20 ms·
"With these improvements to the CPU and GPU, M4 maintains Apple silicon’s industry-leading performance per watt. M4 can deliver the same performance as M2 using
by praseodym 2y ago
"With these improvements to the CPU and GPU, M4 maintains Apple silicon’s industry-leading performance per watt. M4 can deliver the same performance as M2 using just half the power. And compared with the latest PC chip in a thin and light laptop, M4 can deliver the same performance using just a fourth of the power."
That's an incredible improvement in just a few years. I wonder how much of that is Apple engineering and how much is TSMC improving their 3nm process.
- cs702 2y agoPotentially > 2x greater battery life for the same amount of compute! That is pretty crazy. Or am I missing something?
- krzyk 2y agoWait a bit. M2 wasn't as good as the hype was.
- fallat 2y ago[flagged]
- modeless 2y agoThat's because M2 was on the same TSMC process generation as M1. TSMC is the real hero here. M4 is the same generation as M3, which is why Apple's marketing here is comparing M4 vs M2 instead of M3.
- sys_64738 2y agoI thought M3 and M4 were different processes though. Higher yield for the latter or such.
- jonathannorris 2y agoActually, M4 is reportedly on a more cost-efficient TSMC N3E node, where Apple was apparently the only customer on the more expensive TSMC N3B node; I'd expect Apple to move away from M3 to M4 very quickly for all their products. https://www.trendforce.com/news/2024/05/06/news-apple-m4-incoming-boosting-tsmcs-3nm-production/#:~:text=Additionally%2C%20industry%20sources%20cited%20by,advanced%20process%20node%20optimization%20versions https://www.trendforce.com/news/2024/05/06/news-apple-m4-inc....
- modeless 2y agoYeah and M2 was on N5P vs M1's N5, but it was still N5. M4 is still N3.
- geodel 2y agoAnd why other PC vendors not latching on to the hero?
- mixmastamyk 2y agoApple often buys their entire capacity (of a process) for quite a while.
- modeless 2y agoApple pays TSMC for exclusivity on new processes for a period of time.
- mensetmanusman 2y agoSaying tsmc is a hero ignores the thousands of suppliers that improved everything required for tsmc to operate. Tsmc is the biggest, so they get the most experience on all the new toys the world’s engineers and scientists are building.
- whynotminot 2y agoIt's almost as if every part of the stack -- from the uArch that Apple designs down to the insane machinery from ASML, to the fully finished SoC delivered by TSMC -- is vitally important to creating a successful product. But people like to assign credit solely to certain spaces if it suits their narrative (lately, Apple isn't actually all that special at designing their chips, it's all solely the process advantage)
- modeless 2y agoSaying TSMC's success is due to their suppliers ignores the fact that all of their competitors failed to keep up despite having access to the same suppliers. TSMC couldn't do it without ASML, but Intel and Samsung failed to do it even with ASML. In contrast, when Apple's CPU and GPU competitors get access to TSMC's new processes after Apple's exclusivity period expires, they achieve similar levels of performance (except for Qualcomm because they don't target the high end of CPU performance, but AMD does).
- mensetmanusman 2y agoTsmc being the biggest let them experiment at 10x the rate. It turns out they had the right business model that Intel didn’t notice was there, it just requires dramatically lower margins and higher volumes and far lower paid engineers.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- eqvinox 2y agoSadly, this is only processor power consumption, you need to put power into a whole lot of other things to make an useful computer… a display backlight and the system's RAM come to mind as particular offenders.
- treesciencebot 2y agobacklight is now the main bottleneck for consumption heavy uses. I wonder what are the main advancements that are happening there to optimize the wattage.
- sangnoir 2y agoIs the iPad Pro not yet on OLED? All of Samsung's flagship tablets have OLED screens for well over a decade now. It eliminates the need for backlighting, has superior contrast and pleasant to ise in low-light conditions.
- kbolino 2y agoI'm not sure how OLED and backlit LCD compare power-wise exactly, but OLED screens still need to put off a lot of light, they just do it directly instead of with a backlight.
- callalex 2y agoThe iPad that came out today finally made the switch. iPhones made the switch around 2016. It does seem odd how long it took for the iPad to switch, but Samsung definitely switched too early: my Galaxy Tab 2 suffered from screen burn in that I was never able to recover from.
- sangnoir 2y agoLineageOS has an elegant solution for OLED burn in: imperceptibly shift persistent UI elements my a few pixels over time
- devsda 2y ago
- Hamuko 2y agoComparing the tech specs for the outgoing and new iPad Pro models, that potential is very much not real. Old: 28.65 Wh (11") / 40.88 Wh (13"), up to 10 hours of surfing the web on Wi-Fi or watching video. New: 31.29 Wh (11") / 38.99 Wh (13"), up to 10 hours of surfing the web on Wi-Fi or watching video.
- binary132 2y agoOk, but is it twice as fast during those 10 hours, leading to 20 hours of effective websurfing? ;)
- jeffbee 2y agoA more efficient CPU can't improve that spec because those workloads use almost no CPU time and the display dominates the energy consumption.
- Hamuko 2y agoUnfortunately Apple only ever thinks about battery life in terms of web surfing and video playback, so we don't get official battery-life figures for anything else. Perhaps you can get more battery life out of your iPad Pro web surfing by using dark mode, since OLEDs should use less power than IPS displays with darker content.
- codedokode 2y agoIsn't this weird, a new chip consumes 2 times less power, but the battery life is the same?
- masklinn 2y agoIt's not weird when you consider that browsing the web or watching videos has the CPU idle or near enough, so 95% of the power draw is from the display and radios.
- rsynnott 2y agoThe OLED likely adds a fair bit of draw; they're generally somewhat more power-hungry than LCDs these days, assuming like-for-like brightness. Realistically, this will be the case until MicroLEDs are available for non-completely-silly money.
- Dibby053 2y ago2x efficiency vs a 2 year old chip is more or less in line with expectations (Koomey's law). [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koomey%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koomey%27s_law
- BurningFrog 2y agoIs the CPU/GPU really dominating power consumption that much?
- masklinn 2y agoNah, GP is off their rocker. For the workloads in question the SOC's power draw is a rounding error, low single-digit percent.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- onlyrealcuzzo 2y agoOn one hand, it's crazy. On the other hand, it's pretty typical for the industry. Average performance per watt doubling time is 2.6 years: https://newsroom.arm.com/blog/performance-per-watt#:~:text=This%20number%20doubled%20every%2018,since%20(16x%20per%20decade) https://newsroom.arm.com/blog/performance-per-watt#:~:text=T....
- praseodym 2y agoM2 was launched in June 2022 [1] so a little under 2 years ago. Apple is a bit ahead of that 2.6 years, but not by much. [1] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2022/06/apple-unveils-m2-with-breakthrough-performance-and-capabilities/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2022/06/apple-unveils-m2-with...
- halgir 2y agoIf they maintain that pace, it will start compounding incredibly quickly. If we round to 2 years vs 2.5 years, after just a decade you're an entire doubling ahead.
- luyu_wu 2y agoNote that performance per watt is 2x higher at both chips peak performance. This is in many ways an unfair comparison for Apple to make.
- faeriechangling 2y agoIt's a shame performance per watt doesn't double every 2.6 years for modems and screens.
- onlyrealcuzzo 2y agoWatts per pixel probably did something close for a long time for screens. Same for Watts per bit. There's just a lot more pixels and bits.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago> I wonder how much of that is Apple engineering and how much is TSMC improving their 3nm process. I think Apple's design choices had a huge impact on the M1's performance but from there on out I think it's mostly due to TSMC.
- izacus 2y agoApple usually massively exaggerates their tech spec comparison - is it REALLY half the power use of all times (so we'll get double the battery life) or is it half the power use in some scenarios (so we'll get like... 15% more battery life total) ?
- can16358p 2y agoApple is one of the few companies that underpromise and overdeliver and never exaggerate. Compared to the competition, I'd trust Apple much more than the Windows laptop OEMs.
- alphakappa 2y agoAny product that uses this is more than just the chip, so you cannot get a proportional change in battery life.
- izacus 2y agoSure, but I also remember them comparing M1 chip to 3090 GTX and my MacBook M1 Pro doesn't really run games well. So I've become really suspicious about any claims about performance done by Apple.
- servus45678981 2y agoThat is fault of the devs. Because optimization for dedicated graphic cards is a either integrated in the game engine or they just have a version for rtx users.
- filleduchaos 2y agoI mean, I remember Apple comparing the M1 Ultra to Nvidia's RTX 3090. While that chart was definitely putting a spin on things to say the least, and we can argue from now until tomorrow about whether power consumption should or should not be equalised, I have no idea why anyone would expect the M1 Pro (an explicitly much weaker chip) to perform anywhere near the same. Also what games are you trying to play on it? All my M-series Macbooks have run games more than well enough with reasonable settings (and that has a lot more to do with OS bugs and the constraints of the form factor than with just the chipset).
- mvkel 2y agoAnd here it is in an OS that can't even max out an M1! That said, the function keys make me think "and it runs macOS" is coming, and THAT would be extremely compelling.
- a_vanderbilt 2y agoWe've seen a slow march over the last decade towards the unification of iOS and macOS. Maybe not a "it runs macOS", but an eventual "they share all the same apps" with adaptive UIs.
- asabla 2y agoI think so too. Especially after the split from iOS to ipados. Hopefully they'll show something during this year's WWDC
- DrBazza 2y agoThey probably saw the debacle that was Windows 8 and thought merging a desktop and touch OS is a decade-long gradual task, if that is even the final intention. Unlike MS that went with the Big Bang in your face approach that was oh-so successful.
- zitterbewegung 2y agoPeople have complained about why Logic Pro / Final Cut wasn't ported to the iPad Pro line. The obvious answer is that making workflows done properly take time.
- a_vanderbilt 2y agoEven with the advantage of time, I don't think Microsoft would have been able to do it. They can't even get their own UI situated, much less adaptive. Windows 10/11 is this odd mishmash of old and new, without a consistent language across it. They can't unify what isn't even cohesive in the first place.
- mvkel 2y agoI'd be very surprised if Apple is paying attention to anything that's happening with windows. At least as a divining rod for how to execute.
- bitwize 2y agoUltimately, does it matter? Michelin-starred restaurants not only have top-tier chefs. They have buyers who negotiate with food suppliers to get the best ingredients they can at the lowest prices they can. Having a preferential relationship with a good supplier is as important to the food quality and the health of the business as having a good chef to prepare the dishes. Apple has top-tier engineering talent but they are also able to negotiate preferential relationships with their suppliers, and it's both those things that make Apple a phenomenal tech company.
- makeitdouble 2y agoQualcomm is also with TSMC and their newer 4nm processor is expected to stay competitive with the M series. If the magic comes mostly from TSMC, there's a good chance for these claims to be true and to have a series of better chips coming on the other platforms as well.
- hot_gril 2y agoThis info is much more useful than a comparison to restaurants.
- 0x457 2y agoDoes Qualcomm have any new CPU cores besides that one they can't make ARM due to licensing?
- transpute 2y agoThe one being announced on May 20th at Computex? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40288969 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40288969
- stouset 2y ago“Stay” competitive implies they’ve been competitive. Which they haven’t. I’m filing this into the bin with all the other “This next Qualcomm chip will close the performance gap” claims made over the past decade. Maybe this time it’ll be true. I wouldn’t bet on it.
- GeekyBear 2y agoThey don't mention which metric is 50% higher. However, we have more CPU cores, a newer core design, and a newer process node which would all contribute to improving multicore CPU performance. Also, Apple is conservative on clock speeds, but those do tend to get bumped up when there is a new process node as well.
- philistine 2y agoActually, TSMC's N3E process is somewhat of a regression on the first-generation 3nm process, N3. However, it is simpler and more cost-efficient, and everyone seems to want to get out of that N3 process as quickly as possible. That seems to be the biggest reason Apple released the A17(M3) generation and now the M4 the way they did. The N3 process is in the A17 Pro, the M3, M3 Pro, and M3 Max. The A17 Pro name seems to imply you won't find it trickle down on the regular iPhones next year. So we'll see that processor only this year in phones, since Apple discontinues their Pro range of phones every year; only the regular phones trickle downrange lowering their prices. The M3 devices are all Macs that needed an upgrade due to their popularity: the Macbook Pro and Macbook Air. They made three chips for them, but they did not make an M3 Ultra for the lower volume desktops. With the announcement of an M4 chip in iPads today, we can expect to see the Macbook Air and Macbook Pro upgraded to M4 soon, with the introduction of an M4 Ultra to match later. We can now expect those M3 devices to be discontinued instead of going downrange in price. That would leave one device with an N3 process chip: the iMac. At its sale level, I wouldn't be surprised if all the M3 chips that will go into it will be made this year, with the model staying around for a year or two running on fumes.
- GeekyBear 2y agoThe signs certainly all point to the initial version of N3 having issues. For instance, Apple supposedly required a deal where they only paid TSMC for usable chips per N3 wafer, and not for the entire wafer. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/08/report-apple-is-saving-billions-on-chips-thanks-to-unique-deal-with-tsmc/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/08/report-apple-is-savi...
- dehrmann 2y agoMy read on the absurd number of Macbook M3 SKUs was that they had yield issues.
- GeekyBear 2y agoThere is also the fact that we currently have an iPhone generation where only the Pro models got updated to chips on TSMC 3nm. The next iPhone generation is said to be a return to form with all models using the same SOC on the revised version of the 3nm node. > Code from the operating system also indicates that the entire iPhone 16 range will use a new system-on-chip – t8140 – Tahiti, which is what Apple calls the A18 chip internally. The A18 chip is referenced in relation to the base model iPhone 16 and 16 Plus (known collectively as D4y within Apple) as well as the iPhone 16 Pro and 16 Pro Max (referred to as D9x internally) https://www.macrumors.com/2023/12/20/ios-18-code-four-new-iphone-models/ https://www.macrumors.com/2023/12/20/ios-18-code-four-new-ip...
- mensetmanusman 2y agoAlso the thousands of suppliers that have improved their equipment and supplies that feed into the tsmc fabs.
- tuckerpo 2y agoIt is almost certainly half as much power in the RMS sense, not absolute.
- smrtinsert 2y agoBreathtaking
- beeboobaa3 2y ago> And compared with the latest PC chip in a thin and light laptop, M4 can deliver the same performance using just a fourth of the power It can deliver the same performance as itself at just a fourth of the power than it's using? That's incredible!
- nblgbg 2y agoThat doesn't seem to reflect in the battery life of these. They have the same exact battery life. Does it mean it's not entirely accurate? Since they don't indicate the battery capacity in their specs, it's hard to confirm this.
- davidee 2y agoI haven't paid too much attention today, but what I did see with the iPad Pro was that they're using an OLED display (maybe even some kind of double layer OLED for increased brightness if I'm understanding the marketing jargon?). I believe that OLED is much more power hungry than the previous display type (LED backlit LCD of some type?). I could be wrong, but in TV land that's the case... Could explain, at least partly, why run time isn't greatly increased.
- hmottestad 2y agoThey made the battery on the 13" 5% smaller than the previous generation. They also write that they tested the device with auto-brightness disabled and brightness set at 50%. Not sure who the brightness slider works on the new iPads since the iPhones don't get max brightness unless auto-brightness is enabled. So 50% might be 1000/2=500 nits on the M4 iPad Pro and 600/2=300 nits on the M2 iPad Pro, or they might both be about 300 nits.
- thih9 2y agoThey mention just M2 and M4 - curious, how does M3 fit into that? I.e. would it sit between, or closer to M2 or M4?
- tyrd12 2y agoConsidering the cost difference would that still make M4 better. Whatever the savings in power are offset by the price?