No, it wouldn't give all states the same increase. It has been pointed out to you that states like Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, both Dakotas, low population states with only a single representative, their votes are worth roughly 3x than a persons vote in California or Texas. If you triple the number of representatives, suddenly California and other large states get a huge boost, where the votes of citizens in those states now have a vote much more equal to those in a state with a single representative. Don't get me wrong -- the small states still have more power (because they still get three electoral votes despite only having 1 representative) but suddenly California and Texas get over 100 Electoral votes.
That is the point, it does not benefit all states equally; instead it largely benefits the states that are underrepresented in current Presidential elections and brings it closer to what it would be with "1 citizen, 1 vote" -- though still giving priority to small states (since all get 2 votes for their senators, regardless how small the state). And before you complain about the loss of power for smaller states, recall that if we went by
representation "guidelines" from the time of the Founders, at that time there was roughly 1 representative for less than 60,000 citizens. As the nation grew, that number dropped to 1 Representative for less than 40,000 citizens. The cap, leaving the House at 435 Representatives, was only passed in the 1930s -- and the country more than tripling in size since that time means that, as of 2018, we have roughly 750,000 citizens per US Representative in Congress. So increasing the number of representatives -- even making it so we have 4,000 members of the House of Representatives -- only brings us more in line with what the Founders envisioned. It makes it so we don't see the huge vote disparity where you have votes from rural states counting as 3 votes each, compared to the votes from large states counting as only 1 vote.