4 ms·

This 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

This 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 ago
Qualcomm 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 ago
  You'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 ago
    It’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.
- greggsy 4y ago
  > increasing its recurrent revenue from services that is tied to monetising the personal data of its users. My understanding is that they’re more responsible than other services with respect to personal data. Unless I’m mistaken, their strategy isn't to monetise and sell data, but is instead to sell services that allow users to interact with their own personal data, which is incredibly rich given the ecosystem that Apple Watch and HealthKit offers.
  - webmobdev 4y ago
    As an Apple user, I see it more cynically now - their whole idea of "privacy" has morphed into a strategy to prevent their competitors access to the personal data of the users, while ensuring they have more invasive access to it. This idea is offensive to me. Preventing data collection is the first step to user privacy. Once BigTech has your data, they can do anything with it in the future (despite what they say today) because of the lack of appropriate law and regulation to prevent this. I see us heading to a dystopian future where BigTech evolve into data brokers.
    - greggsy 4y ago
      >Preventing data collection is the first step to user privacy. Apple are the first to actually do this properly by cross-app tracking, forcing developers to outline data collection statements, and providing clearer sharing acceptance pages. > Once BigTech has your data, they can do anything with it in the future (despite what they say today) because of the lack of appropriate law and regulation to prevent this. This is entirely incorrect. HIPPAA and GDPR are very clear about PII health data, and a large corporate like Apple will be fined through the teeth violating it. Changes to the PP are communicated, and allow the user to opt out by discontinuing the service. Sure they’re sometimes opaque, but Apple has built a reputation on responsible data policies, which are frequently contrasted with those of other big tech data factories like Facebook and Google.
      - webmobdev 4y ago

modeless 4y ago

Qualcomm 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 ago
You'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 ago
  It’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.

greggsy 4y ago
> increasing its recurrent revenue from services that is tied to monetising the personal data of its users. My understanding is that they’re more responsible than other services with respect to personal data. Unless I’m mistaken, their strategy isn't to monetise and sell data, but is instead to sell services that allow users to interact with their own personal data, which is incredibly rich given the ecosystem that Apple Watch and HealthKit offers.
- webmobdev 4y ago
  As an Apple user, I see it more cynically now - their whole idea of "privacy" has morphed into a strategy to prevent their competitors access to the personal data of the users, while ensuring they have more invasive access to it. This idea is offensive to me. Preventing data collection is the first step to user privacy. Once BigTech has your data, they can do anything with it in the future (despite what they say today) because of the lack of appropriate law and regulation to prevent this. I see us heading to a dystopian future where BigTech evolve into data brokers.
  - greggsy 4y ago
    >Preventing data collection is the first step to user privacy. Apple are the first to actually do this properly by cross-app tracking, forcing developers to outline data collection statements, and providing clearer sharing acceptance pages. > Once BigTech has your data, they can do anything with it in the future (despite what they say today) because of the lack of appropriate law and regulation to prevent this. This is entirely incorrect. HIPPAA and GDPR are very clear about PII health data, and a large corporate like Apple will be fined through the teeth violating it. Changes to the PP are communicated, and allow the user to opt out by discontinuing the service. Sure they’re sometimes opaque, but Apple has built a reputation on responsible data policies, which are frequently contrasted with those of other big tech data factories like Facebook and Google.
    - webmobdev 4y ago