4 ms·

The M1 Pro was not two M1s duct taped together. Their core configurations do not share the same proportions (8+2 vs 4+4). You may be thinking of the GPUs? Each

by skavi 4y ago

The M1 Pro was not two M1s duct taped together. Their core configurations do not share the same proportions (8+2 vs 4+4). You may be thinking of the GPUs? Each step in M1 -> M1 Pro -> M1 Max -> M1 Ultra represents a doubling of GPU cores. Or you may be thinking of the M1 Max and Ultra. The Ultra is nearly just two Maxes. Regarding your point about flexibility, it’s hardly unprecedented for the same core to be used on different processes. Apple has at times contracted Samsung and TSMC for the same SoC. Qualcomm just recently ported their flagship SoC from Samsung to TSMC. Even Intel backported Sunny Cove to 14nm. And of course there’s ARM.

wolf550e 4y ago
- ttoinou 4y ago
  Thats what the parent said
  - paulmd 4y ago
    meta: HN constantly feels the need to be maximally pendantic even when what they're trying to say was already covered, and it's just very tedious and leads to an exhausting style of posting to try and prevent it. that's really why the "be maximally generous in your interpretation of a comment" rule exists, and the pedantry is against the spirit of that requirement, yet it's super super common, and I think a lot of people feel it's "part of the site's culture" - but if it is, that's not really a good thing, it's against the rules. Just waiting for the pedantic "ackshuyally the rule says PLEASE" reply.
    - phpnode 4y ago
      Well actually, it's not just HN, I see this pattern all over tech Twitter, programming subs on Reddit etc too. I think it happens when people want to participate in the conversation but don't have anything actually worthwhile to say, so rather than say nothing they nitpick.
    - 1123581321 4y ago
      I want to generously overlook any particular words you used and totally disagree with your main point. :) I think that it’s a positive feature of threaded comments to spin off side discussions and minor corrections. In this case, the correction was wrong, but if it was right, I’d have appreciated it in addition to whatever else ended up being written by others. What’s bad for discussion is when those receiving the reply feel attacked, as if the author of the minor point was implying that nothing else was worth discussing. I wish that neither parent nor child comment authors felt the urge to qualify and head off critical or clarifying responses.
      - paulmd 4y ago
        > I wish that neither parent nor child comment authors felt the urge to qualify and head off critical or clarifying responses. I actually would go the other way and say that preemptively laying out a rebuttal to a common/superficial counterargument is an important supportive component of an argument. I personally wish that comment authors wouldn't take it as a personal slight when a common/weak counterargument is addressed preemptively. Any scientific paper has a "what came before and why it's wrong and sucks, and why my approach is awesome and cool and better in every way" section and those are really the same thing - preemptive addressing of criticisms that reviewers/etc would make. You wouldn't say those are dismissive and superficial because they "belittle the previous authors and dismiss their work and arguments", or that "preemptively rebutting an argument is offensive to the reviewer". Why is that a bad thing? "I am aware of a common concern X and I think it doesn't hold water because..." is a pretty reasonable thing to post in a casual debate and it really diminishes the discourse for people to take offense to it and for people to have to excessively censor or limit their discussion as a result. It's not good for the community. Anyway, the other thing is, a lot of debates really come down to "values differences", which is a kind of X-Y problem. For example, in a political debate, a lot of debates over a policy aren't really about the policy, but rather a fundamental disagreement about whether government can (or even should attempt to) efficiently perform an action or regulate a certain kind of conduct. And preventing certain underlying ideals or principles from being surfaced in the discussion tends to lead to rather pointless debates where nothing is agreed, because it was never about the policy in the first place. So the policy actually worsens that problem as well, you just end up with tilting at policy windmills instead of addressing the actual area of disagreement (which is not the policy at all).
tooltalk 4y ago
>> Apple has at times contracted Samsung and TSMC for the same SoC That was only once at 14nm(Samsung)/16nm(TSMC) as Apple outsourced US chip production in TX to Taiwan. Qualcomm uses both TSMC and Samsung on rotational basis to this date.

by skavi 4y ago

wolf550e 4y ago

ttoinou 4y ago
Thats what the parent said
- paulmd 4y ago
  meta: HN constantly feels the need to be maximally pendantic even when what they're trying to say was already covered, and it's just very tedious and leads to an exhausting style of posting to try and prevent it. that's really why the "be maximally generous in your interpretation of a comment" rule exists, and the pedantry is against the spirit of that requirement, yet it's super super common, and I think a lot of people feel it's "part of the site's culture" - but if it is, that's not really a good thing, it's against the rules. Just waiting for the pedantic "ackshuyally the rule says PLEASE" reply.
  - phpnode 4y ago
    Well actually, it's not just HN, I see this pattern all over tech Twitter, programming subs on Reddit etc too. I think it happens when people want to participate in the conversation but don't have anything actually worthwhile to say, so rather than say nothing they nitpick.
  - 1123581321 4y ago
    I want to generously overlook any particular words you used and totally disagree with your main point. :) I think that it’s a positive feature of threaded comments to spin off side discussions and minor corrections. In this case, the correction was wrong, but if it was right, I’d have appreciated it in addition to whatever else ended up being written by others. What’s bad for discussion is when those receiving the reply feel attacked, as if the author of the minor point was implying that nothing else was worth discussing. I wish that neither parent nor child comment authors felt the urge to qualify and head off critical or clarifying responses.
    - paulmd 4y ago
      > I wish that neither parent nor child comment authors felt the urge to qualify and head off critical or clarifying responses. I actually would go the other way and say that preemptively laying out a rebuttal to a common/superficial counterargument is an important supportive component of an argument. I personally wish that comment authors wouldn't take it as a personal slight when a common/weak counterargument is addressed preemptively. Any scientific paper has a "what came before and why it's wrong and sucks, and why my approach is awesome and cool and better in every way" section and those are really the same thing - preemptive addressing of criticisms that reviewers/etc would make. You wouldn't say those are dismissive and superficial because they "belittle the previous authors and dismiss their work and arguments", or that "preemptively rebutting an argument is offensive to the reviewer". Why is that a bad thing? "I am aware of a common concern X and I think it doesn't hold water because..." is a pretty reasonable thing to post in a casual debate and it really diminishes the discourse for people to take offense to it and for people to have to excessively censor or limit their discussion as a result. It's not good for the community. Anyway, the other thing is, a lot of debates really come down to "values differences", which is a kind of X-Y problem. For example, in a political debate, a lot of debates over a policy aren't really about the policy, but rather a fundamental disagreement about whether government can (or even should attempt to) efficiently perform an action or regulate a certain kind of conduct. And preventing certain underlying ideals or principles from being surfaced in the discussion tends to lead to rather pointless debates where nothing is agreed, because it was never about the policy in the first place. So the policy actually worsens that problem as well, you just end up with tilting at policy windmills instead of addressing the actual area of disagreement (which is not the policy at all).

tooltalk 4y ago

>> Apple has at times contracted Samsung and TSMC for the same SoC That was only once at 14nm(Samsung)/16nm(TSMC) as Apple outsourced US chip production in TX to Taiwan. Qualcomm uses both TSMC and Samsung on rotational basis to this date.