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

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

I'd argue more that M2 is M1.5 since it at least has the media engine the M1 Pro/Max have. Is that a worthy enough upgrade if you already got M1? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA no. If you need the media engine just buy a Mac Studio instead, or a 14/16 inch Macbook Pro if you already got a desktop/

 

[Macative]

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.

OK?

If anything this makes me appreciative of my m1 MacBook Air as it is holding strong performance wise this year.

Ah, now I get it. This is one of those "I want to get the new MacBook Air but don't have the money so I'm going to pretend it's not much of an improvement and seek validation of that fake opinion on the internet" posts.

 

[The Cappy]

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?

Nope. Different CPU cores, different GPU cores. It's an M2

 

[btrach144]

OP sounds like someone with buyers remorse and is having a tough moment seeing the M2 is better so they’re trying to make themselves feel better by calling it an M1.1 when it really isn’t.

But ok

 

[mi7chy]

3.5GHz / 3.2GHz = 1.09375 so M1.1 sounds about right.

 

[jav6454]

intel 8 years on Gen 5.7 then!

I laughed a little harder than expected. Good one good sir.

 

[izzy0242mr]

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?

We'll probably see this style of chip upgrades: the odd numbers will be more substantial while the even numbers will be more iterative. Although at some point things are gonna slow down even more and it'll just be a lot of little upgrades with the occasional larger leap.

M2 is decent but it's definitely iterative. Wait for M3

 

[jonnysods]

AMD and Intel don't do this with their generational updates, I don't see why Apple has to when it's a different processor physically and performance wise.

 

[soulreaver99]

This thread is absurd. M1 is Big Sur and M2 is Ventura

 

[DavidChoux]

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 do I think? Don't read into it too much. It's all just marketing.

You've already looked into it and seen that the M2 is only slightly better than the M1, so there you go. Just because Apple calls it an M2 doesn't mean suddenly what you've read is incorrect because Apple added 1 to the number so it must be a generational leap.

Like, I don't get it. Performance wise it's M1.1 but Apple, a company selling stuff, calls it M2. Like, ok, so what? Obviously they exaggerate stuff.

 

[apparatchik]

Were some people expecting a 70-100% faster performance for the base chip in AS Macs for the M2? How much has Intel being bringing to the table from one gen to the next for the past decade?

In GPU perf have gone up 40-50% in some tasks, is that M1.1? 20%+ CPU is M1.1? what exactly would M2 have to be for it to deserve the name, in your opinion?

 

[jav6454]

AMD and Intel don't do this with their generational updates, I don't see why Apple has to when it's a different processor physically and performance wise.

Agree, which is why Intel became stuck. AMD has managed to stick to their guns with Zen. But eventually they will hit a wall.

 

[dasmb]

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?

Intel has been engaged in tick-tock releases (architecture change in one generation, die reduction in the next) for decades and hasn't seen a 20% performance improvement for some time.

I think you're applying an unnecessary filter to a naming convention.

 

[jav6454]

Intel has been engaged in tick-tock releases (architecture change in one generation, die reduction in the next) for decades and hasn't seen a 20% performance improvement for some time.

I think you're applying an unnecessary filter to a naming convention.

Furthermore, Intel's approach is different from ARM's and their licensees. Intel tended to stick to an architecture for for at least two releases. ARM releases new architecture revisions every year.

 

[izzy0242mr]

That's an entirely different can of worms. Windows Vista was the commercial name for Windows 6.0, Windows 7 was actually Windows 6.1 under the surface, and Windows 8(.1) was version 6.2(6.3). Windows 10 then made the jump to version 10.0, and Windows 11 has kept that number (the current release is version 10.0.22000.740).

Windows 5 and 6 (XP and Vista) were very different OSs at the system level. And 6-8 were all basically just Vista service packs with significant UI changes. So it makes sense that's the case. Win10 is still honestly more or less a Windows 6.4 (evolution of Win8) but the final service pack.

 

[izzy0242mr]

Hahaha I get the feeling some M1 owners really want to feel they’re not missing out on much. And yeah in reality one chip generation is usually not enough of a difference. So don’t worry, your old machine is fine.

2 sounds so much higher than 1 but you can essentially think of it as A14X vs A15X if it makes it feel better. Remember that is the naming scheme they used for this class of chips when they were only used in iPads.

Of course if you’ve followed the chip industry at all during the last two decades you know that performance and power efficiency increases don’t necessarily just follow a change of production node. Usually adapted architecture on a mature node yields the same kind of progress as when they switch to a new one. Like in this case. A solid 20%. I’d expect M3 to do a similar jump.

Another notable example was Intel Haswell’s power efficiency compared to the previous Ivy Bridge. Both 22nm. Architectural changes.

M2 is faster M1. M2 is sort of in between M1 and M1 Pro chips. It makes sense that at some point the entry level chip (M#) will be as good or better than the pro level chips (M# Pro/Max/Ultra). Basically like Intel's i3/i5/i7/i9 chips, although maybe Xeon is a better comparison for the Ultra chips. At any rate, eventually the newer low end chips beat the older high end chips. It's all just marketing lingo.

I have a base M1 Pro and I'm quite happy with my 14 MBP and expect to keep it for many years.

 

[Joshteflon]

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

absolutely

 

[ronjon10]

I'm calling it M12az439asd.

If you don't also, you're 100% wrong.

 

[betzerra]

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'm waiting for M4, it's gonna be faster than M3 😏

 

[izzy0242mr]

I'm waiting for M4, it's gonna be faster than M3 😏

You fool! I'm gonna beat all you chumps and wait for M5. It's gonna wipe M4 off the page.

 

[CJF93]

You fool! I'm gonna beat all you chumps and wait for M5. It's gonna wipe M4 off the page.

Ah, the powerful M5. Should be able to handle Stage Manager +

 

[ahurst]

Were some people expecting a 70-100% faster performance for the base chip in AS Macs for the M2? How much has Intel being bringing to the table from one gen to the next for the past decade?

I worked this out in another thread, but the single-core improvement in Intel’s top range consumer i7 from 2013 to 2020 was only 37% over 7 years (i7-4771 to i7-10700K), so an average improvement of ~5.2% per year.

I’m well aware of this because I decided I wouldn’t upgrade from my Late 2013 27” iMac until I could at least double my single-core performance. The fastest Intel iMac ever produced (Mid 2020 27”) only offered a 37% benefit after 7 long years, whereas my 14” MBP (and even the cheapest MBA and Mini) cleanly double its single core score.

If Apple can keep up a steady 10% yearly average improvement they’ll be well ahead of where they were during the Intel years.

 

[izzy0242mr]

Ah, the powerful M5. Should be able to handle Stage Manager +

I will be able to have apps on BOTH sides of the screen, rendering my usable screen space to a mere 60% of what it was before. I'll be unstoppable!

 

[CJF93]

I will be able to have apps on BOTH sides of the screen, rendering my usable screen space to a mere 60% of what it was before. I'll be unstoppable!

Had me sold at having apps on both sides of the screen. TAKE MY MONEY

 

[Unregistered 4U]

You fool! I'm gonna beat all you chumps and wait for M5. It's gonna wipe M4 off the page.

Amateurs, RANK AMATEURS! I can’t wait to see the look on your faces when I, having waited for M6, will have a system that wipes the M5 off the page!