I don’t like the new MacBook Pro, buy this instead 

always you can take 16 or more ;)

people saying "just pay more" is insane 💀

@@hmuy0608 that is what the poors says

​​@@slow_riding4225$300 laptops have 8GB why spend 5x more for the same performance when I get much better laptops for $700

​​@@hmuy0608 this is the mentality that makes apple not want to change things, people said the touchbar sucked and they needed ports and they went through the effort of a full redesign, but when someone wants more memory for longevity and good power right now which costs nothing to them with economies of sale you want to pay more for less??? 😂

Yeah. Maybe for the original M1. But not for even the M2. That's ridiculous Apple is intentionally limiting it. Heck 2 external displays isn't enough for me (I use 3).

Well, you should just "get the message" and spend more to get those features, right? LOL After each one of these ridiculous intentional segmentation and ladder moves Apple pulls, you think they might assume they're squeezing their customer base too far, it's way too obvious, but not, people buy it up every time and Apple doubles down again. Apple will continue to do this shit until their customers finally vote with their wallets. $$$ drives behavior.

@@cameronbosch1213no the fact that the worse intel macbook air can do two displays is just sad

@@cameronbosch1213 Some people rarely use one external monitor. Granted, for a pro computer, having more than one external display is usually welcome.

@@LuckyLego You need the M3 Max chip for 2 external displays. This was the case for the M1 and M2 MacBooks. Not sure why Johnathan didn't mention this. I have an M2 Max MacBook Pro for work and it does 2 displays just fine

Anything that is barley 6 months old to Apple is obsolete.

Ha Ha Ha. Absolute Cheers, Mate!

its great also

That's 1800€ over here on a discount and sold at 2000€ normally.

it's unforgivable. i haven't seen many people defending this choice, and for good reason - i loved my base M1 air but there were serious limits to what I could do with that 8GB. parallels/virtualization was basically off the table, which really sucked as that was the best way to get windows games up and running until crossover got updated

particularly because they still have configs with 16gb of ram, so they can't even make the argument that "oh well our memory management is so good that no one needs 16gb of ram"

Erm it's > actually ☝️🤓

Hehehehe....... oopsies

​@@destructodisk9074 Then that's not going to increase sales.

Qualcomm is nowhere near even matching them without pumping 80watts through their silicon they are so far away it’s scary.

Wouldn't mind a hybrid architecture that ran both x86 and arm code natively on the same cores.

They’re not resting on their laurels per se, the 3nm fab (which they bought all of restricting the competition from getting any) is not as good as the new one that TSMC has coming soon. They screwed themselves over and now have to try to make up the margins they could’ve justified with better performance or chip yields

@@samlawrence4670 From the benchmarks I've seen it looks like the performance difference from 25w to 80w is pretty similar. It seems to be able to compete with M2 at least. I think a PC with near M2 performance and battery life, little to no fan noise, and probably in the $600-800 range (probably with 16GB of RAM to boot) would be pretty compelling as long as Microsoft can incentivize ARM porting. That's probably the biggest hurdle to overcome at this point.

in the tests and reviews I've watched M1 Pro was basically equivalent if not even better than the m2 pro (due to different core assignments). So I went with an M1 Pro and I am more than happy :)

There was some crazy sales prizes on M1 Max/Ultra/whatever they call them with 32/64gb ram few months back. Still expensive, sure, but like 200€ more than the basic M3 with 8gb.

@@fuomag9 Really?!

The 8-core 14” M1 Pro is available as a refurb with a year warranty from resellers now for £1,100. It has 16GB, 6 P cores Vs 5 in the M3 Pro it competes with on specs or 4 on the base M3 it obliterates on price. You can get 10-core M1 Pro 16” models for £1,499 now too. They hit the ground running with the M1 and they’ve been chiselling at specs by substituting P cores with E cores while increasing total cores on the M3 and, if you look at the new iPad Pro’s, M4s too.

Uncomfortable even.

That was literally me learning this is an LTT channel, haha.

This is exactly what I did. The preconfigured Mac Books are even worse. They bump you too 1tb before they give you 16gb of RAM. Mac Book Pro Pro was the only way to go.

With the student discount here in Canada it comes to 1870 USD + taxes. Should I take the jump? My initial budget was about 1200 USD before taxes so I would be way over budget but the base M3 pro doesn't look good enough and it's only 200$ USD more for the M3 Pro. I almost bought a refurbished 15' M2 air for 1300 USD + taxes but I changed my mind. All of these have 16gb of Ram except the M3 Pro with 18.

Just got one for $1799!

where???@@Ribbuns

@@drmcc57 It was in Best Buy, I live in the US.

@@destructodisk9074 what the hell are you talking about? Your average modern AAA title uses 10GB-12GB if it's available, many can use less with more aggressive swapping, but these modern AAA titles all want 6-8GB or more of VRAM, and as much as Apple would like to cram their fist up your arse while telling you that the unified system & GPU memory is amazing because you don't have to pipeline textures from SSD to DRAM to GPU VRAM and the GPU can just access the copy in system DRAM, games have to be fully and thoughtfully ported to Metal, and you can't get around the fact that if the game requires 7GB of textures in VRAM to run at 1080p high and you have an 8GB Apple Silicon machine you'd better home MacOS can get creative swapping system memory. Stop defending this disgusting practice. Your average current AMD powered laptop even without discrete GPU are shipping with pretty powerful RDNA3 iGPU's like the 780M and the minimum you see is 16GB now, 32GB DDR5-6000+ 1TB gen4 NVMe is basically the norm on sub-$1500 thin laptops, the iGPU can easily steal 8GB without causing an issue. My G14 has an a 680M RDNA2 that is on the 6900HS plus a 6800S 8GB dGPU, and even when my dGPU is disabled, the iGPU can get more video memory because the laptop has 32GB. Seriously, it costs Apple about $20 more to ship an M3 MacBook with 16GB rather than 8GB, yet they charge us $200. They do the same with SSD, charging us $200 for another 512GB of SSD capacity that costs them another $20 for the larger density NAND chips. And to put a cherry on top, the new MacBook pro 14 M3 is only PCIe Gen3, so you get SSD performance comparable to x86 laptops from nearly 3 generations ago, you have to pony up for the M3 Pro or M3 Max if you want even last Gen PCIe Gen4 SSD performance. They actually had to go out of their way to cripple the M3 base in order to force enough segmentation and ladder people up to the model they actually want you buying, just like the 16GB iPhone all over again, except with the iPhone 15, they charge you $100 for 128GB upgrade to 256GB. Or $300 to go from 128GB to 512GB. Yet people will still happily stand up for Apple and defend them when they continuously and increasingly pull this crap.

@@destructodisk9074Hogwarts Legacy uses 22gb ram on high settings at 1440p

​@destructodisk9074 Well you are right about 16GB for gaming on windows. However on m series chips, GPU share the same memory pool as the CPU, 8GB is all they have to shared for base m3. With OS taken over 5 to 6 GB. The remanin 2 to 3GB is not sufficiemt for gaming. 16 GB will be at should be at least, but 24GB would be better for reducing swap usage and high end gaming (equivalent to 16GB DDR ram + 8GB Video Memory), although at that point the limiting factor will no longer be ram, it will be the CPU and GPU limiting the performance.

@@bloomface9146 Yeah, I can say from experience this is about right. The OS is pretty efficient but even then 8GB is too little. Assuming that RAM scales linearly across the lineup, I have an M2 Pro with 32GB RAM (got it in the refurb store and it's absolutely incredible). Even a native Apple Silicon game like X-Plane (excellent flight sim, btw, would recommend for anyone who is interested; scenery not quite as good as MS Flight but the plane physics are second to none) would struggle on 8GB. Activity monitor tells me that even when no external display is in use, 9.12GB RAM is in use just for that app (16.20 RAM is in use for the system, cos it's not the only app I had open). Even assuming a bit of the RAM is going to increasing the render distance, as well as the game being on the highest settings, but you'd think that there aren't too many savings to be made.

This is shared memory. RAM and GPU performance are tied.​@@destructodisk9074

Apple knows all this, and that’s why they won’t provide any of the aforementioned features so that they can make bank.

It's not "an issue", it's intentional.

​@@racerex340If everyone thinks it's an issue then there's better chances of Apple fixing it rather than leaving it as a feature

M.2 storage isn’t as fast as the onboard SSD.

@@markclayton8977 As far as I can tell from tests I've seen, the internal storage of the MBPs is not as fast as current gen PCIe4 M.2 SSDs. As far as I can tell the MBPro M3 Max can read with up to 5000MB/s while current M.2s usually reach 7500MB/s. If you jump to PCIe5 M.2s, it gets even faster cracking the 12000MB/s.

It seems like such a pointless thing to fuss about until you have it. I've charged on both sides of my 14" countless times and it's always nice lol.

you can still charge these with any of the C ports

@@jackcalow2430 You can't charge through HDMI. New design has both charge-capable ports on the left. Reminds me of the myopic "You're holding it wrong" days.

@@jackcalow2430yes but that’s not the problem, it’s the fact that with the base m3 macbook pro, i am now limited to charging on one side compared to the older or more expensive models.

For me that the stock M processor has no second monitor support is weird. There are enough professionals whom just need the power of a stock M processor but benefit from double monitor support.

grab a lenovo/ dell dock or any other w/ a displaylink tech. Thats how i roll with my mac air

It's confusing. A "Pro" Mac is for professionals, in theory. And most professionals are going to want dual external monitors. I could understand it for the M1 Macbook Air - it's a low-end consumer device. But a "Pro?" It's almost false adverrtising.

@@craxkerjack6057DisplayLink is inferior to DisplayPort and shouldn’t be needed at this price point at all.

It's not a GPU limitation. It's Apple doing it on purpose. Maybe with the base M1 SoC it was a limitation, but not with the M2 and certainly not the M3. If it has, that's pretty poor design.

Couple years? That thing can’t be even a year old. It should last you another five at least.

@@NoTimeForNoodles The 512GB storage has caused me a couple of minor issues already -- and those minor issues won't get better with time, given the work I do. The computer itself will last 5 or more years, easy, but I'll sell it and upgrade to something with more storage in the next 2 to 3 years, most likely. Someone else will definitely be able to use it, no doubt. It's a great machine, other than the base-level storage being an occasional issue for my workflow.

This! Having "mother nature" in their keynote is just a big middle finger to earth

Apple still sells M2 MacBooks bro, they even compare the M3 to the M1 and Intel. Nobody is being sold this to go from M2->M3, if they do they’re idiots.

What I found weird though, is that how are they actually profiting off that? The Air's components are doubtless cheaper. That extra $100US gets you a better display, speakers, more ports and better chip. No way is that anywhere near the profit margin they'd make on a similarly priced Air. Surely Apple's best strategy is to make the Air as appealing as possible as I'm 100% certain that it would have a higher profit margin.

@@HorizonOfHope it isn't as much of a difference as you think it would be. In fact they rather intentionally leave out certain features like fast refresh rate and more ports to upsell you to those higher end devices. It doesn't cost much to add ports to a device and the difference in speaker costs is around $10. The most expensive thing is the "better chip" but as you can see the m3 pro base model doesn't have a better chip, as the m3 will be available very soon in the air. Not to mention the intentions of upselling you to the m3 pro is in hopes that you will spend another $200 on RAM which is highly profitable. But additionally for only $200 more you could upgrade to the m3 pro model. And then the upselling begins to make more sense because suddenly now you are $500 higher then the air in price.

@@heroninja1125 Yes and no. The markup on the Pro and Max chips are definitely less than on the baseline M. Most chips - Apple Silicon included - don't make the majority of their profit in their initial usage. Rather, as the cost of producing a chip drops over time, it makes money from its use in entry level products. Apple still makes M1 products sold as new today but hasn't cut the costs of those products despite production dropping.

Wow! I'm coming from a 2013 i5 MacBook Pro and trying to decide between MacBook Pro m3 and Air M2. This beast is still trucking along, maybe down to 3 hour battery life. The M2 Air seems to be such a good value.

With 64GB of ram it should last until you drop it in the bath lol. Unless you’re doing some really intense tasks (editing ultra-HD video maybe), you should still have all the laptop you need with an older i7 and a boatload of ram realistically right?

Likely won’t happen knowing apple and their greed. Would recommend looking at getting a tech to clean out dust and put new thermal paste on your 2019 16 inch. Currently rocking a i9 9880h with 4gb graphics and 32 gb ram . It goes to 80 degrees on chrome and after I cleaned it out I’m sitting at around 50.

@@Mattsunx That's a great idea! Did you get that done by apple or just an generic laptop tech?

They didn't make a mistake. The Ladder will always feel like that for the base model every year.

I guess my question would be, if it still runs well, and doesn’t have anything broken on it, why upgrade? They’re still great machines

I was you, and I lost my shit one day on the touchbar accidental presses. Like I literally opened a new tab and did a trade in + buy new one because I could not handle it anymore. If it doesn’t bother you, then no worries.

Who asked?

@@xFoxDeath the host of the Video.

@@xFoxDeathseems like I struck a nerve…somehow?

I have never had a SSD wear out on me or break. What are you doing to make that happen ? I still have a First Gen Intel 160 GB SSD here from 2008/2009 which still performs like the first day, also had an OCZ Vertex 2 and 3 here. Still running. Same as every Samsung from the 840 to the 860 Series is working like day one. I am even raping a Gen3 PNY CS3030 NVMe from 2019 as a "pack/unpack"-disk which gets terabytes written on it. No problem whatsoever, still performs and no issues. If you want to make a case against Apple its probably more that they are pricing it totally unreasonable. SSD Failure seems rather uncommon to me.

@@ThirdLife86 it highly depends on what’s your usual workload towards storage IOPS. I usually have intensive writing in my typical day (VMs, Blender, databases, etc). My SSDs last less than a year most of the time.

@@RunTheTape I'd call that the definition of an edge case (running several VMs and DBs). I'd get an external NAS for that with about 8 disks in RAID10. That should give you less wear and high performance for those apps. Just because one theoretically "could" run something locally in terms of CPU Performance doesn't mean you "should" run it locally. I think IO is the bottleneck currently in all cases - CPU and GPU performance is skyrocketing, efficiency is good but IO is always an issue. Feel you there brother. ;)

@@ThirdLife86 i have several servers and nases. That’s besides the point. SSDs wear out. You got lucky. Even without vms. I need to be able to replace the part that can naturally decay. And you need that too.

@@RunTheTape Even our storages at work have not yet had a single SSD failure. Its just not as common as you're telling me. OR your personal use case is 20x more extreme than that of our 800 people company. Who knows ? Before the NAND dies i'd bet the controller or other surrounding hardware dies first. And in Apples case that would mean a new system board as its flash controller is on the M-SoC.

Gonna last a long time, wait til M5 or possibly 6

That's probably the best deal still today if one can find it. a Refurb spec'd M1 pro lol. The user experience is so negligible that caring about m1, 2, 3 is pointless. Just get the right tier regardless of gen.

a refurbished m1 max would be great

Salutations from a ThinkPad T480 owner. Imagine buying costly solutions to problems engineered by your laptop manufacturer. The absolute state of crApple owners.

You got a used 2.5-year old laptop. For $1425. With an SSD that's likely been shot (I hope you also checked SMART health on these non-replaceable soldered drives). The jokes write themselves.

Later in the video, it's mentioned that the M2 Pro chip is faster than the M3 Pro chip. I wonder if that muddies the results for that graph, because RAM isn't the only factor.

No, what is being said is that the M2 PRO is faster than the M3 (which is in the base spec M3 MBP). This seems more like a fuck up on the graph, again. This looks like they took the score from a binned M3 Pro which only has 5 pCores, otherwise it doesn't make sense, or something else went wrong when they did the benchmark. I mean the later benchmarks all show that the M3 Pro is a bit faster than the M2 Pro, which goes in line with every other benchmark out there.

See it at 6:09. It sounds like they took a Pro or Max chipped 14” M2 and compare it against a base M3 chip. I suppose it advances the storytelling. But it doesn’t seem like a fair comparison and feels misleading. I do like the comparison though. The story of…buying the best of last years model for way less $ because you only lose out on 8 seconds of improvements…that angle makes a lot of sense to me.

I don't think it's in error. The M3 pro has slower memory bandwidth than the M2 pro (150 GB/s vs. 200 GB/s). Of course more RAM is important during a video export test. But if the export takes a while (>20 mins.), memory bandwidth matters more than the amount of RAM you have, especially if the GPUs use the same architecture.

Page filing backs that up

At last someone whose not a sheep and has his own brain!

Be ready to pay for that though. And ZoneOfTech and Max Tech both had crashes on Blender and Final Cut Pro with the M3 with 8 GB of RAM.

no, M2 Pro is faster than the base M3... the M3 Pro is slightely faster

I am also confused. It has to be a mistake. I think they switched the labels on the graph. The m3 pro even has 32GB of RAM, no way it loses to the M2 pro

@@_mrleal look at the graph

@@tomaszencore6100 oh, now I see... strange, it has to be a mistake

Wouldn't surprise me if this is another fuck up from labs by not labeling the benchmark properly. This seems like the score from the 11 core M3 Pro, so 5 instead of 6 pCores. Every single benchmark out there has M3 Pro and M2 Pro being about equal, except for GPU benchmark where the M3 Pro is 10%ish faster.

Get the RAM

The first gen Apple Silicon machines were TOO good and they’ve struggled to top them.

I'd strongly not reccomend upgrading to any M3 series laptop from unless your on intel based or low powered M1 with little ram and you would see your life change from the improvements. If your on M1 Pro or better until M4 or maybe 5 I'd hold on the upgrade after all that laptop you have is less than 1 year old.

@@4070superor wait for strong arm laptops to go mainstream

@@4070superyeah I agree.

No need to upgrade for the next 4 years with the M2 MBP 14. Get your money's worth of use out of it.