20 ms·

What 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 fab

What 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 ago
Well 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 ago
  The 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.
  - bob29 5y ago
    LISTEN YOU GEN Z PUNK, YOU DONT KNOW ABOU TTHE REAL TIK TOK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tick%E2%80%93tock_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tick%E2%80%93tock_model
    - wmf 5y ago
      Too bad Intel dropped the tick-tock model years ago.
- JoshTko 5y ago
  What reputable chip analyst expects Intel's fabs catch up to TSMC in the next 3 years?
adam_arthur 5y ago
The 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 ago
  So 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 ago
    Your 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 ago
      That’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 ago
        Surely 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?
    - mehrdada 5y ago
      > It could very well be that moving Intel's design to TSMC's fab would lead to it running circles around M1 Or not. There is no reason to believe Apple design has not been a major contribution to the performance. Sure TSMC process is a major component but to quote yourself it does not follow that that explains all of it. It could very well be that a hypothetical Apple design to Intel fab would still run circles around current Intel chips (or not). What we do know is system architecture is sufficiently different, and that it is likely to have a material impact on performance.

jayd16 5y ago

Well 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 ago
The 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.
- bob29 5y ago
  LISTEN YOU GEN Z PUNK, YOU DONT KNOW ABOU TTHE REAL TIK TOK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tick%E2%80%93tock_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tick%E2%80%93tock_model
  - wmf 5y ago
    Too bad Intel dropped the tick-tock model years ago.
JoshTko 5y ago
What reputable chip analyst expects Intel's fabs catch up to TSMC in the next 3 years?

adam_arthur 5y ago

The 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 ago
So 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 ago
  Your 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 ago
    That’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 ago
      Surely 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?
  - mehrdada 5y ago
    > It could very well be that moving Intel's design to TSMC's fab would lead to it running circles around M1 Or not. There is no reason to believe Apple design has not been a major contribution to the performance. Sure TSMC process is a major component but to quote yourself it does not follow that that explains all of it. It could very well be that a hypothetical Apple design to Intel fab would still run circles around current Intel chips (or not). What we do know is system architecture is sufficiently different, and that it is likely to have a material impact on performance.