Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

SouthPalito

macrumors member
Oct 7, 2021
88
142
Launching the M2 does not mean that the higher performing M1 chips, Pro/Max/Ultra, are outdated or are lesser than the M2. the M2 is not expected to be dramatically faster than the M1. Those performance variants will still be faster in most tasks than the base M2. Eventually (next year?) there will be M2 versions of those higher performing chips and they will be integrated into the computers with the M1 Pro/Max/Ultra.

Branding wise it is every confusing. They'd have to explain that that "2" doesn't mean what most people will believe it means.
 

Abazigal

Contributor
Jul 18, 2011
19,218
21,334
Singapore
Branding wise it is every confusing. They'd have to explain that that "2" doesn't mean what most people will believe it means.
Isn't that where the naming of the device comes in? Are there people who think that an M2 MBA will somehow have better performance than a 16" MBP or Mac Studio with an M1 Max chip?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CWallace

CWallace

macrumors G4
Aug 17, 2007
11,869
10,426
Seattle, WA
I honestly don't think it will be that confusing - especially with the "Pro", "Max" and "Ultra" suffixes. Folks who are technical will do the research ahead of time and those who are not will be depending on the Apple Store representative to help walk them though the options. There is also the model designations that Abazigal noted: A MacBook Pro or Mac Studio by their name kind of define who their target audience is compared to a MacBook Air or iMac.

And compared to the alphabet and numerical soup that is Intel and AMD... :p
 

Tagbert

macrumors 603
Jun 22, 2011
5,293
6,048
Seattle
Branding wise it is every confusing. They'd have to explain that that "2" doesn't mean what most people will believe it means.
The nice thing about that is that the people who need more performance will do some research to understand the different options and choose the computer that meets their needs. Those who are likely to be confused by the “2” and will choose the larger number are unlikley to need the extra performance of the Pro/Max chips anyway. If they choose the bigger number they will get the right chip for them - slightly faster for simple tasks. It works out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CWallace

SouthPalito

macrumors member
Oct 7, 2021
88
142
And compared to the alphabet and numerical soup that is Intel and AMD... :p

Thats why Apple has made their marketing different. Even in iphones where they still sell multiple older models, they reserve the "pro" and "pro max" categories to the latest iphone with the highest number to indicate its the latest. Maybe they dont even call it M2, but M1 semi-pro :p
 

GalileoSeven

macrumors 6502a
Jan 3, 2015
582
813
I honestly don't think it will be that confusing - especially with the "Pro", "Max" and "Ultra" suffixes. Folks who are technical will do the research ahead of time and those who are not will be depending on the Apple Store representative to help walk them though the options. There is also the model designations that Abazigal noted: A MacBook Pro or Mac Studio by their name kind of define who their target audience is compared to a MacBook Air or iMac.

And compared to the alphabet and numerical soup that is Intel and AMD... :p

Agreed - the names/model designations & corresponding price tags should make things clear enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tagbert

k9gardner

macrumors newbie
Mar 21, 2015
13
3
After reading this, and a few other articles, I'm just stuck on understanding one main thing. Which of the things that a typical "power user" or prosumer user does would benefit from better multi-core performance? I can't seem to get my head wrapped around this.

Having multiple Firefox windows open playing PiP video streams? Manipulating multiple largeish spreadsheets? Doing OCR on a 50-page scanned document? Running AnyDesk to manage several other computers? Designing brochures in InDesign? If none of these would benefit from what the Mac Studio has to offer, then perhaps it's best to stay with the Mac mini.

One thing I'll note though, I am not happy with the performance of the 8GB M1 mini for the above things that I mentioned. I get evidence of having reached capacity every day, in the form of choppy videos, laggy cursor (even typing an email sometimes is not immediately responsive), Apple screen effects sometimes are in slow motion (minimizing a window for example). I wish I had ignored all the comments indicating that the M1 was a magic box that could make 8GB feel like 16 on an Intel. It is simply not so. So for the additional 16 that comes with the Studio, as well as the blessed availability of the ports that people actually NEED, the Studio becomes particularly appealing. But... does it perform much better for the kind of stuff I'm doing? better than the mini, that is? Please share your thoughts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cape Dave

chucker23n1

macrumors G3
Dec 7, 2014
8,407
11,100
After reading this, and a few other articles, I'm just stuck on understanding one main thing. Which of the things that a typical "power user" or prosumer user does would benefit from better multi-core performance? I can't seem to get my head wrapped around this.

Having multiple Firefox windows open playing PiP video streams? Manipulating multiple largeish spreadsheets? Doing OCR on a 50-page scanned document? Running AnyDesk to manage several other computers? Designing brochures in InDesign? If none of these would benefit from what the Mac Studio has to offer, then perhaps it's best to stay with the Mac mini.

Keep in mind even the M1 is already 4+4 cores. The M1 Pro and change that to 6+2 or 8+2 cores, and the M1 Ultra to 16+4 cores. They also increase memory bandwidth (a lot of that can only be used by the GPU, though), and GPU cores. But the entire M1 family runs the same kinds of cores at the same clock.

I can see InDesign benefitting from a beefier CPU, but I suspect it doesn’t handle multi-core scenarios well.

One thing I'll note though, I am not happy with the performance of the 8GB M1 mini for the above things that I mentioned. I get evidence of having reached capacity every day, in the form of choppy videos, laggy cursor (even typing an email sometimes is not immediately responsive), Apple screen effects sometimes are in slow motion (minimizing a window for example). I wish I had ignored all the comments indicating that the M1 was a magic box that could make 8GB feel like 16 on an Intel. It is simply not so.

Yes, I’d say 8 is low-end at this point. Running macOS is more fun at 16.

Look in Activity Monitor’s Memory Pressure graph while you’re doing a lot of stuff. If it turns yellow or even red, yep, you need more RAM.

So for the additional 16 that comes with the Studio, as well as the blessed availability of the ports that people actually NEED, the Studio becomes particularly appealing. But... does it perform much better for the kind of stuff I'm doing? better than the mini, that is? Please share your thoughts.

I suspect it’s overpowered for your needs. Better to wait for a M2 Mac mini with 24 Gigs of RAM and get that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cape Dave

PinkyMacGodess

Suspended
Mar 7, 2007
10,271
6,225
Midwest America.
After reading this, and a few other articles, I'm just stuck on understanding one main thing. Which of the things that a typical "power user" or prosumer user does would benefit from better multi-core performance? I can't seem to get my head wrapped around this.

Having multiple Firefox windows open playing PiP video streams? Manipulating multiple largeish spreadsheets? Doing OCR on a 50-page scanned document? Running AnyDesk to manage several other computers? Designing brochures in InDesign? If none of these would benefit from what the Mac Studio has to offer, then perhaps it's best to stay with the Mac mini.

One thing I'll note though, I am not happy with the performance of the 8GB M1 mini for the above things that I mentioned. I get evidence of having reached capacity every day, in the form of choppy videos, laggy cursor (even typing an email sometimes is not immediately responsive), Apple screen effects sometimes are in slow motion (minimizing a window for example). I wish I had ignored all the comments indicating that the M1 was a magic box that could make 8GB feel like 16 on an Intel. It is simply not so. So for the additional 16 that comes with the Studio, as well as the blessed availability of the ports that people actually NEED, the Studio becomes particularly appealing. But... does it perform much better for the kind of stuff I'm doing? better than the mini, that is? Please share your thoughts.

I don't think that anyone personally uses 100% of a systems capabilities 100% of the time. It's like buying a fast car. Going to the corner store doesn't require 400 horsepower, but maybe running on a deserted highway at 2AM on a Sunday night does. Or running the spouse to the hospital. But when the user is doing something that takes a lot of time, that horsepower really can come in handy. Processing video/audio/large amounts of data, and you will wish for the added zoom.

When I sold computers, I tried to tell people not to try to gauge a computer to what they think they might need, but go for the biggest they could afford. Why? Buying retail means it's already 'old'. People afraid of buying a system that will be outdated in a year should buy big. Apple makes that even more imperative because your upgrade path is usually one huge pothole, surrounded my layers of razor wire. Buy Big. Buy Big often. Buy Big and be happy...

Heck, I bought a MBP I thought I would need at the time, and got a job where I really needed more storage and some umph in the chassis, and I was left having to buy another one. I spent some time wondering if I should 'buy big', and decided against it, and paid for it (literally).

And each one of us could become a 'prosumer'...

#BuyBig...
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.