Apple M2 Review: Can It Keep Up with AMD and Intel?

[Tom Yum]

Great review. Shows that the M2 is a great chip, but it isn't magic either. Consistent node advantages (and higher pricing) has allowed Apple to go wide and slow with its designs rather than narrow and fast like Alder Lake/Zen3 which aids power efficiency, alongside more extensive use of hardware accelerators thanks to Apple's greater vertical integration. End result is an awesome chip for 'content creators', and a good chip for general use. It is just a shame that Apple really don't seem to care about gaming (from a software and dev support perspective), as the hardware is obviously capable.

Personally I am not a content creator, so I'll be sticking with x86, but hopefully it keeps spurring Intel and AMD on to keep driving single thread performance and power efficiency. I'm not loving the current push for single thread performance at the expense of power efficiency as seen in Alder Lake, but hopefully that will resolve as Intel catches up node-wise with TSMC.

 

[trieste1s]

"More denser"
"More cheaper"

You're killing me, people.

Clearly it's "denserer" and "cheaperer", people!

 

[kylito1997]

Now let's see that "impressive" part:

- Clock speed only 3.5 GHz, pathetic.
- Non-expandable memory, that's under all metrics.
- Do we even need to talk about how "well" Apple handles backwards compatibility?

Considering those points, M.2 is overall pretty much crap.

- Clock speed really doesn't matter. As you can see the M2 outpaces many modern high-end CPUs in single threaded tasks per the benchmarks. It's like looking at RAM and thinking '5200Mhz, vrrm vrrm' without checking the cas latency.

- Unfortunately due to the architecture of ARM, it's going to be non-expandable by its very nature. This is true of all ARM devices, even open-source projects like the Raspberry Pi have this limitation due to unified memory access.

- The switch between architectures has been handled pretty well all things considered. Many older x86_64 programs work just fine through Rosetta 2, the one area that doesn't work is Windows emulation, with the ARM based chips sacrificing things like boot camp. However, for most users, the software we need works fine on MacOS. I'm a programmer, and I have zero issues using Apple Silicon devices for what I do.

 

[Puiu]

Even when AMD moves to TSMC N5 next year, I still doubt AMD nor Intel would have the same efficiency as Apple M1 or M2. that's just how different the combination of custom Arm silicon with vertically integrated OS compared to x86 CPU with Windows.

still, what matters is that M2 are better if you're video or photo editor. but x86 are far more cheaper and still fast enough.

To be fair, the video editing we've done at our company on the M1 Pro is very lacklustre. So is anything 3D related.

Everything was much faster on PC and with less issues, although it might just be for our use case. It doesn't help that Apple is very expensive too.

 

[HardReset]

- Clock speed really doesn't matter. As you can see the M2 outpaces many modern high-end CPUs in single threaded tasks per the benchmarks. It's like looking at RAM and thinking '5200Mhz, vrrm vrrm' without checking the cas latency.

Apple chip has integrated memory on chip, AMD and Intel do not have. From that we can draw conclusion that clock speed does not matter

- Unfortunately due to the architecture of ARM, it's going to be non-expandable by its very nature. This is true of all ARM devices, even open-source projects like the Raspberry Pi have this limitation due to unified memory access.

I don't think I understand this one.

- The switch between architectures has been handled pretty well all things considered. Many older x86_64 programs work just fine through Rosetta 2, the one area that doesn't work is Windows emulation, with the ARM based chips sacrificing things like boot camp. However, for most users, the software we need works fine on MacOS. I'm a programmer, and I have zero issues using Apple Silicon devices for what I do.

Modern Intel and AMD CPUs handle very well 68K era software. M.2 does not despite Apple used 68K .

 

[bexwhitt]

I'm not sure a m2 MacBook Air would be a good idea, atm it's the perfect light use machine, adding a more powerful SOC would mean it would thermally throttle even more than it does now if pushed. Because I bet Apple will just slap the new M2 SOC without changing the pitiful cooling it has atm their track record on this says so.

 

[Lionvibez]

Second, get the memory you need when you buy the device. In a few years when you need to upgrade you'll likely need to upgrade the CPU or GPU or SSDs as well and you'll buy a different computer then. The Apple laptops can be bought with all the memory you need today. You can get up to 64G on a MB Pro. That's plenty for these devices.

You have some good points but I will respond to this one specifically.

Most PC users and more so those of us that build our own machines tend to not go full out on memory at the start then in 2+ years or so drop more memory into the system as the need comes. This does not included windows laptops with soldered memory. Usually the memory prices have gone down in the time frame aswell. So being forced to buy all the memory up front is not a good thing for someone in that mind set and in fact a negative thing for us.

And when I look to buy a windows laptop today it has to give me the ability to upgrade the memory at my leisure or I won't buy it at all.

 

[Puiu]

I'd say those 3 talking points are pretty weak.

First, who cares what the clock speed is? It's like comparing cars and saying, this car is better because it has 8 cylinders. But the other car is a bi-turbo 6 and will blow the doors off the 8 in the quarter mile. But feel good because you have 2 extra cylinders

Second, get the memory you need when you buy the device. In a few years when you need to upgrade you'll likely need to upgrade the CPU or GPU or SSDs as well and you'll buy a different computer then. The Apple laptops can be bought with all the memory you need today. You can get up to 64G on a MB Pro. That's plenty for these devices.

Not sure what you mean about backward compatibility but MacOS on ARM has fared far better than Windows on ARM. Windows RT anyone? Apple has a pretty good track record of supporting older devices. Microsoft, on the other hand, obsoleted millions of PCs over a TPM module, now that's backwards compatibility for you.

And that's where you are mistaken, workstation upgradability is very important. There is no "it's enough now", or "you'll just buy a new one in several years".

Most people will use such expensive workstations for very long time and I often get calls about upgrading them (and yes, I even upgraded the RAM on older Apple workstations before).

Most people also don't buy the top end configuration and they don't know that they can't just add more RAM/storage later.

 

[rmcrys]

... offering only some sort of emulation that is either slow or very slow. Dropping support for older software makes CPU design much easier but for Some reasons AMD and Intel still choose to support decades old instuction sets on hardware level. Apple does not.

That's one fact why M.2 is not so impressive...

- most of "decades old" software doesn't matter because it is...old and it means, it needs be updated. And that compatibility increases the hardware complexity and limits the evolution, so those few that need that compatibility can stick with the old hardware (and most compatibility can be done in the software). Also the M2 and M1 are made for the future and near past not for decades old software. Even so, the software emulation is great (I have an M1, my first Mac).

About other comments on upgrading:
- RAM upgrades mean nothing on most PC or smartphones as they are meant to be tight built so think how long you will need a Mac and how much memory you will need. I still have two 8 GB RAM PCs (i5 Asus laptop & SP8, on both the ram is soldered) and I work with everything. If I planned on doing heavy work I would have gone i7 + 16 GB RAM.

- the SSD is the only thing that are more prone to get damaged or the size is unfit. On this matter Apple is HORRIBLE. Apple should put removable M.2 SSDs or charge a low price for higher capacity models (as $100 more for going from 256 GB to 1 TB). Also the price Apple asks, 512 GB & 16 GB RAM should be the bare minimum.

I bought a Mac Mini M1, the base model, and I love the editing software, but MacOS is HORRIBLE for anything else. It will be my first and last Mac if I can't dual boot

 

[HardReset]

- most of "decades old" software doesn't matter because it is...old and it means, it needs be updated. And that compatibility increases the hardware complexity and limits the evolution, so those few that need that compatibility can stick with the old hardware (and most compatibility can be done in the software). Also the M2 and M1 are made for the future and near past not for decades old software. Even so, the software emulation is great (I have an M1, my first Mac).

Software emulation is always either slower or more problematic than hardware support. Or both. You are essentially saying both AMD and Intel are stupid as they sell gazillion CPUs per year that support decades old software. Looking at sales figures, they are not.

 

[eradicator09]

I certainly agree with the conclusions that Win PCs still have a competitive advantage in cost when it comes to the new Macs. Where it isn't even close is the significant PC options below the $1000 range. I recently had to pick up two laptops for my twins entering high school. I went with the HP Envy x360 and an AMD 5625U CPU. Best Buy had them for $499.99 and there just isn't anything close that wasn't a Chromebook that could compete. Both laptops together were cheaper than a Macbook Air with the M2.

 

[waclark]

You have some good points but I will respond to this one specifically.

Most PC users and more so those of us that build our own machines tend to not go full out on memory at the start then in 2+ years or so drop more memory into the system as the need comes. This does not included windows laptops with soldered memory. Usually the memory prices have gone down in the time frame aswell. So being forced to buy all the memory up front is not a good thing for someone in that mind set and in fact a negative thing for us.

And when I look to buy a windows laptop today it has to give me the ability to upgrade the memory at my leisure or I won't buy it at all.

Most people aren't building laptops, are they? I can see this on a desktop/tower machine because you can upgrade not only memory but CPU, GPU and more. On a laptop, you're pretty much stuck with the CPU and so, at some point more memory isn't going to be the bottleneck.

When I buy a laptop, I buy as much memory as I think I need. By the time I need more memory, I'll also want a new CPU or GPU so I'll upgrade the whole laptop.

 

[waclark]

And that's where you are mistaken, workstation upgradability is very important. There is no "it's enough now", or "you'll just buy a new one in several years".

Most people will use such expensive workstations for very long time and I often get calls about upgrading them (and yes, I even upgraded the RAM on older Apple workstations before).

Most people also don't buy the top end configuration and they don't know that they can't just add more RAM/storage later.

A MacBook Air and 13" Pro are not really workstations, are they? Since they are the only options for M2 and your choices are 8-16-24, I'd say that's a pretty easy choice to make up front, especially if I thought I was going to run workstation loads on it.

I sold workstations for years. I know the lifecycle of these things, at least in a corporate world. I get that upgradability is important, for some things. In the case of M2 laptops, I don't see memory upgradability as a show stopper and it certainly has very little bearing on whether M2 is a good CPU or not.

Now, if you want to talk about lack of 32/64G memory configurations, that might be a fair point.

 

[hahahanoobs]

I understand TS's review is more about the silicon, but as a laptop....

 

[rmcrys]

Software emulation is always either slower or more problematic than hardware support. Or both. You are essentially saying both AMD and Intel are stupid as they sell gazillion CPUs per year that support decades old software. Looking at sales figures, they are not.

You are wrong about both ideas:
- software emulation is slower than hardware support, but if you are emulating an old x86 software that ran on a P4, on a actual CPU that is muuuuuch faster and has circuits that helps emulating, than at the end you end with a much faster result than with that software + P4.

- AMD/ INTEL already changed some hardware internally that rearrange old 32-bit code and runs it on a 64-bit circuits. Even so, they will end soon legacy hardware or chips will be to big and complex. Windows is also changing to 64-bit completely, so it's just a matter of some couple of years before we see a line for "future" chips and a small line of "legacy" CPUs.

 

[Puiu]

A MacBook Air and 13" Pro are not really workstations, are they? Since they are the only options for M2 and your choices are 8-16-24, I'd say that's a pretty easy choice to make up front, especially if I thought I was going to run workstation loads on it.

I sold workstations for years. I know the lifecycle of these things, at least in a corporate world. I get that upgradability is important, for some things. In the case of M2 laptops, I don't see memory upgradability as a show stopper and it certainly has very little bearing on whether M2 is a good CPU or not.

Now, if you want to talk about lack of 32/64G memory configurations, that might be a fair point.

Macbook Pro are considered workstations since, beyond the M1 Max in the Studio, it is the best Apple has to offer and they're targeted at professionals (designers and video editors).

I would have loved to upgrade the RAM and SSD in some of the older systems since they could have still been used even now, but most photoshop/illustrator projects have grown in size tremendously in recent years. Could have extended their usefulness by at least 3 years.

 

[HardReset]

You are wrong about both ideas:
- software emulation is slower than hardware support, but if you are emulating an old x86 software that ran on a P4, on a actual CPU that is muuuuuch faster and has circuits that helps emulating, than at the end you end with a much faster result than with that software + P4.

- AMD/ INTEL already changed some hardware internally that rearrange old 32-bit code and runs it on a 64-bit circuits. Even so, they will end soon legacy hardware or chips will be to big and complex. Windows is also changing to 64-bit completely, so it's just a matter of some couple of years before we see a line for "future" chips and a small line of "legacy" CPUs.

- That applies if we are talking about very old CPUs. But if we go back to P4 era, at that time no CPU could run things faster than P4 using just software emulation. In other words, CPU that runs much faster on software do not exist until distant future. Applies to today's CPUs too.

- They have prioritized certain instructions long time. Very rarely used are executed via microcode. Even if CPUs would be internally 64-bit only, using microcode for 32-bit would probably still be faster than pure software emulation. That's why I highly doubt there will be x86-64 only CPUs for long time.

While Windows is 64-bit, there are still 32-bit Windows systems out. So developers only make 32-bit software since it works on both 32- and 64-bit systems. That will change, I agree but it will take time

 

[rmcrys]

While Windows is 64-bit, there are still 32-bit Windows systems out. So developers only make 32-bit software since it works on both 32- and 64-bit systems. That will change, I agree but it will take time

Which big developers use 32-bit only in 2022? Aren't you confused with... 64-bit only?!

Most things have a 64- bit version (or only) and Microsoft will soon retire 32-bit, believe me.

Apple: 64 bit only, mobile and computers
Most smartphone brands: 64- bit only
Windows/ PC: most big apps are 64- bit only (at most have extra a 32-bit version).

 

[Lionvibez]

Most people aren't building laptops, are they? I can see this on a desktop/tower machine because you can upgrade not only memory but CPU, GPU and more. On a laptop, you're pretty much stuck with the CPU and so, at some point more memory isn't going to be the bottleneck.

When I buy a laptop, I buy as much memory as I think I need. By the time I need more memory, I'll also want a new CPU or GPU so I'll upgrade the whole laptop.

Quote where I said people are building laptops?

 

[waclark]

Macbook Pro are considered workstations since, beyond the M1 Max in the Studio, it is the best Apple has to offer and they're targeted at professionals (designers and video editors).

I would have loved to upgrade the RAM and SSD in some of the older systems since they could have still been used even now, but most photoshop/illustrator projects have grown in size tremendously in recent years. Could have extended their usefulness by at least 3 years.

I wouldn't consider a 13 inch device a "workstation". I think that device was designed around portability not high-end workloads. Can it be made into a "workstation", sure, but I don't see that as its main purpose.

PS - didn't some of the older Macs include the ability to upgrade memory? I thought some of the high end desktops had that ability.

 

[waclark]

Quote where I said people are building laptops?

You talked about building machines and included a statement about laptops with soldered in memory. It was implied.

"Most PC users and more so those of us that build our own machines tend to not go full out on memory at the start then in 2+ years or so drop more memory into the system as the need comes. This does not included windows laptops with soldered memory."

I feel that a home built desktop/laptop has more requirement for upgradable memory than a laptop. With laptops you can mostly upgrade storage and sometimes memory. Even some laptops that can be upgraded are limited. I just took an old Acer and upgraded the memory. It was limited because 4G was soldered in and I could only add a single stick up to 8G, for a total of 12G. Honestly, it didn't make that much difference in performance. (PS it wasn't my laptop).

With a custom built machine you can upgrade CPU, GPU, memory, storage and more. I tend to buy laptops loaded up since I know I can't upgrade CPU/GPU.

 

[HardReset]

Which big developers use 32-bit only in 2022? Aren't you confused with... 64-bit only?!

Most things have a 64- bit version (or only) and Microsoft will soon retire 32-bit, believe me.

Apple: 64 bit only, mobile and computers
Most smartphone brands: 64- bit only
Windows/ PC: most big apps are 64- bit only (at most have extra a 32-bit version).

Most are 64-bit but again, 32-bit version works on both 32-bit and 64-bit versions. So offering 32-bit only is easier one.

For example Spotify does not have 64-bit Windows client.

 

[Lionvibez]

You talked about building machines and included a statement about laptops with soldered in memory. It was implied.

Well as the person who wrote the original statement your assumption is incorrect. When have we ever had the ability to build our own laptops?

 

[waclark]

Well as the person who wrote the original statement your assumption is incorrect. When have we ever had the ability to build our own laptops?

Exactly, we don't build laptops. So bringing up build-your-own computer isn't relevant to whether memory expansion is a requirement for laptops. As far as I know M2 is only available in laptops, today.

And, furthermore, to the OP points, the performance of M2 and memory expansion are really 2 different topics. One is about the silicon and the other is about devices that may use that silicon. It's like saying Intel Core i7 is crap because the HP laptop I bought doesn't allow for memory upgrades. It's a non sequitur.

 

[Lionvibez]

Exactly, we don't build laptops. So bringing up build-your-own computer isn't relevant to whether memory expansion is a requirement for laptops. As far as I know M2 is only available in laptops, today.

And, furthermore, to the OP points, the performance of M2 and memory expansion are really 2 different topics. One is about the silicon and the other is about devices that may use that silicon. It's like saying Intel Core i7 is crap because the HP laptop I bought doesn't allow for memory upgrades. It's a non sequitur.

The bringing up the build you own desktop was explaining the mind set of most typical enthusiast users. Which would me probably the majority reading this site.

And the difference with your Core i7 HP laptop is that they do have models that you can upgrade the ram and models that you can't. Apple doesn't even give you that option! You are forced into buying all the memory at the start of your purchase.

So lets say my work specs and apple machine for me with 16GB of ram. Then for whatever reason 2 years later the main app I use the dev of it decides the new version of the app now requires 32GB . I now have to throw away that laptop and buy a new one because I cannot upgrade the memory?

And because you buy apple products that is acceptable to you?