7 ms·
I was not really thinking about Apple when writing that part, more about some weak details of Zen N vs. Intel, that do not matter in the end (at least for most
by temac 6y ago
I was not really thinking about Apple when writing that part, more about some weak details of Zen N vs. Intel, that do not matter in the end (at least for most workloads). Be it inter-cores or intra-core.
I think the logical design space is so vast now that there is largely enough freedom to compete even when addressing vast corpus of existing software, even if said software is tuned for previous/competitor chips. It was already at the time of the PPro, with thousands times more transistors it is even more. And that makes it even more sad that Intel has been stuck on basically Skylake on their 14nm for so long.
- dragontamer 6y agoIf I were to guess what this M1 chip was designed for: it was for JIT-compiling and then execution of JIT-code (Javascript and/or Rosetta).
- klelatti 6y agoThanks. I commented as my mental model was that Apple had a significantly easier job with a fairly narrow set of significant applications to worry about - many of which they write - compared to a much wider base for say AMD's server cpus. But I guess that this all pales into insignificance compared to the gains of going from Intel 14nm to TSMC 5nm.