[latexr]

You’re making it seem like they’re hiding that information under a footnote. The real text on the page, which is quite visible, is:

> Up to 23x faster than fastest Intel‑based MacBook Air

And right next to it:

> Up to 2x faster than MacBook Air (M1)

The footnotes are there to expand on the conditions of the measurements.

So not exactly misleading. On the contrary, it seems to me they’re quite clearly saying “if you have an Intel or M1 MacBook Air you have reason to upgrade. Otherwise, don’t”.

https://i.imgur.com/pEWPXzK.png

[bitwize]

"Up to" is still doing a lot of work there. What kinds of workloads are we talking that get the big numbers, and what can we realistically expect on real workloads?

I'm reminded of 90s advertisements in which the new G3 processor was supposed to be so many times faster than the Pentium or even Pentium II. Their chosen benchmark: how long it takes to run a Photoshop plugin. On Mac OS pre-X, a Photoshop plugin got 100% of the CPU because there was no preemptive multitasking. Windows 9x versions of Photoshop had to share the CPU with whatever else was running.

[saagarjha]

> Testing conducted by Apple in January 2025 using preproduction 13-inch and 15-inch MacBook Air systems with Apple M4, 10-core CPU, 10-core GPU, and 32GB of RAM, as well as production 1.2GHz quad-core Intel Core i7-based MacBook Air systems with Intel Iris Plus Graphics and 16GB of RAM, all configured with 2TB SSD. Tested using Super Resolution with Pixelmator Pro 3.6.14 and a 4.4MB image. Performance tests are conducted using specific computer systems and reflect the approximate performance of MacBook Air.

[WrongAssumption]

Yeah, it is doing a lot of work, as it should be. It's a summary in marketing material, not a research report.