2 ms·
That’s a lot of fuss for at best a lateral shift, and a step down in the all-important performance-per-watt metric (Zen and Vega are totally unproven here). Yo
by npunt 9y ago
That’s a lot of fuss for at best a lateral shift, and a step down in the all-important performance-per-watt metric (Zen and Vega are totally unproven here).
You may be underestimating the possible paths Apple has to a) transition software developers quickly with better tooling, and b) provide sufficiently performant JIT / compatibility layer by sprinkling a bit of x86 compatibility into future A-series chips, and you’re certainly underestimating the value in c) reducing complexity on the software-side.
Apple is already making their own GPU and CPU and throwing all their weight behind that, why would they hop onto the (brilliant but rather unreliable and on mobile totally unproven) AMD train?
- simonh 9y agoThat’s assuming Apple manly uses existng core designs from AMD etc and doesn’t significantly contribute improvements for their own systems, to gain advantages over the chips available to their competitors. But surely adding a hefty dose of their own secret sauce would be the only thing that would make such a move worthwhile? What’s being suggested is not that Apple use AMD designs. It’s that Apple partner with AMD in order to gain licensing cover for their own largely or completely in-house engineered chips.