3 ms·

> How does this surprise anyone at all? You're comparing a 5nm-based core to a 7nm-based core, of course there will be a direct disparity in performance Given

> How does this surprise anyone at all? You're comparing a 5nm-based core to a 7nm-based core, of course there will be a direct disparity in performance Given that Apple took the power/heat drop with the transition from 7nm to 5nm instead of a performance increase, that's just not as relevant as it could have been if they had gone the other way. However, that M1 is still running with a significant frequency and power draw deficit vs the Ryzen as well. >During average single-threaded workloads on the 3.2GHz Firestorm cores, such as GCC code compilation, we’re seeing device power go up to 10.5W with active power at around 6.3W. https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-tested https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-teste... However, you compete with the performance you have today, not some theoretical performance you might have if your chip was made differently.

smoldesu 5y ago
> Given that Apple took the power/heat drop with the transition from 7nm to 5nm instead of a performance increase, that's just not as relevant as it could have been if they had gone the other way. I still don't understand your argument here though. It's impressive because Apple was able to get first dibs on next generation technology? Should I be applauding their engineers or fearing their supply chain managers? > However, you compete with the performance you have today, not some theoretical performance you might have if your chip was made differently. Sure, but there's not much fun in bragging about how your V8 demolished a 4-stoke. Plus, as the market for silicon fabs continues to heat up, Apple's lead on logistics isn't going to be so noticeable. They've also painted themselves into a bit of a scalar issue, too: the M1 occupies a bit of an ARM sweet spot right now. As far as I can tell, Apple's only choice for making a more powerful machine is to use better silicon: which won't be available until 4nm/3nm starts to hit production in Q32022, at the earliest.
- GeekyBear 5y ago
  >I still don't understand your argument here though. It's impressive because Apple was able to get first dibs on next generation technology? The M1's performance lead wasn't created by a move from TSMC 7nm to TSMC 5nm. See, here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27184236 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27184236 The Firestorm cores in the M1 in the M1 get their performance from (among other things) having a very wide core that performs more instructions in a single clock cycle, despite running the cores much more slowly than AMD does. There's a good break down of that and other design advantages here: https://www.anandtech.com/show/16226/apple-silicon-m1-a14-deep-dive/2 https://www.anandtech.com/show/16226/apple-silicon-m1-a14-de...

smoldesu 5y ago

> Given that Apple took the power/heat drop with the transition from 7nm to 5nm instead of a performance increase, that's just not as relevant as it could have been if they had gone the other way. I still don't understand your argument here though. It's impressive because Apple was able to get first dibs on next generation technology? Should I be applauding their engineers or fearing their supply chain managers? > However, you compete with the performance you have today, not some theoretical performance you might have if your chip was made differently. Sure, but there's not much fun in bragging about how your V8 demolished a 4-stoke. Plus, as the market for silicon fabs continues to heat up, Apple's lead on logistics isn't going to be so noticeable. They've also painted themselves into a bit of a scalar issue, too: the M1 occupies a bit of an ARM sweet spot right now. As far as I can tell, Apple's only choice for making a more powerful machine is to use better silicon: which won't be available until 4nm/3nm starts to hit production in Q32022, at the earliest.

GeekyBear 5y ago
>I still don't understand your argument here though. It's impressive because Apple was able to get first dibs on next generation technology? The M1's performance lead wasn't created by a move from TSMC 7nm to TSMC 5nm. See, here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27184236 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27184236 The Firestorm cores in the M1 in the M1 get their performance from (among other things) having a very wide core that performs more instructions in a single clock cycle, despite running the cores much more slowly than AMD does. There's a good break down of that and other design advantages here: https://www.anandtech.com/show/16226/apple-silicon-m1-a14-deep-dive/2 https://www.anandtech.com/show/16226/apple-silicon-m1-a14-de...