I don't see much talk about the Neural Engine improvements. Isn't there any software using it? Or, what kind of program can use this part of the chip? A 40% increase in performance is nothing to scoff at. Also the substantially increased memory bandwidth will certainly play a significant role in applications that work with large data sets.
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.
M1 vs. M2 Chip Buyer's Guide: How Much Better Really Is M2?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That and 24 GB RAM. That is BIG. In this intermediate category in a fanless machine, not that many people need 32 GB RAM, but some people could definitely benefit from more than 16 GB RAM.
However, this 24 GB option is in one big way a huge advantage. The advantage is it costs only $200 to upgrade from 16 GB to 24 GB, but it costs $400 to upgrade from 16 GB to 32 GB in the MacBook Pro.
One of my friends said all the developers in his department (aside from some of the supervisors and what not) got MacBook Airs and they functioned just fine with them. And this was during the Intel era. All the creatives got MacBook Pros.If you are like me and money is tight, drive your car until the thing refuses to run any more, then park it under a tree and buy another one.When I worked for various software development companies years ago (Computer Associates, IBM, BMC Software), developers rarely got new company bought computers more than once every three years or so, and they were never top of the line. For most people it just isn't cost effective, or necessary, to upgrade every year. Unless you are in a rare exception group, the M1 is sufficient for now and probably a few more years as well. Those who have unlimited budgets can spend it on whatever they want, but an M1 will be good enough for me for another few years (at least).
Honestly tempted by one, but I think I am on an iPad cycle this year. My OG 11" Pro will not get the updates only the M1 units have, and I am starting to use that for more of my daily lifting anyway.
There's no guarantee that the M2 will be supported any longer than the M1.
Man so many people act like Apple slapped your mother with this M2 chip. This is how chip dev works, small gains at the same size then shrink, rinse and repeat. If Apple didn't advance the CPU you all would be complaining. Everyone used to complain about not fast enough upgrades, now it's too fast? Or not a good enough upgrade? The M2 isn't an upgrade for M1 folks, at all. If you need to have the latest and greatest then you do you. This is a classic case of damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Of course there’s no guarantee, but if you look at how things usually play out with apple’s chips, they each tend to get around the same lifespan of updates and then with few exceptions fall off the update list in a fairly predictable pattern.
It won't necessarily be support longer in terms of years, but it is very likely M2 will be supported later than M1. ie. Even if both get 6 years support, that would take the M1 to 2026, and the M2 to 2028.
Xeons use different lithography libraries compared to Core… Xeons have more cache and even more cores, so they’re not analogous. For example, the upcoming meteor lake will be built on Intel 4, which is essentially a node that is using pure high performance libraries, but the subsequent Granite Rapids Xeons will be built on Intel 3, which uses a combination of high performance and high density libraries. Xeons and Core are different.
Apple on the other hand is literally using the same avalanche and blizzard cores from iPhone 13 in the m2 with of course some other mac specific tech like thunderbolt.
Given that macs have a higher power envelope and better cooling capacity than the iPhone, why lead with iPhone instead of leading with Mac? It’s a situation where the iPhone gets the best cores and the Mac/iPads are at least a year behind. M1 is based on a14 cores from over 2 years ago. iPhone 14 pro with a16 will launch in September before m2 pro / max are on sale, and a16 will be 2 whole generations ahead of m1 pro/max ultra. It matters because the newer generations have higher single threaded performance. Apple is charging more for its macs yet is giving them cores with lower single threaded capability as compared to the cores in the iPhone. To my mind it doesn’t make sense. Apple should synchronize the core designs. A Mac launched in a given year should have the same cores (or even newer ones) than the iPhone.
That’s what I’m specifically saying isn’t a safe bet. For example, my 2016 MBP just got dropped at the same time as the 2015. That means I actually got a year less support overall.
These machines will be supported for a long time regardless, but Apple seems to be moving away from a predictable number of years for update support.
While there is variability in support durations, it is very, very unlikely M2 will get 2 years shorter support than M1. M1 came out in 2020. M2 came out in 2022.
From an end users perspective, yeah that would be ideal. The more expensive Macs should lead the charge with the best cores. These things take years of planning and coordination, and I wonder if Apple will eventually get all of their products in sync in this respect. However, Apple is probably prioritizing their product lines based on earnings. iPhones are a much more significant part of Apple's business then the Mac. New node processes DO have limitations when it comes to production. They can only make so many chips at a time. It would be hurt Apple's bottom line to be bottlenecked on the production of iPhones then Macs. Which leads to the current situation - Apple wants as much production focused on building out new iPhone CPU's first, they can use "older" cores in less thermally constrained MacBooks and squeeze out some good performance (and with scaling up cores too). Where they will likely start having issues is when Intel and AMD aren't constrained on trying to make as many mobile CPU's as possible. They WILL focus and prioritize on their high end offerings first, and that will give Apple competition.
Apple generally supports based on 5 years after last date available, but not always... My old-style 2017 13" Intel Air was offered starting June 2017 and was discontinued by Apple in 2018 (or 2019?) and is not supported by Ventura.
This is going to go the way of iPhone chip upgrades. No-one upgrades their iPhone any more because last year's model was too slow. Apple just puts the best chip in every year when it updates to give you years of high quality use. And, sometimes, we get new features - which is great!
I hope to see this with Apple Silicon too. Regular (~18-month) updates that show incremental benefits but do not obsolete last year's model. And, sometimes, we will get new features - great!
I hope to see this with Apple Silicon too. Regular (~18-month) updates that show incremental benefits but do not obsolete last year's model. And, sometimes, we will get new features - great!
By the time you are ready to buy a new machine I hope all the incremental upgrades make my 3/4 year old machine look like a Pentium 2 in comparison. I absolutely love that there is a race here again. It was daft how many years I got out of my 2010 Mac Pro being a viable machine.
It is especially not like going from a G4 to a G5 in a Mac Mini or PowerBook.
Right on. This upgrade is basically what's expected. The big deal, which is lost on many, is the 24GB RAM option and the additional video encoding engines. For some people, those could be game changers. However for me, I use my Macs until they are unusably slow or unsupported. I have a 2018 Mac Mini which I had to buy when my previous Mini died and just beeped SOS when attempting to boot. I expect my Mini will last at least a couple more years and probably more. I might end up moving to ASi when Apple stops support x86. We'll see.
But... the new MacBook Air has midnight as a color option. So there's that. 🤷♂️
I’m thinking about a new laptop. Right now it’s between an M1 Air with 16GB RAM and 512GB storage or a 14” M1 Pro with the same specs. The price of the new M2 computers with those specs just isn’t justified just to get the newest chip. I like the new M2 Air, but it starts too expensive so that by the time you upgrade the 14” M1 Pro makes more sense.
IMO, Apple’s new line-up is just too confusing and needlessly packed. The base model M2 Air is okay, but if you upgrade RAM or hard drive the 14” Pro suddenly becomes reachable and a better choice given all the extra ports it has. In reality, it’s better to stick with the M1 Air as it still offers terrific performance and the price difference is enough to justify the M1 over the M2. In the future, Apple needs to either lower the upgrade cost on the Air or offer a lower base price.
IMO, Apple’s new line-up is just too confusing and needlessly packed. The base model M2 Air is okay, but if you upgrade RAM or hard drive the 14” Pro suddenly becomes reachable and a better choice given all the extra ports it has. In reality, it’s better to stick with the M1 Air as it still offers terrific performance and the price difference is enough to justify the M1 over the M2. In the future, Apple needs to either lower the upgrade cost on the Air or offer a lower base price.
