Apple M2 Pro (GPU, 19 cores) vs Apple M3 (GPU, 10 cores): specs and benchmark comparison
Rendering and compute
depends on the taskBenchmark results disagree, so the choice depends on the specific task.
No comparable benchmarks yet: gaming: rasterization, gaming: ray tracing, power efficiency.
Advantages
Only measured and rated values: a noticeable benchmark gap and specs where more is better.
Where Apple M2 Pro (GPU, 19 cores) is better1
Compute units 9 more19 GPU cores vs 10 GPU cores
Where Apple M3 (GPU, 10 cores) is better1
Blender Benchmark 4.2.0 8.1% faster922 samples/min vs 853 samples/min
Benchmarks
Results are compared within one benchmark, one version and the same conditions.
- B ahead by 8.1%
Blender Benchmark 4.2.0
GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) · samples/min, higher is better
Apple M2 Pro (GPU, 19 cores)853.2 samples/minApple M3 (GPU, 10 cores)922 samples/minPosition among tested models (15, Metal)
A · 853B · 92202,0004,0006,000Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, samples/min. Apple M3 (GPU, 10 cores) is ahead by 8.1% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · Apple M2 Pro (GPU, 19 cores)
853.2 samples/min · community measurement, sample 20 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 20 submissions (2 outliers excluded), interquartile range 841.07–857.56; submissions 2024-07-24 to 2026-01-11; METAL backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · Apple M3 (GPU, 10 cores)
922 samples/min · community measurement, sample 28 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 28 submissions (4 outliers excluded), interquartile range 913.58–925.48; submissions 2024-07-16 to 2026-03-11; METAL 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 (1)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 889.5 | 793.6 | A +12.1% |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Reference results (11)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 4.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 904.1 | 918.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 886.6 | 999.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 911.5 | 956 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 759.4 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 969.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 943.1 | 702.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 882.1 | 799.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 892.8 | 892.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 906.6 | 910.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 690.2 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 896.9 | 1,111.7 | reference |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Specifications
| Specification | A · Apple M2 Pro (GPU, 19 cores) | B · Apple M3 (GPU, 10 cores) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chip | |||
| GPU chip | Apple M2 Pro | Apple M3 | differs |
| Architecture | Apple Silicon | Apple Silicon | equal |
| Compute unitsSM (NVIDIA), CU (AMD) and Xe-core (Intel) are different units and are not compared numerically across vendors. | 19 GPU cores | 10 GPU cores | A: 9 more |
| Memory | |||
| Memory type | Unified memory | Unified memory | equal |
Chip
GPU chip
AApple M2 Pro
BApple M3
differsArchitecture
AApple Silicon
BApple Silicon
equalCompute units
A19 GPU cores
B10 GPU cores
A: 9 moreSM (NVIDIA), CU (AMD) and Xe-core (Intel) are different units and are not compared numerically across vendors.
Memory
Memory type
AUnified memory
BUnified memory
equal
“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
Which is faster: Apple M2 Pro (GPU, 19 cores) or Apple M3 (GPU, 10 cores)?
It depends on the task: rendering and compute: results disagree.
See also
Data sources (2)
- Apple — specifications of Apple M2 Pro (GPU, 19 cores), specifications of Apple M3 (GPU, 10 cores)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 3.4.0, 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.