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

[theorist9]

Sure, the whole world revolves around you. I wouldn't laugh at anyone else, who needs more than 32 GB RAM for heavy office work. *bwahahah* 😂😂😂

You need to work on your reading comprehension. I clearly said 32 GB is currently more than enough for heavy office work, but that I have more because I also use my machine for scientific work.

But I shouldn't be surprised such a simple distinction confused you, since on that other thread you were being rude to another poster because you couldn't tell the difference between $CDN and $USD.

I'd recommend you just stick to emojis.

 

[GMShadow]

Honestly, I still question how much of a difference the SSD speed differences actually make between the two units for most users. There were some youtubers who performed a few benchmarks and found some "noticeable differences" - but this appears (as far as I can tell) to be mostly attributable to the slower swap performance and not necessarily to the slower SSDs (540MB/sec SATA SSDs were the standard for about a decade and they still felt very snappy for day-to-day use. The M2 Air at 1.3GB/sec should, at least in theory, be more than fast enough not to really be that much of a bottleneck.)

Pretty much. People buying the base model Air generally aren't the kind of user who will really notice the SSD running 'slower'. We're still talking about it running at 1.5GB/s, which is faster than any previous MBA short of the M1.

If 1.5GB/s is slow I don't want to see what people consider to be fast.

 

[1BadManVan]

Pretty much. People buying the base model Air generally aren't the kind of user who will really notice the SSD running 'slower'. We're still talking about it running at 1.5GB/s, which is faster than any previous MBA short of the M1.

If 1.5GB/s is slow I don't want to see what people consider to be fast.

I seen someone review a dell business laptops with ssd's running I raid 0 scoring over 11GB/s lol, just ludicrous

 

[GMShadow]

I seen someone review a dell business laptops with ssd's running I raid 0 scoring over 11GB/s lol, just ludicrous

Oh I've supported monster laptops before - Precisions with capacity for 4+ drives, tons of RAM, thicc GPUs, etc. Those were for CAD work.

I just don't think that market is the one buying the base model MacBook Air. 😄

 

[1BadManVan]

Oh I've supported monster laptops before - Precisions with capacity for 4+ drives, tons of RAM, thicc GPUs, etc. Those were for CAD work.

I just don't think that market is the one buying the base model MacBook Air. 😄

completely agree, too many people chasing the numbers game instead if enjoying their device that is faster than 95% of other laptops out there.

 

[Tyler O'Bannon]

The M2 Air is more future proof in the sense of the computer itself. New design, camera, speakers, mics, keyboard, etc. The M1 and M2 share the same architecture, but the form factor is end of an era (M1) and beginning of an era (M2).

 

[mslilyelise]

I think you're safe with either an M1 or an M2. Apple Silicon is such a radical departure from Intel based machines that Apple may even support these machines longer than the 7 years we're used to seeing with Intel machines. I bought an M2 cause I wanted the MagSafe port, the better iSight cam, etc. But if not for those specific features, my needs would have been served just fine with an M1.

I think the only future proofing you have to worry about is if you have a late model Intel Mac at this point. Back in the PPC to Intel transition, we only got one version of OS X that could run on both platforms, and that was Leopard. Snow Leopard came out two years later in 2009 and made Macs sold as late as the end of 2005 boat anchors (from a support basis, PPC machines are actually really great hardware for their time). The same could easily happen during this transition, where Big Sur, Monterey, and Ventura support both architectures, and the next macOS drops Intel. But that's all just conjecture on my part.

 

[Strider64]

The Mac Studio Max 64 GB that I purchase is the first computer where I have no problems opening up multiple applications, the response time on the apps is just amazing and everything is so seamless. I'm not worried about 7 years from now and that's consider I'm still alive & kicking. I learn last year that nothing is future proof.

 

[theorist9]

I think you're safe with either an M1 or an M2. Apple Silicon is such a radical departure from Intel based machines that Apple may even support these machines longer than the 7 years we're used to seeing with Intel machines. I bought an M2 cause I wanted the MagSafe port, the better iSight cam, etc. But if not for those specific features, my needs would have been served just fine with an M1.

I think the only future proofing you have to worry about is if you have a late model Intel Mac at this point. Back in the PPC to Intel transition, we only got one version of OS X that could run on both platforms, and that was Leopard. Snow Leopard came out two years later in 2009 and made Macs sold as late as the end of 2005 boat anchors (from a support basis, PPC machines are actually really great hardware for their time). The same could easily happen during this transition, where Big Sur, Monterey, and Ventura support both architectures, and the next macOS drops Intel. But that's all just conjecture on my part.

If Ventura were the last, that would mean only three years between the sales of the last Intel Macs (I'm assuming that will be late 2022/early 2023) and EOL for their OS support. [Unless Apple makes Ventura the last, but extends its support life beyond the three years they're doing now for OS's.] My guess is Apple will give at least five years, particularly for the Mac Pro—but my tea leaves aren't any better than anyone else's.

 

[Yebubbleman]

And most of them are old, x86, slow ram, slow ssd or even hdd.

No. All have SSDs and only a handful are x86. The rest are Apple Silicon Macs. Nice try though!

Just try the M1 iMac with 8GB RAM and tell me, this insanely fast Mac is no main machine!

I'm typing this post FROM that very configuration of Mac! The two-port model, no less! It is no main machine unless your needs are extremely minimal!

I'll agree with you that an M1 Mac with 8GB of RAM isn't as bad as, say, a Broadwell MacBook Air with 8GB of RAM. But that's got nothing to do with the amount of RAM and everything to do with the processor and graphics!

They'll lose software support about as quickly as the normal M1, but until then they are twice and fourfold as fast.

Incidentally, you don't have that information yet. None of us do. And frankly, it's so early that maybe even Apple doesn't know where they're going to cut things off just yet!

If you really want to crunch numbers, the M1 Pro is your friend. And totally coincidentally the MacBook Pro starts with 16 GB RAM.

The 14" starts with 16GB of RAM. The 13" starts with 8GB of RAM. Most people I consult for won't spend money on the 14" when they don't need an M1 Pro's power. Yet, 16GB of RAM is still the better buy for most people for longevity unless their long term needs are minimal or unless the computer isn't going to be around for all that long.

So no, Apple's minimum RAM config is not always too small. On the contrary!

It's apt for those that don't do much with their computer and replace their computer much more regularly. For the e-mail checking, Facebook browsing user who is fine replacing their Mac after no more than five years of ownership, the base model of M1 Air will be perfectly adequate. However, for someone wanting to hold onto their Mac literally until Apple stops releasing security updates for its final supported major macOS release (which is a lot of users out there), 8GB of RAM and 256GB on an M1 (let alone an M2) will not be as good of an experience.

If you don't know exactly for which task you need more memory, you probably don't need it at all. Not now and not ever.

That's a blindly absolutist stance. Some buy a computer not just for the things they need today, but for the things they might need tomorrow. Are you telling me that it's wise to buy a base model MacBook Air, take a gig where I actually will need more RAM, GPU cores, and storage, have to sell my machine and then go through the hassle of buying a better one? I'm sure most will tell you that's more work than they want to put up with.

PS: It was however a crime for how long Apple sold the 21" iMac with a spinning disk. So they're not always right with their configs.

I won't debate that there. But you're seeing the same sorts of annoying base model choices in its M1 successor. Two USB-C ports on the base (and I'll tell you, I wouldn't have purchased this base model 2-port M1 iMac brand new; I got a good deal on eBay and that's the only way in which I would become an owner of something so criminally limited) is messed up. Hell, the 4.5K 24" display is NICE. But is it worth spending so much more than the cost of a similarly equipped M1 MacBook Air? Hell no. This thing is a joke in terms of bang for buck and, as nice as it is to use, I'd hate it if I had to pay retail for it.

 

[Gudi]

You need to work on your reading comprehension. I clearly said 32 GB is currently more than enough for heavy office work, but that I have more because I also use my machine for scientific work.

And since the RAM is soldered, you worried that in 5 years time 32 GB might start to feel constrained for heavy office work.😁 I got that!

For your own scientific work you claimed to need 128 GB. Which might be true, I can't judge that. But I can imagine how heavy office work must look like. When you have multiple Pages documents open at the same time, each several megabytes large.😏

 

[Gudi]

I'm typing this post FROM that very configuration of Mac! The two-port model, no less! It is no main machine unless your needs are extremely minimal!

Now I'd like to hear your definition of a main machine. The M1 iMac beats every Intel Xeon Mac Pro in single core performance. So was there ever a main machine in the past? Sure professional video editors will always find a reason to want more cores. But the distinction between portable yet underpowered notebooks and main powerful desktops is all but gone with Apple Silicon. Every M1 can serve as the main and only computer of a household, even the fan-less MacBook Air.

I'll agree with you that an M1 Mac with 8GB of RAM isn't as bad as, say, a Broadwell MacBook Air with 8GB of RAM. But that's got nothing to do with the amount of RAM and everything to do with the processor and graphics!

Exactly, it's a system and memory is merely one of its components. System performance must be judged and as other parts of the system get faster (HDD ➔ SSD), the need for RAM is shrinking over time. Workloads which used to make a 16 GB Intel iMac stutter, might now run smooth on an 8 GB M1 iMac with two-ports and only one tiny fan.

It's apt for those that don't do much with their computer and replace their computer much more regularly.

I bought my Macs in 2009-2010 and then again in 2022. Sure I upgraded RAM and HDD, but the SATA II hard drive interface didn't allow the SSD to show its full potential. And the shared memory settings only allowed for a fraction of the RAM to be allocated to the graphics chip. What gave my Intel Macs longevity was the stability of OS X, which actually became more performant with some updates, the durability of the unibody aluminum enclosure and the high prices of Retina Macs.

Some buy a computer not just for the things they need today, but for the things they might need tomorrow.

The things they fear the might need tomorrow.

But you're seeing the same sorts of annoying base model choices in its M1 successor. Two USB-C ports on the base (and I'll tell you, I wouldn't have purchased this base model 2-port M1 iMac brand new; I got a good deal on eBay and that's the only way in which I would become an owner of something so criminally limited) is messed up.

Yes, the base model config of the two-port 24" iMac is still annoying; even purposefully so to make you buy the mid-tier model. But the Intel 21" iMac was outright crippled with a spinning disk. Apple had Fusion Drive technology to speed up performance with a small cheap SSD for the system files only, but they didn't. This worsened the experience from the boot up and during every activity.

Hell, the 4.5K 24" display is NICE. But is it worth spending so much more than the cost of a similarly equipped M1 MacBook Air? Hell no. This thing is a joke in terms of bang for buck and, as nice as it is to use, I'd hate it if I had to pay retail for it.

And yet the M2 Air is only $100 less than the M1 iMac. If they had waited with the redesign and put the M1 in the old 21" chassis, it probably would've cost only $900. The first year of a new design is never cheap.

 

[Queen6]

Pretty much. People buying the base model Air generally aren't the kind of user who will really notice the SSD running 'slower'. We're still talking about it running at 1.5GB/s, which is faster than any previous MBA short of the M1.

If 1.5GB/s is slow I don't want to see what people consider to be fast.

Only people who will sense any slowdown will be those coming from say a base M1 MBP with a heavy workflow. M2 Air is plenty fast enough for the average user. As for the professional audience they should be we aware of their needs.

Q-6

 

[PsykX]

I can say with a 95% confidence interval that the M2 is 1 year more futureproof than M1.

But I'll be honest, what I missed the most in my M1 8GB 256GB was storage first and then RAM was really close. I would take that before a CPU/GPU upgrade. Recently I realized I was missing those media encoders as well.

 

[PsykX]

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

If one buys a 256GB and decides to use Xcode, he'll have to sell his computer. It's as simple as that.

This is what I did and I've optimized my storage in every possible way (made some cleanup, deleted temporary files, bought a 1TB Cloud plan, bought a 2TB SSD, even hacked macOS a little) and I will have to buy another one for sure in the end. If I just install macOS and Xcode, it's unbearable. At one point I had like 100MB free on my drive and macOS was panicking.

 

[maflynn]

eh 256gb is fine imo

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

I'm not so sure on both counts.

The conventional wisdom is that 1TB is generally needed for computers, at work we require 512GB for just the C drive alone, never mind for the data drive. I have my 14" MBP with 512GB and while its not full, I can easily fill it up without much effort. A couple of games, Adobe apps, and files and boom. I think I have about 50 to 60% utilization, with just a handful of apps, including parallels, windows and what not

As for ram, i think 16GB is the bare minimum, I have some software that can strain at 16GB, even some games do better with more ram. Cities:Skylines an older game struggles at 16GB, and I see the ram usage go through the roof. Even on my 32GB desktop, ram can be fully committed to apps.

It all depends on what you're doing, the MBA, is marketed towards the people doing light, online work, and 16GB should be enough but for other tasks that generally have more local processing, be it games, or apps like lightroom, imo its inadequate.

 

[Digitalguy]

I'm not so sure on both counts.

The conventional wisdom is that 1TB is generally needed for computers, at work we require 512GB for just the C drive alone, never mind for the data drive. I have my 14" MBP with 512GB and while its not full, I can easily fill it up without much effort. A couple of games, Adobe apps, and files and boom. I think I have about 50 to 60% utilization, with just a handful of apps, including parallels, windows and what not

As for ram, i think 16GB is the bare minimum, I have some software that can strain at 16GB, even some games do better with more ram. Cities:Skylines an older game struggles at 16GB, and I see the ram usage go through the roof. Even on my 32GB desktop, ram can be fully committed to apps.

It all depends on what you're doing, the MBA, is marketed towards the people doing light, online work, and 16GB should be enough but for other tasks that generally have more local processing, be it games, or apps like lightroom, imo its inadequate.

I think 24GB is a nice option for those of us who don't necessarily run intensive apps or games, but need to run Parallels regularly (with 8GB devoted to it for instance) and still want enough room to comfortably have a number of programms and tabs open at the same time on MacOS

 

[DaveXX]

If the M2 Pro/Max will get AV1 hardware acceleration it will make a big difference regarding future proof.
If it just 10-20% performance it will be irrelevant.

 

[Queen6]

I'm not so sure on both counts.

The conventional wisdom is that 1TB is generally needed for computers, at work we require 512GB for just the C drive alone, never mind for the data drive. I have my 14" MBP with 512GB and while its not full, I can easily fill it up without much effort. A couple of games, Adobe apps, and files and boom. I think I have about 50 to 60% utilization, with just a handful of apps, including parallels, windows and what not

As for ram, i think 16GB is the bare minimum, I have some software that can strain at 16GB, even some games do better with more ram. Cities

:Skylines an older game struggles at 16GB, and I see the ram usage go through the roof. Even on my 32GB desktop, ram can be fully committed to apps.

It all depends on what you're doing, the MBA, is marketed towards the people doing light, online work, and 16GB should be enough but for other tasks that generally have more local processing, be it games, or apps like lightroom, imo its inadequate.

Smart move with Apple is the base model. Storage I can strap over 20 TB to the MBP. I'll work with the least RAM I can get away with as low as 4GB up to 32GB.

In the field off the grid battery runtime is everything.M1 MBA/MBP is a monster, I find it laughable that people think M1 is slow (**** SW). My 13" M1 MBP easily see's off my Intel 17" notebooks that are rerolled as workstations

Q-6

 

[bradl]

If the M2 Pro/Max will get AV1 hardware acceleration it will make a big difference regarding future proof.
If it just 10-20% performance it will be irrelevant.

I have to admit: if the performance between M1 Pro and M2 Pro is that significant, and even something cosmetic (like the Midnight finish on the MBA) comes out, I may consider trading in the 16" M1 Pro that I have. If it isn't, then I'll pass and keep the M1 Pro.

Regardless, any Mac that you buy now will be great for future proofing. I mean, my MBA that I bought in 2011 (Sandy Bridge, 4GB, 256GB) outperformed the Ivy Bridge (Core i5-3570K) PC that I built from scratch, and that had 16GB of DDR3 in it. That MBA lasted me 11 years, and in that time I switched my PC back to AMD. If I can get that good of a performance out of something that lasted me 11 years, you're in good hands for a long time with anything Silicon now.

BL.

 

[Corefile]

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?

I'm not sure.

 

[bradl]

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.

My understanding of it is this.

M2 Pro > M1 Pro > M2 > M1, at least as far as performance goes. As far as future proofing, anything with Silicon will more than work for you.

That said, I'd say to wait for the next line of Macbook Pros to come out, then make your decision.

BL.

 

[Takeshou]

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.

Apple has a clear release life cycle. The product is current for the duration it is being sold. Discontinued but fully supported from the date they stop selling it. 5 years from that point the device is considered vintage and apple no longer makes and restocks parts. You can still get repairs from any Apple Store that has parts remaining. 7 years after a product is discontinued it is moved to obsolete status. No more support, no more repairs. The product is dead to apple.
That being said. Yes, an M2 product will likely get support for a bit longer. But there is no guarantee. It’s all based on when apple chooses to discontinue the product. Apple Watch 3 will become obsolete years after the Watch 5 for instance.
As for software updates, someone tests to determine system requirements and they will not send an update to any system that doesn't meet the requirements. It's possible the m2 may be compatible longer. It will probably get a year's worth of updates more than the M1. But the chips are so similar that it's a gamble.

 

[iPadified]

Regarding RAM. I have had the same kind of work for a decade and that involves some "heavy" office work. I have had 16 gb RAM since 2014 until now and I see absolutely no increase in RAM usage during these 8 years so I was fairly confident the 16Gb will be sufficient or the next 7-8 years. Therefore I bought 16 Gb again for the MBP Pro last year despite that images are getting larger and larger who puts some pressure on RAM. If I would be doing large 3D modell or simulations, I would have bought much more.

Tips: Kill apps you are not currently using. Minimise the number of Tabs in a browser. Reboot the computer now and again.

 

[MayaUser]

To the OP question....Its an easy answer , if you take advantage of the ProRes, and ProRes RAW its clear the main advantage...otherwise, not really