Does M3 Pro / Max Really BEAT THE BEST Intel/AMD CPUs?

Apple is on it’s third generation of chips for Mac computers now with the release of the M3, M3 Pro, and M3 Max chips. But how do the M-series chips compare to what Intel and AMD have on offer? Let’s find out…

0:00 Intro
0:11 A Fair Comparison?
0:50 Methodology
1:45 M3 Family Single-Core
2:48 M3
3:54 M3 Pro
5:12 M3 Max
6:12 Power Efficiency
7:06 Overclocking

[MrSamPhoenix]

Synthetic benchmarks usually don’t tell the story. Do you have a video showing the real world performance of these chips?

[thmo_]

A nice comparision, but useless since you're comparing just benchmarks on two completely different architectures. These benchmarks are nice to compare ARM to ARM, and generations of those architectures with each other (intel 12th vs intel 13th, etc.), but useless in this specific case.
Only real world application and use cases are meaningful for this and useful for people contemplating about buying either or.

[ocloredmind]

The thing is, Apple M series of chips are built using the ARM architecture, which is very efficient but not that powerful. AMD and intel however, use the x86 architecture, which focuses on raw performance and speed at the cost of power of consumption.

[Hoosiersajk]

first video of yours I've seen I look forward to watching your channel grow!

[andy-bowden]

Apple Silicon is power efficient because it is a mobile SoC design. x86-64 is not a mobile SoC, it’s a general purpose CPU/APU. This seems to be forgotten when comparing the M series with x86-64.
Single core clock speed is 4.05Ghz. This doesn’t change across the family. the M3 is the same as an M3 Ultra.
AS doesn’t throttle regardless of running on battery or plugged in.
A 14 gen Intel and equivalent AMD will throttle on battery but eat a M* when plugged in. I’ve got a M1 Max 16”MBP. I hardly ever use it on battery. 99% of its life it’s connected to my display and powered by mains.

[HuguesBalzac]

If your main use case is running benchmarks... And I have known a few people like that tbf.

[seamon]

A comparison using synthetics is already horrible.
But to use Geekbench?
Is that an intentional insult to viewers intelligence?

[johnsolod]

3:34 This is comparing 8 power cores on the M3 vs 12 power cores on the 10600.

[clubnine-hu]

There is also the price to consider. My designer need's a new computer, lot's of CAD and 3D rendering. He wants mac, but there is a more than 1000€ difference in my country with Mac Studio M2 Max and Ryzen 9 7900 desktop with RTX A2000 12gb GPU for examp. The power consumption vs performance isn't that bad with this Ryzen build either...

[SpeedKillersGaming]

Need to see productivity and gaming benchmarks.

[georgi.georgiev]

Although a nice and interesting comparison, I think you underestimate a bit the computational and rendering powers of the M3's. For example, if you try Cinebench R24 - you'll get a completely different picture due to the better optimization for the M3's. Also, when M3 Ultra goes out, which is the real and only desktop grade Apple CPU - this once again will paint a totally different picture. As you said - Intels can undervolt and underclock. So, if you want a fair comparison - undervolt and underclock and Intel to the levels where it becomes at least barely usable in a laptop chassis and test again.

[adam]

Base level performance of the M series chips is seriously impressive. Multi-core performance I've learned over the last couple of years really depends on the composition of the core count. Each of Intel, AMD and Apple all do slightly different things packaging wise and their sweet spots performance wise are also a bit different. They're all pretty fast though. The discrete graphics performance of an nVidia equipped PC will be superior, however. I think everyone acknowledges that.

[MrMastadox]

Not an Apple to Apple comparison. But ok. The M3 kicks ass for mobile devices. The reason Amd and Intel can't get close to it efficiency wise, is because their chips are still x86 chips. In other words. The processors are completely different, because the x86 processors are CISC. Complex instruction set computing chips. They need to be able to perform so many different instructionsets, which makes them far less efficient compared to ARM procesors like Apple is using now. For AMD and Intel to match, they would need to make completely different processors. But they can't just do that. Because their markets use software that needs x86 instructionsets