If the M1 was impressive, the M2 is nothing short on features or improvement. I dislike Apple's business model and consumer policy, but what they accomplished with M1&M2, it's amazing. Maybe x86 is in dire need of a paradigm shift? We can only assume. Let's wait and see.

tty8k:

I think the 35% faster GPU is not correctly explained (by Apple). It's should be less if we count per graphics core, because they added 2 cores (8 vs 10) so 25% more cores vs M1, meaning the performance increase per core is around 5%.

I agree that with apple it is unclear as it is within their own OS, to be clear the 1st version of the M1 (without Max or Ultra) is a bit above a GTX 1050 in raw power. So this M2 should have a nice graphic part (AMD or Intel should take exemple on it).

haste:

Don't even consider it for gaming, it's terrible. And for productivity tasks, the GPU doesn't matter.

Is a ultra thin or light notebook. There are no good gaming notebook in that area, with many hours of battery life. I bet i can play wow decent anyway, and a lot of other non demanding existing mac games from steam

anticupidon:

If the M1 was impressive, the M2 is nothing short on features or improvement. I dislike Apple's business model and consumer policy, but what they accomplished with M1&M2, it's amazing. Maybe x86 is in dire need of a paradigm shift? We can only assume. Let's wait and see.

I agree 100% percent. On the desktop where power consumption is not as much of an issue X86 still has some life in it. For laptops and portables where power efficiency is as important as performance X86 can't compete. Intel and AMD should invest designing custom ARM cores for laptops and build up from there.

haste:

Don't even consider it for gaming, it's terrible. And for productivity tasks, the GPU doesn't matter.

M2 or M1 are both excellent for productivity, especially for optimized apps. Gaming has not been a high priority for Apple and only recently have they started paying more attention to it.

anticupidon:

If the M1 was impressive, the M2 is nothing short on features or improvement. I dislike Apple's business model and consumer policy, but what they accomplished with M1&M2, it's amazing. Maybe x86 is in dire need of a paradigm shift? We can only assume. Let's wait and see.

What we need is not a paradigm shift, what we need is more competition in a truly capitalist sense instead of a damn oligopoly maintained by abusive and ridiculous US patent laws. And to be clear, what I'm complaining about is intel/amd holding patents over the "api signatures" of x86 and x64 respectively. Those patents block any new competitor by simple locking down the syntax of the processor instructions (not the way those instructions are executed by a circuit which is the real, valuable R&D that needs protection). Pretty much the same as Oracle vs Google on the java API case....

I am waiting for ipad to have M1 which supposed to drasticly increase battery time like does on iphones that use it, but it would seem ipad air that does use M1 still only rated for 10 hours did they cheap out on battery when doing so?

anticupidon:

Maybe x86 is in dire need of a paradigm shift?

That's not really possible. The #1 reason for choosing x86-64 is due to widespread compatibility and the use of a firmware-based bootloader. x86 carries a lot of baggage of outdated instructions for the sake of compatibility. For open-source users, it's not that hard to switch to any other architecture, but most software that people use for fun or for work is closed source and not ported. For Mac and iOS users, they're used to Apple forcing their market to change, and Apple can optimize accordingly. For Intel or AMD to cause a paradigm shift, they're going to have to break backward compatibility. Neither of them are willing to do this, as it would be a major detriment to their reputation. Just look at all the flak Intel got because of mostly temporary breakages caused by the E and P cores. Overall, both Intel and AMD do a great job at maximizing performance-per-watt for their chips. The problem is, they keep pushing inefficient clock speeds (clock and wattage do not scale linearly) and the bulkiness of the architecture makes it scale down poorly too. I get the impression that keeping these chips in the low 4GHz range is their sweet spot for maximum efficiency, and is achievable in laptops. Anyone who wants good performance-per-watt on a mobile platform is better off with ARM.

tty8k:

Ipad already has M1. Look for Ipad Air, many saying that is better or equal to pro at this point, while being slightly cheaper

I know ipad AIR has m1 i waiting for ipad model does. i hoping battery life would almost double like iphones that got M1 did but if go by what AIR is which still roughly 10 hours that battery life increase probably isnt happen. my Dad got ipad air for free when brought his old ipad air in to get battery replace cause didnt even last 1 hour before dying, they told him they dont replace battery for that and just gave him the new ipad air. and battery life isnt much better then my 2021 ipad

I might grab a Mac Mini M2 at some point, just to package some apps for iOS.

anticupidon:

If the M1 was impressive, the M2 is nothing short on features or improvement. I dislike Apple's business model and consumer policy, but what they accomplished with M1&M2, it's amazing. Maybe x86 is in dire need of a paradigm shift? We can only assume. Let's wait and see.

An ISA is not a micro-architecture. Guess what, in the Top500 newest x86-64 HPE are far more efficient than the best ARM64 samples you will find.