3 ms·
I think it's pretty interesting that only Intel is mentioned in the article. It could imply nothing, but it's odd that Intel is the benchmark since AMD has been
by JoshTko 6y ago
I think it's pretty interesting that only Intel is mentioned in the article. It could imply nothing, but it's odd that Intel is the benchmark since AMD has been the multi-thread king for a while. This could mean that Apple's multi-thread performance will be still below AMD.
- neogodless 6y agoI've wasted more life energy arguing on the internet than I care to admit to even myself, and so far, there does seem to be a common theme. Those that herald the M1 as unequivocally the next great thing are very, very rarely in the same (anecdotal) set of internet users that acknowledge that AMD exists, and makes CPUs. (Or it exists, but the M1 outperforms it in every metric!) I suspect that many Apple-focused journalists are similarly constrained by tunnel vision, limiting their view of the world as "things that Apple created in the past" and "things that Apple creates now." For the already Apple faithful, it's not a bad way to go. "Is this new Apple Silicon desktop going to outperform the only option I have now, an Intel Xeon-based Mac Pro?" So it's not too surprising that Intel is their benchmark, even if it ignores much higher performing alternatives available to those outside of Apple's walled garden.
- valuearb 6y agoApple has no incentive to build faster than ThreadRipper CPUs. That’s a tiny, tiny market. It’s more likely they offer TR like performance at much lower watts, temperature and cost, like they’ve done to AMDa best mobile CPUs.