Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

macguy360

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Feb 23, 2011
815
332
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?
 

macguy360

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Feb 23, 2011
815
332
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

macrumors 6502
Apr 25, 2020
357
220
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.
 

Tagbert

macrumors 68020
Jun 22, 2011
2,231
2,272
Seattle
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?
 
Last edited:

Zdigital2015

macrumors 68040
Jul 14, 2015
3,790
4,924
East Coast, United States
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.
 

bmustaf

macrumors 6502
Jul 6, 2007
298
261
Telluride, CO
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

macrumors Core
Nov 14, 2007
20,840
4,792
1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
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.
 

boss.king

macrumors 603
Apr 8, 2009
5,167
4,037
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

macrumors 68020
Jul 27, 2013
2,050
4,867
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eltoslightfoot

Abazigal

Contributor
Jul 18, 2011
16,327
16,159
Singapore
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

macrumors 68040
Jul 14, 2015
3,790
4,924
East Coast, United States
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

macrumors 68040
Jul 14, 2015
3,790
4,924
East Coast, United States
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Argoduck
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.