Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Devious marketing of M2
- Thread starter MacsAre1
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Unfortunately, Adobe has entered this market: Adobe Inventor (windows only though) and it is a true **** sandwich.
I would expect Intel to compare their new CPU performance with last year's CPU as well as AMD and maybe even Apple's ARM chips. The comparison serves to show how they stack against the competition, not simply the upgrade cycle. And comparing against a 3 year old chip would be irrelevant for Intel to do when showing performance improvements...assuming performance didn't go down the previous generation.
They could compare it to a G4 Cube if they wanted and it might be a similar form factor and thermal envelope and the numbers would look good. But it'd still be comparing against obsolete hardware. No one is asking them to compare with a tower, just with a current gen Intel CPU in the same class (12th gen might be OK since very few 13th gen machines available right now).
It is Apple's fault that Apple still sold a 5 year old computer as new until this week.
What's the power draw to reach that performance? What's the cost of one of those computers relative to the Mac Mini, for example? Do you think Apple could have similar or better performance if they allowed the CPUs to use more power?
Did you read the article? They compared the performance to a 3 year old Intel PC, I expect at the announcement as I couldn't find it on their website. But yeah, the fact they were still selling the old Intel Mini at such a premium is absurd.
Okay, what Intel CPUs are in the same class as Apple Silicon? Power draw matters because TDP is absolutely a factor in the "class" of CPUs. We have to consider power draw because it's important to Apple. Apple could lift the TDP cap and design something that could eat 300W of power. The M2 has a max TDP of about 22 W (with the M1 around 20W). Which current gen Intel CPUs are in that same class and what's their performance like?
The upcoming top "same class" (close enough with a 15 W TDP but their max power draw is higher than Apple Silicon at 55W) CPUs are the U series. The top one is the i7-1365U but it's not out yet. You can look at the 1265U benchmarks (which are respectable).
Thanks for doing the homework on that. Exactly my concern. Apple's chips have better thermal performance, but are not more powerful than Intel. Hopefully we can soon compare actual scores of 13th gen Intel chips vs. M2 chips.
I'm on the fence. A few years ago I invested in an eGPU that I figured I could use with my next Mac. A bit upset that they don't have support in the ARM chips. Again and again I've tried to go along with Apple's way - but they always change the rules when they feel like it. Now, if they can convince me the M2 Mini is more powerful than an Intel machine they'd have my attention. But this sort of shenanigans does nothing to help. I might either buy a used 2018 Mac Mini (as it's still newer than my 2015 MBP and can still dual boot Windows for gaming plus run a current Mac OS), or build my own PC.
What is the current-gen Intel CPU in the same class? The 12900HK? 1280P? 12950HX? 12900T? Or even the 12900K?
No matter which comparison they choose someone will accuse them for being manipulative. Choosing to stay within the Mac models and compare to the outdated Intel Mac is as good of a choice as any.
I think what many critics seem to be missing is that Apple's marketing is not targeted at a tech enthusiast (or a more common wannabe enthusiast), but at the Mac users. This is not about your perception of "honesty", but about delivering an effective marketing message.
I'm still running Mojave because I don't want to lose support for all my 32 bit apps! Then of course there are all the Windows apps that I can run via dual boot but likely won't run well if at all on ARM.
I did but I do not see such comparison on Apple's website. Either the article lies or Apple updated the page sometime in-between. They really compare it to the old Intel Mac Mini.
Everyone in the industry does this - cherry pick benchmarks. Mx is clearly the winner in performance per watt, but Intel/AMD/NVidia clearly win the raw performance benchmarks for high end models.Some sneaky marketing on Apple's part... This article points out that they're comparing the M2 Mac Mini to an older computer (2 generations back) and claiming it's 5x faster than this "bestselling PC." That's pretty devious. How does it compare to a current gen Intel CPU of a similar price? Apple's ARM chips sound great, but if they fudge the numbers here, where else are they fudging the numbers? I'm not sure if I can believe them.
The Mac Mini page also compares everything with the i7 Mac Mini as the baseline... Which came out in 2018 with a year old Intel CPU (8th Gen)... So compared to 5 generations ago I'd expect anything newer to be faster. In their benchmarks they include an i7 iMac, which is from 2020 and uses a 3 generations old Intel chip from 2019. I'd expect any chip in the same class to be faster today than one from 3-5 years ago. Notably, on some of the functions listed the M1 Mini was slower than the i7 iMac. The M2 beats them all... So congratulations, the M2 is finally faster than a Mac from 2020. But how does it compare with its true competition, a current PC running on the latest Intel or AMD chipsets? You can tout nm all you want but if the performance isn't there, what's the point? Power usage is a big selling point for the laptops but few people care about power usage on a desktop.
Apple, cut the crap and give us some real numbers to compare you performance with the competition.
Apple's performance comparisons to Windows PCs continue to be hilarious and ridiculous
The fruit company just can't help itself, can it?www.windowscentral.com
It's actually somewhat pointless to compare intel to Mx, because it's all about workload optimization. Want to run windows workloads? Run intel/amd/nvidia. Want to run mac workloads? Run Mx. Simple as that.
I do think that Apple makes too much hay about performance per watt though. Yes, I care about battery life. I also care about performance. I'd rather have a machine that's 30% faster and only gets 12 hours of battery life than one that gets 22.
The M2 seems like it was a contingency plan, and based on stories about the GPU meltdown, I think that's probably right. The M3 is my target for an upgrade from M1.
The Witcher and Witcher 2 don't run under Rosetta.
Anything else that needs serious GPU accleration doesn't run very well, especially if they weren't metal to begin with.
And of course, virtualization engines won't run intel guests on ARM chips. Totally expected, but it is a loss.
Rosetta is amazing, but it's not perfect.
I still run Mojave on my Mac Mini, and for the same reason. I don't dual boot, but I do use x86 Windows VM's. I really wish there was some kind of hardware solution to running a vm x86 Windows on my Mac Studio...
That’s nasty if Apple expected us to use mini + Studio Display together instead of a more inexpensive display. Just couldn’t find the point of having the best 5k panel but don’t have 144hz and charges you $1500+. the 24in iMac is $1299.
You are 100% right.Some sneaky marketing on Apple's part... This article points out that they're comparing the M2 Mac Mini to an older computer (2 generations back) and claiming it's 5x faster than this "bestselling PC." That's pretty devious. How does it compare to a current gen Intel CPU of a similar price? Apple's ARM chips sound great, but if they fudge the numbers here, where else are they fudging the numbers? I'm not sure if I can believe them.
The Mac Mini page also compares everything with the i7 Mac Mini as the baseline... Which came out in 2018 with a year old Intel CPU (8th Gen)... So compared to 5 generations ago I'd expect anything newer to be faster. In their benchmarks they include an i7 iMac, which is from 2020 and uses a 3 generations old Intel chip from 2019. I'd expect any chip in the same class to be faster today than one from 3-5 years ago. Notably, on some of the functions listed the M1 Mini was slower than the i7 iMac. The M2 beats them all... So congratulations, the M2 is finally faster than a Mac from 2020. But how does it compare with its true competition, a current PC running on the latest Intel or AMD chipsets? You can tout nm all you want but if the performance isn't there, what's the point? Power usage is a big selling point for the laptops but few people care about power usage on a desktop.
Apple, cut the crap and give us some real numbers to compare you performance with the competition.
Apple's performance comparisons to Windows PCs continue to be hilarious and ridiculous
The fruit company just can't help itself, can it?
But this is essentially the same every time Apple puts out a new product: Vague and abstract graphs paired the infamous "x faster than machine x", "best in class", "best battery life ever" statements instead of just including the details and numbers that they base these statements on.
It's the same drama about the graphs every time.
But I can't be bothered trying to guesstimate what I'm actually about to buy. Instead I just wait for reviews or benchmarks and take it from there.
On a sidenote, I'm also sure that Apple is deliberately as vague as possible about the exact numbers for M2 because of how crippled the baseline configurations actually might be(weaker SSD for 256GB, maybe also weaker than m1 baseline RAM this year?).
Some sneaky marketing on Apple's part... This article points out that they're comparing the M2 Mac Mini to an older computer (2 generations back) and claiming it's 5x faster than this "bestselling PC." That's pretty devious. How does it compare to a current gen Intel CPU of a similar price? Apple's ARM chips sound great, but if they fudge the numbers here, where else are they fudging the numbers? I'm not sure if I can believe them.
The Mac Mini page also compares everything with the i7 Mac Mini as the baseline... Which came out in 2018 with a year old Intel CPU (8th Gen)... So compared to 5 generations ago I'd expect anything newer to be faster. In their benchmarks they include an i7 iMac, which is from 2020 and uses a 3 generations old Intel chip from 2019. I'd expect any chip in the same class to be faster today than one from 3-5 years ago. Notably, on some of the functions listed the M1 Mini was slower than the i7 iMac. The M2 beats them all... So congratulations, the M2 is finally faster than a Mac from 2020. But how does it compare with its true competition, a current PC running on the latest Intel or AMD chipsets? You can tout nm all you want but if the performance isn't there, what's the point? Power usage is a big selling point for the laptops but few people care about power usage on a desktop.
Apple, cut the crap and give us some real numbers to compare you performance with the competition.
Apple's performance comparisons to Windows PCs continue to be hilarious and ridiculous
The fruit company just can't help itself, can it?
show me a 599 (499 edu) PC that performs better.
Judging by the cost cutting measures Apple did for the 256GB SSDs in the baseline configurations of M2 Air and M2 13" Pro, I wouldn't be so sure about that just yet.
Apple is usually very deliberate about streamlining production to cut costs for all of its products.
Makes me doubt the 256GB SSDs in M2 minis will be different from the 256GB SSDs in M2 Air and 13" Pro.
But I hope I'm wrong.
Well not more hilarious than when intel was trying to tout their processors as being energy efficient. And it was turning out they were actually working well outside their advertised limits.Apple's performance comparisons to Windows PCs continue to be hilarious and ridiculous
The fruit company just can't help itself, can it?
I did not know that people were taking benchmarks from companies _that_ seriously.
Oh I get it this can never be said enough "Apple giveth, Apple take away".
Users can be caught with something and have it pulled from them, in the line up.
I find as a long time user of Apple hardware it's best to be very strategic. Never buy into a first year or version of a product, usually they fix or settle the hardware on the 2nd go around. Of course that depends if you can.
As for AS transition I wouldn't be in a rush to buy into it. Right now I can wait as all my needs are met with my ancient Haswell system, also running mojave, but it does everything I ask of it. Also because that missing AS MacPro in Apple's line up will be very telling what Apple will "allow" us to do and give us more of a complete sense of direction of the hardware, even if I don't need a MacPro it's more clear overall what can be done. I expect if you are allowed the "privilege" of expansion either in storage or GPU they may continue with the absorbent cost attached to it, or we all could be surprised and they offer something worth the wait.
Yeah I have a PC gaming system just for that, it's honestly the best solution. 1 thing the PC excels at very well and having access to Nivida GPU's is an a full Steam catalogue is a no brainier.
Sounds like the devious marketing of mac rumors worked.
And, never will be across all cross-platform metrics. Anyone waiting for Apple Silicon to completely dominate Intel and AMD across the benchmark board will be waiting for a LOOOOONG time. Apple’s taken their customers outside that entire way of thinking, way of working and has reset what their customers can expect from a computer.
Not to mention that you regularly need to feed it with human blood and chant dark incantations while booting up the system
Apple's Mx chips are definitely great, but reading stories about Windows computers here at Macrumors feels like the only PCs people use are outdated corporate laptops with at least 3 antivirus programs, which run only marginally faster than a calculator.
Last edited: