[polishTar]

I guess we'll have to wait for benchmarks but I did find this interesting:

Apple's PR release for M2 pro: "up to 20 percent greater performance over M1 Pro"

Apple's announcement for M3 pro: "up to 20 percent faster than M1 Pro" (they didn't bother to compare it to M2 pro)

[fastball]

Sure, that's the title, but at least in this PR they immediately show a graph with a comparison to both.

Presumably it makes more marketing sense to compare to the M1 family up front because most people that bought an M2 last year are probably not going to be upgrading to M3. They are speaking to the people most likely to upgrade.

[parl_match]

fwiw, i cant remember the last time i saw a company go back more than a generation in their own comparison. Apple is saying here as much as they're not saying here. M2->M3 may not be a compelling upgrade story.

[CharlesW]

The vast majority of Mac users go years between upgrades. For any other vendor it might seem weird to show several comparisons going back multiple generations (M1 and x86), but for the macOS ecosystem it makes perfect sense since only a very tiny slice of M2 users will be upgrading.

[read_if_gay_]

and what makes you think windows users update their devices every single generation?

[acdha]

Windows has distinct groups: the people who buy whatever costs $700 at Costco every 10 years / when it breaks don’t care but there’s also a vocal enthusiast community who do upgrade frequently. That group gets more attention since it’s a profitable niche and gaming generates a lot of revenue.

[andrewprock]

I used buy a $700 Windows laptop every 18 months in the 2000s. Then I got fed up with them just falling apart and switched to Macbooks. My 2013 purchase is still alive and being used by the kids.

[coldtea]

Windows users buy whatever, from so many brands, that it doesn't matter how often they upgrade, they're likely to not upgrade from the same vendor anyway (so that the comparison to its older generations to be meaningful in the first place).

[CharlesW]

> and what makes you think windows users update their devices every single generation?

They don't, but the difference is that Windows users generally don't know or care about processor generations. In contrast, it's common for Mac users to know they have an "old" Intel-based Pro, an M1 Air, etc., and to use that knowledge to help determine when it might be time to upgrade.

You can test this by asking Windows users what CPU they have. For the few who know and who have an Intel CPU, you can ask what their Brand Modifier¹ (i3/i5/i7) is. If they know that, you can ask what the 5-digit number following the Brand Modifier is — the first two digits are the Generation Indicator¹. I'd be surprised if more than 0.01% of Windows users know this.

¹ Intel's name

[sgerenser]

Intel's CPU naming strategy used to drive me nuts when trying to talk to anyone at work who knew "just enough to be dangerous." Why is X so slow on this machine, it's got an [6 year old, dual core] i5! It runs fine on my laptop and that's only an [1 year old, quad-core] i3!

[w0m]

> it's common for Mac users to know they have an "old" Intel-based Pro, an M1 Air, etc., and to use that knowledge to help determine when it might be time to upgrade.

Not at all. I've worked with FANG developers with brand new M1 MBPs that had no idea what 'm1' meant until something broke.

[read_if_gay_]

like everything you said could apply to nvidia gpus as well

[read_if_gay_]

man, that's a whole lot of mental gymnastics to justify scummy benchmark practices from apple.

[sudhirj]

It’s absolutely not, and that’s fine. The video has statements that the machines are made to “last for years” and they want to save natural resources be making long lasting machines.

I’m currently at 4 to 5 years on laptops and 3 to 4 years on phones, and even then I hand them over to kids/friends/family who get a bit more use out of them.

[parl_match]

> they want to save natural resources be making long lasting machines.

Apple always comes from a position of strength. Again, they're saying as much as they're not saying.

Also, if they really cared about long lasting machines: slotted ram and flash please, thanks!

[sudhirj]

Huh. So they used to do this, but looking at the M series chips it seems like the architecture assumes the CPU-GPU-RAM are all on the same chip and hooked into each other, which enables zero copy. Someone more well versed in hardware could explain if this is even possible.

Expandable internal storage would be nice, yeah. But I get the sealed, very tightly packed chassis they’re going for.

[ffgjgf1]

> get the sealed, very tightly packed chassis they’re going for

The Dell XPS 17 is only 0.1 inch thicker yet has fully replaceable RAM and 2(!) m2 slots. I’m pretty sure what Apple is going for is maximizing profit margins over anything else..

[strangetortoise]

They haven't made slotted ram or storage on their macbooks since 2012 (retina macbooks removed the slotted ram afaik). It might save on thickness, but I'm not buying the slim chasses argument being the only reason, since they happily made their devices thicker for the M series cpus.

[lillecarl]

I have no excuse for flash, but memory can't really be slotted anymore since SODIMM is crap. High hopes for CAMM making it's way into every other machine 2024!

[layer8]

Given that there is a legally mandated 2-year warranty period at least in Europe, I would be surprised if any laptops weren’t made to “last for years”.

The problem with Apple, however, is that their hardware will long outlive their software support. So if they really want to save natural resources by making long-lasting machines, they should put much more effort into sustained software support.

[wkat4242]

Yes my MacBook Pro 2010 is still going strong.

But, drivers are only available for win 7 and macOS High Sierra was the last supported version.

Luckily Linux still works great.

[alpaca128]

> i cant remember the last time i saw a company go back more than a generation in their own comparison

Apple likes doing that quite frequently while dumping their "up to X% better" stats on you for minutes.

[henriquez]

Nvidia did it when they released the RTX 3080 / 3090 because the RTX 2000 series was kind of a dud upgrade from GTX 1060 and 1080 Ti

[kjkjadksj]

Apple always does game comparisons like this for their conferences though. The intel era was even worse with this iirc.

[sgerenser]

Intel era there wasn’t much to game, they’re using the same chips as all the PC competitors. The PowerPC era, on the other hand…

[photonerd]

The majority of MacBooks out there are still intel based. This presentation was mostly aimed at them & M1 owners.

[kergonath]

Is it a problem, though? The vast majority of people skip generation and for them the relevant reference point is what they have, which is going to be hardware from a couple of generations ago. M2 -> M3 does not have to be compelling: the people with M3 devices are a tiny fraction of the market anyway.

I find it interesting how people respond to this. On one side, it’s marketing so it should be taken critically. OTOH, if they stress the improvements over the last generation, people say they create artificial demand and things about sheeple; if they compare to generations before people say that it’s deceptive and that they lost their edge. It seems that some vocal people are going to complain regardless.

[DocTomoe]

Given how strong they emphasised the performance over the Intel base - who now have had their machines for 4 years and are likely to replace soon (and may be wondering if they stay at Apple or switch over to PCs), it is pretty obvious that they also want to target that demographic specifically.

[runeks]

That’s not what it says. Actual quote:

> The 12-core CPU design has six performance cores and six efficiency cores, offering single-threaded performance that is up to 30 percent faster than M1 Pro.

[sigmoid10]

Ok, so then the M3 pro is up to 1.3/1.2=~8% faster than the M2 pro? I can see why they wouldn't use that for marketing.

[fkyoureadthedoc]

Depends who they are marketing to I think is the point. If the biggest group of potential buyers are not M2 users, then it makes sense not to market to them directly with these stats.

I've got an M1 Max 64GB and I'm not even tempted to upgrade yet, maybe they'll still be comparing to M1 when the M10 comes out though.

[sigmoid10]

I'm also far from replacing my M1. But if someone from an older generation of Intel Macs considers upgrading the marketing is off as well.

[polishTar]

I was referring to the graphic they showed during the announcement that verbatim said the CPU was "up to 20% faster than M1 Pro".

https://images.macrumors.com/t/wMtonfH5PZT9yjQhYNv0uHbpIlM=/...

[fsloth]

Plausibly they thought market is saturated with M1:s and targeted this to entice M1 users to switch.