M3 Max blew my mind. 

Me too!

Heck yeah!

Me too lol

16’ here. Still going. Looking at those M2 Air though…

As my late 2013 MacBook Pro looks at your comments and silently weeps. ;) (though my M1 Mac Mini lets out a giggle)

That’s what she said.

Did you not watch the keynote? 🤦‍♂🤦‍♂

@@ArthropodSpideyim pretty sure they meant a more comprehensive comparison…

u don't need it :) M1 Ultra Base model / 48 GPU Classroom 53 seconds / 20 CPU 3:31:00 Blender 4.0.0 Beta

If you literally search RU-vid everyone has done a comparison

facts

For the low price of 9,999.99!

Naw… The M10 Super Ultra Pro Max will be better

@@Calikid24😂

@@lukemiani I'm trying to start music please give me the MacBook i beg you pls

" I still can't believe this was the same company that used Intel chips for so long. " - the PowerPC line of processors was not going to be competitive, hence Apple switched. Should Apple have switched to ARM earlier? Apple had to grow as a corporation in order to invest enough to go their own way. Even PowerPC had IBM and other corporations involved so in that case Apple could just ride along.

Apple did not entirely went on their own. Yes they switched from Intel , but not because they could not design custom , Intel based cpus and gpus. Even if law allowed them to tweak Intel designs they would still choose to go to mommy ARM, Why? Not only because they had legally the right to change ARM designs to their own liking , but mainly because they could use TSMC's superior lithography. Which makes it much fairer to say Apple switched from Intel to TSMC. It was not their corporate decision, it was not some magical engineer's mind , it was not because they are sleek and badass, it was because they based their operations on the shoulders of a giant, TSMC the unsung hero and of course ASML. If they stayed with Intel, they would be forced to design chips on a process that has 45 million transistors per square millimeter. Good luck , competing with Intel's superior designs and much greater thermal envelope on this lithography. Sooo, they rightly chose TSMC instead with 136 actual million transistors per square millimeter (TSMC N5, Apple M1) , then 146 actual million transistors per square millimeter (TSMC N4P, Apple M2) and lately 183 actual mtr/mm2( TSMC N3B, Apple M3). Or do you think , that if Intel magically got their shit together and released CPUs and GPUs now , at their 7nm process(+200 mtr/mm2) , Apple and any Apple would have even a small chance to compete with Intel chips? Intel got involved too much into politics and government deals , that eventually lost its edge looking to facilitate for example simultaneously political (employment, social image, votes) and actual corporate(stock) and technological gains(pure performance). Intel may have crossed the line and really can't be competitive anymore because of the above. It could die soon if it doesn't take care to remove cancer from itself.

@@prodromosregalides3402 You're wrong on so many levels mate! Apple didn't choose to move to ARM because of TSMC's process. You keep singing about TSMC and their superior process but little do you know that intel's current 10nm process has the same transistor density as TSMC's 7nm (100.8 million/mm2 for intel 10nm vs 96.5 million/mm2 for TSMC N7) and so is an equivalent of TSMC's 7nm process. It's actually even slightly denser so intel is closer than you think in terms of process. Right from the early days, intel's x86 architecture had always been a power hog and that's the reason why the guys at IBM designed and created the RISC ISA (which ARM and Apple silicon are based on) for the sole purpose of having a processor that performed tasks in a simplified and more efficient way than intel's x86 power hogs. Besides, if you really think it's about intel vs TSMC, what would you say about AMD? They're using intel's x86 architecture but aren't using their fabs. They're instead using the same TSMC you sing praises to, the same TSMC that Apple uses but yet are beat by Apple in both performance and efficiency. Apple's M3 max performs the same as AMD's latest ryzen 9 7945HX laptop CPU while using less than half the power (50W vs 120W) and it's on a process that's only ~10% more efficient than the TSMC 5nm AMD's using so yeah... Apple silicon's performance and efficiency has little to do with process node and more to do with ARM's super efficient architecture built upon the RISC ISA.

Don’t worry. They’ll push an OTA update to slow down older M1 based MacBooks once they see people are still holding onto them and blame it on battery longevity lol

@@ToTheFuz That’s why I’m still on iOS 16.6 on my iOS devices and on macOS Ventura on my M2 max MBP, really no need for upgrading the software at all

I really dislike my 16” M2 Pro over my 16” Intel on one thing. The Intel version wasn’t cold to touch.

salty pc fanboy?@@ToTheFuz

@@ToTheFuzI swear they already did that my M1 Pro is all a sudden facing memory pressure and is definitely slower on Sonoma right after m3 dropped no lie

If you are just doing video playback then I would put on low-power mode which should increase battery life.

Similarly, the difference between 69% on the M3 Pro and 57% on the Max in the high performance test isn't really 12%, it's 12 percentage points, but a 39% increased power consumption ((1-0.57)/(1-0.69)-1=0.39) on the M3 Max. That's a lot more. Although to be fair, you're also getting stuff done faster, so in a way the difference in idle/video playback is more relevant.

@@Vilverin Yes exactly, and the total amount of work done by the Max is higher in that scenario since it was a timed test. Luke didn’t measure the Wh per unit of work, which would be a better indicator of efficiency. Inevitably, a chip with more cores will use more battery when working flat out, and it’ll also get more done.

@@andyH_England Yes, although both machines would show better battery life when doing that, so one would still be better.

Makes this a very tough choice. I’m not a creative professional so I don’t need a Max, but I’m a network engineer that likes to geek out on hardware specs, but battery life is important sometimes (off site meetings, etc.) my indecision has left me sticking with the M1 Pro for now at least.

Hope to see videos on M3 max temps.😊

Tests are great, but the real battery performance on the Pro vs Max is 39% better (GFX Bench) and 27% better or 2.5 hours (Video). The results were communicated a little sloppy unfortunately.

Great comparison? We did not even learn the exact core numbers of the chips in the comparisons... all charts are total useless.

It's got 4 extra performance cores and the tdp as a result in nearly 50% higher (56w vs 40w). Very unsurprising that it'll be louder and due to.these reasons, across the board too, no chance its just the size.

Also curious. Makes it hard to make a decision off of this video if that information is not disclosed

i got the impression that the guy has no idea (or care) what does he compare with what. such kind of blind tests are practically pointless.

How do you like Blender?

@@iphoneographypdx2851 Really nice with Resolve and latest updates.

We know that M3 Max got at least 36 or 48 GB RAM depending on binned or not.

This is what I was looking for because I want to upgrade to the M3 pro 14 and I wanted to know what people thought. Thank You!

Why don't you pay 7000 dollars and find out?

There isn't a dramatic improvement... if they didn't improve that would be laughable because that never happens. All you get here is if you get more GPU cores then you see a bigger jump... if you look over all with an apples to apples comparison at just the number of cores you are seeing a 10% increase from M2... which is pretty meh and average. Why is it that apple users always buy into bullsh*t so easily and completely?

No

I agree having all of these reviews just be a checklist of benchmarks instead of subjective opinions feels pretty exchangeable to me. That makes creators doing this just not unique.

Are you using blender 4.0?

@@Coco-xi9hq Blender 3.6.5

@@Coco-xi9hq just tried 4.0. 3 min 25 sec

Oh man :/ Yah curious to how he got such crazy numbers. I’m ready to replace my laptop and have been hoping to finally make the change to Apple. He didn’t mention specs. Maybe his m3 max has maxed out ram?

@@Coco-xi9hq mine is maxed out as well. Hopefully he will explain his testing process

Not true. I’m a Final Cut coder and know this isn’t true

@@robertleidner9703do you know the reason the tests came out to be so similar?

Single threaded? It’s encoding aka using the hardware encoding like it’s designed. Unless you add more as in the max or less there is no real speed change. Nothing to do with threading of task

@ 8:26 Final Cut Pro 10.7 will improve this. I was at the  FCP Summit when they demoed this and it’s faster. I hope he reruns his FCP tests after 10.7 is released. My favorite demo at the hands on area was seeing FCP & Logic working in sync using Audio Design Desks DAW Bridge all on a M3 Max (not sure of memory config) connected to two  Studio Displays.

@@frostgodx Yep, M3 is a normal 10% performance bump just like most chips... the only real differences you are seeing are if they crammed more cores in. Most of the people in here aren't smart enough to understand that apple sells you a story and this channel isn't good about telling you the truth either, he tries to place apple in the best possible light. This chip isn't amazing it is a normal chip refresh cycle the problem is you had M1 then M2 was a tick (small incremental speed gains) and M3 is also a tick... that isn't good if M4 isn't a tock (a big jump in processing power per a core) and ends up being a tick again then there is serious issues with apples arm platform in the future.

You went for the Max over the Pro? The Max is over four thousand but we have got to go all out if we want our machine to last a decade, don’t we?

@@melindagallegan5093 The last Macbook I bought was a Late 2013 Build-To-Order i7/16GB Retina 15" and it's still usable today, so yeah.

Yep that is why you come here... it isn't for actual objective testing of a product it is for validation... you clearly understand the problem with this but you use nonsense like this to try and trick yourself into believing that you are actually making a better decision... excuses to spend more money on something that you probably don't even remotely need, if a 2013 lasted you 10 years then you aren't using it for any heavy lifting and a base macbook air would have been just fine for you.

@@thomgizziz OK, appreciate your feedback. But I do plan to learn video editing (Devinci Resolve), and I hear the Macbook Air throttles substantially during longer loads. As you know, the base model (8GB of RAM) isn't enough today and definitely won't be enough in the future. Thanks for your positive message!

Why are you so interested in a comparison to a notebook that came out almost 5 years ago? So you can try to convince yourself that you didn't pay a lot of money for something you really don't need?

Same here I’m still on 2015 mbp. Been waiting on tsmc to drop 3mn for a while. Thats why I waited. The ray tracing comparison to optix seal the deal for me.

It's about 6 % in cpu. Depends on work flow, though

They never said that.

There is a nuance to what Apple said about macOS RAM which you clearly missed.

​@@andyH_England "Actually, 8GB on an M3 MacBook Pro is probably analogous to 16GB on other systems." is literally what they said. The rest of the comments about compression and swap apply everywhere, and moreover it just doesn't pan out in heavy use.

@@robertleidner9703 "Actually, 8GB on an M3 MacBook Pro is probably analogous to 16GB on other systems." is literally what they said. The rest of the comments about compression and swap apply everywhere, and moreover it just doesn't pan out in heavy use.

@@tipoomaster I use 8GB in two M-chip Macs and using activity monitor can be accessing 12-13GB of RAM and still be in the yellow. So for the target customer that just needs 8GB it does mean that it is as like having close to 16GB. I have never had a slow down. For those doing RAM-intensive pro apps then of course, please use common sense and get an appropriate specced device. A pro user needing 16GB or more RAM would unlikely buy the base MB Pro 14 M3 as it is the i5 of Apple’s lineup. They would buy the M3 Pro chip or the M3 Max. The base MB Pro 14 is a replacement for the MB Pro 13 M2 and is not a pro device as it has the weakest ultrabook chip. I really cannot understand why so many people are confused by this. FYI the MB Pro 13 has always started with 8GB!

The 3nm chips from TSMC have low yield which meant Apple could e-waste them, delay the M3 for another 6-12 months, or simply use binned chips. They chose the later. The reason they did was that the M2 was only just released so it was of zero importance the difference between M2 and M3, as only 0.01% of people would be upgrading from M2 to M3.