Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M3 Pro review - Efficiency before performance

Our comparison devices of course include the predecessor models of the MacBook Pro 16 with M1 and M2 chips but also some high-quality Windows multimedia laptops such as the Dell XPS 15, the Lenovo Yoga Pro 9i 16, Asus Vivobook Pro 16, Schenker Vision 16, and also the Samsung Galaxy Book3 Ultra 16.

Since many characteristics of the M3 Pro models are no different than those of the MBP 16 M3 Max that we already tested, we will concentrate on the performance and emissions in this test. You can find all the information on the case, equipment, input devices, display, and speakers in our extensive test of the M3 Max version:

• Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M3 Max review (M3 Max, 128 GB RAM, 8 TB SSD)

There are no differences in terms of the case and connections between the configurations with the M3 Pro and M3 Max that we already tested in great detail. The internal construction is also absolutely identical, with the exception of the video connections. While the MBP 16 with the M3 Max is able to control a maximum of four external displays simultaneously, the M3 Pro can only handle up to two external displays (with maximum resolutions identical to those of the M3 Max).

Even though the new M3 Pro SoC is available in two versions, the large MacBook Pro 16 only comes with the faster version. Like its predecessor, the processor offers a total of 12 CPU cores, but the core configuration has changed. While the M2 Pro used eight Performance and four Efficiency cores, it is now six Performance and six Efficiency cores. Compared to the old M2 chips (Pro/Max), the CPU clusters in the M3 Pro/Max now use six instead of four cores.

The cores themselves have the same specs as those of the other M3 CPUs, with the Performance cores being able to reach up to 4.056 GHz and the Efficiency cores up to 2.748 GHz, which is also the case in practice. The storage interface gets reduced from 256-bit to 192-bit, resulting in a maximum storage bandwidth of now only 150 GB/s instead of 200 GB/s.

Of course, the first interesting comparison is with the old M2 Pro, which showed a maximum power consumption of ~34 W in our tests. The multi-core performance in the native tests is only a few percentage points higher (between 2% and 6%), which makes it almost identical in practice. However, at the same time, Apple is also able to reduce the power consumption, which is now only barely 26 to 27 W. In comparison to the current Intel processors, the M3 Pro performs at the level of the Core i7-13700H in the Samsung Galaxy Book 3 Ultra or Dell XPS 15 9530 in the multi-core tests, although both of those consume significantly more power than the new Apple silicon.

In single-core tests, however, the new M3 Pro (just like the regular M3 & M3 Max) is able to convince us completely, and we see a performance advantage of 20% compared to the old M2 generation despite a similar CPU consumption of ~5 to 6 W. With this, the Apple chip is only barely surpassed by the Core i9-13905H in our comparison but at the expense of significantly higher power consumption under single-core load. We will provide a closer analysis of the efficiency in our analysis of the M3 Pro/M3 Max that will be published shortly.

As usual, the CPU performance remains completely constant in battery operation. We also ran our usual Cinebench R15 Multi loop, but you have to note here that the performance is slightly reduced due to emulation. We also see a slight advantage compared to the old M2 Pro here, and the loop demonstrates very clearly that the CPU performance remains completely stable even under constant load.

You can find additional CPU benchmarks here.

Similar to the processor, the number of cores in the graphics card has also changed. While the top model of the M2 Pro still offered 19 GPU cores, there are now 18 GPU cores in the M3 Pro. Although we are unable to read the clock speed, we assume that there is an increase here as well.

In most benchmarks, we see a slight performance increase compared to the M2 Pro with 19 GPU cores (with the exception of Geekbench 6.2). However, the power consumption has also increased slightly from 25 W to 28 W. Therefore, in contrast to the processor, the graphics card hasn't become more efficient and there is also a standstill in terms of the performance, which is a bit sobering.

In the 3DMark WildLife Extreme Unlimited test, the M3 Pro GPU places ahead of the RTX 4050 Laptop (65 W), but slightly behind the RTX 4060 Laptop (80 W). In the OpenCL tests, however, the M3 Pro GPU falls significantly behind the dedicated GeForce competitors. 

The graphics performance remains stable at all times, both under constant load as well as in battery operation, which is not the case with most GeForce GPUs. 

You can find additional GPU benchmarks here.

We've already mentioned in other reviews that there are several ways to play games using the MacBook. Besides emulated games and using additional software such as CrossOver, you also have some other options at this point (such as GTA V or Cyberpunk 2077), although you won't always be able to use the full potential of the hardware and of course there are also no optimizations here. 

Native games will of course run best, and at this point those also include several AAA games such as Baldur's Gate 3 or No Man's Sky. These games run very well on the MacBook Pro, and you usually can also use the highest settings.

However, compared to Windows computers, the gaming performance still remains significantly below that of a GeForce RTX 4050 Laptop. Those who want to play the occasional game on the MacBook and are content with the limited selection won't be disappointed, but you also have to understand that this isn't a real gaming laptop. In the video below, we tested several native games in their respective highest settings in the 1080p resolution.