"The first Apple M3 Pro chip benchmarks
have leaked!
It’s actually slower than the M2 Max based
on margin of error.
M3 Pro: 15,173
M2 Max: 15,242"
An alternate, and in my opinion more accurate and relevant, way of phrasing this would be:
"Very cool! The new *mid-level* chips perform as well
(within <1%) as the old *performance-tier* chips, so
you get more performance for less money - or more
perf for the same money."
In what world is this not a good thing? Pretty solid annual incremental upgrade.
Of course I understand why people are underwhelmed with the incremental M2 and M3 gains, after the groundbreaking M1. Now that Apple have got all of that groundbreakingness out of the way, yeah, sure, it's going to be a while before something really groundbreaking again -- but that usually happens with entirely new architectures, and new architectures don't just fall out of the sky on an annual basis. And yeah, maybe we all hoped for more from the 3nm process.
Look at the annual incremental performance increases seen from AMD and Intel. The M3's progress compares favorably. I read some 14th-gen Intel benchmarks and they were mostly indistinguishable from 13th-gen benchmarks.
Of course I understand why people are underwhelmed with the incremental M2 and M3 gains, after the groundbreaking M1. Now that Apple have got all of that groundbreakingness out of the way, yeah, sure, it's going to be a while before something really groundbreaking again -- but that usually happens with entirely new architectures, and new architectures don't just fall out of the sky on an annual basis. And yeah, maybe we all hoped for more from the 3nm process.
Look at the annual incremental performance increases seen from AMD and Intel. The M3's progress compares favorably. I read some 14th-gen Intel benchmarks and they were mostly indistinguishable from 13th-gen benchmarks.