7 ms·
As someone that doesn’t really understand the space and stuff that the article is talking about, I was surprised that “Apple Silicon” didn’t appear here since f
by noopl 3y ago
As someone that doesn’t really understand the space and stuff that the article is talking about, I was surprised that “Apple Silicon” didn’t appear here since from my perspective having used both Intel and Apple Silicon Macs, it’s a huge “wow” change. Was Apple leaving and Apple Silicon Macs being so incredibly better than Intel ones not actually a big deal for Intel?
- spenczar5 3y agoTSMC manufactures Apple Silicon. It’s a good example of the foundry model that the article is talking about.
- jsheard 3y agoNot only do they manufacture Apple Silicon, but Apple usually buys out the first runs of their new processes so they have a head-start against even other TSMC customers. I believe every 3nm wafer that TSMC makes is still going to Apple, hence the just-released Qualcomm SD8G3 flagship chip still being made on TSMC 4nm.
- timschmidt 3y agoNvidia's AI $trillions may influence this arrangement in the near future. In the recent past Nvidia has bid Samsung against TSMC in attempts to save costs, but Apple's strategy works well for as long as one foundry has a process advantage.
- mdasen 3y agoI think Apple's advantages are that it has a lot of cash and a very predictable business. I'm not arguing that Nvidia doesn't have a good business, but it seems to be a bit less predictable and a bit less regular than Apple's business. Apple really knows how many chips it's going to want years in advance. Even if Nvidia also wants TSMC's latest process, that could work to Apple's advantage. Right now it's looking like Apple might end up with TSMC's 3nm process for 18 months. If Apple and Nvidia split the initial 2nm capacity, it could be 3+ years before AMD and Qualcomm can get to 2nm. If Nvidia launches the RTX 50 series in late 2024 or early 2025 on TSMC's 3nm (which seems to be the rumor), what does that do for availability for AMD and Qualcomm? Maybe what we'll see going forward is Apple taking the capacity for the first year and Nvidia taking the capacity for the second year leaving AMD and Qualcomm waiting longer. That would certainly benefit Apple. Apple isn't competing against Nvidia. If Nvidia uses up TSMC capacity leaving Apple's actual competitors at a bigger disadvantage, that's pretty great for Apple.
- frankchn 3y agoThe chips Nvidia requires are a lot bigger (>800 mm2 sometimes) and they are much more expensive to make on a cutting edge process with relatively low yields compared to the 100-150 mm2 chips Apple wants for its Axx iPhone chips.
- Rapzid 3y agoNot a good deal for consumer IMHO. Intel is floundering and AMD is now always a node behind. Seems very anti-competitive.
- timschmidt 3y agoApple had been sandbagging the Intel chips for several generations of macbook with anemic cooling solutions, poor thermal throttling curves, and fans that wait until the last moment to turn on. To the extent that the fastest CPUs available in Macbook Pros did not outperform lower models, because both became thermally saturated. When properly cooled, the Intel silicon tends to perform a lot better. Additionally, both Intel and AMD manufacturer CPUs for HEDT and servers which are far beyond anything Apple is fabricating at the moment. Apple has no response to Epyc, Threadripper, or higher end Xeon. Similarly, Apple has no equivalent to Intel, AMD, and Nvidia discrete GPUs. Apple made a quality cell phone chip, and managed to exploit chiplets and chip-to-chip interconnects to double and quadruple it into a decent APU. But it's still an APU, just one segment addressed by current x86 designs.
- kristianp 3y ago> Apple had been sandbagging the Intel chips for several generations of macbook with anemic cooling solutions I don't think that was deliberate. Apple has a long history of not cooling their computers enough.
- yakz 3y agoI had never even considered it was deliberate. In hindsight, doing it deliberately seems pretty smart, at least from a “let’s juice the intro” perspective, but that would have been a really big bet.
- timschmidt 3y agoIt's an interesting question right? Do you think Apple never tested multiple configurations of their leading computer (specifically the higher end ones) over multiple generations, or do you think they knew what they were doing?
- evilduck 3y agoMicrosoft Surface Laptops were trying for similar form factors and having the same thermal problems at the same time, this isn't a grand conspiracy, all Intel laptops were suffering.
- javier2 3y agoThere are many different reasons. Firstly, Apple built experience over a decade designing and building the chips, taking over more and more of the design and IP. Then making these chips at a Intel competitor TSMC, who has a different business model to Intel. Apple were also willing to compromise. The first years had weird experiences for customers with Rosetta, broken apps and Macs that could only drive a single external monitor and connect to few devices. Yet we clearly saw the power efficiency from the better foundry tech at TSMC, coupled with decade of saving watts for mobile phone batteries.
- sillywalk 3y agoI don't think Macs really amounted to much $ in sales for Intel, compared to e.g. Dell etc.