M2 is really just m1.1 (Update, I was wrong).

[macguy360]

Update:
When the news of the m2 came out. I made a post stating the m2 is just the m1.1 because they had not decreased the nm size at all. I watched video reviews on YouTube stating the speed of the m2 would be worse than m1 due to the solid-state drive being slower. This reaffirmed my feelings and I considered going for the 14" m1 Pro. My wife has one and it is a really impressive laptop.

Then tax free shopping came and it made the incentive for <$1500 laptop even more enticing. I decided to trade in my m1 air and get the m2 air base model.

TLDR: The m2 air base model is a beast. It is VERY FAST, noticeably more so than the m1 air and even feels faster than my wife's 14" m1 pro (in regards to opening apps, speed of loading internet pages, back and forth between different things). Clearly the 14" m1 pro will be faster when it comes to editing video in Final Cut Pro, but honestly something about the m2 feels right. For instance, everyone knows that when Apple switched from x86 to Arm processors they had to package all the software using Rosetta 2. With the m1 on my air and even my wife's m1 pro, there is a slight delay when opening up different programs. That delay appears to be gone completely and everything just loads instantly.

I also am really impressed with the build quality of the Air m2. It feels like my wife's 14" m1 pro, but thinner, but somehow more solid/dense. It feels much higher quality than my previous air m1. It feels like a $2000-$3000 laptop.

So anyway, I was wrong in my original disdain for the m2. I originally felt Apple should have scaled down the build to 4nm or even 3nm, but after actually using it, I am very impressed by what Apple has accomplished.

 

[BeatCrazy]

Nope, not a 1.1.

Doesn't matter what the lithography size is. It's based on a different architecture (i.e. cores from A15) vs the architecture of the M1.

So unless you think the A15 is really a A14.1, then it's really an M2.

 

[macguy360]

Nope, not a 1.1.

Doesn't matter what the lithography size is. It's based on a different architecture (i.e. cores from A15) vs the architecture of the M1.

So unless you think the A15 is really a A14.1, then it's really an M2.

Die size increased by 20% and performance increased by 20%. Its m1.1. You can argue that it’s based on a15 all you want but you can’t argue performance vs die size.

 

[Gerdi]

Die size increased by 20% and performance increased by 20%. Its m1.1. You can argue that it’s based on a15 all you want but you can’t argue performance vs die size.

I do not understand, where the absurd idea is coming from, that when the performance increase correlates with the area increase, that the architecture must be the same or similar?
This the most natural thing - you make a higher performant architecture, which in almost all cases mean, that you have to invest more gates.

 

[BeatCrazy]

Die size increased by 20% and performance increased by 20%. Its m1.1. You can argue that it’s based on a15 all you want but you can’t argue performance vs die size.

I don't have to "argue" it's based on the A15, because it is.

So is the A15 really an A14.1 (or even A13.2?)? That seems to be your logic around this.

 

[Tagbert]

Die size increased by 20% and performance increased by 20%. Its m1.1. You can argue that it’s based on a15 all you want but you can’t argue performance vs die size.

You just argued that it is a different chip by admitting that the die size is 20% larger. That is a hallmark of a different chip design.

 

[Tagbert]

We have seen the results of testing. M2 appears to basically be m1.1. It is still based on 5nm and the speed increase appears to be directly related to the increase in cores/die size.

If anything this makes me appreciative of my m1 MacBook Air as it is holding strong performance wise this year. I will definitely be waiting for the 3nm m3 as I believe the performance and battery efficiency will be sog if I a toy better.

Why do you all think?

Actually, the M2 is an M1.9. That is as accurate as your assertion.

In fact, my assertion is based on the facts that M2 uses the A15 cores, it includes new ProRes hardware to do video compress/decompress in hardware, it has a 2x memory bandwidth, more GPU cores, and that 20-25% more area & more components.

What facts support your assertion?

 

[UBS28]

Wait for next year if you want a real upgrade. It will be 3nm instead of 5nm then.

 

[kpluck]

Why do you all think?

That chip manufacturers' naming conventions are all arbitrary and there are no hard and fast rules for naming iterations of a chip design.

-kp

 

[ikir]

18-20% CPU increase and 35% GPU increase was a prohibited dreams few years ago especially in Intel land with only one generation jump.

 

[Zdigital2015]

Why do you all think?

That the world has more pressing problems to worry about and by adjunct we all have more pressing problems to deal with at this time.

In truth, what does it matter? Apple wants to call it M2, they reserve that right as they’re the ones who designed it. Is this kind of minutiae even relevant considering that we’re getting regular solid updates and not Haswell +++++++++ reworks anymore? I’m just happy that I can now ignore Intel’s sorry lying ass and their sh** rose colored roadmaps.

Clearly this is a First World Problem.

 

[Tyler O'Bannon]

It’s a different chip. Different die size. Different cores. More GPU cores. Regardless of marketing, it is physically a different chip on several ways.

 

[bmustaf]

Process node is only one very high level variable in what goes into an IC design.

There are many similarities to the M1, of course, because, well, they share the same microarchitecture (this is a good thing, if they did not, well, uh, wait for Rosetta3 and all the transition items yet again!).

M1.1 was the Pro/Max variant (no, they were not binned, they are physically different, especially in memory bandwidth). This is a true x.1 evolution, it appears the M2 is much more than that.

It remains to be seen (likely will be very obvious once the first tear down puts the silicon under an electron microscope and/or x-ray to examine exact bus, bridge, etc configurations), but the argument of "same process node, ergo can't be M2" is specious at best.

 

[jav6454]

We have seen the results of testing. M2 appears to basically be m1.1. It is still based on 5nm and the speed increase appears to be directly related to the increase in cores/die size.

If anything this makes me appreciative of my m1 MacBook Air as it is holding strong performance wise this year. I will definitely be waiting for the 3nm m3 as I believe the performance and battery efficiency will be sog if I a toy better.

Why do you all think?

I would pass judgement until independent reviewers give us results.

 

[CrazyForCashews]

Clearly you’re an expert OP, perhaps you should work at Apple and bring the change that you’re looking for.

 

[jav6454]

It’s a different chip. Different die size. Different cores. More GPU cores. Regardless of marketing, it is physically a different chip on several ways.

And different (albeit similar) architecture.

 

[boss.king]

We have seen the results of testing. M2 appears to basically be m1.1. It is still based on 5nm and the speed increase appears to be directly related to the increase in cores/die size.

If anything this makes me appreciative of my m1 MacBook Air as it is holding strong performance wise this year. I will definitely be waiting for the 3nm m3 as I believe the performance and battery efficiency will be sog if I a toy better.

Why do you all think?

What exactly were you expecting it to be?

 

[xxray]

Does it really matter what the marketing is? Either way, it’s the latest generation of chips from Apple. M1.1 or M2, it’s still got the same increase in performance. M2 is just a hell of a lot easier to say.

 

[Howard2k]

It's an M2. That's why they called it the M2.

If it was an M1.1 it would have been called an M1.1.

Your M1 MBA is still great regardless.

 

[Apple_Robert]

It looks like the OP created the thread looking for confirmation of his assertion, so he wouldn't be tempted to upgrade.

 

[jav6454]

It looks like the OP created the thread looking for confirmation of her assertion, so he wouldn't be tempted to upgrade.

People are always looking ways to justify their spending habits.

 

[Abazigal]

We have seen the results of testing. M2 appears to basically be m1.1. It is still based on 5nm and the speed increase appears to be directly related to the increase in cores/die size.

If anything this makes me appreciative of my m1 MacBook Air as it is holding strong performance wise this year. I will definitely be waiting for the 3nm m3 as I believe the performance and battery efficiency will be sog if I a toy better.

Why do you all think?

I guess...so?

A performance boost is a performance boost, plus you get the new form factor and magsafe. I think these are solid reasons for anyone still not on an M1 Mac to upgrade. And for those using an M1 MBA / MBP, 2 years is probably still too soon to replace your current device either way.

I believe the M2 MBA will sell well, assuming Apple can keep up with demand.

 

[Zdigital2015]

People are always looking ways to justify their spending habits.

A couple of years ago, I took a long hard look at myself and how I approach buying tech and realized I was wasting a lot of money on stuff I didn’t really need trying to stay “current”. I’ll buy stuff if I need to but now that I’m no longer in a technology job per se, I find it really easy to just watch from the sidelines. Not moralizing or telling people how to spend their money just relaying my story and the conclusion it led me to.

 

[Zdigital2015]

I guess...so?

A performance boost is a performance boost, plus you get the new form factor and magsafe. I think these are solid reasons for anyone still not on an M1 Mac to upgrade. And for those using an M1 MBA / MBP, 2 years is probably still too soon to replace your current device either way.

I believe the M2 MBA will sell well, assuming Apple can keep up with demand.

The $1199 starting price is going to help keep demand in check while Apple ramps up production. This is typical Apple with a new product release, they did it before with the 2018 MacBook Air introduction. The price will eventually come down, but for now it’s meant to recoup the investment in the new form factor.

 

[jz0309]

Why do you all think?

Who cares? Apple calls it M2, like it or not. They’ve published their usual specs and provided some performance comparison.
It’s called marketing…