "consumer-grade".

Then why do they come with (low end) consumer level storage and memory capacity?

Different people have different needs. I certainly need a MacBook Pro for my work, but I use next to no storage. I’ve never purchase beyond the minimum storage for an Apple computer. I did however up the processor on my current MacBook Pro.

Minimum 8GB RAM is more universally egregious but I’m not going to sit here and justify my own exception whilst discounting the possibility that 8GB works for others.

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

#629

Post by dimask »

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? >>

Yes, but the number of cores in similar cpus do provide a good comparison. For example, with base M2pro at 6 p cores and base M3pro at 5 p cores, one would want ~20% faster cores to compensate for the lack of one core in parallel processing scenarios where things scale well. I don't think M3 brings that. I am waiting to see tests to understand what the new M3s are better for (prob battery life).

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

#630

Post by masklinn »

globular-toast wrote: post #625
masklinn wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> seems like Intel wouldn't do this Wouldn’t do what? Intel has more E-cores than P-cores on most of their range, and especially on the higher end e.g. on raptor lake S the i9 all have 16 E and 8 P, the i7s have 8:8, only the lower end of the i5 (below 13500) have more P than E cores. And the i3 have no E cores. The story is somewhat similar on mobile (H and HX), a minority of SKUs have more P than E, and none of the…

I think you confirmed what you were replying to. Intel makes the numbers get bigger as you go up, regardless of whether that makes the most sense.

Oh yeah I misread the comment.

Although that’s not quite true either e.g. on raptor lake H, the upper i5 (13600H) has 8 E cores while the low range i7 (13620H) has 4, but the i7 has 6 P-cores versus 4. The base frequencies also get lower as you move from i5 to i7. And you have less GPU EU (80 -> 64).

Post reply on HN