One thing about the M lineup that continues to be a little annoying for me is that it really skews towards the GPU as you go up the line. My workloads love the CPU, but can’t make much use of the GPU. The best option for me seems to be to get a slew of Mac minis, but I’d rather be able to have a bunch of CPU cores in one box without paying for GPUs I don’t need.
After the SSD was introduced most folks, I reckon 90% of all computer users (laptop, standalone) were happy with what they had. It was quick enough for their daily jobs. It was Apple that changed and keeps changing the game by upgrading its OS and this is the only reason why the 90% of consumers need to buy a new computer. I bought for years and years every year the latest MBP. The last one was in 2018 with a 2 TB internal SSD. It was great and did everything I needed and more. Now it’s super slow as I kept updating the OS. I shouldn’t have. The problem I have with Apple (it’s the only environment I know) is compatibility with iOS and the aura of ‘newer is better’. I reckon that in today’s phone and computer days an upgrade should only be necessary every five to seven years and as such we wouldn’t fall in the trap of consumerism. End of rant.
So, progress should stop because you don't want your legacy equipment to feel outdated? Is that really the argument you're trying to make?
I have seen in forums that the M3 still only supports 2 displays. Meaning that people are going to pay $1600 for an M3 MacBook Pro that can only support a single external monitor. Granted, the Lenovo IdeaPad Duet 3 Chromebook can only support a single external monitor, but that is because it is a $280 device that runs on a 32 bit SOC that was designed in 2017. (Moreover it is technically a tablet and not a laptop.) So can someone please explain this limitation with Apple Silicon's base chips? Whatever it is, you can bet that the Qualcomm chips in 2024 as well as the Nvidia and AMD ARM chips in 2025 aren't going to have them.
That's two EXTERNAL 5K displays; i.e., a total of 3. And that's the minimum M3 config. Please do your research for at least five seconds before posting in public about this. Or watch the event. Or do, well, anything to be informed before misleading the entire thread.
PSA: This is just wrong. I don’t agree with Thadec’s take, but they are correct. If you’re going to lecture people about doing research, you might want to check your own. M3 supports one external 6K display.
M3 Pro supports the internal display plus two 6K or one 8K. M3 Max supports the internal display and three 6K and one 4K, or two 6K and one 8K.
The main interest when benchmarks come out will be M2 Pro vs M3 Pro (well, apart from 13th gen intel). Noting of any increase from M2 Pro to M3 Pro seemed to be missing a mention in the keynote.
So…
Will the new dynamic caching technology overcome the reduced bandwidth and fewer performance cores in the M3 Pro? Or has Apple tweaked its product line positioning to UPSELL TO THE MAX!
I thought the same. When speaking, they only compared to M1. But in the slides there was always comparison to M1 and M2. So if you watch it again, you find the info there
Interesting that they kept comparing performance to the M1—as if the M2 didn't exist.
I mean I get it. Just funny. You gotta pat close attention to what (and how) Apple presents. They are very clever.
Because it's performance compared to the M2 isn't significantly better. And I suspect that whatever gains they are seeing over M2 is mostly because of 3nm vs 5nm on the M2. Which implies there are no architectural efficiencies in the M3. They basically made an M2 on 3nm fab with some minor tweaks.
M2 base was a real upgrade on M1 - the other variants not so much. But the main reason for not comparing M3 to M2 is the many products that are only available with M2.
MacBook Air 15" vs. MBP 14" - 8/512... and the difference i just $100 for a display that is better (XDR + ProMotion + higher resolution), a much better CPU+GPU, cooling, and ports... there is a lot of value in the base M3 and MBP 14".
I don't get M3 Pro. Reduced memory bandwidth and fewer performance cores than before? M3 Pro feels like Economy Plus.
I have seen in forums that the M3 still only supports 2 displays. Meaning that people are going to pay $1600 for an M3 MacBook Pro that can only support a single external monitor. Granted, the Lenovo IdeaPad Duet 3 Chromebook can only support a single external monitor, but that is because it is a $280 device that runs on a 32 bit SOC that was designed in 2017. (Moreover it is technically a tablet and not a laptop.) So can someone please explain this limitation with Apple Silicon's base chips? Whatever it is, you can bet that the Qualcomm chips in 2024 as well as the Nvidia and AMD ARM chips in 2025 aren't going to have them.
It's Apple's segmentation strategy. Ie, they designed it that way. If you want a device that can drive two external displays, get an M Pro model or higher.
Lower end Intel and AMD systems already support 2 or more external monitors. Apple's lower-end Intel Macs also supported 2 external monitors. So, the competitors had this feature over Apple Silicon Macs for 3 years now. Will this feature drive people to buy a competitor device rather than buying a more expensive Mac? It's probably a wash, or perhaps not distinguishable. If people want more screen space and have an M1, M2 or M3, there's always the option of a 35" 21:9 or a 40" 4K or a 32" 4K.
Please get your facts straight before posting. It's 2 external 5K displays, even on the minimum M3 config. This was quite clear in the event.
I wouldn’t talk about getting facts straight if I were you, clown. The base M3 supports only one external display up to 4K. ߤ榺wj;♂️ߙ䦬t;/div>
This is what is on the store page.
MacBook Pro with M3 Pro chip supports up to two external displays.
MacBook Pro with M3 Max chip supports up to four external displays.
Interesting that they kept comparing performance to the M1—as if the M2 didn't exist.
I mean I get it. Just funny. You gotta pat close attention to what (and how) Apple presents. They are very clever.
Apple doesn’t market current year devices as replacements of prior year devices. They really don’t even market them as replacements for two-year old devices, but the M1 is the first in the series, so it offers a good benchmark. Besides, they also repeated comparisons to Intel Macs as well.
That's because almost half of the Mac installed base is still using Intel Macs
One thing about the M lineup that continues to be a little annoying for me is that it really skews towards the GPU as you go up the line. My workloads love the CPU, but can’t make much use of the GPU. The best option for me seems to be to get a slew of Mac minis, but I’d rather be able to have a bunch of CPU cores in one box without paying for GPUs I don’t need.
More GPUs are the future, particularly the ray tracing kind and yes, everybody will pay for it. Apple doesn’t need as many as Nvidia (different path on power usage), but they have to get in the game.
One thing about the M lineup that continues to be a little annoying for me is that it really skews towards the GPU as you go up the line. My workloads love the CPU, but can’t make much use of the GPU. The best option for me seems to be to get a slew of Mac minis, but I’d rather be able to have a bunch of CPU cores in one box without paying for GPUs I don’t need.
More GPUs are the future, particularly the ray tracing kind and yes, everybody will pay for it. Apple doesn’t need as many as Nvidia (different path on power usage), but they have to get in the game.
Yes. It's an inherent tradeoff to Apple's monolithic SoC chip strategy. They have market they want to target a limited number of chip SKUs to and will design in features and performance in the chips for the widest set of users per price point. This will necessarily mean certain niches of users are paying for a lot more GPU than needed or even a lot more CPU than needed.
I almost thought they were going to offer the M3 in the MBP16 during their presentation. They could price it at $2000. If they add another display output in the M4, in order to drive 3 displays, having an M4 in the MBP16 would be a good option for a lot of people. The MBP16 design is a masterpiece of design.
Contrast this with AMD and Intel who are all in on chiplet or tile designs. They are chip vendors, so being able to scale performance along multiple axes is hugely important for them.
I wonder if the reason they don't just update the entire line all at once to the three M3 variants is due to supply constraints or it more related to marketing considerations? Would TSMC even be capable of producing enough M3 chips for the whole line. It seems doubtful since the max won't ship for around a month.
Supply constraints. New processes always have a lower yield which steadily improves as they work out the kinks.
They also have a lot of M2s in the pipeline, so some time to clear those out before moving the other models to M3.
What will be interesting to see is how many generations will be on the 3nm process.
My immediate reaction was that the A17 "Pro" instantly made more sense. I think we'll get an A18 and A18 Pro (on N3P). This will parallel M3 and M3 Pro.
The M3 Max is now, finally, in a class by itself. I imagine that it is now geared/architected more toward the Ultra and efficient scaling (or whatever the proper term is for that problem) involved in that. Apple said, pretty explicitly (for them, via Anand Shimpi), that the approach used in M1 and M2 was not working out and so they didn't build it. I don't know what to expect beyond the Ultra, but I do know it is happening. Or at least "I want to believe."
[To be clear, I'm not an Ultra+ customer. I just like the idea of it. M3 Max, maybe, but not necessary, M3 Pro is fine. In terms of high-end, bleeding-edge products I might actually buy, I'm most interested in displays.]
Comments
M3 Pro supports the internal display plus two 6K or one 8K. M3 Max supports the internal display and three 6K and one 4K, or two 6K and one 8K.
MacBook Air 15" vs. MBP 14" - 8/512... and the difference i just $100 for a display that is better (XDR + ProMotion + higher resolution), a much better CPU+GPU, cooling, and ports... there is a lot of value in the base M3 and MBP 14".
I don't get M3 Pro. Reduced memory bandwidth and fewer performance cores than before? M3 Pro feels like Economy Plus.
I almost thought they were going to offer the M3 in the MBP16 during their presentation. They could price it at $2000. If they add another display output in the M4, in order to drive 3 displays, having an M4 in the MBP16 would be a good option for a lot of people. The MBP16 design is a masterpiece of design.
Contrast this with AMD and Intel who are all in on chiplet or tile designs. They are chip vendors, so being able to scale performance along multiple axes is hugely important for them.
They also have a lot of M2s in the pipeline, so some time to clear those out before moving the other models to M3.
What will be interesting to see is how many generations will be on the 3nm process.
The M3 Max is now, finally, in a class by itself. I imagine that it is now geared/architected more toward the Ultra and efficient scaling (or whatever the proper term is for that problem) involved in that. Apple said, pretty explicitly (for them, via Anand Shimpi), that the approach used in M1 and M2 was not working out and so they didn't build it. I don't know what to expect beyond the Ultra, but I do know it is happening. Or at least "I want to believe."
[To be clear, I'm not an Ultra+ customer. I just like the idea of it. M3 Max, maybe, but not necessary, M3 Pro is fine. In terms of high-end, bleeding-edge products I might actually buy, I'm most interested in displays.]