4 ms·
Intel is a process node behind When you normalize for that, isn’t the power usage they equal?
by sydthrowaway 5y ago
Intel is a process node behind
When you normalize for that, isn’t the power usage they equal?
- JoshTko 5y agoWhat is your point? Intel failed to execute on their own Fabs? That intel needs to use TSMC's fabs to get parity? That Intel can't get access to TSMC's best fabs? The end result is the same. Intel has chips that are 3 years behind in power efficiency.
- jayd16 5y agoWell the point is that they're neck and neck while being a fab behind. If the fab catches up they might be greatly ahead. Its a big if but it adds context.
- na85 5y agoThe power consumption is a critical issue on a laptop, unless you're one of those laptop users that never works on battery in which case you could get a lot more bang for your buck with a desktop.
- JoshTko 5y agoWhat reputable chip analyst expects Intel's fabs catch up to TSMC in the next 3 years?
- adam_arthur 5y agoThe point is obvious. M1 is not more powerful due to a better design, but simply due to more modern manufacturing process. Otherwise you would see a much larger gap in performance.
- shawnz 5y agoSo it's merely equally as good as the previous market leader's flagship product in every way except litography, where it exceeds them? Are you implying that's not something to be impressed about just because lithography is not a property of the architecture?
- adam_arthur 5y agoYour comment is unclear. Apple's contribution to M1 was the design. TSMC built the next gen fabs, and gets credit for the manufacturing. You can't compare viability or success of the processor design when you compare cross fab generations. It's apples to oranges. You can state that M1 is better, which is true, but it doesn't follow at all that it's due to the design component. It could very well be that moving Intel's design to TSMC's fab would lead to it running circles around M1 I mean this is pretty obvious stuff, but these threads always end up full of people that don't understand hardware very well
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- DrBenCarson 5y agoThat’s just not true. The RISC instruction set has a growing advantage in performance per watt. There’s a reason no one is producing low-power x86 chips.
- Macha 5y agoSurely it's a shrinking advantage? x86 CPUs have been microcode based for a long time, and the hardware to convert x86 instructions to micro ops is a relatively fixed cost that diminishes over time with process shrinks?
- carbocation 5y agoAs a consumer, I would not normalize for that.
- MBCook 5y agoI don’t know about equal. It would certainly be better. But the problem is that’s hypothetical. The article is comparing products available today. And that’s what Intel has to compete with. Intel touted this as their “answer” to the M1. They may have overplayed their hand. Maybe should have held that marketing point for next year.
- wyldfire 5y agoWhy would you normalize for that? The subject at hand is the product performance. Could Intel's design turn out better in future generations? Perhaps. I think to consider weighing which process node was used for the CPU changes the subject to Intel's prospects as a CPU designer/manufacturer. If we normalize for Moore's law then historic processors would compare much more favorably. In fact it's a bit unfair to Apple to compare this sample unit to last year's production model.
- DrBenCarson 5y agoWho cares? Better is better. I don’t care why something is better as long as it doesn’t require human sacrifice, just that it’s better. And the M1 beats the snot out of anything x86 without qualification. Add on that you can get it in a Mac Mini for $600 and ding ding ding Apple wins.