OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

Apple M3 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£1,140PassMark multi-core score:19087N. of physical cores:8CPU boost clock speed:4.05 GHzCPU socket:N/ATDP (Thermal design power):20 W

Apple M3 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 43 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

7.6/10

Overall score

Score
7.6/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 83% of models
Score components

40%

7.2

Technical score

25%

8.7

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

▲Better than 83% of processors
6.7

Value for money

Value for money
6.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 83% of models
Score components

70%

7.6

Overall score

30%

4.5

Price

▼Worse than 83%
7.2

Technical score

Technical score
7.2/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 70% of models
Score components

60%

7.1

Performance

18%

7.8

Architecture

10%

7.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.6

Power & Thermal

4%

6.1

Platform

1%

8.0

Integrated graphics

▲Better than 70%
8.7

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.7/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 97% of models

80%

8.5

Average grade

20%

9.7

Popularity

Grades by review (43)
26 reviews: 17 with a printed score, 9 estimated from the review. 17 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
★Better than 97%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £1,140
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the Apple M3

Based on 7 · 19

Fast, light and long-lasting on battery, but reviewers fault the limited ports and stingy memory and storage; the screen divides opinion.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Apple M3

Technical score
Technical score
7.2/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 70% of models
Score components:

60%

7.1

Performance

18%

7.8

Architecture

10%

7.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.6

Power & Thermal

4%

6.1

Platform

1%

8.0

Integrated graphics

7.2
Reviews score
8.7
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 83% of models
Score components:

70%

7.6

Overall score

30%

4.5

Price

6.7
Processor type
mobile
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 6.9% of processors and equal to that of 47.7% of processors.
CPU socket
N/A
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
ARM64
This processor uses the ARM64 architecture, which is less advanced than that of 98.2% of processors and equal to that of 1.8% of processors.
Apple silicon
Instruction sets
NEON, CRC32, AES, SHA1, SHA2, DotProd, FP16, I8MM, AMX, SME
This processor supports NEON, CRC32, AES, SHA1, SHA2, DotProd, FP16, I8MM, AMX, SME instruction sets, which is narrower support than 51.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
8
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 8 CPU cores, which is more than 61.2% of processors and equal to 13.9% of processors.
CPU threads
8
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 8 CPU threads, which is more than 33.4% of processors and equal to 18.8% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.05 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.05 GHz which is lower than that of 61.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 4.05 GHz & 4x 2.75 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x4.05 GHz & 4x2.75 GHz which is higher than that of 79.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
19,087
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 19,087 in PassMark, which is higher than 67% of processors and equal to 0.1% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Semiconductor size
3 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 3 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 94.6% of processors and equal to that of 4.6% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 3 nm
This processor is built on the TSMC 3 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 95.7% of processors and equal to that of 4.3% of processors.
L3 cache
?
L2 cache
20 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 20 MB which is larger than that of 92.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.2% of processors.
L1 cache
?
Show more
DDR memory version
LPDDR5/LPDDR5X
This processor supports DDR LPDDR5/LPDDR5X, which is newer than that of 91% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
6,400 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 6,400 MHz, which is higher than that of 82.6% of processors and equal to 8% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
?
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
24 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 24 GB of memory, which is less than 92% of processors and equal to 0.1% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
?
Integrated GPU execution units
?
Integrated GPU base frequency
?
Integrated media encoders/decoders
AV1 (HW decode), ProRes RAW (HW decode/encode)
This processor supports AV1 (HW decode), ProRes RAW (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is broader support than 56.2% of processors and equal to 0.2% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
TDP (Thermal design power)
20 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 20 W which is lower than that of 77.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
?
Boost power (PL2)
N/A
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more
What reviewers say

Apple M3 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 84.3% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,715 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,715 vs 2,558
  • 2x higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (3,076 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    3,076 vs 1,535
  • 2.25x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (11,700 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    11,700 vs 5,209
  • 3.89x higher Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a higher Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (1904 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    1,904 vs 490
  • 6.67x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (20 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    20 MB vs 3 MB
  • 66.4% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (19,087 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    19,087 vs 11,469
  • 75% smaller process node
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (3 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    3 nm vs 12 nm
  • 29.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.7/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ★ Better than 97% of models

    80%

    8.5

    Average grade

    20%

    9.7

    Popularity

    Grades by review (43)
    26 reviews: 17 with a printed score, 9 estimated from the review. 17 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.7 vs 6.7
  • 29.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.7/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ★ Better than 97% of models

    80%

    8.5

    Average grade

    20%

    9.7

    Popularity

    Grades by review (43)
    26 reviews: 17 with a printed score, 9 estimated from the review. 17 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.7 vs 6.7
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • 3 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2023 vs 2020).
    November 2023
    2023 vs 2020
  • 84.3% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,715 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,715 vs 2,558
  • 2x higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (3,076 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    3,076 vs 1,535
  • 2.25x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (11,700 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    11,700 vs 5,209
  • 3.89x higher Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a higher Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (1904 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    1,904 vs 490
  • 66.4% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (19,087 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    19,087 vs 11,469
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (4x4.05 GHz & 4x2.75 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x4.05 GHz & 4x2.75 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 2 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (8 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    8 vs 6
  • 6.67x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (20 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    20 MB vs 3 MB
  • 75% smaller process node
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (3 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    3 nm vs 12 nm
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (TSMC 3 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    TSMC 3 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • Mixed big and small cores
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors use one.
    performance + efficiency cores
  • 5.05x more transistors
    This processor has more transistors than the average processor (25 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    25 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • 17.5% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (146 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    146 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (LPDDR5/LPDDR5X vs DDR4).
    LPDDR5/LPDDR5X vs DDR4
  • 2.13x higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (100 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    100 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 2x higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (6,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    6,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4 vs 3
  • 55.6% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (20 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    20 W vs 45 W
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (Secure Enclave, PAC, BTI, KIP vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    Secure Enclave, PAC, BTI, KIP vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • Less advanced architecture
    This processor uses a less advanced architecture than the average processor (ARM64 vs x86-64).
    Apple silicon
    ARM64 vs x86-64
  • 8% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4.1 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.05 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 4.56x more expensive
    Apple M3 is more expensive than the average processor (£1,140 vs £250).
    £1,140 vs £250
  • 62.5% less memory capacity
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (24 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    24 GB vs 64 GB
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (AV1 (HW decode), ProRes RAW (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    AV1 (HW decode), ProRes RAW (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 4.56x more expensive
    Apple M3 is more expensive than the average processor (£1,140 vs £250).
    £1,140 vs £250
  • 9% worse value for money
    Apple M3 has worse value for money than the average processor (6.69 vs 7.3).
    6.69 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (Secure Enclave, PAC, BTI, KIP vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    Secure Enclave, PAC, BTI, KIP vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • Less advanced architecture
    This processor uses a less advanced architecture than the average processor (ARM64 vs x86-64).
    Apple silicon
    ARM64 vs x86-64
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (NEON, CRC32, AES, SHA1, SHA2, DotProd, FP16, I8MM, AMX, SME vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    NEON, CRC32, AES, SHA1, SHA2, DotProd, FP16, I8MM, AMX, SME vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 8% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4.1 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.05 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • No speed boosting
    This processor does not support automatic speed boosting, while the average processor does. 87.7% of processors offer this.
  • 62.5% less memory capacity
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (24 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    24 GB vs 64 GB
  • 6 fewer memory channels
    This processor has fewer memory channels than the average processor (8 vs 2). The average processor supports 2 memory channels.
    8 vs 2
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (AV1 (HW decode), ProRes RAW (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    AV1 (HW decode), ProRes RAW (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

9.0
6 Months Later
≈ estimated
19/10/2024
Long-term test · 6 months of daily use
Verdict
Apple M3 is recommended for portable use, though heavy photo and video work suits the Pro better.
7.0
Marques Brownlee
≈ estimated
20/03/2024
Review · pricing, memory tiers and buyer advice
Verdict
Apple M3 is great all-round and easy to recommend to heavy editors, but not to basic everyday users.
9.0
Brandon Butch
≈ estimated
21/12/2023
Long-term review · about 45 days of use
Verdict
Apple M3 is the best all-in-one Mac for most creators with 16GB RAM; the base model suits light users only.
9.0
MacRumors
≈ estimated
27/11/2023
Hands-on review · a week of daily use
Verdict
Apple M3 is the best all-in-one Mac for most people, unless you need heavy performance every day.
7.0
Joshua Valour
≈ estimated
21/11/2023
Hands-on review · retail unit, design and interaction
Verdict
Apple M3 is a good upgrade for Intel and first-time Mac owners, but the 60 Hz screen and wireless input hold it back.
9.0
SuperDuprTech
≈ estimated
16/11/2023
Hands-on review · family use, screen, speakers and gaming
Verdict
Apple M3 is a great family computer with an excellent screen and a good pick for Apple users, though the price is high.
Overview video
Overview video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
tomsguide.com
✓ explicit
14/03/2024
Hands-on review · Big-screen laptop
Verdict
The 15-inch MacBook Air M3 is a big-screen laptop with excellent battery life and fast everyday performance, though heavy video editing favors the MacBook Pro.
8.0
digitaltrends.com
✓ explicit
16/03/2024
Hands-on test · Thin laptop
Verdict
The MacBook Air M3 remains a top pick for portable work with its long battery life and stronger graphics, but its two ports limit it.
forbes.com
11/03/2024
Not graded yet
9.0
computerbase.de
≈ estimated
18/03/2024
Lab test · Big-screen laptop
Verdict
The 15-inch MacBook Air M3 is silent, long-lasting and a clear pick if you don't need Windows, though its screen is merely good.
9.0
frandroid.com
✓ explicit
24/04/2024
Hands-on test · Ultraportable laptop
Verdict
The 13-inch MacBook Air M3 is a quiet, light laptop with much faster graphics, but it keeps the old notch, limited ports and LCD screen.
7.3
presse-citron.net
✓ explicit
12/03/2025
Hands-on test · Tablet with keyboard
Verdict
The iPad Air M3 ranks among the best tablets for performance and battery life, but its aging screen and near-identical design hold it back.
9.0
andreagaleazzi.com
≈ estimated
28/04/2024
Month-long test · Ultraportable laptop
Verdict
The 13-inch MacBook Air M3 is a light, reliable everyday laptop that suits most users, while heavy video editing favors a MacBook Pro.
9.0
global.techradar.com
✓ explicit
25/03/2024
Week-long test · Big-screen laptop
Verdict
The 15-inch MacBook Air M3 is thin and fast with a big, comfortable screen, but it weighs more and gains little battery life over the 13-inch.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Apple M3

  • Exceptional power efficiency providing industry-leading battery life, sometimes exceeding 20-30 hours in specific tests.
  • Significant performance jump for users upgrading from Intel-based or M1 Macs.
  • Hardware-accelerated ray tracing and mesh shading improve 3D rendering and gaming performance.
  • The 3nm process allows for fast, snappy performance in daily productivity and creative tasks while maintaining cool, silent operation in fanless models.
  • M3 Pro and Max variants support high unified memory configurations up to 128GB.
  • Added support for two external displays (with the lid closed) on the base M3 MacBook Air model.

What customers don't like about Apple M3

  • Base configurations starting with 8GB of RAM are widely criticized as insufficient for modern professional workflows.
  • Memory and storage are soldered and not user-upgradeable, forcing high upfront costs for future-proofing.
  • Performance gains over the M2 generation are relatively modest, making it a questionable upgrade for current M2 owners.
  • The M3 Pro variant specifically features reduced memory bandwidth compared to its M1/M2 Pro predecessors.
  • Premium features like the 'Space Black' color and additional ports are locked behind more expensive Pro/Max chip tiers.
  • High-end configurations are very expensive, with some users noting a steep price jump for RAM upgrades.

Verdict

The Apple M3 is an 8-core processor built on a cutting-edge 3-nanometer process, featuring 4 performance cores and 4 efficiency cores with 25 billion transistors. It integrates a 10-core GPU that introduces a next-generation architecture with Dynamic Caching, hardware-accelerated ray tracing, and mesh shading, alongside a 16-core Neural Engine capable of 18 TOPS. Main pros include a 15% increase in CPU performance and 65% faster graphics compared to the M1, support for up to 24GB of unified memory, and AV1 video decoding for improved streaming efficiency. However, notable cons include support for only one external display on base models, no increase in memory bandwidth over the previous generation (staying at 100 GB/s), and the lack of Wi-Fi 7 support.

Compare Apple M3 with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Apple M3 and other processors

No results found