MacBook Pro - M2 or M3

[mercer]

As the title suggests, any info about the M3 Pro chip compared to M2 Pro chip? They're both on sale but you can save a little extra going with the M2 Pro... is it worth the savings?

[IronFilm]

Me, being the tight ass I am, would recommend you go for the secondhand M1. 

As why, what do you need it for specifically? The M1 is already quite powerful, do you need more?

[kye]

On the colourist forums there's a sample test project and users submit their specs and FPS on the various tests, here's the M1 and M3 - the numbers are FPS:

Each colour is the same test between them.

The jump up from the Intel Macs is enormous - mine gets about 4FPS on the light blue test and about 3FPS on the lighter-orange test, but once you're on the Apple silicone there seems to only be incremental improvement.  Those tests above are pretty brutal by the way - the light blue test is a UHD Prores file with 18 blur nodes, and the dark blue is 66 blur nodes, and the orange ones are many nodes of temporal noise reduction!

The differences between the Pro, Max, and Ultra chipsets is much more significant though.  I found that the Resolve results correlated pretty well with the Metal tests in Geekbench:

https://browser.geekbench.com/metal-benchmarks

[Jedi Master]

I always go for the latest in computer hardware, and would go for the M3 in this case. In addition to the hardware H.264, HVEV, ProRes, and ProRes RAW decoding on the M2, the M3 adds hardware AV1 decoding, and probably has increased performance for hardware decoding over the M2. The M3 also supports up to 128GB of RAM, and more RAM usually equates to better performance on large editing projects.

If it was me buying an Apple laptop, I’d get one with an M3 Max. Alas, I’m a Windows guy and won’t be buying an Apple anytime soon. Now if we could only get Nvidia to support H.265 4:2:2 on their GPUs…but it seems they’re more interested in AI these days…

[eatstoomuchjam]

Even if I knew the difference in price between M2 and M3, I wouldn't be able to say whether it's worth the difference in price.

I could say, though, that I have the lower-end M2 Max in my 14" MBP and in Resolve, it's able to handle every type of footage that I bring in to edit, though my color grading is relatively straightforward/simplistic.  If you're doing more complex stuff, YMMV.   I'll also qualify "every type of footage" with the caveat that 8K raw from the EOS R5 basically maxes it out (a bit more or less depending on the decode options chosen).  The fancier M2 Max with a better GPU would do a little bit better with the R5 footage.

So it's likely that either the M2 Max or M3 Max would be enough for most things you'd wanna do.  I'd upgrade the RAM since it can't be upgraded later.  I went with 64GB.  That seems to be working out well for me.  I expect that it will continue to work well for me for the next few years.

[kye]

10 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

Even if I knew the difference in price between M2 and M3, I wouldn't be able to say whether it's worth the difference in price.

I've been paying mild attention to the relative performance since the M1 came out and it's really difficult to get a sense of the economics vs performance for a couple of reasons:

• Unless you have infinite money, getting a faster CPU will mean not being able to upgrade the RAM, which is often shared, and depending on the circumstances you're in the RAM might be a bottleneck rather than the processing
• The price of older Apple silicone products hasn't really dropped significantly, so although the M1 and M2 chips are great performers you're still going to pay decently for them

I've seen threads of colourists talking about upgrades and what to get, and there are lots of discussions about what trade-offs should be made and which shouldn't.  Professional colourists are perhaps at the cutting edge of this stuff because they have to be able to colour grade any footage in full delivery resolution and in real-time with the client sitting there, so there is no possibility of using any proxies or performance settings etc.  

[PannySVHS]

If I am allowed to chim in, I would love a powersaving solution like the m1 tech in a windows laptop.

What would be an equivalent to a M1 Max Macbook, with lowish powerdraw and same performance in Resolve for editing, grading and rendering?

[eatstoomuchjam]

Equivalent in Windows-land?  It doesn't really exist.  12th/13th generation Intel has much better performance per watt than 11th generation, but the built-in GPU isn't anywhere near the performance of M1 so you'd need something with a dedicated GPU which won't be low power.  If I'm guessing I'd say that an i7-12700 or i7-13700 with the laptop version of an RTX 4060 should be about similar to the performance of an M1 Max while plugged into the wall, but with the caveat that the Windows laptop will pull more power and be noisier (fans to remove the heat from using so much power).

However, the second you unplug the laptop from the wall, the performance and battery life of the Windows system will be substantially worse than the M1 Max.

You can find Windows laptops with more raw power than even the highest-end M3 Max - and desktops even more so, but the cost is that the power usage will be a lot higher.  I'm too lazy to go look now, but I'd bet that an RTX 4090 all by itself uses more power at full load than an entire M3 Max laptop, including the screen.  😃

[Jedi Master]

If you don’t need portability, then get a desktop machine. The biggest issue limiting performance on a laptop is heat dissipation, which isn’t as much an issue in a desktop. 
 

Desktops can typically use CPUs with more and faster cores and much more performant GPUs that beat anything possible in a laptop. 

[kye]

52 minutes ago, Jedi Master said:

If you don’t need portability, then get a desktop machine. The biggest issue limiting performance on a laptop is heat dissipation, which isn’t as much an issue in a desktop. 
 

Desktops can typically use CPUs with more and faster cores and much more performant GPUs that beat anything possible in a laptop. 

This is a great point - if you don't need the portability then a Mac Mini would be spectacular value.  They're not powerful enough for the serious colourists, but I think those not as far into their careers use them, and I've heard that large post-houses often use them for background / batch tasks like preparing footage, rendering projects etc.

The Mac Studios with the Ultra processors are apparently stunning performers, but more expensive obviously.

[eatstoomuchjam]

There are lots of caveats and asterisks there.

In Mac terms, the most powerful mini is available with M2 Pro.  It comes with a maximum of 32GB of memory.  Depending on needs (10gE for a NAS, the more powerful M2 Pro processor?), by the time you upgrade it, it will cost about as much as an M1 Ultra with similar specs and potentially a bit better performance.

If not looking at a Mac, as Jedi Master said, there's a lot more bang for a buck in a desktop PC.  For about as much as you'd pay for an upgraded mini ($2100-2400), you can get a 16-core AMD processor, 64GB of RAM, a couple of blazing fast NVMe 2TB drives, and a 3080ti or 4070ti (maybe even a 4080?) which has a lot more raw power than the Mac.  Though it'll also be big and a bit noisier.  This sort of choice may also depend on the price of power in your area, as it's like $0.11 per kwh in Oregon and $0.47 per kwh in Britain right now.  At almost 50 cents per kwh, you might want the computer which draws less than 200w when fully loaded (and is totally able to do everything you need) and not the one which draws 700-1000w.

[mercer]

Thanks for all the replies and suggestions. I'm heavily invested in Mac... iPhone, FCPX, Logic, even GarageBand, various writing programs... so moving to PC is not even a conceivable notion for me.

As far as needs, I probably should have mentioned that I've been using an early 2014 MacBook Air with Intel, 8gb Ram and 256gb storage (I have a few external drives) for my writing, audio dramas and for transcoding 1080p ML raw and 4K FP cDNG to ProRes HQ or 4444 for light color grading and editing in FCPX. It's always been a bit of a hassle since the MacBook Air doesn't have a 180 degree viewing angle... so there's a lot of trial and error to figure out what looks right... but I had what I had, so I made it work the best I could.

That said, after 9 years, it's showing its age and I am in need of an upgrade. Filmmaking has taken a bit of a backseat over the past couple of years, but I'm still plugging away. I assume 16gb of ram and an M2 would be a luxury to what I'm used to.

Thanks again for your replies!

[MrSMW]

I ‘traded’ (off-loaded to the wife) my M1 14” at the beginning of this year for an M2 Max with 64GB ram 16” because the old one was barely faster than my 7 year old gaming desktop PC.

A good test was batch editing a typical wedding of say 700 raw files through DXO PureRaw tidying up noise and detail.

Overnight on my PC, around 8-10 hours?

Same thing failed every time I tried it on the M1 chip MacBook.

With this year’s M2, 40 minutes maybe?

It has transformed my workflow and as someone who spends a lot of time working away from home Apr-Sep, it’s been brilliant.

I use it with 3 external SSD.

One for photo, one for video, one (armoured) backup for both.

My only wishes were it was slightly less laggy for video editing because yup, there is some (but that may be me not having it set up right?) and I wish the screen was bigger than 16”, but as an all in one, photo and editing machine, at home at the dining room table, or in the office or in the motorhome, it’s a great/essential tool for sure.

[Jedi Master]

The biggest issue I have with laptops, besides the speed issues, is screen size. My desktop PC, where I do editing, has three 34" 4K monitors. That much screen real estate really makes it easier to edit video and photoshop stills and I'm not willing to give it up just to get portability.

[eatstoomuchjam]

Any modern Mac (and I assume most decent gaming/creator PC's) should be able to drive 3 4K monitors.  Mine aren't 4K, but I spend all day working from my M2 Max laptop connected to the 3 monitors in my home office.  When work ends, I unplug it from the two docking stations (two because I also run 10gE) and use it with the 14" internal screen.

The absolute performance of a desktop would, of course, be better (which is why I have a Windows gaming PC hooked up in the next room), but at some point, performance is "enough" for what one is trying to do. 

[Jedi Master]

49 minutes ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

I spend all day working from my M2 Max laptop connected to the 3 monitors in my home office.

If you do that, you might as well have a desktop machine with its better performance. That's not a reasonable justification for a laptop over a desktop.

I solve the issue of portability by having both a desktop and a laptop. For me, that's a better solution that expecting a laptop to do double duty. Jack of all trades, master of none.

[eatstoomuchjam]

20 hours ago, Jedi Master said:

If you do that, you might as well have a desktop machine with its better performance. That's not a reasonable justification for a laptop over a desktop.

I'm not justifying anything.  i'm enjoying the benefits of having a single system that can do everything I want (except most games).  I don't see any advantage in having a separate system that I also need to keep up-to-date with my editor, plugins, etc.  "Better performance" only matters if the secondary machine doesn't already do everything as well as you need/want. 

You like having both?  That's great.  I hope you enjoy it.  I like having one system that I can easily take with me when I go abroad or go camping for months at a time.

[Jedi Master]

2 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

You like having both?  That's great.  I hope you enjoy it.  I like having one system that I can easily take with me when I go abroad or go camping for months at a time.

To each his own. In the room I'm sitting in now I have four desktop machines set up for various purposes with a total of twelve monitors between them.

[kye]

On 11/29/2023 at 2:33 PM, MrSMW said:

I ‘traded’ (off-loaded to the wife) my M1 14” at the beginning of this year for an M2 Max with 64GB ram 16” because the old one was barely faster than my 7 year old gaming desktop PC.

A good test was batch editing a typical wedding of say 700 raw files through DXO PureRaw tidying up noise and detail.

Overnight on my PC, around 8-10 hours?

Same thing failed every time I tried it on the M1 chip MacBook.

With this year’s M2, 40 minutes maybe?

It has transformed my workflow and as someone who spends a lot of time working away from home Apr-Sep, it’s been brilliant.

I use it with 3 external SSD.

One for photo, one for video, one (armoured) backup for both.

My only wishes were it was slightly less laggy for video editing because yup, there is some (but that may be me not having it set up right?) and I wish the screen was bigger than 16”, but as an all in one, photo and editing machine, at home at the dining room table, or in the office or in the motorhome, it’s a great/essential tool for sure.

Interesting!  You must have really been utilising something that moved from software to hardware in the upgrade - every benchmark I've seen was incremental between the two.  Unless your M1 wasn't an M1 Max?

On 11/29/2023 at 2:59 PM, Jedi Master said:

The biggest issue I have with laptops, besides the speed issues, is screen size. My desktop PC, where I do editing, has three 34" 4K monitors. That much screen real estate really makes it easier to edit video and photoshop stills and I'm not willing to give it up just to get portability.

I use a 13" MBP as my only computer, but connect it to my 32" UHD panel / hifi audio setup for normal uses, and then when working in Resolve I connect the UI to a 27" FHD panel to the side of my view, and the BM UltraStudio to my UHD panel as a clean 1080p feed of the timeline.

I also sit about 1.5m/yards from the screens and operate with wireless kb / trackpad / BM Speed Editor / BM Micro Panel, which is why I have a large 1080p panel for the UI.

On 11/30/2023 at 4:24 AM, eatstoomuchjam said:

at some point, performance is "enough" for what one is trying to do. 

Absolutely.  My current 2020 Intel MBP is enough for editing 4K 10-bit IPB h264/h265 on a 1080p timeline with very basic colour applied.  Then I can apply heavier colour grading and effects before exporting.  At the moment it's not fast enough to edit the footage with the heavy colour grading applied, but I make do.

On 11/30/2023 at 5:15 AM, Jedi Master said:

If you do that, you might as well have a desktop machine with its better performance. That's not a reasonable justification for a laptop over a desktop.

I solve the issue of portability by having both a desktop and a laptop. For me, that's a better solution that expecting a laptop to do double duty. Jack of all trades, master of none.

When the M1 Mac Mini came out I contemplated getting one as a fast editing machine but there was just too many hurdles to overcome with the need to sync two computers.

The fundamental logic is this:

1. If you need to be portable then you need a laptop
2. If you want a desktop as well then you either need to separate your uses or you need to sync between them

I didn't want to separate my uses, so that was it, game over, and so that meant I needed a relatively powerful laptop.  It would have been cheaper to get a desktop only setup, but it just didn't work for me.

[MrSMW]

6 hours ago, kye said:

Interesting!  You must have really been utilising something that moved from software to hardware in the upgrade - every benchmark I've seen was incremental between the two.  Unless your M1 wasn't an M1 Max?

Standard M1 and the massive jump in processing was between the desktop and the M2.

I didn’t see much difference between the desktop and M1 for most things.

Possibly also differences in software being more streamlined?

I don’t know and am not really interested in techy things as in ‘how’, but rather just that it does. And my M2 does!