> The M4 Pro continues to be manufactured using a 3-nm process and on the old M3 Pro (27-28 watts), we measured a lower consumption than on the M2 Pro models (~36 watts), despite its improved performance. In contrast [...] the new M4 Pro can consume up to 46 watts, settling at around 40 watts during the further course—so at its peak, it consumes 60% more.

Assuming they refer to the full chips rather than the binned ones, each generation of pro chips has the following number of p and e cores:

  | Model  | # p-cores | # e-cores |
  |--------|-----------|-----------|
  | M2 Pro | 8         | 4         |
  | M3 Pro | 6         | 6         |
  | M4 Pro | 10        | 4         |

Thus m3 pro has more e-cores and less p-cores than m2 pro thus the big increase in efficiency, while the m4 pro has more p-cores than m2 pro thus the increase. It is all about tradeoffs and, honestly, the result is pretty much expected when you count the cores. I assume there is some improvement per generation, but if the number of cores is not constant, the latter is gonna drive most of the variance generation to generation.

You're only considering the CPU though.

The numbers in the article cited by the above commenter are about the CPU.

You mean the link I posted?

They compare both CPU and GPU.

It makes sense that the Pro model is less efficient since it's more focused on performance.

Wait wait wait.

That’s comparing a M4 Pro (middle level) to a M3 Air. The Air is a lower power machine with the low spec processor.

There is no M4 Pro Air. They have to be using a MacBook Pro. That likely has a bigger display, a display capable of getting way brighter, showing more colors, better speakers, all sorts of other stuff.

That’s not a very valid comparison.

If anything, the fact that the M4 Pro gets so close to the M3 is impressive.

The M3 was on a process that was known to run hot. I strongly suspect that every M4 chip is more efficient than the equivalent M3 chip.

There are multiple comparisons vs multiple chips on both CPU and GPU. Keep scrolling.

I am not sure that is true, does it not use more peak power but get more work done leading to less energy overall for say exporting a hundred photos because it finishes quicker?