4 ms·
They probably beat AMD/Intel on perf/power efficiency, which is why it makes sense for MBA and 13" MBP. The smaller machines are also likely held back by cooli
by acchow 6y ago
They probably beat AMD/Intel on perf/power efficiency, which is why it makes sense for MBA and 13" MBP.
The smaller machines are also likely held back by cooling solutions, so if you have Intel beat on power efficiency in a tiny form factor, you can boost your clock speed too.
- reader_mode 6y agoConsidering how AMD also beats intel on power/perf by a wide margin and they compared their results against Intel CPUs I wouldn't be surprised if their power/performance was close to AMD (they do have heterogeneous CPU cores which of course is not the case in traditional x86)
- hajile 6y agoAMD's Smart Memory Access would like to have a word. I'd note that in unoptimized games, they're projecting a 5% performance boost between their stock overclock and SMA (rumors put the overclock at only around 1%). https://www.amd.com/en/technologies/smart-access-memory https://www.amd.com/en/technologies/smart-access-memory
- reader_mode 6y agoI don't understand what that has to do with power/performance ? Did you mean to reply to someone else ?
- hajile 6y agoYes. I would say on your topic though that Intel has a hybrid chip that might interest you. Lakefield pairs 4 modified Tremont cores with 1 Sunny Cove core. https://www.anandtech.com/show/15877/intel-hybrid-cpu-lakefield-all-you-need-to-know https://www.anandtech.com/show/15877/intel-hybrid-cpu-lakefi...
- reader_mode 6y agoI think that we will see how this pans out in practice - but power efficiency is not something I associate with Intel - they just seem to far behind in manufacturing process to be competitive.
- hajile 6y agoI find it interesting, but I'm not really interested in that market segment. Atom competes with the A53 on most things. I want a little more power. I'd like to see 2 zen cores paired with 4 updated jaguar cores.
- easde 6y agoApple's perf/watt is much higher than AMD. Anandtech has the A14 within a few percent of the 5950X on single threaded workloads. Power consumption is 5 watts (entire iPhone 12) versus 49 watts (5950X package power). Normalizing for performance (say A14 vs 5950X at 4.5GHz instead of 5GHz) would close the gap somewhat, but it's still huge. Perhaps 4x instead of 10x - those last 500MHz on the AMD chip cost a ton of power. Of course, none of this is particularly surprising considering Apple is using both a newer process and gets nearly 60% higher IPC. [1]: https://www.anandtech.com/show/16226/apple-silicon-m1-a14-deep-dive/4 https://www.anandtech.com/show/16226/apple-silicon-m1-a14-de...
- reader_mode 6y agoYou are comparing a desktop processor that's been tuned to overboost as much as thermals will allow it to a mobile phone CPU ?!? AMD has a laptop series of CPUs, M1 compared to that is the only relevant comparison - the rest is apples to oranges.
- lumberingjack 6y agoWe don't even have new Zen 3 mobile chips yet if they are anything like the New Desktop parts we just got last week then everything Apple just put out is FUBAR.
- reader_mode 6y agoI'm hoping Zen 3 delivers because 4000 mobile chips shows great promise but is not available in anything premium (MacBook pro level) and has supply issues. That being said Apple has an advantage in that they control the entire stack and on the power efficiency side of things they have experience with mobile CPU design, they can do stuff like heterogeneous cores and can optimise for it throughout the stack, I think it would be challenging for x86 to do the same.