4 ms·

You are basically talking about the A76 core[1] and modified derivatives and its successors (e.g. neoverse[2]). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_Cortex-A7

by consp 8y ago

You are basically talking about the A76 core[1] and modified derivatives and its successors (e.g. neoverse[2]). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_Cortex-A76 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_Cortex-A76 [2] https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/arm_holdings/microarchitectures/neoverse_n1 https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/arm_holdings/microarchitectures...

close04 8y ago
The N1 is actually expected to be on par or faster than a Zen core in single threaded applications. Overall it would be a match for both Zen and Skylake-SP. Add to this Apple's specific brand of control over their software stack and you've got some exceptional potential to deliver high performance in a low power envelope. And all this while giving Apple full control over every aspect of their product (whether it leads to good or bad outcomes). Which could mean actual yearly refreshes instead of forgetting about a product for years because Intel had nothing in the pipeline. I mean if you're going to pay a hefty price premium you probably want something only Apple can give you. Not just a more expensive version of the same thing shipped by every other OEM out there.
- speedplane 8y ago
  Moore's law is dead. Switching architectures to something that is more customizable to your current process is one of the only ways to squeeze more performance out of a given chip. It's why companies are increasingly building their own ASICs. If Moore's law was alive, they wouldn't need to, they'd just wait for the next general purpose chip to come out.
  - close04 8y ago
    This isn't just a matter of Moore's law. The lack of competition over the past decade also played a major role. Intel didn't feel pressed to deliver anything and instead decided to milk the market. It doesn't even matter if tomorrow we find a way to bring back Moore's law (performance increase, not necessarily transistor density). Apple probably doesn't want to be back here 10 years from now if competition is dwindling. And again, if they want to charge a lot more than the competition they have to justify it. This is the justification. Give me a super optimized CPU for which major software companies optimize their software and you've got my attention. I imagine Adobe would make sure their SW gets tha last drop of performance on Apple's machines. May not be the case with the competition's run of the mill ARM core.
    - speedplane 8y ago
      It all comes back to Moores law. Today, there is more competition between chip fabs than ever. ARM is beating Intel in a number of markets. They are able to do so, because Intel is slowing down. Intel is slowing down because of Moore's law. The idea that a company would optimize a chip to their specific purpose is also a consequence of Moore's law. If performance did exponentially increase, there would be no point in optimizing for a task, because by the time you finished that, the general purpose solution would be faster.

by consp 8y ago

close04 8y ago

The N1 is actually expected to be on par or faster than a Zen core in single threaded applications. Overall it would be a match for both Zen and Skylake-SP. Add to this Apple's specific brand of control over their software stack and you've got some exceptional potential to deliver high performance in a low power envelope. And all this while giving Apple full control over every aspect of their product (whether it leads to good or bad outcomes). Which could mean actual yearly refreshes instead of forgetting about a product for years because Intel had nothing in the pipeline. I mean if you're going to pay a hefty price premium you probably want something only Apple can give you. Not just a more expensive version of the same thing shipped by every other OEM out there.

speedplane 8y ago
Moore's law is dead. Switching architectures to something that is more customizable to your current process is one of the only ways to squeeze more performance out of a given chip. It's why companies are increasingly building their own ASICs. If Moore's law was alive, they wouldn't need to, they'd just wait for the next general purpose chip to come out.
- close04 8y ago
  This isn't just a matter of Moore's law. The lack of competition over the past decade also played a major role. Intel didn't feel pressed to deliver anything and instead decided to milk the market. It doesn't even matter if tomorrow we find a way to bring back Moore's law (performance increase, not necessarily transistor density). Apple probably doesn't want to be back here 10 years from now if competition is dwindling. And again, if they want to charge a lot more than the competition they have to justify it. This is the justification. Give me a super optimized CPU for which major software companies optimize their software and you've got my attention. I imagine Adobe would make sure their SW gets tha last drop of performance on Apple's machines. May not be the case with the competition's run of the mill ARM core.
  - speedplane 8y ago
    It all comes back to Moores law. Today, there is more competition between chip fabs than ever. ARM is beating Intel in a number of markets. They are able to do so, because Intel is slowing down. Intel is slowing down because of Moore's law. The idea that a company would optimize a chip to their specific purpose is also a consequence of Moore's law. If performance did exponentially increase, there would be no point in optimizing for a task, because by the time you finished that, the general purpose solution would be faster.