7 ms·
You're looking in the wrong place. The magic comes from TSMC, not Apple. Apple's major innovation is in using their unrivaled bank account to pay TSMC for exclu
by modeless 4y ago
You're looking in the wrong place. The magic comes from TSMC, not Apple. Apple's major innovation is in using their unrivaled bank account to pay TSMC for exclusivity on their newest fabrication technology. As competitors gain access to that TSMC technology they will match or beat Apple's performance. And if Intel succeeds in reclaiming the fabrication technology lead from TSMC (we'll see) then Intel will beat Apple's performance again.
- chrsig 4y agoI was under the impression that having it all as an SoC was a significant benefit by cutting down latency between components.
- wmf 4y agoIntel, AMD, and Qualcomm have been shipping SoCs for years.
- seabrookmx 4y agoThey don't have the RAM on package though.
- wmf 4y agoThis doesn't matter. I know no one will believe me, but there's no benchmark that can show the difference.
- wffurr 4y agoIsn't the packaging part of what makes the very wide memory controllers feasible?
- wmf 4y agoNot really. GPUs regularly implement 256-bit or wider RAM.
- erichocean 4y agoWith insanely high latency relative to a CPU…
- wffurr 4y agoDon't GPUs also typically have the RAM soldered on you the card, effectively "on package"?
- wmf 4y agoThat's my point; Apple's RAM soldered on package is the same as PC laptops with RAM soldered on the motherboard. Apple has no advantage from that.
- boringg 4y agoYou think Intel can right their ship? That's a fairly large order given some of the internal problems that have spilled into the public limelight. Takes a lot of energy to change that momentum.
- paulmd 4y agoAMD is going to be on the same node as Apple as of this year - Apple is not moving onto N3, they're staying on N5P, and Zen4 will also be N5P, so we can make iso-node comparisons.
- anewpersonality 4y agoThis will be juicy come the fall!
- amelius 4y agoI agree. And part of the magic comes from ASML.
- lumost 4y agoI simply don’t believe this is true enough to matter. If it was a simple case of paying ASML X billions for their equipment, then we’d see more TSMC competitors. It is entirely plausible TSMC co-developed some of ASML’s IP and has exclusivity - or that the tech to make a working process out of ASML machines is intrinsically hard.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- arcticbull 4y ago84% of ASMLs entire business is TSMC, Samsung and Intel. It does seem like it's ASML or bust. They're the only ones that make EUV lithography equipment. Competitors (Canon, Nikon) tapped out at DUV.
- davidf18 4y agoThe ASML EUV machines are extremely complicated and rate limited by the polishing of the Zeiss mirrors which require 9 months to manufacture. Zeiss is in the process of scaling up, but in the meantime the EUV machines are very much backordered and that supply limitation is partially responsible for the slowdown in the release of updated nodes. There is an update of the ASML machines which are far more complicated that cost twice as much and should be part of a fab line in production in 2025.
- freemint 4y agoTo continue the tree of suppliers. Zeiss SMT would be nothing without: HAP GmbH Dresden, MBFZ Toolcraft GmbH, Corning Advanced Optics, AGC Inc, RUAG Space, Schmolz + Bickenbach, RORZE CORPORATION and GEWO Feinmechanik GmbH
- 4y ago
- wmf 4y agoThat's not true. Compare the 8+ Gen 1 (TSMC N4) against A15 (TSMC N5).
- modeless 4y agoQualcomm prioritizes cost over performance and it shows. Look at AMD for a performance comparison.
- throw34 4y agoBut doesn’t your statement prove that there are decisions and things the user of a node can make which effect the end result? Therefore, is not just process node that matters.
- grogenaut 4y agoI think it states that Qualcomm is not competing with apple on the success metrics that this post talks about re catching up, so you can't use it as a comparison. No idea how fast they could hit those specs up if they wanted to (was core to their business)
- modeless 4y agoObviously you can choose not to aim for the best possible performance in order to reduce costs. But for the companies that are competing for the absolute best performance at any cost, which doesn't include Qualcomm, by far the biggest factor determining that performance is the fabrication technology.
- throw34 4y agoThat’s an interesting take given this thread because Apple has explicitly stated they don’t prioritize performance, they prioritize performance per watt, which is not the same thing. And that also shows there’s a whole design space here and just focusing on one dimension, process node, is overly simplistic.
- pizlonator 4y agoThat’s a bold statement. I don’t think we really know how much of the lead is due to Apple’s design. I would bet it’s more due to fab than design, but the design plays a nontrivial role.
- mixmastamyk 4y agoJust ARM is known to have much better per watt performance than intel. Folks are desperate that there be a single reason, but that is rarely the case. The reality is that multiple factors are working in Apple’s favor. Process, architecture, design, investment, focus, OS… firing on all cylinders as they say.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- spenvo 4y agoEven there, it looks like Samsung is on track to beat TSMC to mass production of 3nm chips: https://www.reuters.com/technology/samsung-elec-starts-3-nanometre-chip-production-lure-new-foundry-customers-2022-06-30/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/samsung-elec-starts-3-nan...
- nixgeek 4y agoBy this logic, you believe Samsung Exynos will be competitive with Apple’s A16 when it launches later this year? If it’s all in the process size - you’d expect this to be true but I’m betting A16 will continue the trend of Apple Silicon being dramatically superior.
- wmf 4y agoNanometers are fake though. Samsung 3GAE probably has worse performance than TSMC N4.
- Bud 4y ago...except that Samsung demonstrably lies about every single thing relevant to assessing performance, benchmarks, release dates, etc.
- jjtheblunt 4y agothat's absurd. fabrication depends on a design, and Apple has done years of research into low power performant designs, going back to be a cofounder of ARM. Citation : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arm_(company)#Founding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arm_(company)#Founding
- bearjaws 4y agoThis is just absolutely incorrect. Design is over half the battle, look at Qualcomm n5 performance vs Apple M1 on n5 performance. It's not even comparable in anyway. Even AMD 6900U struggles in many regards compared to M1 pro, and even more so at performance per watt. For example Cinebench runs at 118% more power draw on the Ryzen at only a 11% multi-core performance advantage.
- modeless 4y agoQualcomm chooses low cost over performance on purpose. AMD 6900U is still at a process disadvantage compared to M1. AMD's comparable chips won't come out for many more months.
- Bud 4y agoYou're still wrong. Design counts. Apple has a huge design lead here. There's no way to successfully obscure or distract from that fact.
- fundad 4y agoIt’s obvious they invested so much design energy making A series much faster every year to build the competence to build the M series the way they wanted it.
- webmobdev 4y ago> This is just absolutely incorrect. Design is over half the battle Completely agree. There are many ARM SoCs available in the market, and Apple's ARM SoCs outperform most of them. Apple has also made significant design changes in its SoCs that really does differentiate it from current Intel and AMD chips and these design changes do give it a performance advantage. The unified memory access architecture (I think pioneered by SGI), is a good example of one such architectural difference. And ofcourse, manufacturing these SoCs on newer node tech also allows Apple to pack more transistors in their chip than Intel and AMD currently can. Altogether, it is undeniable that Apple engineers have created a great piece of hardware and a very decent and viable alternative to Intel and AMD chips. But ... better tech doesn't always necessarily translate to more sales and popular acceptance. AMD is a great example here - despite having better technology than both Intel and Apple (on CPUs and GPUs), it still struggles to compete with either and is nowhere near the market size or capitalisation of either Intel or Apple. However, here we are not talking about a product from a new startup or small business but Apple - A huge behemoth with a fantastic team of management that knows how to sell stuff and make a profit. So it's not at all far-fetched to assume that the Apple Silicon chips are here for the long term and will continue to be a viable competitor to Intel and AMD chips. But how are they competing, and what company's vision will win in the long term? Apple's long term business vision is to continue being a hardware + software company while evolving & increasing its recurrent revenue from services that is tied to monetising the personal data of its users. I have no clear idea of either Intel's or AMD's future business visions (which is perhaps telling in its own way of how both businesses are today), other than that they want to continuing innovating and selling the hardware that is their core business (CPU, GPU, Fab tech etc.) that is more "open" to integration with other systems (software and hardware). So, keeping those visions in mind, let's compare the pros and cons of Apple and AMD / Intel chips. Apple Silicon - Pros: 1. Latest tech, innovative design offering better performance in some areas. 2. Low power usage, great battery life. 3. Cheaper. 4. "Integrated" RAM leading to better performance. 5. Highly integrated with Apple ecosystem (Apple hardware + software + web services). Apple Silicon - Cons: 1. It is not sold as stand alone part. 2. It is a closed box system with no hardware literature available to build alternative platforms on it. 3. Highly integrated with Apple's ecosystem. 4. Has built-in planned obsolescence (CPU is soldered, RAM is soldered, bootloader can be locked anytime). 5. Low power usage that unnecessarily sacrifices performance is undesirable in a desktop computer. As is evident, the pros and cons of Apple Silicon are tied to the business vision of Apple - they believe that the best way to make recurrent revenues by selling Apple services, is to create a closed-box system and tightly integrated ecosystem that forces its users to only use Apple hardware and services. Built-in planned obsolescence makes it easier to sell new system. Similarly, AMD / Intel's business vision is reflected in pros and cons of their product too: AMD / Intel CPUs - Pros: 1. Good support for multiple OS platforms. 2. Backward compatible (x86). 3. More open, better hardware literature on their SoC's support creating new platforms. 4. Better integration with other hardware allows more flexibility to users in building custom hardware. 5. Supports repairability (CPUs can be replaced and upgraded more easily in the same system, integrated GPU doesn't prevent you from adding and using a more powerful GPU etc). AMD / Intel CPUs - Cons: 1. Lagging in newer tech. 2. Maintaining backward compatibility comes at a price - more complexity, limits exploring new designs and architectures. 3. Supporting multiple platforms can be somewhat limiting as hardware performance varies depending on software quality of the platform. ----- As AMD and Intel have shown in the past, both have had better tech than the other at some point. It's the same today with Apple innovating and currently having better tech than AMD / Intel. So it isn't exactly a question of will the better tech win. What matters is who can sell their tech better.
- spoonjim 4y agoWrong, the majority of Apple’s thermal efficiency comes from superior design which in turn comes from the fact that they were able to design it from the ground up with no backwards compatibility requirements (since they don’t have any customers of the chip besides themselves).
- rowanG077 4y agoThis is false. Apples arm chips are compatible with the normal arm instruction set. Evidenced by Linux trivially running on it.
- whynaut 4y agoWell it’s an ARM chip. it’s still not backwards compatible..
- mike_hearn 4y agoWith AArch64 yes, but that's a relatively recent 'clean break' ISA. It's not an extension of Arm32.
- n7pdx 4y agolol this will age well. i remember designing CPUs at intel when they had like a ~2.5 gen process lead (literally 4-5 years) and the result was still barely better than competition. what outsiders don’t realize is intel management never had to deal with competition. they spent their entire careers fighting each other in petty internecine political battles. if you think intel vs amd is a feud, you haven’t seen intel arch/design vs intel fabs. and in that kind of environment, loyalists and politicians are promoted, not people willing to critically inspect your own processes and improve things. end result: intel has a massive competence gap. in the extremely unlikely scenario where intel can regain the process lead, they will still be behind the curve on innovation and execution.
- jaytaylor 4y agoI didn't know the word internecine, it's actually really useful and relevant in many situations, thank you! > internecine, adj.: > destructive to both sides in a conflict.
- jodrellblank 4y agoI find myself googling "etymology {word}" a lot recently; here inter is between like in intercontinental, and necine is death like in necrosis. And inter is apparently the origin of intel, which is topical, and suggests Intelnecine, adj: destructive to all factions within Intel, or any company with a destructive amount of in-fighting. https://www.etymonline.com/word/internecine https://www.etymonline.com/word/internecine
- SilverBirch 4y ago(Ex-Intel, agree) What do you think of the new management? Too difficult to turn the tanker?
- n7pdx 4y agoLooks bad. I have two examples to go with: - The Sapphire Rapids validation catastrophe proves they haven’t learned a damn thing about high quality first silicon even after all these years of getting their asses handed to them by AMD/Apple on fast cadence updates. - Arc, enough said. Pat Gelsinger made some big moves on his direct reports but he doesn’t have the time to perform the necessary mass purge of the mid/mid-high level management (i.e. the baby VP tier). When you run a company with 100k staff you have to delegate a lot of things, but the problem is a huge amount of the toxic management are still there, hiding in nooks and crannies and surviving. Intel is currently throwing a lot of money around to hire people from the companies thrashing them (got a text message from a VP a couple months back), I get the feeling the Intel immune system will spit them back out upon detecting deviance from “the Intel way”.
- simonh 4y agoIt’s true 5nm definitely gives M1 an edge, but Apple’s ARM chips have lead the pack by a mile in performance for a long time, at comparable nodes. To say all the magic lies with TSMC is to claim that with M1 Apple suffered a huge loss is leadership position in terms of design, saved only by TSMC. I don’t see how that’s a credible claim.
- sliken 4y agoGenerally agreed, however apple's arm cores have substantial advantages over all the other common arm cores. The M1 maintains great perf/watt (common to arm), but is a very competitive core at any power level.
- hajile 4y agoA13 and Zen 2/3 were all on TSMC N7, but A13 still crushes in performance per watt by a HUGE margin.
- msbarnett 4y agoTo reach 87% of the perf of a 12900K at a max clock of 3.2 GHz versus the 12900K‘s monstrous 5.2 GHz, the M1 has something like a 75% IPC advantage. Are you seriously claiming that you expect a single node shrink from Intel 10nm (roughly equivalent to TSMC 7nm) to Intel 7nm (equivalent TSMC 5nm, the M1’s node) to give Intel an enormous 75% increase in IPC such that they’d be able to compete on performance per watt by not having to clock so stratospherically high (with the attendant voltage penalties) to compensate for their low IPC? That would be an unprecedented outcome for several node shrinks, let alone a single one. It’s Apple’s super-wide design that’s the primary factor in the IPC here. To pin it all on a single node shrink is magical thinking.
- SilverBirch 4y agoI'm not claiming that I think the parent's claim is true, but Intel really fucked up 10nm, and I mean worse than they fucked up the shrink to 14nm which fundamentally changed their unit economics. So let's be clear, it's not like the good old days where Intel might get ahead by moving to 65nm earlier. TSMC 5nm is competing against Intel 10nm at a point where Intel 10nm can't really beat Intel 14nm. I know the actual measurements are bullshit (I've got flak for complaining about angstroms before) but TSMC 5nm is a long way ahead.
- sliken 4y agoEr, no, sure it's a contributing factor. But Apple's lead in perf/watt is much higher than you can attribute to the process. Their GPU is similarly impressive, with a minimal TDP it handily crushes any other iGPU.
- kurupt213 4y agowhat’s your superpower? I’m really rich. That justice league exchange is what came to mind when I read your comment