Devious marketing of M2

[MacsAre1]

Some sneaky marketing on Apple's part... This article points out that they're comparing the M2 Mac Mini to an older computer (2 generations back) and claiming it's 5x faster than this "bestselling PC." That's pretty devious. How does it compare to a current gen Intel CPU of a similar price? Apple's ARM chips sound great, but if they fudge the numbers here, where else are they fudging the numbers? I'm not sure if I can believe them.

The Mac Mini page also compares everything with the i7 Mac Mini as the baseline... Which came out in 2018 with a year old Intel CPU (8th Gen)... So compared to 5 generations ago I'd expect anything newer to be faster. In their benchmarks they include an i7 iMac, which is from 2020 and uses a 3 generations old Intel chip from 2019. I'd expect any chip in the same class to be faster today than one from 3-5 years ago. Notably, on some of the functions listed the M1 Mini was slower than the i7 iMac. The M2 beats them all... So congratulations, the M2 is finally faster than a Mac from 2020. But how does it compare with its true competition, a current PC running on the latest Intel or AMD chipsets? You can tout nm all you want but if the performance isn't there, what's the point? Power usage is a big selling point for the laptops but few people care about power usage on a desktop.

Apple, cut the crap and give us some real numbers to compare you performance with the competition.

Apple's performance comparisons to Windows PCs continue to be hilarious and ridiculous

The fruit company just can't help itself, can it?

www.windowscentral.com

 

[Sydde]

You can tout nm all you want but if the performance isn't there, what's the point? Power usage is a big selling point for the laptops but few people care about power usage on a desktop.

The Mini is a base model Mac. You buy it because you want a good Mac on your desk, not because you want the most amazing thing out there. My understanding is that Intel-based devices tend to sound like airfields while taxing an M-series machine to egg-frying temps is darn difficult, even with heavy workloads. A Mini-targeted customer will appreciate that.

 

[Colstan]

For the most part, Apple typically compares numbers to the previous generations of Mac, and only occasionally trots out numbers against PCs. There are certain areas, such as energy efficiency, where Apple Silicon leads. Concerning raw performance, a PC desktop with no thermal, size or noise limitations will be superior.

However, for me personally, the most important metric is: does it run macOS? If the answer is no, then I will not be making a purchase from that manufacturer.

 

[i486dx2-66]

compares everything with the i7 Mac Mini as the baseline...
In their benchmarks they include an i7 iMac...

Apple, cut the crap

It's not crap - Apple is basing comparisons on machines existing Apple customers are upgrading from.

As a 2018 Mini owner, having the new comparisons be baselined on the 2018 was exceedingly helpful. This is a machine that was still available in the store up until the M2 release, so comparing "what you could have bought yesterday" with what just came out is a valid thing to do.

The iMac comparisons are also deliberate. We've been waiting and speculating on an Apple Silicon 27" iMac for years. Apple publicly benchmarking the M2 Minis against the last Intel iMac is Apple's way of telling us a big AS iMac isn't coming anytime soon, and that a Mini + ASD is our path. That's valuable information regardless of the benchmark numbers. 👍

 

[MacsAre1]

For the most part, Apple typically compares numbers to the previous generations of Mac, and only occasionally trots out numbers against PCs. There are certain areas, such as energy efficiency, where Apple Silicon leads. Concerning raw performance, a PC desktop with no thermal, size or noise limitations will be superior.

However, for me personally, the most important metric is: does it run macOS? If the answer is no, then I will not be making a purchase from that manufacturer.

And that's a problem. In the PPC era Apple almost always gave us numbers to compare Mac performance against PCs... At least when they were competitive. The fact that they can't give us numbers against real competition casts doubt on their whole touting of their ARM chips being better than Intel.

And like I said, we're talking desktops--energy efficiency is not a huge selling point. And you could compare to a mini PC or NUC in a similar form factor--no need to compare it to a tower.

What OS a system runs is becoming less and less relevant. For the most part you can get what you need to get done on any OS. Unless you're playing games, in which case better to get one running Windows.

 

[MacsAre1]

It's not crap - Apple is basing comparisons on machines existing Apple customers are upgrading from.

As a 2018 Mini owner, having the new comparisons be baselined on the 2018 was exceedingly helpful. This is a machine that was still available in the store up until the M2 release, so comparing "what you could have bought yesterday" with what just came out is a valid thing to do.

The iMac comparisons are also deliberate. We've been waiting and speculating on an Apple Silicon 27" iMac for years. Apple publicly benchmarking the M2 Minis against the last Intel iMac is Apple's way of telling us a big AS iMac isn't coming anytime soon, and that a Mini + ASD is our path. That's valuable information regardless of the benchmark numbers. 👍

A 2018 computer still being available for purchase on Apple's website as of Monday justifies nothing. Helpful for you and other owners of the system, sure--but you could buy the exact same model used on eBay for half the price. If ARM were that much better than Intel they could have discontinued that model when they released the M1 Mini. Some people are not tied to just one platform, and want to know what Apple has to offer to make it worth their while. You could get an HP Pro Mini with a 12th Gen i5 for a similar price; how does it compare to that or something else current?

The outdated Mini that was still being sold and a Mac Pro that hasn't been updated since 2019 (and since 2013 before that...), combined with devious tactics like this, just proves that Apple does not truly care about users who need performance, whether on a budget or professionals with deep pockets. Apple touted when they switched to ARM that it had more to offer than Intel; so prove it to us. Comparing it to a computer that was previously discontinued or not updated for years does not prove that ARM is a better CPU, and does not demonstrate that their decision to switch was worth it.

 

[FreakinEurekan]

And that's a problem. In the PPC era Apple almost always gave us numbers to compare Mac performance against PCs... At least when they were competitive. The fact that they can't give us numbers against real competition casts doubt on their whole touting of their ARM chips being better than Intel.

And like I said, we're talking desktops--energy efficiency is not a huge selling point. And you could compare to a mini PC or NUC in a similar form factor--no need to compare it to a tower.

What OS a system runs is becoming less and less relevant. For the most part you can get what you need to get done on any OS. Unless you're playing games, in which case better to get one running Windows.

In the PPC era, Apple was trying to draw PC customers to Mac. I think it’s perfectly legitimate to compare to other Macs given their current market share.

 

[Lihp8270]

It's not crap - Apple is basing comparisons on machines existing Apple customers are upgrading from.

As a 2018 Mini owner, having the new comparisons be baselined on the 2018 was exceedingly helpful. This is a machine that was still available in the store up until the M2 release, so comparing "what you could have bought yesterday" with what just came out is a valid thing to do.

The iMac comparisons are also deliberate. We've been waiting and speculating on an Apple Silicon 27" iMac for years. Apple publicly benchmarking the M2 Minis against the last Intel iMac is Apple's way of telling us a big AS iMac isn't coming anytime soon, and that a Mini + ASD is our path. That's valuable information regardless of the benchmark numbers. 👍

So if Intel compared their new cpu performance to a 3 year old cpu you would have the same opinion?

 

[bobcomer]

The Mini is a base model Mac. You buy it because you want a good Mac on your desk, not because you want the most amazing thing out there. My understanding is that Intel-based devices tend to sound like airfields while taxing an M-series machine to egg-frying temps is darn difficult, even with heavy workloads. A Mini-targeted customer will appreciate that.

My 2020 Intel Mac Mini is the quietest PC I have. Much quieter than my Mac Studio or Windows PC.

 

[v0lume4]

Apple has, for a long time, been quite dubious with their performance comparison charts.

 

[MrCheeto]

For the most part you can get what you need to get done on any OS

You could also get to work by commuting on the highway for thirty-minutes...or walking 💁‍♀️ If it ain't MacOS, it ain't for me. If I absolutely had no Apple options then I admit that I'd turn to Windows XP.

I do remember when Apple was transitioning to Intel they proudly and conspicuously posted benchmarks of not only the G5 vs. Mac Pro but of year-over-year improvements in the Mac Pro. I know for a fact that the first gen Mac Pro was compared to a G5 and I'm almost certain that the 2009 Mac Pro (when I almost bought it at that time) showed benchmarks vs. the 2008 model.

It would be in Apple's better interests to show improvement over last-years model. Apple people are characterized as obsessing over trends and nouveauté mostly because it's true. If the new MBP's and Mini models are just fresh guts then the trendsters won't have something to show off at the barcade. This is one of the reasons for exclusive color selections for certain products in given years. If somebody is holding out from upgrading because there isn't that much different then they may finally be compelled when they see that the last model is bested by a good margin by the new one and that the machine they currently own is only a fraction as fast as the latest. Both metrics have value.

To say that they're being devious is kind of a reach. They aren't being forthcoming but they aren't concealing anything. I upgrade every ten-years and wouldn't mind seeing how my Mac compared to one that is a decade-newer!

If you want to hunt the devious corporations start keeping track of the brands sending ringers to the "social influencers" for review This is a practice that is apparently ongoing.

 

[GMShadow]

"Here's how much faster this new model is than the one you're probably upgrading from."

Much devious. Very deception.

 

[Jimmdean]

Apple is comparing to a desktop of similar size/form-factor and to a point thermal envelope. It's not their fault Intel (and AMD for that matter) lag behind in that area, particularly in GPU strength. Why should Apple compare their small-form-factor desktop to a full-size tower? If you are looking for a non-arm comparison for the m2 mac mini the best one you are going to find is the last intel mac mini.

 

[ajf.350d]

I think the moral is, never listen to the manufacturer.
There are enough geekbench scores and similar around for it be fairly easy to get an unbiased idea of performance.
They may not replicate real life usage all the time, but the results should be consistent enough to give an idea Against other competing hardware.

At least I hope so as I looked at them before buying a MacBook Pro.😄

 

[PsykX]

So if Intel compared their new cpu performance to a 3 year old cpu you would have the same opinion?

They're comparing to themselves instead of comparing to the competition.
It's understandable and it's not "crap".
But for a consumer, the truth is, for a well informed decision, you also need to know what the competition is doing.

Basically what their marketing translates to is just how bad the old Intel Mac Mini was. Let's put it this way : it sucked.

A LOT.​

I actually feel bad for anyone who purchased one since the M1 came out. It was almost criminal to sell a machine like this, especially for such a high price point.

 

[cthompson94]

Some sneaky marketing on Apple's part... This article points out that they're comparing the M2 Mac Mini to an older computer (2 generations back) and claiming it's 5x faster than this "bestselling PC." That's pretty devious. How does it compare to a current gen Intel CPU of a similar price? Apple's ARM chips sound great, but if they fudge the numbers here, where else are they fudging the numbers? I'm not sure if I can believe them.

The Mac Mini page also compares everything with the i7 Mac Mini as the baseline... Which came out in 2018 with a year old Intel CPU (8th Gen)... So compared to 5 generations ago I'd expect anything newer to be faster. In their benchmarks they include an i7 iMac, which is from 2020 and uses a 3 generations old Intel chip from 2019. I'd expect any chip in the same class to be faster today than one from 3-5 years ago. Notably, on some of the functions listed the M1 Mini was slower than the i7 iMac. The M2 beats them all... So congratulations, the M2 is finally faster than a Mac from 2020. But how does it compare with its true competition, a current PC running on the latest Intel or AMD chipsets? You can tout nm all you want but if the performance isn't there, what's the point? Power usage is a big selling point for the laptops but few people care about power usage on a desktop.

Apple, cut the crap and give us some real numbers to compare you performance with the competition.

Apple's performance comparisons to Windows PCs continue to be hilarious and ridiculous

The fruit company just can't help itself, can it?

www.windowscentral.com

See I feel kind of in the middle with this marketing... on one side I personally would prefer the comparisons to be on the latest gen stuff to test current gen vs. current gen. On the other side I see why they would choose to compare the current model against the claimed "best selling PC" especially if they are trying to get the people who would be included in this demographic to possibly switch. As much as technology and computers have entered in our lives, the vast majority do still go to their Walmart, Target, Best Buy, whatever and ask the associate "Which computer should I buy doing XYZ" so if the majority do still do this I can see Apple basically targeting/attracting this group. It is more impactful to use "best selling PC" vs putting up the specs of that PC or even current gen specs because face it the majority wouldn't know what that means anyway.

Edit: Adding that my reply also goes to the Mac buyer demographic. I know I have been in the Apple store a few times and heard that quote almost word for word "Which Mac do I need for XYZ"

 

[MauiPa]

They clearly said best selling. That most likely does not include the latest and greatest from Intel, and no reasonable person would think so, so no, just no. The premise for complaint is flawed

Intels latest and greatest are energy hogs and hot hot hot. Even though they are getting better, that is still the case.

Now I guess you could make your case by finding a link to a comparably specked pc. And could compare geekbench scores, weight battery life, price. And by all means make sure the SSD is fast and the display is comparable. Many times I have seen “comparables” that werent

 

[Unregistered 4U]

The Mini is a base model Mac. You buy it because you want a good Mac on your desk, not because you want the most amazing thing out there. My understanding is that Intel-based devices tend to sound like airfields while taxing an M-series machine to egg-frying temps is darn difficult, even with heavy workloads. A Mini-targeted customer will appreciate that.

And when they’re NOT loud, they’re slow.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

They clearly said best selling. That most likely does not include the latest and greatest from Intel, and no reasonable person would think so, so no, just no. The premise for complaint is flawed

I actually liked that quote and understood exactly what it meant. For the majority people sitting in front of the PC they’re watching that video on, Apple’s saying that their system is likely 5 times faster (since that best selling computer is nowhere near the 6GHz behemoths Intel wants everyone to believe is in literally every PC in the world! LOL

Apple’s WORST performing processor still, the M1, pegs its performance above the most of the PC’s being sold even today. At some point Intel will provide a roadmap of their future designs and ALL of them will be more performant than Apple’s M1. But, by that time, their high end will be 8Ghz and 900 watts!

 

[bombardier10]

Who is the KING ?

cinebenchr23-macstorm8 by Macstorm Macstorm - Infogram

infogram.com

 

[Unregistered 4U]

However, for me personally, the most important metric is: does it run macOS? If the answer is no, then I will not be making a purchase from that manufacturer.

The fact that they can't give us numbers against real competition casts doubt on their whole touting of their ARM chips being better than Intel.

I think it more firmly confirms what Apple likely thinks and that the user above posted. MacOS is a ‘known quantity’ in the tech world now and, even for the millions that don’t own a computer yet, there’s a decent number of them where the first question is “is it a Mac” before anything else. As long as that continues to be the case (and half of the Macs sold in a given year are to new buyers) then it doesn’t benefit those users who will actually buy machines how much faster than a PC a Mac is.

Fact is, anything your average person buys today is going to be far more system than they will ever get full use out of. To them, that a PC is, maybe, faster-than-faster-than-they’ll-ever-need doesn’t mean much.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Who is the KING ?

cinebenchr23-macstorm8 by Macstorm Macstorm - Infogram

infogram.com

What I think would be quite instructive would be a chart of how many folks are actually running each of those variants. EVERY Apple Silicon Mac ever made is 7,000 or better. How many of the VAST number of PC’s out there fall below the M1?

 

[orionquest]

It's marketing that is their job to get you interested in the product, great you didn't fall for the hook but you are still looking at the product.

Are you going to buy one? Or just bitch'in because you want to be a squeaky wheel?

 

[boss.king]

As a ground rule, just take whatever a company tells you about their product and store it in that special filing cabinet called the recycling bin. Companies will never show their products in anything but the most flattering light, and even the ones that are relatively open about this practice or even call others out are still cherry-picking their results. I can't even really blame them, it's a business and they have to compete for every dollar.

Wait for independent reviews from multiple sources that you trust, or try to use the product in a real-world scenario if you can.

 

[SpotOnT]

You could get an HP Pro Mini with a 12th Gen i5 for a similar price; how does it compare to that or something else current?

How do you want it compared? Real world performance is completely dependent on the software and how it is optimized. The only way you can make that comparison is test it with what you want to use*.

If all you want compared is a benchmark score, Geekbench results are publicly available.

I really don't understand why you seem so outraged by this.


*Apple tends to use Final Cut for their improvement vs previous generation comments. Final Cut doesn't run on Windows.