5 ms·
I'm not sure we have enough information to draw that conclusion. The thunderbolt ports on the M1 are driven directly from the SOC, so adding more would have mea
by xmodem 6y ago
I'm not sure we have enough information to draw that conclusion. The thunderbolt ports on the M1 are driven directly from the SOC, so adding more would have meant adding a hub chip, which may have been deemed not worth the cost either financailly or in terms of power/thermal budget.
- lwhi 6y agoI don't see how this differs from what I'm saying?
- dijit 6y agoI think the parent is saying that throughput isn’t the only “performance” metric. Cost/thermals/power are also performance metrics. It should be noted, however, that the article does not claim that Apple left throughout performance on the table, only that Apple chose -not- to use a HUB this time which could potentially oversaturate their thunderbolt controllers. This has the benefit of being significantly more stable.
- lwhi 6y agoI wouldn't agree that cost is a performance metric - unless we're talking about value for Apple shareholders. I can't imagine including two more ports would significantly increase the heat profile of a device. Surely the power requirements are a moot point, if devices can be chained?
- dijit 6y agoI think that even if you debate cost as a performance metric the others hold true. And including a thunderbolt hub in the machine would be an additional (quite warm) micro controller. Even external USB hubs can get quite toasty.
- lwhi 6y agoWe're talking about a device which is lauded for being very very cool. You're stretching credulity.
- dijit 6y agoI think we’re agreeing, actually. A device optimised for operating “cool”-ly has obvious been optimised for temperature control. That doesn’t happen by accident.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- lwhi 6y agoPerhaps, but I'm definitely left wondering how the previous generation Mac mini .. with an integrated hub and an old school 'hot' processor ever managed to function.