ascender said:

I also think a 15" Air won't really be an Air.... If you put a 15" screen on it, the footprint is going to have to get much larger which just goes against what the Air is. Don't get me wrong, I'd like one, but I'm not sure how much it would sell - everyone I personally know who has an Air really likes its small footprint meaning they can comfortably work from anywhere.

I also still don't get why people say the entry-level config is so bad. For many people, who don't post on forums like this, its just fine. We often seem to be skewed by thinking everyone who buys Macs shares the views of a lot of us on here.

avichou said:

also you say you wouldn't pay 2600 for it ,but a 16/512 15" would likely be close to that

ok actually I realize it's only true for us eu users (MBP 16 is 2750€ ,MBA m2 16/512 is 1959€....since it starts at 1500€ lmao) where a 15" with 16/512 will probably cost around 2200€ ...tf

BigglyOranje said:

mind that US prices are without sales taxes which vary from state to state (only few states have none) so take the US prices with a pinch of salt. Also, a MBA is 1499 Euros in eg Germany and 1519 in the Netherlands... wtf

16_inch_MacBook_Air_Pls said:

The process node is TSMC’s fault for delaying N3. But the lack of a large screen option and the humiliating 8GB/256GB starting config certainly isn’t.

I’ll never render a video in my life but I want a larger screen for office work and content consumption. I’m not paying $2500 for a 16” MacBook Pro just for the screen size.

16_inch_MacBook_Air_Pls said:

The process node is TSMC’s fault for delaying N3. But the lack of a large screen option and the humiliating 8GB/256GB starting config certainly isn’t.

I’ll never render a video in my life but I want a larger screen for office work and content consumption. I’m not paying $2500 for a 16” MacBook Pro just for the screen size.

ArkSingularity said:

Apple is likely referring to TSMC's "N5P" process, which is effectively an optimization of their existing N5 node with the same transistor density. It's not 4nm or 3nm (which hasn't even entered production yet), but it does reportedly offer approximately 15% lower power consumption for the same chips running at the same clock speeds. That's definitely nothing to sneeze at and is a pretty decent improvement (both for performance improvements that come from Apple raising the clock speeds, and from improvements in battery life that we will likely see on lighter workloads).

The M3 will almost certainly be manufactured on TSMC's upcoming 3nm process, so we will probably see more substantial upgrades in the next year or so. But in the meantime, the M2 is a pretty nice upgrade, even on the 5nm process. Apple has delivered a pretty decent improvement this generation.

Click to expand...

jav6454 said:

Have you even tried the M2 yet? My bet is no. Why not wait until benchmarks and independent reviews are out before calling shenanigans on this?

16_inch_MacBook_Air_Pls said:

I have no doubt it will be very fast and very power efficient. Because M1 is already class leading.


I’m saying that it’s still built on TSMC N5 process node, which is confirmed by Apple’s marketing slide. N3 would be a much more significant upgrade and I’m disappointed that 2 years after M1 Apple is still on the same node.

16_inch_MacBook_Air_Pls said:

I have no doubt it will be very fast and very power efficient. Because M1 is already class leading.


I’m saying that it’s still built on TSMC N5 process node, which is confirmed by Apple’s marketing slide. N3 would be a much more significant upgrade and I’m disappointed that 2 years after M1 Apple is still on the same node.