Apple M2 Pro vs Apple M3: specs and benchmark comparison
Short verdict
Apple M2 Pro leads in every scenario with comparable benchmarks: multi-thread performance. This does not imply an advantage in tasks without benchmarks.
Compare with AIMulti-thread performance
A +63.9%Apple M2 Pro leads in this scenario (up to 63.9% in comparable benchmarks).
No comparable benchmarks yet: single-thread performance, gaming (cpu-bound scenarios), power efficiency.
Advantages
Only measured and rated values: a noticeable benchmark gap and specs where more is better.
Where Apple M2 Pro is better2
Blender Benchmark 4.5.0 63.9% faster206 samples/min vs 126 samples/min
Max memory capacity 8 GB more32 GB vs 24 GB
Where Apple M3 is better0
No advantages found in our data.
Benchmarks
Results are compared within one benchmark, one version and the same conditions.
- A ahead by 63.9%
Blender Benchmark 4.5.0
CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom · samples/min, higher is better
Apple M2 Pro205.8 samples/minApple M3125.6 samples/minPosition among tested models (89)
B · 126A · 2060200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, samples/min. Apple M2 Pro is ahead by 63.9% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · Apple M2 Pro
205.8 samples/min · community measurement, sample 40 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 40 submissions (0 outliers excluded), interquartile range 198.99–244.86; submissions 2025-07-23 to 2026-08-21; CPU backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · Apple M3
125.6 samples/min · community measurement, sample 49 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 49 submissions (0 outliers excluded), interquartile range 111.19–160.43; submissions 2025-07-17 to 2026-03-10; CPU backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
difference = |A − B| ÷ the smaller value × 100%. The 5% noticeable threshold is a UX heuristic, not statistical significance.
Cycles render in Blender Benchmark. Median of the sum of samples per minute over three scenes after removing outliers.
Other comparable benchmarks (4)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 197 | 133.9 | A +47.1% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 197.8 | 168.6 | A +17.3% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 199.4 | 162.9 | A +22.4% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 203 | 160.6 | A +26.4% |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Reference results (9)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.1CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 240.7 | 127.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.2.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 192.8 | 144.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 149.5 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 200.5 | 160.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 196.5 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 198 | 130.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 197.7 | 154.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.0.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 202 | 156.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 199.2 | 154.8 | reference |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Specifications
| Specification | A · Apple M2 Pro | B · Apple M3 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cores and clocks | |||
| CoresCores of different types may differ in performance. | no data | 8 (4P + 4E) | no data for A |
| Platform | |||
| Process node | 5 nm | 3 nm | differs |
| Memory and interfaces | |||
| Memory type | Unified memory | Unified memory | equal |
| Max memory capacity | 32 GB | 24 GB | A: 8 GB more |
| Integrated graphics | Apple M2 Pro (16 / 19-core GPU) | Apple M3 (8 / 10-core GPU) | differs |
Cores and clocks
Cores
Ano data
B8 (4P + 4E)
no data for ACores of different types may differ in performance.
Platform
Process node
A5 nm
B3 nm
differs
Memory and interfaces
Memory type
AUnified memory
BUnified memory
equalMax memory capacity
A32 GB
B24 GB
A: 8 GB moreIntegrated graphics
AApple M2 Pro (16 / 19-core GPU)
BApple M3 (8 / 10-core GPU)
differs
“More” does not always mean “better”: higher power draw or size is a system requirement, not an advantage (such bars are dimmed).
Compare with AI
An AI model reviews the specs and benchmarks of this pair and gives a plain-language verdict on who each model suits.
Questions and answers
Do these CPUs have integrated graphics?
Apple M2 Pro: Apple M2 Pro (16 / 19-core GPU). Apple M3: Apple M3 (8 / 10-core GPU).
Which is faster: Apple M2 Pro or Apple M3?
Apple M2 Pro leads in every scenario with comparable benchmarks: multi-thread performance. This does not imply an advantage in tasks without benchmarks.
See also
Data sources (2)
- Apple — specifications of Apple M2 Pro, specifications of Apple M3checked November 14, 2026
- Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation) — benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.5.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.1.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.2.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.4.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.5.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.6.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.0.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.1.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.3.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.4.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.0.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.1.0checked November 14, 2026
How we compare: methodology. Where the data comes from: sources.