Apple M2 Geekbench single-core: 1937

Nearest non-Apple processor (MediaTek Dimensity 9000): 1260.5

The A15 Bionic, M1, A14 Bionic, and A13 Bionic are all also faster than
the MediaTek.

<https://www.notebookcheck.net/Smartphone-Processors-Benchmark-List.149513.0.html?&sort=b_717_2170&deskornote=3&or=1&showBars=1&geekbench2=1&geekbench3_single=1&geekbench3_multi=1&geekbench4_1_single=1&geekbench4_1_multi=1&geekbench5_1_single=1&geekbench5_1_multi=1&passmark_cpu=1&sunspider=1&cpu_fullname=1&codename=1&mhz=1&turbo_mhz=1&cores=1&threads=1&architecture=1&64bit=1>

Apple M2 Geekbench multi-core: 8962

MediaTek Dimensity 9000: 4246.5

The M1, A15 Bionic, A12Z Bionic, and A12X Bionic are all faster this time.

<https://www.notebookcheck.net/Smartphone-Processors-Benchmark-List.149513.0.html?&sort=b_717_2171&deskornote=3&or=1&showBars=1&geekbench2=1&geekbench3_single=1&geekbench3_multi=1&geekbench4_1_single=1&geekbench4_1_multi=1&geekbench5_1_single=1&geekbench5_1_multi=1&passmark_cpu=1&sunspider=1&cpu_fullname=1&codename=1&mhz=1&turbo_mhz=1&cores=1&threads=1&architecture=1&64bit=1>

On 2022-06-28 21:02:08 +0000, Alan said:

> Apple M2 Geekbench single-core: 1937
>
> Nearest non-Apple processor (MediaTek Dimensity 9000): 1260.5
>
> The A15 Bionic, M1, A14 Bionic, and A13 Bionic are all also faster than
> the MediaTek.
>
> <https://www.notebookcheck.net/Smartphone-Processors-Benchmark-List.149513.0.html?&sort=b_717_2170&deskornote=3&or=1&showBars=1&geekbench2=1&geekbench3_single=1&geekbench3_multi=1&geekbench4_1_single=1&geekbench4_1_multi=1&geekbench5_1_single=1&geekbench5_1_multi=1&passmark_cpu=1&sunspider=1&cpu_fullname=1&codename=1&mhz=1&turbo_mhz=1&cores=1&threads=1&architecture=1&64bit=1>
>
>
> Apple M2 Geekbench multi-core: 8962
>
> MediaTek Dimensity 9000: 4246.5
>
> The M1, A15 Bionic, A12Z Bionic, and A12X Bionic are all faster this time.
>
> <https://www.notebookcheck.net/Smartphone-Processors-Benchmark-List.149513.0.html?&sort=b_717_2171&deskornote=3&or=1&showBars=1&geekbench2=1&geekbench3_single=1&geekbench3_multi=1&geekbench4_1_single=1&geekbench4_1_multi=1&geekbench5_1_single=1&geekbench5_1_multi=1&passmark_cpu=1&sunspider=1&cpu_fullname=1&codename=1&mhz=1&turbo_mhz=1&cores=1&threads=1&architecture=1&64bit=1>
>

Unfortuantely the M2 may be causing issues with SSD speeds.

M2 13-Inch MacBook Pro With 256GB SSD Appears Slower
Than Equivalent M1 in Real-World Speed Tests

<https://www.macrumors.com/2022/06/27/m2-macbook-pro-256gb-ssd-real-world-tests/>

Whether that on purpose for some peculiar reason or can be fixed with a
software update, remains to be seen.

On 2022-06-28 14:28, Your Name wrote:
> On 2022-06-28 21:02:08 +0000, Alan said:
>
>> Apple M2 Geekbench single-core: 1937
>>
>> Nearest non-Apple processor (MediaTek Dimensity 9000): 1260.5
>>
>> The A15 Bionic, M1, A14 Bionic, and A13 Bionic are all also faster
>> than the MediaTek.
>>
>> <https://www.notebookcheck.net/Smartphone-Processors-Benchmark-List.149513.0.html?&sort=b_717_2170&deskornote=3&or=1&showBars=1&geekbench2=1&geekbench3_single=1&geekbench3_multi=1&geekbench4_1_single=1&geekbench4_1_multi=1&geekbench5_1_single=1&geekbench5_1_multi=1&passmark_cpu=1&sunspider=1&cpu_fullname=1&codename=1&mhz=1&turbo_mhz=1&cores=1&threads=1&architecture=1&64bit=1>
>>
>>
>> Apple M2 Geekbench multi-core: 8962
>>
>> MediaTek Dimensity 9000: 4246.5
>>
>> The M1, A15 Bionic, A12Z Bionic, and A12X Bionic are all faster this
>> time.
>>
>> <https://www.notebookcheck.net/Smartphone-Processors-Benchmark-List.149513.0.html?&sort=b_717_2171&deskornote=3&or=1&showBars=1&geekbench2=1&geekbench3_single=1&geekbench3_multi=1&geekbench4_1_single=1&geekbench4_1_multi=1&geekbench5_1_single=1&geekbench5_1_multi=1&passmark_cpu=1&sunspider=1&cpu_fullname=1&codename=1&mhz=1&turbo_mhz=1&cores=1&threads=1&architecture=1&64bit=1>
>>
>
> Unfortuantely the M2 may be causing issues with SSD speeds.
>
>    M2 13-Inch MacBook Pro With 256GB SSD Appears Slower
>    Than Equivalent M1 in Real-World Speed Tests
> <https://www.macrumors.com/2022/06/27/m2-macbook-pro-256gb-ssd-real-world-tests/>
>
>
> Whether that on purpose for some peculiar reason or can be fixed with a
> software update, remains to be seen.
>
>

It looks like a simple case of using a single channel SSD system in one
particular configuration.

In article <t9fs77$16n0n$1@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> > Unfortuantely the M2 may be causing issues with SSD speeds.

it's not due to the m2.

> >    M2 13-Inch MacBook Pro With 256GB SSD Appears Slower
> >    Than Equivalent M1 in Real-World Speed Tests
> >
> > <https://www.macrumors.com/2022/06/27/m2-macbook-pro-256gb-ssd-real-world-te
> > sts/>
> >
> >
> > Whether that on purpose for some peculiar reason or can be fixed with a
> > software update, remains to be seen.

software update? hah.
> It looks like a simple case of using a single channel SSD system in one
> particular configuration.

yep, due to supply constraints. it's also the base level config, where
speed isn't that important.

Your Name wrote:

> Unfortuantely the M2 may be causing issues with SSD speeds.

Worse...

If the M2 has the same debilitating hardware flaws as the M1 does (and it's
looking very much like it has them), then the M2 is essentially worthless.

Nobody but a fool wants a CPU that contains multiple known exploitable
unfixable built-in hardware flaws.

It's like when Apple designed a "fast" SOC that required _secret_
throttling because the power delivery design was sophomorically inept.

Who wants that M2 crap but a fool who only believes in advertising BS.
--
An adult owns the ability to separate advertising from the facts.

nospam wrote:

> yep, due to supply constraints. it's also the base level config, where
> speed isn't that important.

Even being aware the M1/M2 series of chips are essentially worthless
designs due to likely known multiple exploitable unfixable hardware
flaws...

I skimmed the real-world performance article from Your Name just now...
<https://www.macrumors.com/2022/06/27/m2-macbook-pro-256gb-ssd-real-world-tests/>
"The ‌M2‌ MacBook Pro with 256GB SSD and 8GB RAM was slower
than the ‌M1‌ MacBook Pro with 256GB SSD and 8GB RAM across
multiple usage tests involving Photoshop, Lightroom,
Final Cut Pro, multitasking, and file transfers.

The ‌M2‌ MacBook Pro's read speeds appear to be around
*50 percent slower*, while the write speeds appear
to be around *30 percent slower*."

Essentially they surmised that Apple cheaped out on the memory.
"Max Tech attributes this performance difference to Apple's choice
of NAND flash storage. In the ‌M2‌ MacBook Pro, there is a single
256GB NAND flash storage chip, while the ‌M1‌ MacBook Pro has
two NAND chips that are likely 128GB each."
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information,
and to flesh out the article that Your Name kindly pointed out on metrics.

On 2022-06-28 15:37, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Your Name wrote:
>
>> Unfortuantely the M2 may be causing issues with SSD speeds.
>
> Worse...
> If the M2 has the same debilitating hardware flaws as the M1 does (and it's
> looking very much like it has them), then the M2 is essentially worthless.

The same completely NON-debilitating flaw is in every ARM processor, Arlen.

>
> Nobody but a fool wants a CPU that contains multiple known exploitable
> unfixable built-in hardware flaws.
>
> It's like when Apple designed a "fast" SOC that required _secret_
> throttling because the power delivery design was sophomorically inept.
>
> Who wants that M2 crap but a fool who only believes in advertising BS.

It's great the way you both want to deny that Apple designed their Apple
Silicon chips...

....and yet blame them for flaws which your previous claim would demand
are not theirs.

:-)

On 2022-06-28 15:48, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>> yep, due to supply constraints. it's also the base level config, where
>> speed isn't that important.
>
> Even being aware the M1/M2 series of chips are essentially worthless
> designs due to likely known multiple exploitable unfixable hardware
> flaws...

What does "likely known multiple" mean, exactly?

> I skimmed the real-world performance article from Your Name just now...
> <https://www.macrumors.com/2022/06/27/m2-macbook-pro-256gb-ssd-real-world-tests/>
>
>  "The ‌M2‌ MacBook Pro with 256GB SSD and 8GB RAM was slower   than the
> ‌M1‌ MacBook Pro with 256GB SSD and 8GB RAM across   multiple usage
> tests involving Photoshop, Lightroom,   Final Cut Pro, multitasking, and
> file transfers.
>
>  The ‌M2‌ MacBook Pro's read speeds appear to be around  *50 percent
> slower*, while the write speeds appear  to be around *30 percent slower*."
>
> Essentially they surmised that Apple cheaped out on the memory.
> "Max Tech attributes this performance difference to Apple's choice
>  of NAND flash storage. In the ‌M2‌ MacBook Pro, there is a single
>  256GB NAND flash storage chip, while the ‌M1‌ MacBook Pro has  two
> NAND chips that are likely 128GB each."

And?

Is the performance terrible?

It's a choice.

Not ever computer ships with the fastest everything.

On 2022-06-28, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>
> Unfortuantely the M2 may be causing issues with SSD speeds.
>
> M2 13-Inch MacBook Pro With 256GB SSD Appears Slower
> Than Equivalent M1 in Real-World Speed Tests

Bullshit.

> Whether that on purpose for some peculiar reason or can be fixed with
> a software update, remains to be seen.

No software change is required. What you are failing realize is that the
M2 model they used for testing uses a single flash chip for storage
(leaving the socket where a second chip would be for larger storage
configurations empty) compared to the dual-chip configuration in the M1
model. If they had used a model with more storage capacity, it would
have dual chips, which naturally speed up storage throughput.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

Am 29.06.22 um 00:02 schrieb nospam:
> In article <t9fs77$16n0n$1@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>> Unfortuantely the M2 may be causing issues with SSD speeds.
>
> it's not due to the m2.
>
>>>    M2 13-Inch MacBook Pro With 256GB SSD Appears Slower
>>>    Than Equivalent M1 in Real-World Speed Tests
>>>
>>> <https://www.macrumors.com/2022/06/27/m2-macbook-pro-256gb-ssd-real-world-te
>>> sts/>
>>>
>>>
>>> Whether that on purpose for some peculiar reason or can be fixed with a
>>> software update, remains to be seen.
>
> software update? hah.
>
>> It looks like a simple case of using a single channel SSD system in one
>> particular configuration.
>
> yep, due to supply constraints. it's also the base level config, where
> speed isn't that important.

Speed is *always* *very important*.

--
Ex iniuria ius non oritur

In article <t9h3o5$rhfe$1@solani.org>, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
wrote:

> >> It looks like a simple case of using a single channel SSD system in one
> >> particular configuration.
> >
> > yep, due to supply constraints. it's also the base level config, where
> > speed isn't that important.
>
> Speed is *always* *very important*.

no it isn't.

casual use (e.g., email, web surfing) will not come anywhere close to
the limit of a single channel ssd, let alone dual.

On 6/28/2022 2:28 PM, Your Name wrote:

<snip>

> Unfortuantely the M2 may be causing issues with SSD speeds.
>
>    M2 13-Inch MacBook Pro With 256GB SSD Appears Slower
>    Than Equivalent M1 in Real-World Speed Tests
> <https://www.macrumors.com/2022/06/27/m2-macbook-pro-256gb-ssd-real-world-tests/>
>
>
> Whether that on purpose for some peculiar reason or can be fixed with a
> software update, remains to be seen.

Reportedly this is only an issue on the M2 Macbook Pros with 256GB SSD
that use a single 256GB SSD chip.

I think that it's a pretty safe assumption that very few buyers are
opting for the 256GB M2 Macbook Pro, and that most are opting for 512GB
or more.

On 2022-06-29 01:50, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 29.06.22 um 00:02 schrieb nospam:
>> In article <t9fs77$16n0n$1@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Unfortuantely the M2 may be causing issues with SSD speeds.
>>
>> it's not due to the m2.
>>
>>>>    M2 13-Inch MacBook Pro With 256GB SSD Appears Slower
>>>>    Than Equivalent M1 in Real-World Speed Tests
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.macrumors.com/2022/06/27/m2-macbook-pro-256gb-ssd-real-world-te
>>>> sts/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Whether that on purpose for some peculiar reason or can be fixed with a
>>>> software update, remains to be seen.
>>
>> software update? hah.
>>
>>> It looks like a simple case of using a single channel SSD system in one
>>> particular configuration.
>>
>> yep, due to supply constraints. it's also the base level config, where
>> speed isn't that important.
>
> Speed is *always* *very important*.
>

Right.

So every computer everywhere should always be sold with the fastest
processor, the fastest RAM, the fastest drive, the fastest GPU...

....right?

nospam wrote:

>>>> It looks like a simple case of using a single channel SSD system in one
>>>> particular configuration.
>>>
>>> yep, due to supply constraints. it's also the base level config, where
>>> speed isn't that important.
>>
>> Speed is *always* *very important*.
>
> no it isn't.
>
> casual use (e.g., email, web surfing) will not come anywhere close to
> the limit of a single channel ssd, let alone dual.

Let's not forget, security is also almost _always_ very important too.

It's no longer shocking how the ignorant iKooks are unaware the T2, A14, M1
and most likely M2 designs contain known multiple exploitable and yet
completely unfixable hardware flaws which mean any device made with them is
essentially worthless in terms of security.

On 2022-06-29 08:17, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>>>>> It looks like a simple case of using a single channel SSD system in
>>>>> one particular configuration.
>>>>
>>>> yep, due to supply constraints. it's also the base level config, where
>>>> speed isn't that important.
>>>
>>> Speed is *always* *very important*.
>>
>> no it isn't.
>>
>> casual use (e.g., email, web surfing) will not come anywhere close to
>> the limit of a single channel ssd, let alone dual.
>
> Let's not forget,

That you'll deflect from whatever the subject is being discussed?

> security is also almost _always_ very important too.
> It's no longer shocking how the ignorant iKooks are unaware the T2, A14, M1
> and most likely M2 designs contain known multiple exploitable and yet
> completely unfixable hardware flaws which mean any device made with them is
> essentially worthless in terms of security.

So TSMC designs flawed processors, does it?

In article <t9hl6r$1enfi$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Reportedly this is only an issue on the M2 Macbook Pros with 256GB SSD
> that use a single 256GB SSD chip.

not just 'reportedly', but it's the exact reason.

> I think that it's a pretty safe assumption that very few buyers are
> opting for the 256GB M2 Macbook Pro, and that most are opting for 512GB
> or more.

that is of course, another one of your false assumptions.

a substantial portion of buyers for the macbook pro 13" are corporate
sales, who buy the least expensive configuration and do not need the
additional speed, which is already faster than what they had before.

In article <t9hnfv$1evtl$1@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> >
> > Speed is *always* *very important*.
> >
>
> Right.
>
> So every computer everywhere should always be sold with the fastest
> processor, the fastest RAM, the fastest drive, the fastest GPU...
>
> ...right?

exactly right.

that's why the mac pro in its highest spec configuration is the best
selling mac.

facebook pages open 0.001 seconds faster. the performance is incredible.

nospam wrote:
> a substantial portion of buyers for the macbook pro 13" are corporate
> sales, who buy the least expensive configuration and do not need the
> additional speed, which is already faster than what they had before.

Given the T2, A14, M1 & most likely also the M2 (as it uses the same
architecture) are _already known_ to be permanently unfixably flawed...

I wonder why any self respecting "corporate" account would buy any machine
with a CPU already known to be exploitable...

Where anyone with the means to exploit the flaws will have _root_ access.
--
Apple has never designed a best-in-class SOC in its entire existence.

On 2022-06-29 12:15, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>> a substantial portion of buyers for the macbook pro 13" are corporate
>> sales, who buy the least expensive configuration and do not need the
>> additional speed, which is already faster than what they had before.
>
> Given the T2, A14, M1 & most likely also the M2 (as it uses the same
> architecture) are _already known_ to be permanently unfixably flawed...
> I wonder why any self respecting "corporate" account would buy any machine
> with a CPU already known to be exploitable...
> Where anyone with the means to exploit the flaws will have _root_ access.

You mean TSMC designed flawed chips?

> --
> Apple has never designed a best-in-class SOC in its entire existence.

Apple designs the absolute best-in-class smartphone and tablet processors.

Period.

In article <t9i8bs$26c$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> Given that I am permanently unfixably flawed...

ftfy

> Where anyone with the means to exploit the flaws will have _root_ access.

root access is very limited on mac and ios, so even in the unlikely
event someone cracks root, they can't do much.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <t9hnfv$1evtl$1@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Speed is *always* *very important*.
>>>
>>
>> Right.
>>
>> So every computer everywhere should always be sold with the fastest
>> processor, the fastest RAM, the fastest drive, the fastest GPU...
>>
>> ...right?
>
> exactly right.
>
> that's why the mac pro in its highest spec configuration is the best
> selling mac.
>
> facebook pages open 0.001 seconds faster. the performance is incredible.

It's the wheels that give the extra performance.

On 2022-06-29, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2022-06-29 12:15, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> nospam wrote:
>>
>>> a substantial portion of buyers for the macbook pro 13" are
>>> corporate sales, who buy the least expensive configuration and do
>>> not need the additional speed, which is already faster than what
>>> they had before.
>>
>> Given the T2, A14, M1 & most likely also the M2 (as it uses the same
>> architecture) are _already known_ to be permanently unfixably
>> flawed... I wonder why any self respecting "corporate" account would
>> buy any machine with a CPU already known to be exploitable... Where
>> anyone with the means to exploit the flaws will have _root_ access.
>
> You mean TSMC designed flawed chips?

What the dip shit troll desperately wants everyone to ignore is that the
vulnerabilities he drones on about ad naseam were fixed long ago. For
instance:

CVE-2018-4344: A memory corruption issue was addressed with improved
memory handling. This issue is *fixed* and affected versions prior to iOS
12, macOS Mojave 10.14, tvOS 12, watchOS 5.

CVE-2019-8605: A use after free issue was addressed with improved memory
management. This issue is *fixed* in iOS 12.3, macOS Mojave 10.14.5,
tvOS 12.3, watchOS 5.2.1. A malicious application may be able to execute
arbitrary code with system privileges.

CVE-2020-3837: A memory corruption issue was addressed with improved
memory handling. This issue is *fixed* in iOS 13.3.1 and iPadOS 13.3.1,
macOS Catalina 10.15.3, tvOS 13.3.1, watchOS 6.1.2. An application may
be able to execute arbitrary code with kernel privileges.

CVE-2020-9907: A memory corruption issue was addressed by removing the
vulnerable code. This issue is *fixed* in iOS 13.6 and iPadOS 13.6, tvOS
13.4.8. An application may be able to execute arbitrary code with kernel
privileges.

CVE-2021-30883: A memory corruption issue was addressed with improved
memory handling. This issue is *fixed* in iOS 15.0.2 and iPadOS 15.0.2,
macOS Monterey 12.0.1, iOS 14.8.1 and iPadOS 14.8.1, tvOS 15.1, watchOS
8.1, macOS Big Sur 11.6.1. An application may be able to execute
arbitrary code with kernel privileges. Apple is aware of a report that
this issue may have been actively exploited.

CVE-2021-30983: A buffer overflow issue was addressed with improved
memory handling. This issue is *fixed* in iOS 15.2 and iPadOS 15.2. An
application may be able to execute arbitrary code with kernel
privileges.

As you can see, Apple has already patched these vulnerabilities - many
of them long ago. For anyone keeping track, current iPhones run iOS
15.5:

<https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212788>

>> Apple has never designed a best-in-class SOC in its entire existence.
>
> Apple designs the absolute best-in-class smartphone and tablet
> processors.
>
> Period.

Yup. Jealous loser is just jealous, which is why he spends inordinate
amounts of time hanging out in Apple news groups telling silly lies and
trying to disrupt any productive conversations. He's hopelessly obsessed
with Apple, and despises anyone who happens to like their products. He
lives a very sad and lonely life.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

Jolly Roger wrote:

> As you can see, Apple has already patched these vulnerabilities

*It's no longer shocking how _ignorant_ these iKooks are* that these
vulnerabilities are _unpatchable_ since they're in the hardware level.

Apple T2 & Apple A10 *UNPATCHABLE* flaws
<https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/10/05/apples-mac-t2-chip-has-an-unfixable-vulnerability-that-could-allow-root-access>
Since the T2 chip is based on an Apple A10 processor,
it's vulnerable to the same checkm8 exploit that affects
iOS-based devices. Attackers can easily circumvent activation
lock and carry out other malicious attacks gaining full control.

Apple M1/M2 & Apple A14 *UNPATCHABLE* flaws
<https://techcrunch.com/2022/06/10/apple-m1-unpatchable-flaw/>
<https://www.digit.in/news/general/apples-m1-and-a14-chips-have-an-unfixable-security-flaw-that-you-need-not-worry-about-59579.html>
Apple's M1 & A14 chips have an unpatchable hardware vulnerability
in PAC allowing attackers full control of the device under certain
circumstances. MIT said it has not yet tested the attack on
Apple's unreleased M2 chip, which also supports PAC.

Apple is incapable of designing a chip _without_ security flaws.
--
The iKooks are always shocked that facts exist about Apple products,
where these facts always seem to conflict with the iKooks' belief system.

nospam wrote:

> ftfy

These low-IQ iKooks instantly devolve into kindergarten responses in the
face of facts that they were previously completely ignorant of existing.
--
The reason iKooks can't formulate an adult response to facts is that their
entire strongly held belief systems about Apple are based on ignorance.

On 2022-06-29 18:24, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> As you can see, Apple has already patched these vulnerabilities
>
> *It's no longer shocking how _ignorant_ these iKooks are* that these
> vulnerabilities are _unpatchable_ since they're in the hardware level.
>
> Apple T2 & Apple A10 *UNPATCHABLE* flaws
> <https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/10/05/apples-mac-t2-chip-has-an-unfixable-vulnerability-that-could-allow-root-access>
>
>  Since the T2 chip is based on an Apple A10 processor,  it's vulnerable
> to the same checkm8 exploit that affects
>  iOS-based devices. Attackers can easily circumvent activation  lock
> and carry out other malicious attacks gaining full control.

But according to your earlier claims, that means TSMC is at fault, right?

You have claimed that Apple didn't design those processors, right?

>
> Apple M1/M2 & Apple A14 *UNPATCHABLE* flaws
> <https://techcrunch.com/2022/06/10/apple-m1-unpatchable-flaw/>
> <https://www.digit.in/news/general/apples-m1-and-a14-chips-have-an-unfixable-security-flaw-that-you-need-not-worry-about-59579.html>
>
> Apple's M1 & A14 chips have an unpatchable hardware vulnerability
> in PAC allowing attackers full control of the device under certain
> circumstances. MIT said it has not yet tested the attack on Apple's
> unreleased M2 chip, which also supports PAC.
>
> Apple is incapable of designing a chip _without_ security flaws.

According to you, Apple doesn't design its processors at all.

Quite the contradiction, don't you think?