3 ms·

My case for having 8 fast Firestorm cores instead of 4 fast + 4 slow cores is simple - the majority of Desktop PC users don't care about sacrificing performance

My case for having 8 fast Firestorm cores instead of 4 fast + 4 slow cores is simple - the majority of Desktop PC users don't care about sacrificing performance to save a few watts. When a PC is running slow because of a cpu intensive task, nobody is going to appreciate that it is saving a few more watts. And from the figures in the article, it looks like 1 Firestorm core is very roughly equal to 2 Icestorm cores - Relative to their Firestorm times, Icestorms performed more slowly by: 190% running assembly language 330% running simd (Accelerate) library functions 280% running simple Swift 550% running ‘idiomatic’ Swift So 5 or 6 Firestorm cores could have matched the current 4 + 4 config (disregarding the valid point you made about the die area).

nicoburns 5y ago
The rumours are that this year's MacBook pro's will feature an M1X processor with an 8 + 2 configuration which seems like it might well be a good tradeoff to me. The 2 small cores reduce context switching on the big cores making overall performance a lot snappier.
- Applejinx 5y ago
  I'm going to guess that if you could have 8 Firestorm, you will always be better off having 6 Firestorm/8 Icestorm. Always. In practical use. Even for the most isolated tasks there'll be enough 'maintenance work' for the system to do, in practice, that the pool of Icestorms will justify their real estate. If I'm mistaken, it'll be because there proves to be a maximum number of Icestorm cores for the 'maintenance work' that's called for: say if you had a 64/64 system, the idea is that maybe you get to a point where you can have 'too many cores' on the Icestorm side, wastefully so. But that assumes they play NO role in setting up the Firestorms to perform optimally. All this stuff, all this load balancing and assigning, isn't magically done by some GrandMasterCore, it's being worked out by the same CPUs that are benefitting from the load balancing. If you can use Icestorm cores to better set up and load balance the Firestorm cores, if you can burn unused CPU on the Icestorm side to optimize the Firestorm side… then there is NEVER a situation where you'd want the Firestorms to outnumber Icestorms. If that's happening then the Icestorms are doing some grunt work to clear a path for the Firestorms, and if you can burn more cycles to further optimize that, well…
simondotau 5y ago
More Firestorm cores means more die area, which means the SOC gets significantly more expensive and/or supply won't keep up with demand. Obviously it would be great to have 8 Firestorm cores in a desktop Mac—and this will probably be what we'll get in a future A1X—but as long as we're doing silicon fan fiction, why not ask for 32 Firestorm cores? That would be cool.
- webmobdev 5y ago
  The M1 is cheaper than previous Intel i7 Mac Minis. So I don't think it would have mattered if the CPU was slightly more expensive. People would have been willing to pay that price. It was just less riskier, and cheaper, for Apple to use the same chip on both laptops and Desktop PCs even though the CPU trade-offs and consumer expectations of both are different.
  - simondotau 5y ago
    It’s worth remembering that the M1, a chip which has exceeded all expectations of performance, is still just a low end CPU, not merely a “laptop” part. It’s purpose is to be efficient in respect to cost. And this includes the parts cost of higher wattage power delivery and the parts cost of more aggressive heat dissipation. Future M1 derivatives and successors will offer higher performance at a higher price.
Spooky23 5y ago
> the majority of Desktop PC users don't care about sacrificing performance to save a few watts If you ask on those terms, agreed. But if quantified in terms of value delivered, it’s a different story. For example, if your computer can be always on with tasks like updates or if you can dedicate tasks to the slow cores there may be a value there.

nicoburns 5y ago

The rumours are that this year's MacBook pro's will feature an M1X processor with an 8 + 2 configuration which seems like it might well be a good tradeoff to me. The 2 small cores reduce context switching on the big cores making overall performance a lot snappier.

Applejinx 5y ago
I'm going to guess that if you could have 8 Firestorm, you will always be better off having 6 Firestorm/8 Icestorm. Always. In practical use. Even for the most isolated tasks there'll be enough 'maintenance work' for the system to do, in practice, that the pool of Icestorms will justify their real estate. If I'm mistaken, it'll be because there proves to be a maximum number of Icestorm cores for the 'maintenance work' that's called for: say if you had a 64/64 system, the idea is that maybe you get to a point where you can have 'too many cores' on the Icestorm side, wastefully so. But that assumes they play NO role in setting up the Firestorms to perform optimally. All this stuff, all this load balancing and assigning, isn't magically done by some GrandMasterCore, it's being worked out by the same CPUs that are benefitting from the load balancing. If you can use Icestorm cores to better set up and load balance the Firestorm cores, if you can burn unused CPU on the Icestorm side to optimize the Firestorm side… then there is NEVER a situation where you'd want the Firestorms to outnumber Icestorms. If that's happening then the Icestorms are doing some grunt work to clear a path for the Firestorms, and if you can burn more cycles to further optimize that, well…

simondotau 5y ago

More Firestorm cores means more die area, which means the SOC gets significantly more expensive and/or supply won't keep up with demand. Obviously it would be great to have 8 Firestorm cores in a desktop Mac—and this will probably be what we'll get in a future A1X—but as long as we're doing silicon fan fiction, why not ask for 32 Firestorm cores? That would be cool.

webmobdev 5y ago
The M1 is cheaper than previous Intel i7 Mac Minis. So I don't think it would have mattered if the CPU was slightly more expensive. People would have been willing to pay that price. It was just less riskier, and cheaper, for Apple to use the same chip on both laptops and Desktop PCs even though the CPU trade-offs and consumer expectations of both are different.
- simondotau 5y ago
  It’s worth remembering that the M1, a chip which has exceeded all expectations of performance, is still just a low end CPU, not merely a “laptop” part. It’s purpose is to be efficient in respect to cost. And this includes the parts cost of higher wattage power delivery and the parts cost of more aggressive heat dissipation. Future M1 derivatives and successors will offer higher performance at a higher price.

Spooky23 5y ago

> the majority of Desktop PC users don't care about sacrificing performance to save a few watts If you ask on those terms, agreed. But if quantified in terms of value delivered, it’s a different story. For example, if your computer can be always on with tasks like updates or if you can dedicate tasks to the slow cores there may be a value there.