M3 Max benchmarks show Mac Pro performance in a MacBook
Initial Geekbench scores for the M3 Max place the 16-inch MacBook Pro on par with the Apple Silicon Mac Pro.
M3 Max
The 16-inch MacBook Pro with M3 Max won't be in customers hands until mid-November, but someone has already begun running benchmarks. The initial results show Apple's M3 family has incredible performance.
The Geekbench score for M3 Max appeared late on Wednesday, hours after the standard M3 showed up. It is under the identifier Mac15,3, which refers to the 16-inch MacBook Pro with M3 Max.
The single-core score for the M3 Max is 2,971 and the multi-core score is 20,785. Compare that to the M2 Ultra in Mac Studio, which scores 2,692 single core and 21,231 multi core.
The M3 scored 3,030 for single core and 11,694 for multi core.
Benchmarking tools like Geekbench provide scores that act as a simple reference point to compare performance metrics. Scores fluctuate slightly between runs and across different hardware due to environment, temperature, battery life, background tasks, and more.
Geekbench also can't address specific hardware systems like the Media Engine, hardware ray tracing support, dynamic caching, or accelerated mesh mapping. Extensive real-world testing will reveal more about the performance of M3 Max once it arrives in customers hands.
The 14-inch MacBook Pro with M3 Max starts at $3,199 while the 16-inch MacBook Pro with M3 Max starts at $3,499. Shipping estimates show a November 13 or later date.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
That could be scary fast!
m3 Max is m2 ULTRA performance. Whoops it in single core of course, but MATCHES it in multi core?
indeed-scary fast. Apple isn’t playing.
I created a spreadsheet/table comparing the 24" iMac and the Studio Mac, both base configurations and what I would buy. Unfortunately, I can't upload it.
The difference in performance and battery life are game changers. My 2019 MBP used to get hot and the fans would spool up as soon as I did anything more taxing than browsing the Internet. I never got anywhere near a day of battery life without having to plug in.
My M2 Max is not only much faster, but I rarely hear the fans and I still have 40% battery after a day of heavy usage.
The upgrade is worth it.
That basically means that all the comparisons to third party stuff is meaningless as none of it can be directly installed in Apple products and or run on MacOS. We have zero information on how third party stuff would work in the current Apple world equipment.
We have a very simple choice array now. Apple OS or Windows.
Once the Apple OS decision is made, then one can choose from consumer products (in Apple's world) of the iMac, low tier MacBook Airs and low end Mac mini. The middle tier is the upper models of the MacBook Airs and Mac mini and 14" M3 MacBook Pro. The pro world includes the M3 Max, Pro and Ultra trim lines with prices to match.
The Geek Bench scores are one of the best known ways to compare the performances to a score. However, some vendors have been known to build to make a great score.
I'd expect the M3 Ultra to be more or less in that range, once it's released.
I'm still reeling from how Apple just hit the ground running with their first-ever Mac CPUs three years ago…
So the single core speed is very relevant for the daily mundane chores that are not multi-threaded. Maybe the M4 will improve from the M3 average of around 3000 to around 3450 or so. But there is probably a thermal barrier to how fast they can clock the processor and still have a useful service life.
The M series bought Apple some breathing room to get away from Intel. But they need a new series to keep downsizing and speeding up. One would think there is a finite barrier to this existing "M" technology.
We need a new extremely fast communication protocol to get stuff on and off the computer and fiber optic may be the way but the bus and storage devices have to be able to handle the data flow coming and going.
Thankfully, I didn’t spend $4K on my 2019 last-of-the-15-inch MBPs, more like $2.5K, and that’s still MORE than it would cost me to get a 14-inch MBP with M3 Pro (again, more than I need right now), which runs about $2K (before tax) with the specs I want, and I prefer the smaller size anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dhuxRF2c_w Starting at 8:10 mark: a comparison between the M2 Ultra and a Intel/4090 build, check out the wattage used by both systems at 8:53 mark, also check out the cooling system used in his Intel/4090 system build at 14:35 mark, I don’t think Apple is going down that road with that type of coolant/fan system.
https://www.reddit.com/r/gadgets/comments/165frfi/new_gpu_power_connector_eliminates_cables/ Apple is definitely not going down this this path either.
Apple appears to be building up their systems slowly thru iteration, I don’t think they’re going for fast and quick solutions, by cranking up the mhz or for huge wattage gains 300, 400, 500 600 watts. That’s not to say Apple won’t do some sort of increase. I just don’t think Apple will look at those solutions as the first solution in their future designs.
So, I wonder how fast the Mac Studio with M3 Ultra will be.
v
That's the been the case for awhile now
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
If that goes up 50%, it will be 72k. 80% would be 86k. M3 Ultra would then be roughly the same as the Threadripper Pro 5975WX. The tops ones cost over $5k and the performance of the others is within 30%.
The M3 Max rivals the top current Intel/AMD laptop CPUs ( https://www.cpubenchmark.net/laptop.html ).
From Apple's GPU test, it looks like M3 Max GPU improves raw performance by 20%. Number of cores only went up about 5%. For non-raytraced performance, M2 Max is around a 3070 laptop. 20% boost will bring M3 Max GPU to a 4070/3080 laptop.
The big gain with the GPU is hardware raytracing. For 3D rendering, that should make it competitive with Nvidia/AMD.
M3 Ultra GPU probably won't scale 100% but it should reach at least 80% higher than M3 Max so between a laptop and desktop 4080. Nvidia 4090 will be around 50% higher.
M4 Ultra might be able to match a 4090 but when it launches, Nvidia will be onto the 5090, which will be 70% faster but this GPU can use 400W so it will always be able to run faster. Being within 60-70% of the best performance of AMD/Intel/Nvidia is competitive, most tasks would show a negligible difference and the Macs run silently, at full speed on battery in light, portable form factors and with huge amounts of graphics memory (Nvidia 4090 has 24GB, Ultra will probably have up to 256GB).