WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:06.600
Apple never learns they released yet another laptop with no freaking cooler

00:00:04.620 --> 00:00:10.980
in it touch it and you'll burn yourself do any real work on it you'll probably

00:00:08.700 --> 00:00:15.360
burn your whole house down at least that's how the internet reacted when

00:00:12.960 --> 00:00:20.340
Apple's redesigned M2 MacBook Air hit the scene but here's a question for you

00:00:18.480 --> 00:00:26.039
any situations will you find yourself in where the heat is a real problem and for

00:00:23.640 --> 00:00:31.560
that matter would a similarly priced PC in the same form factor even perform any

00:00:28.500 --> 00:00:34.620
better did Apple get away with this

00:00:31.560 --> 00:00:36.780
seemingly obvious design faux pas and if

00:00:34.620 --> 00:00:41.520
they did do we need to change the way that we think about laptop cooling we

00:00:39.840 --> 00:00:46.800
set out to answer all of those questions and we set out to tell you about our

00:00:43.800 --> 00:00:48.840
sponsor simplemdm simple MDM is a

00:00:46.800 --> 00:00:52.379
ridiculously simple Apple device management for it enrolling your

00:00:50.760 --> 00:00:56.399
company's Apple devices and keeping them up to date doesn't have to be

00:00:53.820 --> 00:01:02.100
frustrating try it free for 30 days on unlimited devices at simplemdm.com Linus

00:01:06.600 --> 00:01:12.900
thank you there's been a lot made of Apple's

00:01:11.220 --> 00:01:18.299
cooling solution for the M2 MacBook Air or more accurately their lack of one

00:01:15.240 --> 00:01:20.400
instead of something anything more

00:01:18.299 --> 00:01:25.080
substantial Apple decided to basically attach a thin metal heat spreader like

00:01:22.979 --> 00:01:29.640
you'd find on a stick of RAM to the SOC in an attempt to soak up some heat

00:01:27.540 --> 00:01:34.500
temporarily before transferring it to the chassis which takes on the role of a

00:01:31.439 --> 00:01:37.799
heatsink they could have gone with a

00:01:34.500 --> 00:01:39.600
finned radiator a fan even a thicker

00:01:37.799 --> 00:01:44.759
piece of metal orb some combination of the three but no they settled on some

00:01:42.000 --> 00:01:48.540
bits of paper thin stamped sheet aluminum none of which would actually be

00:01:46.560 --> 00:01:54.240
a problem if the soc stayed nice and cool except it doesn't and like for all

00:01:51.420 --> 00:01:59.399
electronic devices this is absolutely a bad thing and while the M1 airs

00:01:57.540 --> 00:02:05.040
performance did suffer due to poor thermals it wasn't quite to the same

00:02:01.380 --> 00:02:06.960
degree pun intended and this is why your

00:02:05.040 --> 00:02:10.979
typical uses for an entry-level MacBook things like content consumption web

00:02:09.060 --> 00:02:15.900
browsing photo editing or maybe even light video editing they all have one

00:02:13.140 --> 00:02:20.280
big thing in common they are bursty in nature and they're unlikely to put the

00:02:17.580 --> 00:02:25.800
soc under any kind of sustained load what that means is as long as you have

00:02:22.860 --> 00:02:30.840
enough thermal Mass to absorb your momentary heat spikes you can count on

00:02:28.500 --> 00:02:35.459
Long idle periods to dissipate it at your leisure well the M1 MacBook Air

00:02:33.120 --> 00:02:40.500
managed to strike this balance pretty well performing at or near its full

00:02:38.160 --> 00:02:45.780
capability without overheating the chassis unless you were to fire up

00:02:42.300 --> 00:02:46.940
something like cinebench blender or a 3D

00:02:45.780 --> 00:02:52.560
game unfortunately that is not the case this

00:02:50.040 --> 00:02:57.660
time around at least on the surface Apple has tuned the m2's thermal

00:02:55.080 --> 00:03:02.580
controls to maintain that same 50 degree surface temperature Target as last time

00:02:59.580 --> 00:03:04.920
which is required by law but almost

00:03:02.580 --> 00:03:11.400
immediately after being hit by any sort of load the M2 SOC itself hits a

00:03:07.680 --> 00:03:13.920
whopping 99 degrees Celsius because even

00:03:11.400 --> 00:03:18.780
the pathetic cooler in the M1 MacBook Air has substantially more thermal mass

00:03:16.260 --> 00:03:22.800
than this time around I'm frankly pretty disappointed now Apple's response to

00:03:20.940 --> 00:03:27.180
this would be pretty obvious well these are silent machines they're not four

00:03:24.659 --> 00:03:31.140
Pros get a MacBook Pro if you want to actually put a load on your computer

00:03:29.580 --> 00:03:35.099
but frankly that's not a perfect solution either because until they

00:03:32.879 --> 00:03:40.980
refresh the M2 MacBook Pro you are going to be stuck with either a super toasty

00:03:37.980 --> 00:03:42.560
chip or the old touch bar design with

00:03:40.980 --> 00:03:47.220
worse IO on the bright side the M2 air gets

00:03:45.420 --> 00:03:51.180
magsafe to go with your Thunderbolt 4 ports and an overall design that's

00:03:49.080 --> 00:03:56.159
reminiscent of the 14-inch MacBook Pro it is thicker than the thinnest point of

00:03:53.640 --> 00:04:00.659
the previous gen airs wedge but the new flattened design is thinner overall and

00:03:58.560 --> 00:04:04.019
from our point of view feels a lot nicer to hold in the lap and that Meg safe

00:04:02.459 --> 00:04:09.480
charging port is capable of fast charging up to 65 Watts if you pick up

00:04:06.599 --> 00:04:13.680
either the full GPU model or you pay an extra 20 bucks over base you also have

00:04:11.879 --> 00:04:18.419
the option by the way of choosing a 35 watt dual type-c charger instead if that

00:04:16.440 --> 00:04:22.500
better fits your needs and from using it we can legit see how it could be super

00:04:20.519 --> 00:04:25.919
handy to have for travel compared to the single port fast charger

00:04:24.000 --> 00:04:30.960
the only major difference between the air configurations that directly impacts

00:04:28.500 --> 00:04:38.160
performance is the storage previous gen M1 MacBook airs 256 gig

00:04:34.199 --> 00:04:40.800
variation used twin 128 gig chips to

00:04:38.160 --> 00:04:45.060
achieve that capacity that divides the workload between those two chips and

00:04:42.780 --> 00:04:50.880
makes it much less likely that a read or a write will stall while waiting for

00:04:47.160 --> 00:04:52.860
another to finish the M2 airs 256 gig

00:04:50.880 --> 00:04:59.040
variation meanwhile makes use of a single 256 Gigabyte chip that means that

00:04:56.580 --> 00:05:03.780
the nand flash will be in a weight State more often and you can think of this

00:05:01.080 --> 00:05:09.060
kind of like running single versus dual Channel memory in practice this means

00:05:06.600 --> 00:05:13.080
that the lowest capacity model gets roughly half the performance of the

00:05:11.160 --> 00:05:17.940
other storage tiers that make use of multiple chips although you guys might

00:05:15.600 --> 00:05:21.780
not expect this I kind of feel like I have to cut Apple some slack here most

00:05:20.160 --> 00:05:27.180
people are not going to notice the difference between 1.5 and 3 gigabytes

00:05:24.720 --> 00:05:31.620
per second and outside of synthetic storage benchmarks the CPU is often

00:05:29.580 --> 00:05:35.460
going to end up being the bottleneck at either of those speeds there are

00:05:33.900 --> 00:05:40.380
situations where that might not be the case though like video editing prores

00:05:37.620 --> 00:05:43.740
raw footage but they also aren't as likely to come up on the air compared to

00:05:42.360 --> 00:05:48.000
a MacBook Pro the part of that is the way that the

00:05:46.259 --> 00:05:52.080
Air's performance Gets kneecapped By Its lack of cooling which is another problem

00:05:49.860 --> 00:05:55.080
that Apple created I'll show you what I mean though starting with gaming because

00:05:53.699 --> 00:05:58.440
it's always kind of funny to me when people complain about gaming performance

00:05:57.060 --> 00:06:01.979
on a machine that was clearly engineered for browsing Facebook in order to make

00:06:00.419 --> 00:06:06.000
this a fair test given the cooling solution we're running each of these

00:06:03.780 --> 00:06:12.000
twice to warm up and then finally taking our results from a third run and

00:06:09.000 --> 00:06:15.259
well yeah the cooling Solution on the M2

00:06:12.000 --> 00:06:18.660
MacBook Pro is good for a whopping 35

00:06:15.259 --> 00:06:20.880
increase in FPS in every test except for

00:06:18.660 --> 00:06:24.360
Total War Warhammer 3's battle Benchmark where the lead shrinks to just 30

00:06:23.220 --> 00:06:28.860
percent In fairness to the M2 MacBook Air

00:06:26.280 --> 00:06:33.360
however even with its awful cooling the competing Dell XPS 13 doesn't Beat It by

00:06:31.620 --> 00:06:38.460
a significant margin in any of those tests oh but if you want something that does

00:06:36.960 --> 00:06:43.380
beat the competition you can check out our screwdriver on lttstore.com it's now

00:06:40.740 --> 00:06:47.880
independently tested and verified moving on to cinebench the M2 air loses about a

00:06:45.960 --> 00:06:51.479
thousand points in its score over a 10 minute run compared to a single run

00:06:49.620 --> 00:06:56.400
giving you some idea of how your performance might degrade under heavy

00:06:53.520 --> 00:07:01.919
load meanwhile the M2 Pro retains basically the same score geekbench being

00:06:59.580 --> 00:07:06.300
a shorter Benchmark shows basically no difference between the M2 MacBooks so

00:07:04.440 --> 00:07:10.139
thanks for that but that doesn't mean it's an entirely useless Benchmark

00:07:08.100 --> 00:07:15.180
because interestingly we can see the difference in GPU performance between

00:07:12.180 --> 00:07:16.979
the M1 and the M2 base models and it's

00:07:15.180 --> 00:07:21.780
roughly in line with the additional memory bandwidth provided by the M2 SOC

00:07:19.800 --> 00:07:24.660
of course unless you work at our Testing Lab you probably don't spend all day

00:07:23.039 --> 00:07:30.660
running benchmarks so let's take a look at real world workloads starting with an

00:07:27.180 --> 00:07:33.300
Adobe Lightroom export and wow not only

00:07:30.660 --> 00:07:38.400
is the M2 air faster than the M1 air it's actually rough in line with the pro

00:07:35.759 --> 00:07:42.120
class machines with active cooling the M2 also picks up a significant winning

00:07:40.440 --> 00:07:46.639
compressor thanks to the addition of prores encoding engines on the base

00:07:43.919 --> 00:07:50.599
model SOC that's over 475 percent faster than the M1 CPU

00:07:49.500 --> 00:07:55.199
fallback h.264 isn't significantly different

00:07:52.680 --> 00:07:59.819
however indicating that that encoder is more or less identical between the socs

00:07:57.060 --> 00:08:03.479
and Final Cut Pro can use up to three of these prores streams on the M2 air

00:08:01.560 --> 00:08:07.440
MacBooks which is more than the M1 air could handle and one less than the pro

00:08:05.520 --> 00:08:11.160
pretty impressive if you're at DaVinci Resolve user well

00:08:09.539 --> 00:08:15.240
you're going to want to get a RAM upgrade regardless of the rest of the

00:08:13.259 --> 00:08:20.879
performance numbers if you're using an air or a pro because 8 gigs isn't nearly

00:08:18.060 --> 00:08:24.419
enough with 24 gigs the air managed a respectable 40 minute export with the

00:08:22.979 --> 00:08:29.639
pro running about eight and a half minutes faster than that so overall the

00:08:26.879 --> 00:08:35.580
base model M2 air is roughly 35 percent faster than its M1 counterpart and the

00:08:32.399 --> 00:08:38.580
higher end M2 air is roughly 21 slower

00:08:35.580 --> 00:08:41.399
than the M2 Pro though the biggest

00:08:38.580 --> 00:08:45.480
outliers are mostly in gaming which I think for many Mac users is not terribly

00:08:43.800 --> 00:08:49.920
important if we look purely at productivity then it's within nine

00:08:47.519 --> 00:08:54.120
percent which is frankly extremely impressive considering the Monstrous

00:08:51.839 --> 00:08:57.660
difference in cooling capacity the main difference for this as we pointed out

00:08:55.680 --> 00:09:01.740
before is that most of these real world use cases just aren't going to be

00:08:59.940 --> 00:09:06.540
continuous loads that will throttle the heck out of the chip I mean even DaVinci

00:09:03.959 --> 00:09:11.100
Resolve ends up being more of a stop and go Affair into terms of CPU usage it's

00:09:09.660 --> 00:09:16.560
not stop and go Floatplane though check out our recent exclusive where we try out some Norwegian hockey Pulver while

00:09:14.700 --> 00:09:20.820
we run our battery life tests for our battery tests we calibrated each

00:09:18.660 --> 00:09:25.680
laptop to roughly the same output as 50 brightness on the M2 air and we let them

00:09:23.459 --> 00:09:31.380
rip on a YouTube video the first to follow was the XPS 13 with the M2 air

00:09:28.380 --> 00:09:32.880
falling second though at nearly double

00:09:31.380 --> 00:09:39.240
the battery life the difference in battery life between the M1 and the M2 MacBook airs seems to

00:09:37.320 --> 00:09:42.959
be primarily due to the larger brighter display as we've seen other outlets

00:09:41.100 --> 00:09:47.459
report worse battery life at lower brightness as well but that's not to say

00:09:45.180 --> 00:09:53.160
that the soc makes no difference the M2 MacBook Pro ended up with a result over

00:09:49.980 --> 00:09:55.380
an hour and a half worse than the M1 pro

00:09:53.160 --> 00:10:00.899
model and those share the same display which seems to suggest the M2 SOC can

00:09:59.040 --> 00:10:06.120
draw more power than its predecessor assuming that adequate Cooling and power

00:10:03.480 --> 00:10:10.440
budgets are allotted to it overall still excellent battery life for both but you

00:10:08.760 --> 00:10:14.519
are giving up a bit of run time for the extra performance of the M2 SOC all of

00:10:13.320 --> 00:10:20.040
which is to say that it very much depends on what you do with your laptop to determine whether the cooling design

00:10:17.820 --> 00:10:24.420
flaw is a fundamental one that kills your experience or is merely a minor

00:10:22.800 --> 00:10:29.640
annoyance and you wish they just put a little fan in it it seems like in most

00:10:27.480 --> 00:10:32.640
real world workloads it's just not going to suffer that much and at a starting

00:10:31.200 --> 00:10:36.959
price of twelve hundred dollars for the air it's likely that a lot of folks are

00:10:35.339 --> 00:10:43.140
in fact going to use it as a glorified Chromebook as for the 13-inch M2 MacBook

00:10:40.260 --> 00:10:47.040
Pro I am having a hard time seeing the benefit considering how close the air

00:10:45.180 --> 00:10:51.360
comes most of the time yes when specked in a way I would

00:10:48.899 --> 00:10:57.000
consider appropriate it's the same price as the air for better performance but at

00:10:54.420 --> 00:11:01.680
that point you're only 300 out from a similarly spec'd 14 inch MacBook Pro

00:10:59.459 --> 00:11:06.420
making that the more attractive Prospect for now in my humble opinion for your

00:11:04.440 --> 00:11:11.160
extra money you're getting a much faster CPU and GPU a larger 120 hertz liquid

00:11:09.540 --> 00:11:16.920
Retina xdr Display an additional Thunderbolt 4 port and dedicated HDMI

00:11:14.160 --> 00:11:19.740
and SD card readers I'm not about to pass judgment if you don't care about

00:11:18.060 --> 00:11:23.940
any of those things but for my money that is more than worth it regardless of

00:11:22.440 --> 00:11:29.040
your priorities I certainly wouldn't suggest going with the cheapest M2

00:11:26.100 --> 00:11:33.899
13-inch MacBook Pro if you care that little about RAM and storage you would

00:11:31.079 --> 00:11:37.079
do just as well with the cheaper air and it would be Slimmer and Silent we're

00:11:35.820 --> 00:11:41.700
going to have all of those linked down below that gives the M2 MacBook Air my

00:11:39.779 --> 00:11:46.019
vote between the M2 Max currently on the market and if you want to get real work

00:11:43.740 --> 00:11:50.640
done well you can either Spritz compressed air on whenever you fire up

00:11:48.240 --> 00:11:55.380
something intensive or save up a little more and wait for the 14-inch M2 Pro you

00:11:54.000 --> 00:12:00.899
won't have to wait for our sponsor though privacy privacy is a free service

00:11:58.620 --> 00:12:06.180
that gives you control over who can charge you and how much they can charge

00:12:03.180 --> 00:12:08.160
by using virtual payment cards you can

00:12:06.180 --> 00:12:11.820
directly manage your free trials your one-time purchases or your monthly

00:12:10.079 --> 00:12:16.320
subscriptions all from your browser privacy helps you keep track of what

00:12:14.220 --> 00:12:20.640
you're subscribed to and helps ensure that you aren't being charged anything

00:12:17.880 --> 00:12:24.420
extra you can set spending limits pause your cards and even close them out right

00:12:22.500 --> 00:12:28.560
anytime you want to and if you're the victim of a fraudulent transaction

00:12:25.700 --> 00:12:34.260
privacy.com automatically declines the transaction and notifies you privacy.com

00:12:31.260 --> 00:12:36.420
is PCI DSS compliant uses AES 256

00:12:34.260 --> 00:12:39.899
encryption and offers two-factor authentication plus since they make

00:12:38.399 --> 00:12:44.100
their money from merchants and business accounts there's no cost to you to use

00:12:42.000 --> 00:12:48.000
it personally so check it out today at privacy.com forward slash Linus and sign

00:12:46.320 --> 00:12:51.899
up for an account new customers automatically get five dollars to spend

00:12:49.920 --> 00:12:56.100
on their first purchase thanks for watching guys go check out our initial

00:12:53.459 --> 00:13:01.100
review of the M1 air the platform's not mature yet but boy has it ever come a

00:12:58.800 --> 00:13:01.100
long way