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 8-core CPU 10-core GPU 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 8-core CPU 10-core GPU Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 16 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Apple M3 8-core CPU 10-core GPU
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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 83% of models
Score components

40%

7.4

Technical score

25%

8.3

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

â–²Better 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
Score components

70%

7.6

Overall score

30%

4.5

Price

â–¼Worse than 83%
7.4

Technical score

Technical score
7.4/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 75% of models
Score components

60%

7.5

Performance

18%

7.8

Architecture

10%

7.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.6

Power & Thermal

4%

6.3

Platform

1%

7.5

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 75%
8.3

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.3/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 86% of models

80%

8.2

Average grade

20%

9.0

Popularity

Grades by review (16)
2 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. 14 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.
â–²Better than 86%
?

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
  • apple-m3-8-core-cpu-10-core-gpu
apple-m3-8-core-cpu-10-core-gpu
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 8-core CPU 10-core GPU

Based on 2 · 11

Reviewers love its fast performance, but many feel the upgrade over the previous model is small and base memory too tight.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Apple M3 8-core CPU 10-core GPU

Technical score
Technical score
7.4/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 75% of models
Score components:

60%

7.5

Performance

18%

7.8

Architecture

10%

7.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.6

Power & Thermal

4%

6.3

Platform

1%

7.5

Integrated graphics

7.4
Reviews score
8.3
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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ 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, AES, SHA1, SHA2, SHA3, SM3, SM4, BF16, AMX, SME
This processor supports NEON, AES, SHA1, SHA2, SHA3, SM3, SM4, BF16, AMX, SME instruction sets, which is broader support than 54.1% 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
This processor supports DDR LPDDR5, which is newer than that of 87.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% 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)
LPDDR5-6400 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR5-6400 MHz, which is higher than that of 83.6% of processors and equal to 2.9% of processors.
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
Apple 10-core GPU
This processor uses the Apple 10-core GPU integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 98.9% of processors and equal to that in 0.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
10
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 10 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 72.7% of processors and equal to 1.1% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
500 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 500 MHz which is higher than that of 78.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
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
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 8-core CPU 10-core GPU vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 84.4% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,718 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,718 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 23.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.3/ 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
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 86% of models

    80%

    8.2

    Average grade

    20%

    9.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (16)
    2 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. 14 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.
    8.3 vs 6.7
  • More extensive crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA).
    AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA
  • 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).
    October 2023
    2023 vs 2020
  • 84.4% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,718 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,718 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
  • 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
  • 2.33x faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (791.5 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    791.47 vs 340.075
  • 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
  • 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
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (LPDDR5 vs DDR4).
    LPDDR5 vs DDR4
  • 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
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (LPDDR5-6400 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    LPDDR5-6,400 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Better integrated GPU
    This processor uses a better integrated GPU than the average processor (Apple 10-core GPU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Apple 10-core GPU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 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 vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    Secure Enclave, PAC 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 8-core CPU 10-core GPU 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 8-core CPU 10-core GPU is more expensive than the average processor (£1,140 vs £250).
    £1,140 vs £250
  • 9.1% worse value for money
    Apple M3 8-core CPU 10-core GPU has worse value for money than the average processor (6.68 vs 7.3).
    6.68 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (Secure Enclave, PAC vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    Secure Enclave, PAC 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, AES, SHA1, SHA2, SHA3, SM3, SM4, BF16, AMX, SME vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    NEON, AES, SHA1, SHA2, SHA3, SM3, SM4, BF16, 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
  • 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)
  • 58.3% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (10 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    10 vs 24
  • 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
Andrew Ethan Zeng
≈ estimated
19/08/2025
Long-term test · 1 year of daily use
Verdict
Apple M3 8-core CPU 10-core GPU is still one of the best all-round laptops Apple has made, a strong buy when refurbished, though not for power users.
9.0
6 Months Later
≈ estimated
19/10/2024
Long-term review · six months of use
Verdict
Apple M3 8-core CPU 10-core GPU is a recommended portable Mac, though heavier creative users should look at the MacBook Pro.
9.5
Arran Brown
≈ estimated
15/10/2024
Long-term test · 6 months of daily use and editing
Verdict
Apple M3 8-core CPU 10-core GPU is worth it for editing and everyday use, and the 16GB version is the better pick for heavier work.
9.0
Tech with Jerad (How I Use This)
≈ estimated
17/07/2024
Hands-on review · battery life and daily use
Verdict
Apple M3 8-core CPU 10-core GPU is a great buy now and should remain capable for at least five years.
9.0
Engadget
≈ estimated
12/03/2024
Hands-on review · performance, gaming and battery tests
Verdict
Apple M3 8-core CPU 10-core GPU has great performance and battery life, but is only a small upgrade, mainly for M1 or Intel owners.
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
cnet.com
✓ explicit
07/03/2024
Benchmark review · Ultraportable laptop
Verdict
The 13-inch M3 MacBook Air is an easy recommendation for M1 or Intel owners, but 8GB of memory is too little for demanding creative or STEM work.
5.0
digitec.ch
≈ estimated
14/11/2023
Hands-on test · All-in-one desktop
Verdict
The M3 iMac's base model is held back by weak cooling and a slow SSD, so it suits only office work; the 10-core GPU model performs far better.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Apple M3 8-core CPU 10-core GPU

  • Significant performance jump for users upgrading from Intel or M1-based Macs
  • Improved graphics performance with support for hardware-accelerated ray tracing and mesh shading
  • Excellent power efficiency, maintaining long battery life even during intensive tasks like 4K video editing
  • Supports up to two external displays with the laptop lid closed (a notable upgrade for the Air series)
  • Fast and responsive for everyday multitasking, office work, and creative tasks like Final Cut Pro editing
  • Updated connectivity including Wi-Fi 6E support

What customers don't like about Apple M3 8-core CPU 10-core GPU

  • Performance gains over the M2 generation are relatively modest for standard CPU tasks
  • Base models often start with 8GB of RAM, which many users find insufficient for professional or long-term use
  • Thermal throttling can occur during sustained heavy workloads due to the fanless design in MacBook Air models
  • Non-upgradable architecture requires users to pay high premiums for RAM and storage at the time of purchase
  • The 10-core GPU configuration is sometimes an added cost rather than standard on base 13-inch models
  • Limited port selection compared to M3 Pro or Max models

Verdict

The Apple M3 (8-core CPU, 10-core GPU) is a high-performance system-on-a-chip built on a cutting-edge 3nm process, featuring 25 billion transistors and a 16-core Neural Engine. Its CPU combines four performance cores and four efficiency cores to deliver up to 35% faster performance than the M1, while the 10-core GPU introduces next-generation features like Dynamic Caching, hardware-accelerated ray tracing, and mesh shading for up to 65% faster graphics than M1. Major advantages include industry-leading power efficiency, 100GB/s memory bandwidth, and the addition of an AV1 media engine for improved high-quality video streaming. However, its primary drawbacks are the lack of user-upgradable unified memory and its limited single external display support on some configurations.

Compare Apple M3 8-core CPU 10-core GPU 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 8-core CPU 10-core GPU and other processors

No results found