Skip to content
RU

Apple M2 Pro vs Apple M3 Pro (11-core CPU): specs and benchmark comparison

AApple · ARM64

Apple M2 Pro

    2023

    BApple · ARM64

    Apple M3 Pro (11-core CPU)

    • 11 cores

    2023

    Short verdict

    Apple M3 Pro (11-core CPU) leads in every scenario with comparable benchmarks: multi-thread performance. This does not imply an advantage in tasks without benchmarks.

    Compare with AI
    ← Apple M2 ProApple M3 Pro (11-core CPU) →

    • Multi-thread performance

      B +14.3%

      Apple M3 Pro (11-core CPU) leads in this scenario (up to 14.3% 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 better0

    No advantages found in our data.

    Where Apple M3 Pro (11-core CPU) is better1

    • Blender Benchmark 4.5.0 8.9% faster224 samples/min vs 206 samples/min

    Benchmarks

    Results are compared within one benchmark, one version and the same conditions.

    • Blender Benchmark 4.5.0

      CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom · samples/min, higher is better

      B ahead by 8.9%

      Position among tested models (89)

      A · 206B · 224
      0200400600800
      Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, samples/min.

      Apple M3 Pro (11-core CPU) is ahead by 8.9% 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 Pro (11-core CPU)

      224.2 samples/min · community measurement, sample 20 · November 14, 2026

      Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)

      Median of 20 submissions (2 outliers excluded), interquartile range 213.23–227.16; submissions 2025-07-30 to 2026-03-14; 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)
    BenchmarkABDifference
    Blender Benchmark 4.2.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom197219.3B +11.3%
    Blender Benchmark 4.0.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom197.8226B +14.3%
    Blender Benchmark 4.1.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom199.4225B +12.9%
    Blender Benchmark 4.3.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom203220.5B +8.6%

    Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.

    Reference results (9)
    BenchmarkABDifference
    Blender Benchmark 5.1.1CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom240.7214.2reference
    Blender Benchmark 5.2.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom192.8213.4reference
    Blender Benchmark 3.2.1CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom149.5206.1reference
    Blender Benchmark 3.4.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom200.5228.6reference
    Blender Benchmark 3.5.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom196.5—no pair
    Blender Benchmark 3.6.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom198226.8reference
    Blender Benchmark 4.4.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom197.7218.1reference
    Blender Benchmark 5.0.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom202223.5reference
    Blender Benchmark 5.1.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom199.2214.4reference

    Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.

    Specifications

    Cores and clocks

    • Cores

      Ano data

      B11 (5P + 6E)

      no data for A

      Cores of different types may differ in performance.

    Platform

    • Process node

      A5 nm

      B3 nm

      differs

    Memory and interfaces

    • Memory type

      AUnified memory

      BUnified memory

      equal

    • Max memory capacity

      A32 GB

      Bno data

      no data for B

    • Integrated graphics

      AApple M2 Pro (16 / 19-core GPU)

      BApple M3 Pro (14 / 18-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.

    AI verdict

    Questions and answers

    Do these CPUs have integrated graphics?

    Apple M2 Pro: Apple M2 Pro (16 / 19-core GPU). Apple M3 Pro (11-core CPU): Apple M3 Pro (14 / 18-core GPU).

    Which is faster: Apple M2 Pro or Apple M3 Pro (11-core CPU)?

    Apple M3 Pro (11-core CPU) leads in every scenario with comparable benchmarks: multi-thread performance. This does not imply an advantage in tasks without benchmarks.

    Data sources (2)
    • Apple — specifications of Apple M2 Pro, specifications of Apple M3 Pro (11-core CPU)checked 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.

    TelegramVK