3 ms·
> Intel sells CPUs, so it creates the ranges of CPUs to make money. They advertise clock speed and put the higher ones on a pedestal, that is how they can charg
by slver 6y ago
> Intel sells CPUs, so it creates the ranges of CPUs to make money. They advertise clock speed and put the higher ones on a pedestal, that is how they can charge more money.
How is any of this specific to Intel?
Apple uses M1 at different clockrates in different devices. And that's not only due to battery and heat concerns, but also because those M1 are rated to run without errors at different clockrates.
Similarly the new iMacs come with two types of GPU: 7 core (cheap), and 8 core (more expensive). The 7-core ones had one core disabled because it was defective.
What Intel does reflects the simple reality of producing microchips. Some units turn out better than others. So you sell them at different prices. It's the same for AMD. It's the same Apple.
> Apple has a lot going for it in that scenario. They never had proliferation of models and always kept the number of options to a minimum.
Yet.
- SavantIdiot 6y ago> How is any of this specific to Intel? As of right now, there are 6 different Intel processor brands and close to 100 different SKUs. Source: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/details/processors.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/details/pro... Currently, there is one M1.
- slver 6y agoI just explained above there's no single M1. They vary by core count, and by clockrate. And probably more. The only thing that's "one" about M1 is the brand. It's one brand. It's easy to have a clean brand, when you don't sell naked CPUs by themselves. "Oh everything we have has M1". It doesn't even matter if this is accurate or not, we realize that, right? Are we going to hold up Intel for having hundreds of SKUs because they sell chips alone, and Apple sells them in computers? I hope not, that'd be silly. Are we also going to hold up Intel for being in the PC CPU business for decades, while Apple has been at it for several months only? I hope not, that'd also be silly. Finally, are we going to hold up Intel for targeting cheap office machines, and high-end data centers, and hardcore gamers, and scientific uses, and many other customers that Apple isn't even trying to have? I hope not, same reason. :-)
- SavantIdiot 6y agoI thought you were making a claim that Apple would eventually trend like Intel with hundreds of SKUs. I don't see apple complicating its CPU line like that because it has no need to: the M1 works in a variety of scenarios, which which is what the OP was pointing out.
- slver 6y agoApple has no need to complicate its CPU line like that because it doesn't sell CPUs. It sells the whole banana.
- r00fus 6y ago> It's easy to have a clean brand I think vast evidence over the past few decades has proven this is actually not the case, especially in tech. > , when you don't sell naked CPUs by themselves. This is Intel's choice of a hill to die on. They drove everyone else out of the market then failed to realize that market itself is collapsing with the rise of cloud computing and ISA agnosticism and haven't evolved with the times.