3 ms·
Doesnt this just suggest they are leaving some performance on the table then? The reason the Intel processors scale non-linearly is because they run each core f
by ac29 5y ago
Doesnt this just suggest they are leaving some performance on the table then? The reason the Intel processors scale non-linearly is because they run each core faster when there are less cores under load.
- sliken 5y agoDunno, looks like classic memory bottleneck to me. The m1 ultra has 800GB/sec, but I believe a bit more than half of that is available to the CPUs. The rest is for the GPU and various on chip accelerators. So with about half the cores (16 vs 28) and twice the bandwidth (say 420GB/sec vs 180 GB/sec) it manages twice the performance. Looks pretty impressive to me. Looks like the Apple is significantly less memory bottle necked than the 6 channel Xeon W.
- ip26 5y agoOnly in a certain sense. You can only turn the voltage so high before things melt, and you can only turn the clocks so high until you crash, and then that's basically it, you can't go any faster. The perfect core could be dialed from fanless to water cooling with linear performance, but it doesn't quite exist today. Intel chips have top end, Apple chips have low end, but an i7 fed 3W isn't going to perform and an M1 can't take any more voltage. The tension is figuring out how to build very large structures to perform useful work with gobs of power, yet still scale down to low power budgets. Imagine a core that can dynamically morph from P core to E core & back on the fly.