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 Pro review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£1,610PassMark multi-core score:?N. of physical cores:?CPU boost clock speed:4.06 GHzCPU socket:N/ATDP (Thermal design power):27 W

Apple M3 Pro Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 31 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

7.7/10

Overall score

Score
7.7/ 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 87% of models
Score components

40%

7.8

Technical score

25%

8.1

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 87% of processors
6.0

Value for money

Value for money
6.0/ 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 96% of models
Score components

70%

7.7

Overall score

30%

2.0

Price

▼Worse than 96%
7.8

Technical score

Technical score
7.8/ 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 83% of models
Score components

60%

8.1

Performance

18%

7.9

Architecture

10%

7.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.5

Power & Thermal

4%

6.7

Platform

1%

8.3

Integrated graphics

▲Better than 83%
8.1

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.1/ 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 78% of models

80%

7.8

Average grade

20%

9.5

Popularity

Grades by review (31)
6 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 4 estimated from the review. 25 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 78%
?

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~ £1,610
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 Pro

Based on 5 · 25

Reviewers praise the long battery life, sharp screen and speed, but complain about stingy memory and storage and a high price.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Apple M3 Pro

Technical score
Technical score
7.8/ 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 83% of models
Score components:

60%

8.1

Performance

18%

7.9

Architecture

10%

7.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.5

Power & Thermal

4%

6.7

Platform

1%

8.3

Integrated graphics

7.8
Reviews score
8.1
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.0/ 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 96% of models
Score components:

70%

7.7

Overall score

30%

2.0

Price

6.0
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
Z790, B660
This processor supports Z790, B660 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 79.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.1% of processors.
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.
includes Apple Matrix extensions
Show more
N. of physical cores
?
CPU threads
?
CPU boost clock speed
4.06 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.06 GHz which is lower than that of 61.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
6x 4.06 GHz & 6x 2.75 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 6x4.06 GHz & 6x2.75 GHz which is higher than that of 92% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
?
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
3,072 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 3,072 KB which is larger than that of 98.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
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
36 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 36 GB of memory, which is less than 72.8% 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
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
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), ProRes (HW decode/encode), ProRes RAW (HW decode/encode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), ProRes (HW decode/encode), ProRes RAW (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is broader support than 99.8% of processors and equal to 0.2% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
TDP (Thermal design power)
27 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 27 W which is lower than that of 75% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% 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

Apple M3 Pro vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 2.93x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (15,252 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    15,252 vs 5,209
  • 86% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,758 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,758 vs 2,558
  • 2.02x higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (3,105 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    3,105 vs 1,535
  • 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
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (6x4.06 GHz & 6x2.75 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    6x4.06 GHz & 6x2.75 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 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
  • 3.2x higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (150 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    150 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 8x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (3,072 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    3,072 KB vs 384 KB
  • 20.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.1/ 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 78% of models

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    9.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (31)
    6 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 4 estimated from the review. 25 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.
    8.1 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).
    November 2023
    2023 vs 2020
  • 2.93x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (15,252 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    15,252 vs 5,209
  • 86% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,758 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,758 vs 2,558
  • 2.02x higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (3,105 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    3,105 vs 1,535
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (6x4.06 GHz & 6x2.75 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    6x4.06 GHz & 6x2.75 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 47.3% better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (4,130 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    4,130 vs 2,804.5
  • 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
  • 8x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (3,072 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    3,072 KB vs 384 KB
  • 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
  • 7.47x more transistors
    This processor has more transistors than the average processor (37 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    37 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • 3.2x higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (150 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    150 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
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4 vs 3
  • 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
  • 40% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (27 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    27 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.
  • 45.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (Secure Enclave, PAC, APRR, KIP, SPTM vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    Secure Enclave, PAC, APRR, KIP, SPTM 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
  • 7.7% 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.
    4.06 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 6.44x more expensive
    Apple M3 Pro is more expensive than the average processor (£1,610 vs £250).
    £1,610 vs £250
  • 21.5% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (215 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    215 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 6.44x more expensive
    Apple M3 Pro is more expensive than the average processor (£1,610 vs £250).
    £1,610 vs £250
  • 21.1% worse value for money
    Apple M3 Pro has worse value for money than the average processor (6.02 vs 7.3).
    6.02 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (Secure Enclave, PAC, APRR, KIP, SPTM vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    Secure Enclave, PAC, APRR, KIP, SPTM 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).
    includes Apple Matrix extensions
    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.
  • 7.7% 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.
    4.06 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 45.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 21.5% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (215 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    215 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 43.8% less memory capacity
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (36 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    36 GB vs 64 GB
  • 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

7.0
SuperDuprTech
≈ estimated
24/07/2024
Benchmark test · 18GB and 36GB models compared
Verdict
Apple M3 Pro delivers strong performance, but the extra memory adds little in real-world tasks, so the upgrade is hard to justify.
9.0
Geoff Fagien
≈ estimated
20/07/2024
Long-term test · 9 months of editing use
Verdict
Apple M3 Pro offers excellent battery life and performance for travel editing; the base 18 GB RAM may be enough for many.
9.0
Mark Guim
≈ estimated
14/04/2024
Long-term review · three months of daily use
Verdict
Apple M3 Pro is great for creators who value quiet running and battery life, but not worth upgrading from M1 or M2.
8.0
Mark Linsangan
≈ estimated
22/11/2023
Hands-on review · two weeks of daily use
Verdict
Apple M3 Pro is a great upgrade from Intel Macs, but M1 Max and M2 owners may want to wait.
4.0
iFixit
✓ explicit
10/11/2023
Teardown · repairability and display swap tests
Verdict
Apple M3 Pro is hard to recommend while Apple keeps repairs locked down, despite a robust build.
7.0
Matt Talks Tech
≈ estimated
07/11/2023
Hands-on review · benchmarks and buying advice
Verdict
Apple M3 Pro is best for 3D and ray tracing work; for most others, the M2 Pro is the smarter buy.
7.0
Outta Time Tech
≈ estimated
18/01/2025
Long-term review · a year of use
Verdict
Apple M3 Pro is worth it only if bought refurbished or used at a good discount, and the M4 Pro is better value.
9.0
Kevin Ferrandiz
≈ estimated
01/02/2024
Short review · programming benchmarks and SSD tests
Verdict
Apple M3 Pro is a good option for web development and programming, with at least 16 GB recommended.
5.0
Dayo Aworunse
≈ estimated
20/11/2023
Comparison · battery and GPU tests
Verdict
Apple M3 Pro offers better battery life and GPU speed, but is not worth the extra cost over a used M2 Pro.
4.0
Luke Miani
≈ estimated
09/11/2023
Comparison · battery and benchmark tests
Verdict
Apple M3 Pro is not worth it over a used M2 Pro, though its battery life is clearly better.
7.0
zollotech
≈ estimated
07/11/2023
First look · unboxing, benchmarks and export tests
Verdict
Apple M3 Pro is slightly faster than the M1 Max, but battery life is unchanged from the M2 models.
7.0
MacRumors
≈ estimated
07/11/2023
First look · unboxing and preliminary benchmarks
Verdict
Apple M3 Pro should be very good for owners of Intel or M1 Macs, but gains over M2 are unclear.

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
fstoppers.com
≈ estimated
23/07/2024
Field test · Photo and video laptop
Verdict
The 14-inch M3 Pro MacBook Pro is a compact laptop with long battery life and strong performance for photographers on location, though it has only three USB-C ports.
9.0
pcmag.com
✓ explicit
06/11/2023
Hands-on test · 14-inch laptop
Verdict
The MacBook Pro 14 with M3 Pro is a top-tier laptop with class-leading speed and about 30 hours of battery, though it's heavy for travel.
9.3
notebookcheck.net
✓ explicit
08/12/2023
Benchmark review · Gaming performance
Verdict
The MacBook Pro 14 with M3 Pro runs native AAA games such as Baldur's Gate 3 well, but trails RTX gaming laptops, so it is no gaming machine.
9.0
dxomark.com
≈ estimated
28/11/2023
Lab test · Video and audio
Verdict
The MacBook Pro 14 with M3 Pro is an excellent choice for HDR video and music, with sharp camera detail, though its mono-only microphone hurts stereo calls.
8.0
tecnologiacasa.it
≈ estimated
09/11/2023
Long-term test · 14-inch laptop
Verdict
The MacBook Pro 14 with M3 Pro is a light laptop for demanding work, but the step up from the base M3 is hard to justify.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Apple M3 Pro

  • Exceptional power efficiency providing nearly all-day battery life (up to 18-20+ hours)
  • Significant performance leap for users upgrading from Intel-based Macs or older M1 models
  • Thermal management is highly efficient; fans rarely kick on even under moderate workloads
  • Improved graphics features including hardware-accelerated ray tracing and mesh shading for gaming and rendering
  • Responsive performance for creative tasks like photo and video editing without noticeable lagging
  • Support for more external displays (up to two) compared to the base M3 chip

What customers don't like about Apple M3 Pro

  • Diminished multi-core performance gains over the M2 Pro due to fewer performance cores (6 vs 8)
  • Reduced memory bandwidth (150 GB/s) compared to its predecessors (200 GB/s for M1/M2 Pro)
  • Lower GPU core count in some configurations compared to equivalent M2 Pro models
  • High cost of upgrading RAM and SSD storage during initial configuration
  • Lack of cutting-edge connectivity features like Wi-Fi 7
  • Potential compatibility issues with some generic third-party docking stations

Verdict

The Apple M3 Pro is a 3-nanometer processor available in 11-core or 12-core CPU configurations, featuring up to 6 performance and 6 efficiency cores, alongside a 14-core or 18-core GPU and a 16-core Neural Engine. Its primary characteristics include a new graphics architecture with hardware-accelerated ray tracing, mesh shading, and Dynamic Caching, which optimizes memory allocation for intensive tasks. Main pros consist of a 30% faster single-threaded performance compared to the M1 Pro, support for up to 36GB of unified memory, and high energy efficiency that enables up to 22 hours of battery life in 16-inch models. However, notable cons include a reduction in memory bandwidth to 150GB/s—down from 200GB/s in its predecessors—and fewer performance cores in certain configurations compared to the M2 Pro.

Compare Apple M3 Pro 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 Pro and other processors

No results found