6 ms·

While Apple did really stellar job with M1, Apple's R&D counts less than 50% of M1 performance gain over competition. Rest is TSMC's 5nm and perfect timing. Ap

While Apple did really stellar job with M1, Apple's R&D counts less than 50% of M1 performance gain over competition. Rest is TSMC's 5nm and perfect timing. Apple generates largest revenue per processor by a wide margin. This means they can afford to pay premium to be first at everything and have 6-12 month lead. TSMC's 5nm volume production and Apple's 2020 launch was timed to go together since 2017 (if go back to TSMC conference call you can hear them talking about it without mentioning details).

whynotminot 6y ago
A lot of the lead is process, no doubt, but a lot of it is simply a better design. Every step of the way, even when they're at process parity, Apple chips have been better.
- Nokinside 6y ago
  50% process technology. 25% for the fact that Apple can choose more expensive solutions in every turn. Better performance is often more expensive. 15% because Apple can design only for Apple products. Qualcomm, Intel, AMD .. have to design more generic products. ~10% at most for something else.
  - whynotminot 6y ago
    Your math doesn't make sense. 25% because Apple chooses better solutions, and then you finish with only 10% better design? Is it only a better design if it's not more expensive? So you get to decide that? Does BMW not get credit for better design than a Ford Focus because it's more expensive? I guess it doesn't really matter. Apple makes a better product. That's kind of the story here at the end of the day.
  - zipityzi 6y ago
    What are these numbers based on? Just your "best estimate"? It's dismissive of Apple's uarch for what reason? Arm has architecture licenses, unlike x86: anyone could've designed an Arm CPU from the ground up. NVIDIA tried, AMD tried, Intel tried, Qualcomm tried, Samsung tried, Huawei tried, etc. Everyone had a chance (and they still do). Arm is the most level playing field available in high-perf CPU design. And "50% process technology" is an exaggeration even embarrassing for HN. The A13 was built on 7nm and still beat perf/watt of any x86 CPU and total 1T performance rivals Tiger Lake. A14 / M1 are a natural evolution of that same uarch. https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16226/perf-trajectory.png https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16226/perf-trajectory.png What really breaks down your argument: Samsung has had nearly every advantage as Apple, yet its Exynos line is some of the worst-perf/watt Arm uarch today: its own OS (Tizen), its own foundry, its own phones / tablets / laptops, and a massive conglomerate for funding. What happen to Samsung? What money doesn't Samsung have? Hell, Samsung is even MORE integrated than Apple, as Apple still needs to outsource its fabrication to TSMC. There's a reason Samsung is giving up on its uarch and moving to Arm stock cores (X-1, A78, A78C, etc.), just like Qualcomm + NVIDIA. https://news.samsung.com/global/samsung-electronics-announces-fourth-quarter-and-fy-2018-results https://news.samsung.com/global/samsung-electronics-announce... Don't tell me "you need trillion dollar valuation to make a top-class CPU". AMD was nearly bankrupt 6 years ago and now has the fastest general compute x86 arch in the world. This argument reeks of "well, if Apple has the fastest CPU uarch today, then I'm going to ensure everyone else has an excuse." Apple didn't even have an Arm architectural license, much less a custom high-perf CPU, 13 years ago. 13 years from "never designed a high-perf CPU" to "dominating x86 perf / watt while at the heels of total perf" is actually notable and actually impressive.
    - whynotminot 6y ago
      Well said. It's really disappointing that as Apple comes out with some of the most exciting processor designs we've ever seen, some look to dismiss the effort and make excuses for the other players that aren't producing. It can't possibly be that Apple is doing impressive, innovative work. No, it has to be some nebulous "other" thing that's really happening.
    - Nokinside 6y ago
      Did you miss the fact that I attribute half for other than process technology. > The A13 was built on 7nm and still beat perf/watt of any x86 CPU We can directly compare Snapdragon 865 Plus and Apple A13 Bionic because they use the same process (N7P). 865 Plus is equal or better in most benchmarks.
      - whynotminot 6y ago
        https://www.anandtech.com/show/15982/the-asus-rog-phone-iii-review/3 https://www.anandtech.com/show/15982/the-asus-rog-phone-iii-... What in the world are you talking about? Anandtech shows the A13 handily besting a phone equipped with an 865+.
        Nokinside 6y ago
        Most of those are not CPU tests. But even in the link you provided 865+ has best performance/watt in every test in GPU Performance & Power. Here is Nanoreview's Snapdragon 865 Plus vs A13 Bionic CPU performance tests: https://nanoreview.net/en/soc-compare/qualcomm-snapdragon-865-plus-vs-apple-a13-bionic https://nanoreview.net/en/soc-compare/qualcomm-snapdragon-86... (btw. My argument is not that Apple is worse)
        whynotminot 6y ago
        JavaScript perf is a GPU test? I guess I'm learning new things every day. (The link I shared is all CPU leaning performance tests.) Nanoreview? Really dude? In the "Pro" section for the 865+ it lists two more cores (factual but largely irrelevant) and in the "Pro" section of the A13 it lists "Compatible with the latest DirectX 12.1" (laughably hilariously untrue). I love how nano review has become the Android fan bible, despite its very obvious flaws.
- DCKing 6y ago
  > A lot of the lead is process Given that this TSMC 7nm->5nm process improvement has lead to the smallest gen-on-gen performance improvement for Apple's iPhone chips - the performance gains from the A13 to the A14 are the smallest in years - I really don't buy that at face value. Surely a better process helps a substantial percentage, but I think a 7nm M1 chip would have impressed in most of the same ways.
  - whynotminot 6y ago
    Sometimes it's not about top level performance increase, but also efficiency increase. This is especially true when moving to a new node. The 5nm chips do better per watt, which is part of the wow factor of the M1. It performs at a high level and delivers industry leading battery life.
    - MangoCoffee 6y ago
      TSMC is a very conservative company. they will not throw money into a new node without its customers backing consider the amount of cash needs for each new gen (node). TSMC's 5nm must be good enough for Apple to back it.
      - whynotminot 6y ago
        I think you're right, but also a little bit backward on things. TSMC is conservative, but, with the continued guaranteed high-dollar buys from Apple, they have tremendous freedom to invest in R&D in an almost fearless way that any company would envy. This is also why people trying to give all credit to TSMC for the performance of A-series chips are also selling Apple short on that side of the ball there too. TSMC would not be in the position they are right now without Apple's partnership powering their capital investments. So in short, Apple's backing isn't proof that TSMC 5nm is good, it's actually a large part of why TSMC 5nm is good, and even exists in the first place.
- starfallg 6y ago
  >a lot of it is simply a better design Define better. Processor designs, as with many things is a question of tradeoffs. Apple is vertically integrated and has the luxury of designing cores based on a different set of requirements that drive the rest of the industry. As Apple makes a profit off per device sold, and not per chip, they can strategically approach chip design differently. For example, the area of die used.
  - whynotminot 6y ago
    You can define it however you choose to. As an end user with an Apple chip in my hands, I get better performance than competing products. I know what you're saying--all those market factors are why the chip in an iPhone achieves better performance than competing phones. So maybe you can stretch better to mean "well Qualcomm still manages to extract profit". Bully for them--as a user, an A series chip is better.
    - starfallg 6y ago
      But obviously not having the highest level of performance doesn't prevent from Qualcomm from producing more chips than Apple. So what's at play here is more performance != better. For you and me yes, more performance is good, but there are a lot of factors in play and not everybody looks to performance being the main metric.
      - whynotminot 6y ago
        I'm sorry, I just don't think your point is that interesting though. Qualcomm is still in business so sure they're moving product and making sales. I'm not denying them that. Apple makes an objectively better chip based off performance. I really don't care about much else. Are you a Qualcomm stock holder? What's your definition of better and why is it better than using performance?
  - GeekyBear 6y ago
    > Define better. Apple's "little" cores are roughly on par with the performance of the big cores in a Galaxy S10 while only having the power draw of the current gen ARM "little" cores. >The performance showcased here roughly matches a 2.2GHz Cortex-A76 which is essentially 4x faster than the performance of any other mobile SoC today which relies on Cortex-A55 cores, all while using roughly the same amount of system power and having 3x the power efficiency. https://www.anandtech.com/show/16192/the-iphone-12-review/2 https://www.anandtech.com/show/16192/the-iphone-12-review/2
myrandomcomment 6y ago
The fact of the matter is the Apple ASIC team is better than Qualcomms and even if the 888 was at the same 5mn node the M1 would be faster. I find it very frustrating how people always seem to say "well, Apple only is better because of ... and wait until ..." Apple has been kicking Qualcomms butt for a number of years now and up until now building ASIC was not primary part of their company. Now that they have moved the Mac platform over to their own chips I believe you can expect to gap to widen. I hope, truly that this becomes a awake up call for Intel and Qualcomm.
GeekyBear 6y ago
>Apple's R&D counts less than 50% of M1 performance gain over competition >TSMC announced the first details about its 5 nm manufacturing technology which is going to enable TSMC to aggressively increase its transistor density versus prior generations. However, when it comes to performance and power improvements, the gains do not look very significant. https://www.anandtech.com/show/12727/tsmc-details-5-nm-process-tech-aggressive-scaling-but-thin-power-and-performance-gains https://www.anandtech.com/show/12727/tsmc-details-5-nm-proce...

whynotminot 6y ago

A lot of the lead is process, no doubt, but a lot of it is simply a better design. Every step of the way, even when they're at process parity, Apple chips have been better.

Nokinside 6y ago
50% process technology. 25% for the fact that Apple can choose more expensive solutions in every turn. Better performance is often more expensive. 15% because Apple can design only for Apple products. Qualcomm, Intel, AMD .. have to design more generic products. ~10% at most for something else.
- whynotminot 6y ago
  Your math doesn't make sense. 25% because Apple chooses better solutions, and then you finish with only 10% better design? Is it only a better design if it's not more expensive? So you get to decide that? Does BMW not get credit for better design than a Ford Focus because it's more expensive? I guess it doesn't really matter. Apple makes a better product. That's kind of the story here at the end of the day.
- zipityzi 6y ago
  What are these numbers based on? Just your "best estimate"? It's dismissive of Apple's uarch for what reason? Arm has architecture licenses, unlike x86: anyone could've designed an Arm CPU from the ground up. NVIDIA tried, AMD tried, Intel tried, Qualcomm tried, Samsung tried, Huawei tried, etc. Everyone had a chance (and they still do). Arm is the most level playing field available in high-perf CPU design. And "50% process technology" is an exaggeration even embarrassing for HN. The A13 was built on 7nm and still beat perf/watt of any x86 CPU and total 1T performance rivals Tiger Lake. A14 / M1 are a natural evolution of that same uarch. https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16226/perf-trajectory.png https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16226/perf-trajectory.png What really breaks down your argument: Samsung has had nearly every advantage as Apple, yet its Exynos line is some of the worst-perf/watt Arm uarch today: its own OS (Tizen), its own foundry, its own phones / tablets / laptops, and a massive conglomerate for funding. What happen to Samsung? What money doesn't Samsung have? Hell, Samsung is even MORE integrated than Apple, as Apple still needs to outsource its fabrication to TSMC. There's a reason Samsung is giving up on its uarch and moving to Arm stock cores (X-1, A78, A78C, etc.), just like Qualcomm + NVIDIA. https://news.samsung.com/global/samsung-electronics-announces-fourth-quarter-and-fy-2018-results https://news.samsung.com/global/samsung-electronics-announce... Don't tell me "you need trillion dollar valuation to make a top-class CPU". AMD was nearly bankrupt 6 years ago and now has the fastest general compute x86 arch in the world. This argument reeks of "well, if Apple has the fastest CPU uarch today, then I'm going to ensure everyone else has an excuse." Apple didn't even have an Arm architectural license, much less a custom high-perf CPU, 13 years ago. 13 years from "never designed a high-perf CPU" to "dominating x86 perf / watt while at the heels of total perf" is actually notable and actually impressive.
  - whynotminot 6y ago
    Well said. It's really disappointing that as Apple comes out with some of the most exciting processor designs we've ever seen, some look to dismiss the effort and make excuses for the other players that aren't producing. It can't possibly be that Apple is doing impressive, innovative work. No, it has to be some nebulous "other" thing that's really happening.
  - Nokinside 6y ago
    Did you miss the fact that I attribute half for other than process technology. > The A13 was built on 7nm and still beat perf/watt of any x86 CPU We can directly compare Snapdragon 865 Plus and Apple A13 Bionic because they use the same process (N7P). 865 Plus is equal or better in most benchmarks.
    - whynotminot 6y ago
      https://www.anandtech.com/show/15982/the-asus-rog-phone-iii-review/3 https://www.anandtech.com/show/15982/the-asus-rog-phone-iii-... What in the world are you talking about? Anandtech shows the A13 handily besting a phone equipped with an 865+.
      - Nokinside 6y ago
        Most of those are not CPU tests. But even in the link you provided 865+ has best performance/watt in every test in GPU Performance & Power. Here is Nanoreview's Snapdragon 865 Plus vs A13 Bionic CPU performance tests: https://nanoreview.net/en/soc-compare/qualcomm-snapdragon-865-plus-vs-apple-a13-bionic https://nanoreview.net/en/soc-compare/qualcomm-snapdragon-86... (btw. My argument is not that Apple is worse)
        whynotminot 6y ago
        JavaScript perf is a GPU test? I guess I'm learning new things every day. (The link I shared is all CPU leaning performance tests.) Nanoreview? Really dude? In the "Pro" section for the 865+ it lists two more cores (factual but largely irrelevant) and in the "Pro" section of the A13 it lists "Compatible with the latest DirectX 12.1" (laughably hilariously untrue). I love how nano review has become the Android fan bible, despite its very obvious flaws.
DCKing 6y ago
> A lot of the lead is process Given that this TSMC 7nm->5nm process improvement has lead to the smallest gen-on-gen performance improvement for Apple's iPhone chips - the performance gains from the A13 to the A14 are the smallest in years - I really don't buy that at face value. Surely a better process helps a substantial percentage, but I think a 7nm M1 chip would have impressed in most of the same ways.
- whynotminot 6y ago
  Sometimes it's not about top level performance increase, but also efficiency increase. This is especially true when moving to a new node. The 5nm chips do better per watt, which is part of the wow factor of the M1. It performs at a high level and delivers industry leading battery life.
  - MangoCoffee 6y ago
    TSMC is a very conservative company. they will not throw money into a new node without its customers backing consider the amount of cash needs for each new gen (node). TSMC's 5nm must be good enough for Apple to back it.
    - whynotminot 6y ago
      I think you're right, but also a little bit backward on things. TSMC is conservative, but, with the continued guaranteed high-dollar buys from Apple, they have tremendous freedom to invest in R&D in an almost fearless way that any company would envy. This is also why people trying to give all credit to TSMC for the performance of A-series chips are also selling Apple short on that side of the ball there too. TSMC would not be in the position they are right now without Apple's partnership powering their capital investments. So in short, Apple's backing isn't proof that TSMC 5nm is good, it's actually a large part of why TSMC 5nm is good, and even exists in the first place.
starfallg 6y ago
>a lot of it is simply a better design Define better. Processor designs, as with many things is a question of tradeoffs. Apple is vertically integrated and has the luxury of designing cores based on a different set of requirements that drive the rest of the industry. As Apple makes a profit off per device sold, and not per chip, they can strategically approach chip design differently. For example, the area of die used.
- whynotminot 6y ago
  You can define it however you choose to. As an end user with an Apple chip in my hands, I get better performance than competing products. I know what you're saying--all those market factors are why the chip in an iPhone achieves better performance than competing phones. So maybe you can stretch better to mean "well Qualcomm still manages to extract profit". Bully for them--as a user, an A series chip is better.
  - starfallg 6y ago
    But obviously not having the highest level of performance doesn't prevent from Qualcomm from producing more chips than Apple. So what's at play here is more performance != better. For you and me yes, more performance is good, but there are a lot of factors in play and not everybody looks to performance being the main metric.
    - whynotminot 6y ago
      I'm sorry, I just don't think your point is that interesting though. Qualcomm is still in business so sure they're moving product and making sales. I'm not denying them that. Apple makes an objectively better chip based off performance. I really don't care about much else. Are you a Qualcomm stock holder? What's your definition of better and why is it better than using performance?
- GeekyBear 6y ago
  > Define better. Apple's "little" cores are roughly on par with the performance of the big cores in a Galaxy S10 while only having the power draw of the current gen ARM "little" cores. >The performance showcased here roughly matches a 2.2GHz Cortex-A76 which is essentially 4x faster than the performance of any other mobile SoC today which relies on Cortex-A55 cores, all while using roughly the same amount of system power and having 3x the power efficiency. https://www.anandtech.com/show/16192/the-iphone-12-review/2 https://www.anandtech.com/show/16192/the-iphone-12-review/2

myrandomcomment 6y ago

The fact of the matter is the Apple ASIC team is better than Qualcomms and even if the 888 was at the same 5mn node the M1 would be faster. I find it very frustrating how people always seem to say "well, Apple only is better because of ... and wait until ..." Apple has been kicking Qualcomms butt for a number of years now and up until now building ASIC was not primary part of their company. Now that they have moved the Mac platform over to their own chips I believe you can expect to gap to widen. I hope, truly that this becomes a awake up call for Intel and Qualcomm.

GeekyBear 6y ago

>Apple's R&D counts less than 50% of M1 performance gain over competition >TSMC announced the first details about its 5 nm manufacturing technology which is going to enable TSMC to aggressively increase its transistor density versus prior generations. However, when it comes to performance and power improvements, the gains do not look very significant. https://www.anandtech.com/show/12727/tsmc-details-5-nm-process-tech-aggressive-scaling-but-thin-power-and-performance-gains https://www.anandtech.com/show/12727/tsmc-details-5-nm-proce...