Devious marketing of M2

[Jorbanead]

Apple usually compares to last years model with many of their products, but lately they have switched this to comparing to models a few years older. I think this may have two reasons:

1) They know most people dont upgrade every year, so their marketing is targeted towards people who are upgrading from older hardware. Of course this is purposefully done for maximum impact, but it does help someone who is upgrading from a 2018 Mac mini to the new M2 see how it compares.

2) Apple is behind on their silicon roadmap. The pandemic I think set them back by a year or more. We should be on to M3 at this point: Fall 2020 = M1 | Fall 2021 = M2 | Fall 2022 = M3 and later this year we should have been seeing M4 in the fall. That would be if Apple and TSMC could keep an annual update cycle. Since they're behind schedule they are forced to use devious marketing to make their products look better than they are.

 

[James Godfrey]

Generally apple always compare against devices that the user base looking to upgrade are using whether that be an apple device or a non-apple device.

What is the point in them pointing out if it’s x times faster than something which came out a few months ago, they’re not comparing against what’s on the market, they are making their consumers aware of how much faster or efficient it is against what they’re using currently and why it’s worth upgrading their machine to it, which for Mac that would be people with 4-5 year old computers.

Apple know that all the M1 vs M2, or current Intel vs current apple silicon videos exist all over the internet, but who on YouTube is going to compare an M2 to an Intel based machine from 5 years ago? I doubt you would find much online giving you that insight.

 

[MallardDuck]

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'd need some kind of daughter board with an intel/amd chip on it, and I'm confident Apple has zero interest in such a thing.

QEMU kinda, sorta, limps along like a snail crawling through molasses in January, but otherwise there's no option. It's like trying to run gasoline in a diesel engine. The ARM move is like an earthquake fault shift...the road goes up to it, then shifts 100' in the other direction. can't get across it, but it works fine on each side.

FWIW, the rosetta like technology inside windows 11 runs pretty well. Good enough for everything except heavy GPU games.

 

[bobcomer]

That'd need some kind of daughter board with an intel/amd chip on it, and I'm confident Apple has zero interest in such a thing.

It could be as simple as a USB device, but yes, I agree, Apple doesn't have any incentive to do it. However I would have incentive to buy it, so maybe someone else will do it. The alternative is to phase out buying any Mac's altogether. I've been using a Macs at home for a long time, but it is what it is. I really wanted to buy a new M2 14" MBP Pro, because I wanted to go back to a mac with a built in screen and portable, but it's just a waste of money for me.

QEMU kinda, sorta, limps along like a snail crawling through molasses in January, but otherwise there's no option.

Not yet anyway.

But it's not a product that doesn't have any precedent. I ran a DOS/Windows machine inside my Amiga years and years ago. It worked pretty well.

FWIW, the rosetta like technology inside windows 11 runs pretty well. Good enough for everything except heavy GPU games.

I don't game, that's not the problem, it's just not as compatible as I need as it wont run some of my stuff, and it's not really as fast as I'd want.

Sorry for sounding so morose right now, but I've been doing some networking hardware upgrading at work and it, of course, doesn't work like it should. (does it it ever?!) (I'm an IT Jack of all trades, master of none, hardware/software/systems/development, you name it and I have to do it.)

 

[Jimmdean]

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.

Apple still sold the Intel Mac Mini because people were buying it. Like I said the next best thing to an apple silicon mac mini is the previous-model intel mac mini. You need to focus a little less on the physical components of these things and focus a little more on what their uses are. The uses for a Mac Mini have changed very little over the years despite the recent advances in CPU power. those i7 mac minis will have value for quite some time being the last available x86 architecture minis.

 

[leman]

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.

It's not as much a contingency plan as it is a year late. The M2 family was likely supposed to come in late 2021/early 2022 just like the M1 Pro/Max were supposed to be there by spring 2021 (but then there was a delay due to miniLED panels). And then of course N3 being delayed...

Now, A16 is definitely a contingency plan

 

[MacCheetah3]

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?

https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-apple_m1_pro_10_cpu_14_gpu-vs-intel_core_i7_1250u

???

 

[Unregistered 4U]

So, what’s the deal with i3, i5, i7, i9? I really haven’t looked into it for awhile but I’d thought it was Poor, Good, Better, Better-er. But, here’s an i7 dragging against an M1? That has to stand for something else.

 

[MrCheeto]

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.

It is true, though. Understanding what a large portion of Windows users could get by with a VTECH laptop that only has a RAM-resident Web-browser saved in ROM makes me shake my head when I see what is offered on the market. I've known too many Tammys and Earls that rest an enormous laptop that has the proportions of a LaserDisc player on their lap with the fan screaming like one from a diesel locomotive all to run FarmVille. They're always tethered to the wall because the battery can't last more than an hour or two. The display is 16" but is only 1080 resolution. The most they'll ever do with all that power is scroll Craigslist while audio is playing in some hidden random browser tab they inadvertently triggered.

It doesn't make sense for Apple to compare to PC's in this range, (most popular PC). The people in that market would be happy with a machine that was free with their DirectTV subscription.

 

[bobcomer]

So, what’s the deal with i3, i5, i7, i9? I really haven’t looked into it for awhile but I’d thought it was Poor, Good, Better, Better-er. But, here’s an i7 dragging against an M1? That has to stand for something else.

The i's are all different price points, both for the processor itself, and for the machines they go in.

A 13th gen i7 is actually faster than an M1 by a good margin, but a 5 year old i7 isn't. It's also faster than my 10 gen i9.

 

[schneeland]

It is true, though. Understanding what a large portion of Windows users could get by with a VTECH laptop that only has a RAM-resident Web-browser saved in ROM makes me shake my head when I see what is offered on the market. I've known too many Tammys and Earls that rest an enormous laptop that has the proportions of a LaserDisc player on their lap with the fan screaming like one from a diesel locomotive all to run FarmVille. They're always tethered to the wall because the battery can't last more than an hour or two. The display is 16" but is only 1080 resolution.
...

If you have any hand in this, you seriously need to work on your recommendations

More seriously: the main question is what we are comparing?

If we look at the price point of 16" Macbook Pro M2 (starts at 3k€ over here, quickly goes up to 4k€ if you want more RAM or storage), you will get pretty decent Windows machines - with the choice being either high-quality laptops with good displays, solid GPU power and at decent cooling systems, or significantly more powerful desktop machines in a non-ugly case, more RAM and disk space and a capable cooling system (and yes, Noctua coolers and fans help, but air cooling will still do the job). If you need the specific power (especially GPU power), such a system will probably outperform the Mac.

If we instead look at people who don't require so much power, you will get systems that are significantly cheaper (~1-1.5k€), have a decent display and will last multiple hours on battery. They do not match the power of the Macbook Pro, though (sometimes not even that of the Macbook Air).

What the Mac specifically gets you through the new ARM architecture and a lot of hardware-accelerated calculations for typical tasks is a combination of high power and low energy consumption. This is indeed a significant advantage compared to what PCs offer at the moment. And I think this is enough of an accomplishment that we don't need to pretend that PCs are mysteriously stuck in the 90s and comparisons with current PC hardware at the same price point is not an unreasonable request. And while Apple is far from the only vendor painting their own hardware in favourable light with selective benchmarks, I think they could be better.

 

[MrCheeto]

FWIW Here is the 2008 Mac Pro compared to the model it replaced. Both CPU configurations in this comparison were the middle-option. Can't find any trace of the G5 comparison but it did happen and I remember it well.

 

[JustAnExpat]

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.

Can you use the WayBack Machine to pull up the old page? https://archive.org/web/

 

[SpotOnT]

Catia, Solidworks, Inventor, etc. Static modelers are dead. I think AutoCAD still exists for architectural draftsmen to use for legacy documentation, but when its 1960s ip rights expired, free clones started showing up and even Autodesk realized it was outmoded by parametric solid modelers & put out their own with Revit, which took over by about ‘07. …15 years ago. Still, I think they teach it to kids as an intro to cad, so it made sense when they put it out for Mac.

Adobe thankfully hasn’t entered the design & engineering software market, or we’d be stuck with the equivalent of illustrator, some outdated klunky 1980s program with twenty years of ill-fitting features poorly shoehorned in lol

How do we know that Solidworks isn't on Mac because Apple software changes too frequently?

I always assumed Solidworks just never saw any of their customers using Macs and figured the profit wasn't there for a Mac release. Most engineering software is going to be purchased/provided by the company, and engineering firms have historically seen value in buying PCs rather than Macs. If I understand you correctly, though, you are saying that is not the problem. The problem is Solidworks doesn't want to invest in the constant software updates that would be required to keep up with macOS.

Side note: I only mentioned Adobe, because it wasn't clear to me in your original post what type of "design" you were referencing (graphic design is well, design). I agree Adobe is pretty irrelevant in the engineering world.

 

[ThunderSkunk]

there was a huge user campaign over the last decade to urge Dassault to write for Mac. They responded repeatedly to inquiries, explaining that Apple’s unpredictable lurches from one technology to the next made them too risky. Since SW & Catia are enormous programs that would have to be entirely rewritten, they’d spend a fortune and years doing it, and 1, if Apple just decided to break a bunch of crap one update and then not service it, whole parts of the software could be rendered inoperable that could take years to rework leaving their users hanging, and that includes a ton of enormous companies that simply can’t be out in that position. …& 2, there was some far-fetched remark by the Execs about even if they did go through all that to rewite SW for Mac, stability is neither guaranteed nor implied from Apple, & for all they knew Apple might just as well turn around and suddenly change entire processor architectures again out from under them, just like they sprung on the world switching from PPC to Intel, and Dassault would lose their shirt. That was in 2016 or 17? lol here we are…

 

[Wizec]

 

[AbbeyAbasalom]

This article points out that they're comparing the M2 Mac Mini to an older computer. And it seems to me that the case for M2 and M3 and almost anything else I can .

 

[raknor]

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.

Is it? So you would rather take a badly researched article written by a moron at face value?

Article claims:

" It has to be running an 11th Gen Rocket Lake CPU or a 12th Gen Alder Lake CPU. And more specifically, the Core i5-11400, i5-11400T, i5-12400, or Core i5-12400T."

"So hey, great news guys, the new $599 Mac Mini is up to 5x faster than potentially a now two-generations-old Intel machine with terrible integrated graphics. Good job! "

Currently selling Dell Inspiron 3910 desktop $599

12ᵗʰ Gen Intel® Core™ i5-12400
Windows 11 Home
Intel® UHD Graphics 730
https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/des...desktop/spd/inspiron-3910-desktop/nd3910fqdzs

You can't even configure this with a 13th Generation Intel CPU equivalent.

How about the XPS line? Dell's more premium line..

Exact same config (ddr5 memory instead) $669.

XPS 8950 Desktop with up to 12th Gen Intel Processor

Take creativity up a notch, with the expandability, elite performance, fast speeds, improved thermals and liquid cooling options of the XPS Desktop.

www.dell.com

Both can be bought today in 2023 with a 12th gen i5 and Intel UHD 730 graphics. So how did the article determine this is two generations old now?!

In fact the PC land scape is so dire.. Lenovo is still selling 11th gen intel cpus in most of their desktops in 2023.. This isn't Apple being devious .. it is the sorry state of PCs and what customers are being sold. The kicker is most of these systems cost more than a Mac mini.

The GT1 24 EU UHD730 graphics is **** and the M2 10 Core GPU will run circles around it.

 

[bombardier10]

I think that Apple afraid any comparison with 12 and 13 th Gen Intel CPU. Also "silicon" GPUs
are in the middle class. They are much slower than top nvidia/radeon graphic. The difference will
be bigger and bigger because in the future MacPro (Xeon) will no longer supported. Now macOS not
supported newest RX 7xxx Radeon series or RTX 4xxx nvidia series graphic.

 

[Gudi]

I for one are grateful, that Apple compares its entry level M2 versus the best-selling Intel i5 over the last twelve months and not some rare i9 unicorn, nobody ever saw in the wild.

 

[unrigestered]

they simply should explicitly state so though and not come up with some vague comparison to "the best selling computer"

* with ... "of 1983" in the fine print

 

[Joe Dohn]

Is it? So you would rather take a badly researched article written by a moron at face value?

Article claims:


Currently selling Dell Inspiron 3910 desktop $599

12ᵗʰ Gen Intel® Core™ i5-12400
Windows 11 Home
Intel® UHD Graphics 730
https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/des...desktop/spd/inspiron-3910-desktop/nd3910fqdzs

You can't even configure this with a 13th Generation Intel CPU equivalent.

How about the XPS line? Dell's more premium line..

Exact same config (ddr5 memory instead) $669.

XPS 8950 Desktop with up to 12th Gen Intel Processor

Take creativity up a notch, with the expandability, elite performance, fast speeds, improved thermals and liquid cooling options of the XPS Desktop.

www.dell.com

Both can be bought today in 2023 with a 12th gen i5 and Intel UHD 730 graphics. So how did the article determine this is two generations old now?!

In fact the PC land scape is so dire.. Lenovo is still selling 11th gen intel cpus in most of their desktops in 2023.. This isn't Apple being devious .. it is the sorry state of PCs and what customers are being sold. The kicker is most of these systems cost more than a Mac mini.

The GT1 24 EU UHD730 graphics is **** and the M2 10 Core GPU will run circles around it.

You know you can always shed money on a beefy x86 notebook or buy a powerful handheld PC like the GPD Win 4, right?

 

[MayaUser]

I think that Apple afraid any comparison with 12 and 13 th Gen Intel CPU. Also "silicon" GPUs
are in the middle class. They are much slower than top nvidia/radeon graphic. The difference will
be bigger and bigger because in the future MacPro (Xeon) will no longer supported. Now macOS not
supported newest RX 7xxx Radeon series or RTX 4xxx nvidia series graphic.

M1 Max is into the geforce 3070 when we compare apples to apples, around same fps max settings around 1440p into WoW and for pro apps i get around the same performance in Maya apps projects, maybe 3070 faster since the app is not fully native
So M1 Max being able to take it to 3060/3070 is not a slouch and remember Apple still has scaling issues...so to say that gpu is much slower is not a reality, the gpu is strong enough, the apps selections is the issue here not the raw power of the gpu. The support is the issue for the gpu not the gpu power itself. If Apple fix the scaling issues, alone from that the M1 Max and M1 Ultra will gain over 20% much more performance

 

[Gudi]

"With all this performance, Mac mini is up to 5x faster than the bestselling Windows desktop, delivering incredible value to first-time computer buyers, upgraders, and PC switchers."

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.

And who's fault is it that the "bestselling Windows desktop" over the last twelve months was a three year old design? The only thing you managed to reveal is that Intel's high markup for their latest chips leads to OEMs not building them into mass-market PCs. Tell me again why the $599 Mac mini is a bad deal?

 

[raknor]

You know you can always shed money on a beefy x86 notebook or buy a powerful handheld PC like the GPD Win 4, right?

I am guessing you are being sarcastic.. since the GPD Win 4 is vaporware at this point.

Any one buying an XPS or Inspiron lower end model isn't shopping for a beefy x86 notebook or handheld PC. The Mac mini at $599 is a far more capable machine than anything PC at that price.. there is nothing sneaky or devious about that claim.