Does anyone know whether this slip up by Apple is because the M2 should have been on 3nm, which was delayed? Honestly that's the only way I can really explain this. The M1 is actually the superior chip.
The takeaway I got was that the M2 performance was better, but that it took disproportionately more power, so the efficiency was lower. It depends on what your criteria are.
It does sort of somewhat explain complaints about throttling with the M2 systems.
This article does have me reevaluating whether or not to get an M2 13-inch. There's other things to consider as well but it's an important one.
> All these values are no indication for the upcoming Pro models of the M2 that we expect in the updated MacBook Pro 14 and 16 models later this year since these chips are supposed to be manufactured in a new 3 nm process.
Wasn't that the same story we heard about the M2, too? I'm starting to think these rumors are some Mark Gurman originals...
Those M1 measurement do not align with the detail test done by Anandtech. Which leads to me to believe there is some sort of flaw or misjudgement in the test.
I have bookmarked this and may be taking another look at it later. Or if someone has time to dig deeper.
> However, the higher clocks require more power and a maximum performance advantage of 18 % in multi-core scenarios is result of around 40 % higher power consumption, so the CPU of the new M2 is not as efficient as the M1 anymore.
