2 ms·

"The Apple M1 chip features four big Firestorm CPU cores for high-load scenarios, backed by four smaller Icestorm CPU cores designed for efficiency. If this sou

"The Apple M1 chip features four big Firestorm CPU cores for high-load scenarios, backed by four smaller Icestorm CPU cores designed for efficiency. If this sounds familiar, you’ve probably encountered Android phones with a similar ARM CPU layout. ARM calls this layout ARM big.LITTLE and it’s been around since 2014. The CPU uses the AArch64 or ARM64 extension set of the ARM architecture." AArch64 is the ARM architecture API supported by every Linux variant that has an ARM build that I've ever seen to date. The very reason https://asahilinux.org/ https://asahilinux.org/ was able to get up to speed so quickly is due to this fact (although they're still working on driver support for various subsystems). If Intel has already licensed ARM, then what the hell is taking them so long? The M1 runs Intel code at similar speed but 1/6 the power cost. The fact that Apple pulled this off, and not Intel themselves, is hilarious. This would be like Intel coming out with an x64 chip that ran PowerPC code slightly faster than PowerPC itself but at 1/6 the power. x64 is a dead-man-walking CPU API, and it's about damn time.

adam_arthur 5y ago
Performance doesn't scale linearly with power use... very far from it actually. So making comparisons like "uses 2x the power" means very little. CPU will consume 2-3x more power to gain 5-10% performance. Especially in the desktop setting, they tend to consume as much power as possible for even the most incremental gains in performance... because obviously you're plugged into the wall. And M1 is a process node ahead of Intel's offerings. Intel fell laughably far behind on the manufacturing side, but people touting M1 as some design achievement and not simply a more cutting edge manufacturing process don't know what they're talking about. The big gains in CPU performance in the modern era have always come from process node jumps. The big/little concept is a great architectural change for mobile as well. But you're not going to get substantially improved performance without improving the manufacturing side. Both AMD and Intel's 5nm equivalent offerings will perform similarly to M1 on both power and perf.
- pmarreck 5y ago
  How is 5nm going to erase using 200% more power (40W vs 120W) than the M1 while doing the same computing work?
  - adam_arthur 5y ago
    Did you read the comment? 2x power use can translate to 5% performance difference. Obviously actual numbers will differ, but relationship is far from linear. For example, desktop processors will use up to 3-4x power as mobile processors, yet not nearly 3-4x more powerful. More like a dozen or two percent at same core count. M1 wouldn't be nearly twice as performant if given twice the power. Just as any other processor. The early indications of next gen Intel/AMD mobile processors is that they're looking to be more powerful than m1. Right now they are a technology generation behind. It's like comparing performance of PS5 to Xbox 360 and saying Sony is a better hardware creator. I'm not knocking m1 at all, it's a good achievement. But people are worshiping it under false assumptions and incorrect comparisons. The primary advantage apple had was to buy out all the 5nm production at TSMC before AMD could

adam_arthur 5y ago

Performance doesn't scale linearly with power use... very far from it actually. So making comparisons like "uses 2x the power" means very little. CPU will consume 2-3x more power to gain 5-10% performance. Especially in the desktop setting, they tend to consume as much power as possible for even the most incremental gains in performance... because obviously you're plugged into the wall. And M1 is a process node ahead of Intel's offerings. Intel fell laughably far behind on the manufacturing side, but people touting M1 as some design achievement and not simply a more cutting edge manufacturing process don't know what they're talking about. The big gains in CPU performance in the modern era have always come from process node jumps. The big/little concept is a great architectural change for mobile as well. But you're not going to get substantially improved performance without improving the manufacturing side. Both AMD and Intel's 5nm equivalent offerings will perform similarly to M1 on both power and perf.

pmarreck 5y ago
How is 5nm going to erase using 200% more power (40W vs 120W) than the M1 while doing the same computing work?
- adam_arthur 5y ago
  Did you read the comment? 2x power use can translate to 5% performance difference. Obviously actual numbers will differ, but relationship is far from linear. For example, desktop processors will use up to 3-4x power as mobile processors, yet not nearly 3-4x more powerful. More like a dozen or two percent at same core count. M1 wouldn't be nearly twice as performant if given twice the power. Just as any other processor. The early indications of next gen Intel/AMD mobile processors is that they're looking to be more powerful than m1. Right now they are a technology generation behind. It's like comparing performance of PS5 to Xbox 360 and saying Sony is a better hardware creator. I'm not knocking m1 at all, it's a good achievement. But people are worshiping it under false assumptions and incorrect comparisons. The primary advantage apple had was to buy out all the 5nm production at TSMC before AMD could