NotebookCHECK - Notebook Forum

..XD so help me out with the maths, here, will you. The tdp of the m3 (not the m3 max or pro) supposedly is 21W.. on the cpu part. Given that it is anything like the m2, there is a boost stage that will draw up to 30W or so. And a gpu part that isn't included in the chart, but clocks in at another 20W. These kits will not reach anywhere near the desktop kits. And if it's anything like the m2, to get the advertised combined graphics and cpu performance out of this kit, it will exceed it's tdp by a lot. Your test doesn't explain how this works, how the clocks are running, nor how the single-core targets are reached.

Presumably - given that any of this is even remotely indicative of actual performance - Apple would be extremely happy to promote the advances from the m2 to the m3 kit. And yet .. no numbers. Why is that? Not suspicious at all, obviously..

In the same way, where this kit shines is - in theory - on the idle draw, and on the very lowest load burns. In theory you would be able to sit in your IDE and program, or stream registry-decoded video or other things, for towards 5-7W on average (which nets you the possible battery life of the 20h, thanks to the gigantic battery). Multithreaded tasks on low intensity is basically where it's at in ARM-land, given that the kits are optimised for that.

But you don't actually test for this, and the actual circumstances of "idle" draw may very well be different on a kit that has a different core layout. The suspicion obviously is that because the base model comes with more cores, that the idle is higher - since this is how it worked on the m2 and m1 versions(and indeed any ARM kit, including other relevant ARM-comparisons with embedded instruction sets).

Meanwhile, your (relative) comparisons seem to then pick out an average actual burn on the Intel chips (even though the burn will be higher when reaching the peak performance, so it's still underreported for the numbers you're using - the efficiency target, however, could be made higher by using realistic numbers of the actual draw in battery modes, since these runs would still reach somewhat high single-core speeds for shorter durations). And then you're pitting that against what looks like an ideally clocked performance(equivalent of the "avalanche") core on the m3, giving some expected ARM boost core load at 8W -- on that one core over time. If you did similar maths for an intel kit, would the boost core be achieved at 9W, ignoring the rest of the ambient cost, and all practical scenarios where the burn is higher?

In any case, whatever numbers are used -- by a relative standard this lets Apple beat the single-core performance of not just the Intel kits at 45W(very obviously, since at that target they are only allowed the shortest of boosts, if any at all), but of any kit - and so allow a combined synthetic score that hits above most kits in general.

Or put in a different way: the math you're operating with here doesn't tell us what the expected burns will be like in 3d, what the cpu burns will be on compilation loads, or what the nominal and idle burns actually will be. And in reality, the math doesn't even tell us what the theoretical peak performance of this kit really is.

What you're posting here genuinely tells us nothing.

Outside of that you're bending backwards to misrepresent both Intel and Apple kits(that both are higher in the usage contexts you're suggesting), so that none of the numbers actually reflect what you're getting in practice, I guess.

Nice improvements with benchmarks, but it looks like there is no improvement in real life. According to the Pro M3 review, the battery life for WiFi web surfing is as follows:

M3: 951 minutes for a 70Wh battery
M2 13'' Air: 910 minutes for a 52.6Wh battery
M2 13'' Pro: 1140 minutes for a 58.2Wh battery
Normalized for 1Wh:

M3: 13.5 minutes
M2 13'' Air: 17.3 minutes
M2 13'' Pro: 19.5 minutes
The M2 is providing from 30% to 45% better battery life/efficiency than the M3. Perhaps this is related to a different screen type, and we will have to wait for the MacBook Air M3. However, the Max Load time on battery is very weak: 98 minutes for the M3 with a 70Wh battery compared to 144 minutes for the M2 with only a 52.6Wh battery.

In any games, energy efficiency does not matter if the system is not capable of delivering at least 60fps in high quality without drops in the native screen resolution.

Can Apple laptops meet these requirements, at least for 2020-2021 releases? No.

Quote from: paviko on November 12, 2023, 12:13:27Nice improvements with benchmarks, but it looks like there is no improvement in real life. According to the Pro M3 review, the battery life for WiFi web surfing is as follows:

M3: 951 minutes for a 70Wh battery
M2 13'' Air: 910 minutes for a 52.6Wh battery
M2 13'' Pro: 1140 minutes for a 58.2Wh battery
Normalized for 1Wh:

M3: 13.5 minutes
M2 13'' Air: 17.3 minutes
M2 13'' Pro: 19.5 minutes
The M2 is providing from 30% to 45% better battery life/efficiency than the M3. Perhaps this is related to a different screen type, and we will have to wait for the MacBook Air M3. However, the Max Load time on battery is very weak: 98 minutes for the M3 with a 70Wh battery compared to 144 minutes for the M2 with only a 52.6Wh battery.

It's display, man.

Quote from: NikoB on November 12, 2023, 12:52:36In any games, energy efficiency does not matter if the system is not capable of delivering at least 60fps in high quality without drops in the native screen resolution.
Can Apple laptops meet these requirements, at least for 2020-2021 releases? No.

AAA games ported to Apple Silicon do 120 fps+.
Or, are you talking about Windows games running on Apple Silicon through CrossOver and converting D3D calls to Metal? )))

M1Max barely ever turns on fans (on min RPM) for photo/video processing and coding. And it can last for a day doing your daily productivity tasks. Once a friend of mine, retoucher for Vogue, messaged me "My M2Pro turned on fans for first time after purchase, is it ok?". It's been maybe half a year after she bought it. )) That's what energy efficiency is for. "Gigantic battery" in a small body is also possible only because SoC MB is small.

If you don't have money for Apple laptops you don't really have to run around and hate every single one of them. Your opinion is irrelevant anyway and most of stuff you write is straight from your imagination.

Quote from: A on November 12, 2023, 13:35:10If you don't have money for Apple laptops you don't really have to run around and hate every single one of them. Your opinion is irrelevant anyway and most of stuff you write is straight from your imagination.

Stupid troll, do you even understand what I wrote?

It makes no sense to compare Apple laptops in games, because it is impossible to play releases from 2-3 years ago in high quality on them in the native screen resolution. This is proven by reviews.

Quote from: NikoB on November 12, 2023, 14:23:55releases from 2-3 years ago

Correction - Windows releases from 2-3 years ago running through CrossOver Windows and D3D emulation layer. Which is a miracle and blessing they are running at all.

Quote from: NikoB on November 12, 2023, 14:23:55Stupid troll

And again you reverted to aggressive behaviour when ran out of arguments.

Anonymously abusing people on Internet probably required a lot of courage from you, yeah. ))

Apple never mentioned about Ram, is possible to know which type?
I suppose the same 6400 used for M2, and not upgraded up to 8533 (also because performances aren't so big).

Notice, that Apple always mention about M1 that uses 4266, M2 6400, but M3...?

Thanks if someone will reply.

games <> 3D games

Only the latter care about FPS at all.

Quote from: NikoB on November 12, 2023, 14:23:55It makes no sense to compare Apple laptops in games, because it is impossible to play releases from 2-3 years ago in high quality on them in the native screen resolution. This is proven by reviews.

World of Warcraft the current retail version is available natively for Apple silicon and it works fine even with base M1, assuming it has more than 8GB of RAM. In theory, the M3 could also run raytraced shadows if it's supported currently.

In the US a lot of people went for the Mac Studios just to play WoW and because they were using Macs their whole life. In Europe there wasn't such a thing.

Quote from: paviko on November 12, 2023, 12:13:27The M2 is providing from 30% to 45% better battery life/efficiency than the M3. Perhaps this is related to a different screen type, and we will have to wait for the MacBook Air M3.

Yes, display is a very important variable and mini-LED isn't likely to shine here. Also, you're comparing units running different versions of OS and applications. That is also an important factor when it comes to very low loads. Not to mention that you'd have to run the test at least three times to get an idea about uncertainty. Single run is just an anecdote.

Quote from: NikoB on November 12, 2023, 14:23:55It makes no sense to compare Apple laptops in games, because it is impossible to play releases from 2-3 years ago in high quality on them in the native screen resolution. This is proven by reviews.

Yes, it makes little sense. But it's not really a hardware problem, is it. How many of them are available as native software?

A bit disappointed with these testd, it could have been used Da Vinci Resolve, Cinebench 2024.
Maybe later.

Quote from: O'Connell on November 12, 2023, 15:21:47Apple never mentioned about Ram, is possible to know which type?

Same as M2. Bandwidth actually went down on the cut-down configurations (not the vanilla M3) due to lower number of channels.

The interesting takeaway of this article for me is, many people make this an x86 vs ARM thing, but it's not, it's largely an Apple chip design thing, as we can see here AMD (and even Intel in multicore, and Meteor Lake will drop power use 50%) are smacking down the Qualcomm ARM SoC in the SP9 in efficiency. There's no reason you can't have efficient x86 cores, there's just been different design focuses for the last decades.

its answered in details at anandtech for all and each lineup

Quote from: O'Connell on November 12, 2023, 15:21:47Apple never mentioned about Ram, is possible to know which type?
I suppose the same 6400 used for M2, and not upgraded up to 8533 (also because performances aren't so big).

Notice, that Apple always mention about M1 that uses 4266, M2 6400, but M3...?

Thanks if someone will reply.

Quote from: A on November 12, 2023, 13:35:10AAA games ported to Apple Silicon do 120 fps+.
Or, are you talking about Windows games running on Apple Silicon through CrossOver and converting D3D calls to Metal? )))

M1Max barely ever turns on fans (on min RPM) for photo/video processing and coding. And it can last for a day doing your daily productivity tasks. Once a friend of mine, retoucher for Vogue, messaged me "My M2Pro turned on fans for first time after purchase, is it ok?". It's been maybe half a year after she bought it. )) That's what energy efficiency is for. "Gigantic battery" in a small body is also possible only because SoC MB is small.

If you don't have money for Apple laptops you don't really have to run around and hate every single one of them. Your opinion is irrelevant anyway and most of stuff you write is straight from your imagination.

Some people to talk crapola, efficiency is always important in mobile. However, I'd heard people say "android is for poor people" never actually believed anyone who could read would think that.

People's contempt for Apple is partly reactions against its unrivaled popularity. But many of us like to see them fail, because every share of market they take is another choice taken away from people who like choice.
(Sadly, most of apples competitors are mostly crap, have no sense brand identity or product design)

However, your response was no less reactionary, and I find it hard to believe "your opinion is irrelevant..." quote came from someone with friends at "Vogue".

As for your examples: "aaa games at 120fps" vague jibberish. They've had 6 years to port games and so far have done like 4.

You may find this hard to believe, but they're not that efficient, theyre great, but only as great as the competition. The info on review sites changes with the weather. According to this article: "a factor of 2", according to this sites cinebench listings, the amd 5800u provides more perf p/w than the m2 and m3 max. (Check it)

You example about your friend. Literally every latest gen cpu can do high level editing under 20, but for oems allow "turbo" which gives like 30% more speed for 3x the energy, just as an option. I personally would rather they capped for cool and quiet.

But yknow, if you're "rich" enough to not mind being sold locked in ssds that you can't change, by a company that actively prevents you from checking stats... thats great.

If you don't mind having to buy 4000 alu gpu you may never use, just to have access to an 12 core cpu... Great.

But some of us don't like being told we have to buy everything from 1 company. We like being able to have a top cpu with no gpu, or a massive gpu and cheap cpu. Or being able to draw/toucuscreen onto my laptop instead of having to buy a giant iPhone as well as a laptop. We can't have massive igpus because non-apple can't guarantee the necessary sales to make custom mobos for every chip. But in return we get to choose gpus.


 Apples success takes that freedom away from us. So we like to hear that their chips aren't anything special. And like to complain when they're totally misrepresented. I personally like knowing that i don't have to choose between good hardware, and options.

Quote from: Harrykonstantinos on November 16, 2023, 17:41:08They've had 6 years to port games and so far have done like 4.

Way more than 4, including latest titles like BG3 - and it's definitely not 6 years. ) Base M1 is 3yrs old, M1Pro/Max 2yrs old.

qr.ae/pKPJWL

Nanometers no longer mean what they used to mean ...

Quote from: Harrykonstantinos on November 16, 2023, 17:41:08Apples success takes that freedom away from us

Yes, but primarily due to very powerful and high-quality marketing at the fundamental level.
This shows that it is not necessary to do the best things to win sympathy. Much more important is very effective marketing (a whole culture).