This looks too high to me. M3 Max e-cores clock 180 MHz slower (6.5%) than M3 Pro's so it's unlikely that they are faster than on t6030. Can you retry the benchmark with the p-cores capping maxspeed to ~3500 Mhz and ~3700 MHz to ensure it's not running at al lower p-state.
Confirmation from T6031 would be nice as well, @WhatAmISupposedToPutHere ?

coremark on CPU core 1 at 2568 MHz: Iterations/Sec : 21939.447126
coremark on CPU core 6 at 4056 MHz: Iterations/Sec : 39909.538380

So, closer to 889 if i did the math right

P-Core at different max freq:
coremark on CPU core 0 at 3516 MHz: Iterations/Sec : 37225.462216
coremark on CPU core 0 at 3708 MHz: Iterations/Sec : 39231.071008
coremark on CPU core 0 at 4056 MHz: Iterations/Sec : 40894.220284

E-Core:
coremark on CPU core 1 at 2568 MHz: Iterations/Sec : 23089.355807

>>> 23089*1024/40894*4056/2568
913.1632280219341
>>> 23089*1024/39231*3708/2568
870.2026630189695
>>> 23089*1024/37225*3516/2568
869.6093907345455
>>> 

So more like 870?

still wondering why the p-core is so much slower. I see ~43000 Iterations/Sec on p-cores using fedora rawhide

so the low value for 4056 MHz is probably caused by not reaching the highest p-state. I wondering whether my tests reached it.
870 still looks high but more reasonable. I think we'll have a chance to adjust it when we measure opp-microwatt for the operating-points.

Killed kwin/wpa_supplicant/all the systemd bits and plugged in the charger, getting 22026.431718 on ecore, 42474.869036 on pcore.

42474.869036 on pcore

Same after stopping lots of services.

22026.431718 on ecore

I still get >23000 on ecore, resulting in 870 relativized

I still see ~24k and ~43k iterations/s when running coremark on M3 Pro in a terminal in KDE Plasma with power disconnected and ~80% charged battery. approximate 844 capacity-dmips-mhz so slightly lower than 851 I committed.
If M3 Max doesn't reach all p-states on battery maybe we should mark those as "turbo-mode" although I'm not sure if/how we make boost_enabled in cpufreq conditional on AC power.

I'm going to merge this under the assumption that the lower frequency on t6031/t6034 doesn't result in proportionate e-core performance drop.