5 ms·

> "That's a completely unjustified comparison. iPhone brought a new way to interact with your phone." People don't really remember, but a lot of people were re

> "That's a completely unjustified comparison. iPhone brought a new way to interact with your phone." People don't really remember, but a lot of people were really dismissive of the iPhone (and iPod) on launch. For the iPhone, the complaints were about cost, about lack of hardware keyboard, about fingerprints on the screen. People complained that it was less usable than existing phones for email, etc. The M1 brings much better performance at much less power. I think that's a big deal and is a massive lift for what applications can do. I also think x86 cannot compete now and things will only get a lot worse as Apple's chips get even better.

The_Colonel 6y ago
> People don't really remember, but a lot of people were really dismissive of the iPhone (and iPod) on launch. I do remember that. iPhone had its growing pains in the first year, and there was a fair criticism back then. But it was also clear that iPhone brings a completely new vision to the concept of a mobile phone. M1 brings a nice performance at fairly low power, but that's just a quantitative difference. No new vision. Perf/watt improvements have been happening every single year since the first chips were manufactured. > I also think x86 cannot compete now and things will only get a lot worse as Apple's chips get even better. Why? Somehow Apple's chips will get better, but competition will stand still? AMD is making currently great progresses, and it finally looks like Intel is waking up from letargia as well.
- fossuser 6y ago
  > "Why? Somehow Apple's chips will get better, but competition will stand still?" Arguably this has been the case for the last ten years (comparing chips on iPhones to others). I think x86 can't compete, CISC can't compete with RISC because of problems inherent to CISC (https://debugger.medium.com/why-is-apples-m1-chip-so-fast-3262b158cba2 https://debugger.medium.com/why-is-apples-m1-chip-so-fast-32...) It won't be for lack of trying - x86 will hold them back. I suppose in theory they could recognize this e-risk, and throw themselves at coming up with a competitive RISC chip design while also somehow overcoming the integration disadvantages they face. If they were smart enough to do this, they would have done it already. I'd bet against them (and I am).
  - astrange 6y ago
    RISC vs CISC is not real. Anyone writing articles about it is uninformed and you should ignore them. (However, it's also not true that all ISAs perform the same. x86-64 actually performs pretty well though and has good memory density - see Linus's old rants about this.) ARM64 is a good ISA but not because it's RISC, some of the good parts are actually moving away from RISCness like complex address operands.
    - erosenbe0 6y ago
      Very much this. Intel is not that stupid. They went in the lab, built and simulated everything to find that the penalty of extra decoding has an upper bound of a few percent perf/Watt max once you are out of the embedded space. OTOH, apple is doing some interesting things optimizing their software stack to the store [without release] reordering that ARM does. These sorts of things are where long term advantage lies. Nobody is ever ahead in the CPU wars by some insurmountable margin in strict hardware terms. System performance is what counts. Apple has weakish support for games, for example, so any hardware advantage they have in a vacuum is moot in that domain. Integrated system performance and total cost of ownership are what matters.
      - fossuser 6y ago
        I'm confused - I thought the reason that it's hard for Intel to add more decoders is because x86 ISA doesn't have fixed length instructions. As a result you can't trivially scale things up. From that linked article: -- Why can’t Intel and AMD add more instruction decoders? This is where we finally see the revenge of RISC, and where the fact that the M1 Firestorm core has an ARM RISC architecture begins to matter. You see, an x86 instruction can be anywhere from 1–15 bytes long. RISC instructions have fixed length. Every ARM instruction is 4 bytes long. Why is that relevant in this case? Because splitting up a stream of bytes into instructions to feed into eight different decoders in parallel becomes trivial if every instruction has the same length. However, on an x86 CPU, the decoders have no clue where the next instruction starts. It has to actually analyze each instruction in order to see how long it is. The brute force way Intel and AMD deal with this is by simply attempting to decode instructions at every possible starting point. That means x86 chips have to deal with lots of wrong guesses and mistakes which has to be discarded. This creates such a convoluted and complicated decoder stage that it is really hard to add more decoders. But for Apple, it is trivial in comparison to keep adding more. -- Maybe you and astrange don't consider fixed length instruction guarantees to be necessarily tied to 'RISC' vs. 'CISC', but that's just disputing definitions. It seems to be an important difference that they can't easily address.
- spideymans 6y ago
  >M1 brings a nice performance at fairly low power, but that's just a quantitative difference. No new vision. Perf/watt improvements have been happening every single year since the first chips were manufactured. I'd say the M1's improvements are a lot more than performance per watt. It has enabled a level of UI fluidity and general "snappiness" that I just haven't seen out of any Mac or PC before. The Mac Pro is clearly faster than any M1 Mac, but the browsing the UI on the Mac Pro just feels slow and clunky in comparison to the M1. I can only chalk that up to optimization between the silicon and the software, and I'm not sure that Apple's competitors will be able to replicate that.

The_Colonel 6y ago

> People don't really remember, but a lot of people were really dismissive of the iPhone (and iPod) on launch. I do remember that. iPhone had its growing pains in the first year, and there was a fair criticism back then. But it was also clear that iPhone brings a completely new vision to the concept of a mobile phone. M1 brings a nice performance at fairly low power, but that's just a quantitative difference. No new vision. Perf/watt improvements have been happening every single year since the first chips were manufactured. > I also think x86 cannot compete now and things will only get a lot worse as Apple's chips get even better. Why? Somehow Apple's chips will get better, but competition will stand still? AMD is making currently great progresses, and it finally looks like Intel is waking up from letargia as well.

fossuser 6y ago
> "Why? Somehow Apple's chips will get better, but competition will stand still?" Arguably this has been the case for the last ten years (comparing chips on iPhones to others). I think x86 can't compete, CISC can't compete with RISC because of problems inherent to CISC (https://debugger.medium.com/why-is-apples-m1-chip-so-fast-3262b158cba2 https://debugger.medium.com/why-is-apples-m1-chip-so-fast-32...) It won't be for lack of trying - x86 will hold them back. I suppose in theory they could recognize this e-risk, and throw themselves at coming up with a competitive RISC chip design while also somehow overcoming the integration disadvantages they face. If they were smart enough to do this, they would have done it already. I'd bet against them (and I am).
- astrange 6y ago
  RISC vs CISC is not real. Anyone writing articles about it is uninformed and you should ignore them. (However, it's also not true that all ISAs perform the same. x86-64 actually performs pretty well though and has good memory density - see Linus's old rants about this.) ARM64 is a good ISA but not because it's RISC, some of the good parts are actually moving away from RISCness like complex address operands.
  - erosenbe0 6y ago
    Very much this. Intel is not that stupid. They went in the lab, built and simulated everything to find that the penalty of extra decoding has an upper bound of a few percent perf/Watt max once you are out of the embedded space. OTOH, apple is doing some interesting things optimizing their software stack to the store [without release] reordering that ARM does. These sorts of things are where long term advantage lies. Nobody is ever ahead in the CPU wars by some insurmountable margin in strict hardware terms. System performance is what counts. Apple has weakish support for games, for example, so any hardware advantage they have in a vacuum is moot in that domain. Integrated system performance and total cost of ownership are what matters.
    - fossuser 6y ago
      I'm confused - I thought the reason that it's hard for Intel to add more decoders is because x86 ISA doesn't have fixed length instructions. As a result you can't trivially scale things up. From that linked article: -- Why can’t Intel and AMD add more instruction decoders? This is where we finally see the revenge of RISC, and where the fact that the M1 Firestorm core has an ARM RISC architecture begins to matter. You see, an x86 instruction can be anywhere from 1–15 bytes long. RISC instructions have fixed length. Every ARM instruction is 4 bytes long. Why is that relevant in this case? Because splitting up a stream of bytes into instructions to feed into eight different decoders in parallel becomes trivial if every instruction has the same length. However, on an x86 CPU, the decoders have no clue where the next instruction starts. It has to actually analyze each instruction in order to see how long it is. The brute force way Intel and AMD deal with this is by simply attempting to decode instructions at every possible starting point. That means x86 chips have to deal with lots of wrong guesses and mistakes which has to be discarded. This creates such a convoluted and complicated decoder stage that it is really hard to add more decoders. But for Apple, it is trivial in comparison to keep adding more. -- Maybe you and astrange don't consider fixed length instruction guarantees to be necessarily tied to 'RISC' vs. 'CISC', but that's just disputing definitions. It seems to be an important difference that they can't easily address.
spideymans 6y ago
>M1 brings a nice performance at fairly low power, but that's just a quantitative difference. No new vision. Perf/watt improvements have been happening every single year since the first chips were manufactured. I'd say the M1's improvements are a lot more than performance per watt. It has enabled a level of UI fluidity and general "snappiness" that I just haven't seen out of any Mac or PC before. The Mac Pro is clearly faster than any M1 Mac, but the browsing the UI on the Mac Pro just feels slow and clunky in comparison to the M1. I can only chalk that up to optimization between the silicon and the software, and I'm not sure that Apple's competitors will be able to replicate that.