> I like the comparison between much older hardware with brand new to highlight how far we came.
That's ok, but why skip the previous iteration then? Isn't the M2 only two generations behind? It's not that much older. It's also a marketing blurb, not a reproducible benchmark. Why leave out comparisons with the previous iteration even when you're just hand-waving over your own data?
In this specific case, it's because iPad's never got the M3. They're literally comparing it with the previous model of iPad.
There were some disingenuous comparisons throughout the presentation going back to A11 for the first Neural Engine and some comparisons to M1, but the M2 comparison actually makes sense.
I wouldn't call the comparison to A11 disingenuous, they were very clear they were talking about how far their neural engines have come, in the context of the competition just starting to put NPUs in their stuff.
I mean, they compared the new iPad Pro to an iPod Nano, that's just using your own history to make a point.
Fair point—I just get a little annoyed when the marketing speak confuses the average consumer and felt as though some of the jargon they used could trip less informed customers up.
That's ok, but why skip the previous iteration then? Isn't the M2 only two generations behind? It's not that much older. It's also a marketing blurb, not a reproducible benchmark. Why leave out comparisons with the previous iteration even when you're just hand-waving over your own data?