Is the M2 chip more future proof than the M1 chip.

[BHanular]

Would a new MacBook Air with an M2 chip be more future proof than one with an M1 chip? Would it accept OS upgrades for a longer period of time?

Any information would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you very much.

 

[chabig]

Future proofing is a folly. But to answer better, consider that the M1 and M2 share the same architecture. I don't see any reason Apple would drop support for the M1 in the future if they are still supporting M2.

 

[ArkSingularity]

It's hard to say. Right now, Apple has been providing full software updates (new major versions of Mac OS) for at least 5 years after the point at which the laptop ceased to be sold new, along with additional security updates for another 3 years or so. In general, you get software support for about 7-8 years on any new Mac that you buy when you count the extended security support.

Will the M2 be supported for longer? Quite possibly, but Apple is still selling M1 systems new, so the "5 year clock" hasn't even started yet. This is of course assuming that the same general trend continues (Apple doesn't technically "guarantee" a set support cycle for any of their machines), but I think it's fairly safe to assume that neither machine will be obsolete anytime soon.

 

[leman]

Nobody can answer your question since nobody knows Apple’s plans. On average Macs have 7 years of software support. There is not much practical difference between M1 and M2 in terms of supported features (but they do exist).

 

[Boil]

Would a new MacBook Air with an M2 chip be more future proof than one with an M1 chip?

There is not much practical difference between M1 and M2 in terms of supported features (but they do exist).

M2 has the Media Engine, M1 did not...?

 

[theorist9]

The M1 and M2 do have different microarchitectures. And at some point, Apple will need to make a cutoff to drop the first generation(s) of AS machines.

But whether they do that just for the M1, or group the M1 and M2 together (or group the M1, M2, and M3 together, etc.), we don't know. That's because there's no one here (other than those who work for Apple and thus can't say) who knows enough about how the uarch interacts with the OS to know whether M1 and M2 are close enough that, when the cutoff is done, they will be grouped together or not.

Indeed, even the Apple software engineers themselves may not know, since they've not yet written the OS's at which M1 and M2 would be cut off. Thus this may be a determination that even they can't make until then.

Hence I'd suggest you choose based on a cost/benefit analysis comparing what the two would provide you with today.

 

[Boil]

M2 MORE POWAH 4 TOMOWAH...! ;^p

 

[leman]

M2 has the Media Engine, M1 did not...?

M2 also supports more ARM extensions, the GPU has new features etc… what I’m trying to say though that these differences are not very large all things considered. As far as the rest goes I fully agree with @theorist9

 

[maflynn]

Future proof is just a marketing gimmick that tries to entice people to buy more computer then they need

 

[mi7chy]

More of an Apple policy influenced by sales team than a technical issue. That said the window of supported devices is shrinking with newer MacOS releases. Big Sur supports 2013 devices and newer, Monterey supports 2015 devices and newer while Ventura will only support 2017 and newer. With that trend the subsequent MacOS release will likely only support 2019 and newer. However, benefit of M1 is it runs both Big Sur and Monterey for those that find Big Sur more performant and stable while M2 only runs Monterey.

 

[exoticSpice]

More of an Apple policy influenced by sales team than a technical issue. That said the window of supported devices is shrinking with newer MacOS releases. Big Sur supports 2013 devices and newer, Monterey supports 2015 devices and newer while Ventura will only support 2017 and newer. With that trend the subsequent MacOS release will likely only support 2019 and newer. However, benefit of M1 is it runs both Big Sur and Monterey for those that find Big Sur more performant and stable while M2 only runs Monterey.

With Ventura Metal 3 will very useful for games like Village.

Monterey is meh

 

[tstafford]

Future proof is just a marketing gimmick that tries to entice people to buy more computer then they need

That's probably for the most part correct. From what I've seen, the M2 isn't all that compelling an upgrade. M1/Pro are just so good and a massive upgrade over the final Intel stuff. I'd buy the machine I like - form factor, I/O, etc and wouldn't worry all that much about which chip. For example - I'd gladly buy a discounted M1P MBP because I like it a ton but would choose the M2 Air over the M1 Air because I think the new design is slick.

 

[spiderman0616]

That's probably for the most part correct. From what I've seen, the M2 isn't all that compelling an upgrade. M1/Pro are just so good and a massive upgrade over the final Intel stuff. I'd buy the machine I like - form factor, I/O, etc and wouldn't worry all that much about which chip. For example - I'd gladly buy a discounted M1P MBP because I like it a ton but would choose the M2 Air over the M1 Air because I think the new design is slick.

I couldn't agree more.

I had been using Intel MacBooks for years when I got the M1 MacBook Air. It felt like witchcraft. It had more power and battery than should be possible in that thin of a laptop and never even got hot. The only thing I disliked about it was the old wedge design, which never sat well with me to begin with. I've long since upgraded to the M1 Pro MBP, but was THRILLED to see them finally ditch the old design with the M2 MacBook Air. That is one awesome looking computer, and finally got to mess around with one at the Apple store a couple of weeks ago. That's the one I would be buying for sure if I were in the market for an Air.

This is why I love the 14" MBP so much. It's a really great mixture of the power of the 16" model and the design of the M2 Air.

 

[Love-hate 🍏 relationship]

It's hard to say. Right now, Apple has been providing full software updates (new major versions of Mac OS) for at least 5 years after the point at which the laptop ceased to be sold new, along with additional security updates for another 3 years or so. In general, you get software support for about 7-8 years on any new Mac that you buy when you count the extended security support.

Will the M2 be supported for longer? Quite possibly, but Apple is still selling M1 systems new, so the "5 year clock" hasn't even started yet. This is of course assuming that the same general trend continues (Apple doesn't technically "guarantee" a set support cycle for any of their machines), but I think it's fairly safe to assume that neither machine will be obsolete anytime soon.

Only 5 years ?that means assuming apple releases m2 mbp in October ,the costly mbp M1 Pro will only get 5 years of updates ?

I thought apple was giving 7 years or so

 

[ArkSingularity]

Only 5 years ?that means assuming apple releases m2 mbp in October ,the costly mbp M1 Pro will only get 5 years of updates ?

I thought apple was giving 7 years or so

The 5 year timeline starts when the Mac stops being sold new. If you are counting by the day of their release, most models get at least 6-7 years of full software upgrade support (many models are supported for longer than this).

Each MacOS release also get 3 additional years of security updates. The 2012 MacBook Pros are still getting security updates on Catalina to this day, for example.

 

[jdb8167]

However, benefit of M1 is it runs both Big Sur and Monterey for those that find Big Sur more performant and stable while M2 only runs Monterey.

Monterey has been rock solid on my M2 MacBook Air. The only problem is the random disconnects of one of my USB-A SATA SSDs. I wish that Apple would fix it but isn’t a huge problem since the SSD is only 512 GB.

 

[bradl]

Future proofing is a folly. But to answer better, consider that the M1 and M2 share the same architecture. I don't see any reason Apple would drop support for the M1 in the future if they are still supporting M2.

Normally, I'd agree, but at some point they do cut things off. I mean, Sandy Bridge and Skylake were effectively the same architecture, yet I couldn't run anything newer than High Sierra on a mid-2011 MBA. So at some point there is a cutoff even with the same architecture.

That said, I can see 6 to 7 years being a good cutoff, and that's basing things off my MBA. It came with Lion in 2011, and went to High Sierra in 2017. That's 6 years. But with Silicon being a completely different architecture, it is hard to say what will happen for future proofing. But you can't go wrong at all with M1 (Pro/Max) or anything M2 (Pro/Max, or otherwise). They will be around for a long time.

BL.

 

[Nyy8]

We saw some stagnation when it came to CPU performance in the mid 2010's with Macbooks/iMacs since Apple was 'forced' to use Intel CPUs, but with Apple now making their own chips and Intel and AMD back into a head to head war in the x86 market I think any CPU is going to fair just as well in 5 years from now. Which is not good.

We don't have great data on the longevity of Apple Silicon, but if you look at the Intel side, a 10th Gen i7 (3 years old) is 57% slower then a current gen i9 and a 10th gen i9 is 47% slower then a current gen i9.

TL;DR - Futureproofing is crap, buy what you need today and expect to cycle the laptop every 5-6 years.

 

[jdb8167]

The 5 year timeline starts when the Mac stops being sold new.

Not always. Apple stopped the 2013 Mac Pro with Ventura even though they were still selling it in 2019. Not unreasonable but definitely less than 5 years after stopping sales.

 

[Love-hate 🍏 relationship]

The 5 year timeline starts when the Mac stops being sold new. If you are counting by the day of their release, most models get at least 6-7 years of full software upgrade support (many models are supported for longer than this).

Each MacOS release also get 3 additional years of security updates. The 2012 MacBook Pros are still getting security updates on Catalina to this day, for example.

ah i see

well it still makes me reconsider the amount of ram i should get . rn 8gb is becoming unbereable ,so i have to get 16gb .since i plan on keeping my mbp for 7 years ,i thought it wouldnt be stupid to go larger than 16,aka getting 32gb (which is far from cheap ) .

i mean right now 16gb is very comfortable to me ,but i presume in 3 years it might not be as good...and i'd regret not getting enough ram on a 2500+ machine

 

[doboy]

yes, by exactly 1 month

 

[theorist9]

ah i see

well it still makes me reconsider the amount of ram i should get . rn 8gb is becoming unbereable ,so i have to get 16gb .since i plan on keeping my mbp for 7 years ,i thought it wouldnt be stupid to go larger than 16,aka getting 32gb (which is far from cheap ) .

i mean right now 16gb is very comfortable to me ,but i presume in 3 years it might not be as good...and i'd regret not getting enough ram on a 2500+ machine

That is a real concern. When I got my 16 GB 2014 MBP in early 2015, I found it had plenty of RAM for heavy office work. But starting about 2020, I began to have RAM limitation issues, where the computer would slow down and I'd need to close windows to correct this (plus I was using a lot of swap). That wasn't because of a change in the nature of my work, it was because, as time passes, applications progressively demand more RAM.

Thus, for me, 32 GB RAM would be comfortable today for heavy office work, and I'd anticipate running into trouble with 32 GB about 5 years from now. My current machine has more than that, but that's because I also use it for scientific work.

 

[Love-hate 🍏 relationship]

That is a real concern. When I got my 16 GB 2014 MBP in early 2015, I found it had plenty of RAM for heavy office work. But starting about 2020, I began to have RAM limitation issues, where the computer would slow down and I'd need to close windows to correct this (plus I was using a lot of swap). That wasn't because of a change in the nature of my work, it was because, as time passes, applications progressively demand more RAM.

Thus, for me, 32 GB RAM would be comfortable today for heavy office work, and I'd anticipate running into trouble with 32 GB about 5 years from now. My current machine has more than that, but that's because I also use it for scientific work.

Apart from the ram ,wrre you comfortable ? I mean ,a 5 years old chip may not always be nice to use ,even if u had maxed it out with 32gb of ram

So ,today ,you’d get 64gb ,since 32 is what u currently need ?

Man I rly don’t know what to get , 14 or 16 , 16gb or 32gb ,apple care or not , 512 or 1tb (fairly certain I don’t want 1tb ,at least I know that)

 

[Boil]

Apple silicon:

• Pick a SoC
• Max the RAM for said SoC
• 512GB SSD minimum
• Monthly AppleCare+

 

[Love-hate 🍏 relationship]

Apple silicon:

• Pick a SoC
• Max the RAM for said SoC
• 512GB SSD minimum
• Monthly AppleCare+

eh 256gb is fine imo

16gb is fine for most people too (no need for 24gb)

monthly apple care+ is more expensive and doesnt make much sense