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

First Apple M3 Pro Benchmarks Show Surprisingly Low Multi-Core Gains over M2 Pro

extremetech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 83 posts

Re: First Apple M3 Pro Benchmarks Show Surprisingly Low Multi-Core Gains over M2 Pro

#71

Post by Tagbert »

api wrote: post #51
bloopernova wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most AI work loads are memory bound. Is that the reason why the number of neural cores stays the same, do you think?

The neural engine in Apple chips is really for small models for doing things like Face ID, local inference for Photos.app, etc. It's there to run those small models with very little power consumption. It's not that great for huge models. The GPU is better for those, and they have been adding cores and performance there. But yes, most large models are pretty heavily memory bound.

Memory throughput or memory capacity?

Is that true for discrete GPUs like Nvidia? Is it the same for unified memory like the M-series?

Re: First Apple M3 Pro Benchmarks Show Surprisingly Low Multi-Core Gains over M2 Pro

#72

Post by fmajid »

PakG1 wrote: post #10
HatchedLake721 wrote: post #2

Article about a clickbait tweet, comparing M2 Max against M3 Pro.

Even so, my regret over buying an M2 Pro just before the M3 was released decreases each day. In fact, it might start going negative such that I’m happy to have bought the M2.

The M1 and M2 Pro were great value, too good to last for Apple in its revenue-maximization mode.

Re: First Apple M3 Pro Benchmarks Show Surprisingly Low Multi-Core Gains over M2 Pro

#73

Post by api »

Tagbert wrote: post #71
api wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The neural engine in Apple chips is really for small models for doing things like Face ID, local inference for Photos.app, etc. It's there to run those small models with very little power consumption. It's not that great for huge models. The GPU is better for those, and they have been adding cores and performance there. But yes, most large models are pretty heavily memory bound.

Memory throughput or memory capacity? Is that true for discrete GPUs like Nvidia? Is it the same for unified memory like the M-series?

Both really, since models are pretty much 100% "hot" RAM. The bigger the model the more bandwidth it demands too since evaluating it means streaming the entire thing through the processor.

Re: First Apple M3 Pro Benchmarks Show Surprisingly Low Multi-Core Gains over M2 Pro

#74

Post by JohnBooty »

greendave wrote: post #70
JohnBooty wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The M3 Pro has been neutered Neutered? What a strange way to describe a chip that is about faster than its predecessor in most benchmarks. You're strangely focusing on an implementation detail rather than actual performance. https://www.theverge.com/23944344/apple-macbook-pro-14-2023-... If a car company replaced a 4.0 liter internal combustion engine with a 3.8 liter engine that outperformed its predecessor, would y…

The M3 Pro has been restricted to prevent it from competing with the Max on CPU performance. Whereas the M2 Pro and M2 Max were essential identical on CPU performance (with the exception of the 10-core M2 Pro which was only standard on the low-end 14" model). To me that feels like neutering. Doesn't mean it's a bad chip/machine but clearly the product marketing people made the call here.

To neuter an animal is to remove their testicles, eliminating their ability and drive to reproduce and generally making them less aggressive.

That's not what they did to the M3 Pro. What they did was, they improved it a bit relative to the M2 Pro. But not as much as they improved the models that bracket it.

I realize I'm complaining about needlessly hyperbolic tech-related smack talk on the frigging internet, which is sort of like complaining about moistness in the ocean. But still, lol @ describing a modest upgrade as "neutering."

You know what was neutered? The Apple IIgs. Those 65c816 CPUs could go up to like 16mhz, easy peasy. But they stuck a 3.57mhz 65c816 in there and never upgraded it so that the IIgs wouldn't encroach on the Mac. Now that was a real hatchet job.

Re: First Apple M3 Pro Benchmarks Show Surprisingly Low Multi-Core Gains over M2 Pro

#75

Post by FireBeyond »

michaelt wrote: post #17

> The M2 was launched in June 2022, but the Pro and Max launched in January 2023. They're not even a year old and have already been relegated to the trash heap of silicon history. It stands to reason the M2 chips didn't sell very well, so Apple wanted to get the M3 out ASAP to reverse that trend. That theory would make a lot more sense if the M3 was providing a big performance boost. Instead buyers of the M3 Pro get…

I feel like the M3 has been a bit of a misfire, launch-wise.

In between all this and the fact that they're all shipping with Ventura and cannot be upgraded to Sonoma yet to me says that for all the claims of "Apple may not be first, but it will always do it best/right" are evaporating.

Seems like this is a bit of a rush.

And to all the people working the "They're comparing it to the M1, because that's who they're targeting for upgrades"?

Bullshit.

Try saying that about Intel, if they start benchmarking 14th gen chips against 11/12th. "Because they're targeting those users, not 13th gen owners".

Think about how that sounds. Think about how you'd laugh if they tried it. Think about how Apple is spinning that, and you're buying into it. Hmm.

Re: First Apple M3 Pro Benchmarks Show Surprisingly Low Multi-Core Gains over M2 Pro

#76

Post by JohnBooty »

developerDan wrote: post #65
JohnBooty wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The M3 Pro has been neutered Neutered? What a strange way to describe a chip that is about faster than its predecessor in most benchmarks. You're strangely focusing on an implementation detail rather than actual performance. https://www.theverge.com/23944344/apple-macbook-pro-14-2023-... If a car company replaced a 4.0 liter internal combustion engine with a 3.8 liter engine that outperformed its predecessor, would y…

Sure it might be faster but in context it doesn’t feel like a significant improvement. The base M3 and the M3 Max have fairly large gains over their predecessors, but the M3 Pro doesn’t have nearly as large of a gain (this is all mentioned in the article). It stands out and it’s pretty clear that Apple wants people to “upgrade” to the Max which comes with a +$800 margin. I’m holding judgement until I see real world p…

    Sure it might be faster but in context it doesn’t feel
    like a significant improvement.
So they can't just make things faster in an objective way. They have to make you "feel" a certain thing.

    It stands out and it’s pretty clear that Apple wants 
    people to “upgrade” to the Max which comes with a +$800 margin.
Few thoughts there.

1. Well, they certainly won't mind if you buy the Max. No argument there.

2. As for Apple's intentions I think they were extremely honest during the initial presentation itself. The market for these machines are primarily M1 and Intel Mac users. Very few people upgrade their laptops every single year.

3. The M2 lineup was a bit weird, right? If I am remembering correctly there was not a clear case for the M2 Max versus the M2 Pro. I think the M3 lineup is a bit of a correction there. While I certainly wish every chip got like, a million times faster... the product tiers here seem less confusing.

Re: First Apple M3 Pro Benchmarks Show Surprisingly Low Multi-Core Gains over M2 Pro

#77

Post by thejazzman »

FireBeyond wrote: post #75
michaelt wrote: post #17

> The M2 was launched in June 2022, but the Pro and Max launched in January 2023. They're not even a year old and have already been relegated to the trash heap of silicon history. It stands to reason the M2 chips didn't sell very well, so Apple wanted to get the M3 out ASAP to reverse that trend. That theory would make a lot more sense if the M3 was providing a big performance boost. Instead buyers of the M3 Pro get…

I feel like the M3 has been a bit of a misfire, launch-wise. In between all this and the fact that they're all shipping with Ventura and cannot be upgraded to Sonoma yet to me says that for all the claims of "Apple may not be first, but it will always do it best/right" are evaporating. Seems like this is a bit of a rush. And to all the people working the "They're comparing it to the M1, because that's who they're tar…

They can be upgraded to Sonoma. It's just a bug that has already been addressed...

Re: First Apple M3 Pro Benchmarks Show Surprisingly Low Multi-Core Gains over M2 Pro

#78

Post by rsynnott »

developerDan wrote: post #65
JohnBooty wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The M3 Pro has been neutered Neutered? What a strange way to describe a chip that is about faster than its predecessor in most benchmarks. You're strangely focusing on an implementation detail rather than actual performance. https://www.theverge.com/23944344/apple-macbook-pro-14-2023-... If a car company replaced a 4.0 liter internal combustion engine with a 3.8 liter engine that outperformed its predecessor, would y…

Sure it might be faster but in context it doesn’t feel like a significant improvement. The base M3 and the M3 Max have fairly large gains over their predecessors, but the M3 Pro doesn’t have nearly as large of a gain (this is all mentioned in the article). It stands out and it’s pretty clear that Apple wants people to “upgrade” to the Max which comes with a +$800 margin. I’m holding judgement until I see real world p…

> It stands out and it’s pretty clear that Apple wants people to “upgrade” to the Max which comes with a +$800 margin.

Eh? Someone who was previous going to buy an M2 Pro would very likely buy an M3 Pro, not an M3 Max.

This is likely Apple managing yield. If they'd stuck with the same core count, the M3 Pro would be faster, sure, but it would probably also be more expensive.

Re: First Apple M3 Pro Benchmarks Show Surprisingly Low Multi-Core Gains over M2 Pro

#79

Post by rsynnott »

michaelt wrote: post #17

> The M2 was launched in June 2022, but the Pro and Max launched in January 2023. They're not even a year old and have already been relegated to the trash heap of silicon history. It stands to reason the M2 chips didn't sell very well, so Apple wanted to get the M3 out ASAP to reverse that trend. That theory would make a lot more sense if the M3 was providing a big performance boost. Instead buyers of the M3 Pro get…

> Not much to reinvigorate sales by motivating M2 Pro users to upgrade other than a higher number.

Do you, in 2023, know _anyone_ who replaces their laptop every year? Realistically, virtually no-one does this; the primary market for this is actually people who are still on Intel chips.

Re: First Apple M3 Pro Benchmarks Show Surprisingly Low Multi-Core Gains over M2 Pro

#80

Post by rsynnott »

s3p wrote: post #43
JansjoFromIkea wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Way outside of my field of knowledge but would it be around prioritizing battery life above all else on the pro? Would also nudge people who _need_ the higher power features to not stick with Pro too, obviously.

That confuses me because shouldn't those people just get an M3? and then those who get the M3 Pro want better performance. I don't understand the 'pro' naming scheme means if they're not serious about making it pro.

"Why don't people get either a Celeron or an i9?"

Every CPU lineup has an intermediate; Apple actually has fewer than most, and I'd expect they'll probably add one or two more SKUs as time passes to deal with binning more efficiently.

Post reply on HN