5 ms·

This is true, but I think a lot of folk are assuming that a future M2 or M3 will be able to scale up to higher wattage and match state-of-the-art enthusiast-cla

by jl6 6y ago

This is true, but I think a lot of folk are assuming that a future M2 or M3 will be able to scale up to higher wattage and match state-of-the-art enthusiast-class chips. That assumption is very much yet to be proven.

pwthornton 6y ago
There seems to be no evidence that Intel will be able to keep up with Apple. The early geek bench results show the M1 laptops beating even the high end Intel Mac ones. And that's with their most thermally constrained chip. Apple will be releasing something like a M1X next, which will probably have way more cores and some other differences. But this M1 is incredibly impressive for this class of device. Intel has nothing near it to compete in this space. The bigger question is how well does Apple keep up with AMD and Nvidia for GPUs and will they allow discrete GPUs.
klelatti 6y ago
Indeed, but given they are on TSMC 5nm and the apparent strength of the architecture and their team I think most will be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt for the moment. Actually biggest worry might be the economics - given their low volumes at the highest end (Mac Pro etc) how do they have the volumes to justify investing in building these CPUs?
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  I suspect the plan is to redefine computing with applications that integrate GPU (aka massively parallel vector math), plain old Intel-style integer and floating point, and some form of ML acceleration. So multiple superfast cores are less important for - say - audio/video if much of the processing is being handled by the GPU, or even by the ML system. This is a difference in kind not a difference in speed, because plain old x86/64 etc isn't optimal for this. It's a little like the next level of the multimedia PC of the mid-90s. Instead of playing video and sound the goal is to create new kinds of smart immersive experiences. Nvidia and AMD are kinda sorta playing around the edges of the same space, but I think Apple is going to try to own it. And it's a conscious long-term goal, while the competition is still thinking of specific hardware steppings and isn't quite putting the pieces together.
  - enos_feedler 6y ago
    Good point. Apple dominates a unique workload mix brought on by the convergence of mobile and portable computing. They can benchmark this workload mix through very different system designs.
- jcheng 6y ago
  They might decide they want to fill their datacenters with Apple Silicon CPUs, then the Mac Pro can take the binned ones.
  - 1over137 6y ago
    Doubtful. What OS would that run? They removed most server features from macOS in the last few years.
    - klelatti 6y ago
      Probably nothing to stop them running linux on M series chips. I'd be a bit surprised actually - suspect we'll see something like a 32 Core CPU which will go into the higher end machines (maybe 2 in the Mac Pros).
alwillis 6y ago
This is true, but I think a lot of folk are assuming that a future M2 or M3 will be able to scale up to higher wattage and match state-of-the-art enthusiast-class chips. Apple wouldn't go down this path if they weren't confident that their designs would scale and keep them in the performance lead for a long time. Look, the Mac grossed $9 billion last quarter, more than the iPad ($6.7 billion) and more than Apple Watch ($7.8 billion). They've no doubt invested a lot of time and money into this; there's no way, now that they've jettisoned Intel, they haven't gamed this entire thing out. There's too much riding on this. Yes, Apple's entry level laptops smoke much more expensive Intel-based laptops. But wait until the replacements for the 16-inch MacBook Pro and the iMac and iMac Pros are released. By then, the geek world would have gone through all phases of grief—we seem deep into denial right now, with some anger creeping in.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > Apple wouldn't go down this path if they weren't confident that their designs would scale and keep them in the performance lead for a long time. There are two reasons to think this might not be the case. The first is that they could justify continuing to do this to their shareholders based solely on the cost savings from not paying margins to Intel, even if the performance is only the same and not better. Their customers might not appreciate having the transition dumped on them in that case, but Apple has a specific relationship with their customers. And the second is that these things have a long lead time. They made the call to do this at a time when Intel was at once stagnant and the holder of the performance crown. Intel is still stagnant but now they have to contend with AMD. And with whatever Intel's response to AMD is going to be now that they've finally got an existential fire lit under them again. So it was reasonable for them to expect to beat Intel's 14nm++++++ with TSMC's 5nm, but what happens now that AMD is no longer dead and is using TSMC too?
  - alwillis 6y ago
    The first is that they could justify continuing to do this to their shareholders based solely on the cost savings from not paying margins to Intel, even if the performance is only the same and not better. You know Apple’s market capitalization is a little over $2 trillion dollars, right? And Apple's gross margins have been in the 30-35% range for many years. This isn't a shareholder issue. They are by far the most profitable computer/gadget manufacturer around. So it was reasonable for them to expect to beat Intel's 14nm++++++ with TSMC's 5nm, but what happens now that AMD is no longer dead and is using TSMC too? No matter what AMD does in the short term, they're not going to beat the performance per watt of the M1, let alone the graphics, the Neural Engine and the rest of components of Apple's SoC. It's not just 14nm vs. 5nm; it's also ARM’s architecture vs. x86-64. Apple has scaled A series production for more than a decade and nobody has caught them yet in iPhone/iPad performance. There were 64-bit iPhones for at least a year before Qualcomm and other ARM licensees could catch up. There's no evidence or reason to believe it'll be any different with the M series in laptops and desktops.
JBiserkov 6y ago
Look at this chart https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16226/perf-trajectory_575px.png https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16226/perf-trajectory_575p... from page 4 of the article above. It shows the A9-A14 chips compared vs the K-series processors by Intel.

by jl6 6y ago

pwthornton 6y ago

There seems to be no evidence that Intel will be able to keep up with Apple. The early geek bench results show the M1 laptops beating even the high end Intel Mac ones. And that's with their most thermally constrained chip. Apple will be releasing something like a M1X next, which will probably have way more cores and some other differences. But this M1 is incredibly impressive for this class of device. Intel has nothing near it to compete in this space. The bigger question is how well does Apple keep up with AMD and Nvidia for GPUs and will they allow discrete GPUs.

klelatti 6y ago

Indeed, but given they are on TSMC 5nm and the apparent strength of the architecture and their team I think most will be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt for the moment. Actually biggest worry might be the economics - given their low volumes at the highest end (Mac Pro etc) how do they have the volumes to justify investing in building these CPUs?

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
I suspect the plan is to redefine computing with applications that integrate GPU (aka massively parallel vector math), plain old Intel-style integer and floating point, and some form of ML acceleration. So multiple superfast cores are less important for - say - audio/video if much of the processing is being handled by the GPU, or even by the ML system. This is a difference in kind not a difference in speed, because plain old x86/64 etc isn't optimal for this. It's a little like the next level of the multimedia PC of the mid-90s. Instead of playing video and sound the goal is to create new kinds of smart immersive experiences. Nvidia and AMD are kinda sorta playing around the edges of the same space, but I think Apple is going to try to own it. And it's a conscious long-term goal, while the competition is still thinking of specific hardware steppings and isn't quite putting the pieces together.
- enos_feedler 6y ago
  Good point. Apple dominates a unique workload mix brought on by the convergence of mobile and portable computing. They can benchmark this workload mix through very different system designs.
jcheng 6y ago
They might decide they want to fill their datacenters with Apple Silicon CPUs, then the Mac Pro can take the binned ones.
- 1over137 6y ago
  Doubtful. What OS would that run? They removed most server features from macOS in the last few years.
  - klelatti 6y ago
    Probably nothing to stop them running linux on M series chips. I'd be a bit surprised actually - suspect we'll see something like a 32 Core CPU which will go into the higher end machines (maybe 2 in the Mac Pros).

alwillis 6y ago

This is true, but I think a lot of folk are assuming that a future M2 or M3 will be able to scale up to higher wattage and match state-of-the-art enthusiast-class chips. Apple wouldn't go down this path if they weren't confident that their designs would scale and keep them in the performance lead for a long time. Look, the Mac grossed $9 billion last quarter, more than the iPad ($6.7 billion) and more than Apple Watch ($7.8 billion). They've no doubt invested a lot of time and money into this; there's no way, now that they've jettisoned Intel, they haven't gamed this entire thing out. There's too much riding on this. Yes, Apple's entry level laptops smoke much more expensive Intel-based laptops. But wait until the replacements for the 16-inch MacBook Pro and the iMac and iMac Pros are released. By then, the geek world would have gone through all phases of grief—we seem deep into denial right now, with some anger creeping in.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> Apple wouldn't go down this path if they weren't confident that their designs would scale and keep them in the performance lead for a long time. There are two reasons to think this might not be the case. The first is that they could justify continuing to do this to their shareholders based solely on the cost savings from not paying margins to Intel, even if the performance is only the same and not better. Their customers might not appreciate having the transition dumped on them in that case, but Apple has a specific relationship with their customers. And the second is that these things have a long lead time. They made the call to do this at a time when Intel was at once stagnant and the holder of the performance crown. Intel is still stagnant but now they have to contend with AMD. And with whatever Intel's response to AMD is going to be now that they've finally got an existential fire lit under them again. So it was reasonable for them to expect to beat Intel's 14nm++++++ with TSMC's 5nm, but what happens now that AMD is no longer dead and is using TSMC too?
- alwillis 6y ago
  The first is that they could justify continuing to do this to their shareholders based solely on the cost savings from not paying margins to Intel, even if the performance is only the same and not better. You know Apple’s market capitalization is a little over $2 trillion dollars, right? And Apple's gross margins have been in the 30-35% range for many years. This isn't a shareholder issue. They are by far the most profitable computer/gadget manufacturer around. So it was reasonable for them to expect to beat Intel's 14nm++++++ with TSMC's 5nm, but what happens now that AMD is no longer dead and is using TSMC too? No matter what AMD does in the short term, they're not going to beat the performance per watt of the M1, let alone the graphics, the Neural Engine and the rest of components of Apple's SoC. It's not just 14nm vs. 5nm; it's also ARM’s architecture vs. x86-64. Apple has scaled A series production for more than a decade and nobody has caught them yet in iPhone/iPad performance. There were 64-bit iPhones for at least a year before Qualcomm and other ARM licensees could catch up. There's no evidence or reason to believe it'll be any different with the M series in laptops and desktops.

JBiserkov 6y ago

Look at this chart https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16226/perf-trajectory_575px.png https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16226/perf-trajectory_575p... from page 4 of the article above. It shows the A9-A14 chips compared vs the K-series processors by Intel.