5 ms·

Core isn't a standardized unit of measurement. ARM-cores on the Apple Silicon line and the x86-Intel/AMD core behave very differently.

• rbanffy 3y ago
  For the CPU cores, M and x86 are converging. M1 had a very expressive lead on gen 11 and 12 Intel because of multiple hiccups on Intel's product pipeline, but that is not going to hold for long. As for the GPU cores, I know very little how they compare, and GPU cores tend to be wildly different between manufacturers.
  • intrasight 3y ago
    >not going to hold for long honest question: why do you think that? My believe is that a good analogy for such leads would be an average marathon runner vs Kipchoge. His "lead" will only increase with time.
    • smoldesu 3y ago
      > why do you think that? Because, love it or lump it, Intel's manufacturing process is ludicrously advanced. Power hungry, particularly when they're locked on older nodes, but extremely capable when their interests align. Pat Gelsinger has even stated that it's his goal to get Apple back as an Intel customer. Their foundry services started working with ARM to get RISC cores manufactured, and if they stick to their roadmap, it's possible for them to leapfrog TSMC's density limitations. We'll have to see where things go, but I do agree with the parent. Apple's lead was their investment on the TSMC 5nm node, which as-of the M2 is clearly difficult to iterate on. Apple needs advancements in density to make a faster chip - Intel does not.
      • rbanffy 3y ago
        > Apple's lead was their investment on the TSMC 5nm node That's only part of the deal. Apple also made some really cool architectural innovations, as well as creating workload-oriented ISA extensions that proved extremely effective.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]