3 ms·

> Do note that the M4 is built on TSMC's 3nm process while the 9950X is built on the relatively older 4nm process. That helps (perhaps a lot, hard to say), but

by gumby 2y ago

> Do note that the M4 is built on TSMC's 3nm process while the 9950X is built on the relatively older 4nm process. That helps (perhaps a lot, hard to say), but note that moving your design from 4 nm to 3 nm pitch isn’t as simple as recompiling your Verilog. So this is still a significant engineering achievement. Apple is chasing a different design point from the desktop folks: low power and optimized more for single core workloads. Works for them but not of course for everyone. The Mx machines aren’t SoCs in the sense a MediaTek part is: the main chip has a lot of integrated functional units, yes, but so do the Intel and AMD design. They do have multiple dice in a single package though. Personally I don’t lose any sleep over the non-upgradability of RAM or mass storage. I started computing when you could add instructions by adding wires to the backplane, and later by writing your own microcode; you could build our own IO devices and wire them into the machine. Gradually we have had more and more integration, and RAM and mass storage are just the latest to go…and in exchange we get better performance and reliability. I don’t hear people complaining that they can’t upgrade their disk drive’s write cache, or CPU’s cache for that matter. This is the way of the world.

effie 2y ago
Upgradability of RAM isn't the issue, it's the price of getting access to that RAM. On PC you get it for cheap, you just pay for the RAM modules. On Apple, you get it for arm and a leg, as you don't pay for the modules, but for the privilege to use their higher end model with enough RAM.
- throwaway55110 2y ago
  Another point of view: The low end models are so cheap that Apple is definitely subsidizing them with revenue from the higher end models. If RAM upgrades were priced based on RAM stick costs, the base model would have to be much more expensive and less people would have access to it. Professional workstations have always cost an arm and leg - both arms and both legs usually, for example a SGI workstation used to cost 50K dollars! I think it's great that Apple also produces a subsidized low cost model so more people can get access to it.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    They might be subsidising low-end models like that with the M-series, but as they were definitely overcharging for RAM way back when it was user-installable sticks… my gut feeling is RAM* is mostly a differential pricing strategy * for laptops and desktops, storage pricing tiers also give me this feeling; however in the case of tablets and phones, the way they're used — for most people they are the primary computing device in their lives — less so.
    - qwytw 2y ago
      > They might be subsidising Any (even the slimmest) evidence that this might be the case? Because it seems like an extremely far fetched claim... And year RAM/Storage upgrades seem like a clear example of market segmentation.
      - ben_w 2y ago
        When I chose "might be" rather than "are indeed", that was to say it's not impossible rather than to outright agree. Other companies do have loss-leaders, I cannot rule out the possibility that Apple also does exactly what was asserted in the comment I was replying to.
        qwytw 2y ago
        I'm not sure even if that was the case it would fit the definition of a "loss-leader" unless we assume that Apple makes back the loss and more through the App Store and other services which seems extremely unlikely. Otherwise who would selling laptops at a loss increase the sales of higher-end laptops, most people don't buy both. > I cannot rule out the possibility That seems like an extremely high-bar.
        ben_w 2y ago
        > That seems like an extremely high-bar. Ironically, it was an attempt to avoid an argument about that point :P I think it's at least possible for this scenario, given they make more from services than from macs: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/pdfs/fy2024-q1/FY24_Q1_Consolidated_Financial_Statements.pdf https://www.apple.com/newsroom/pdfs/fy2024-q1/FY24_Q1_Consol... I'd still be on the surprised side if so, but it would be mild surprise rather than shock.

by gumby 2y ago

effie 2y ago

Upgradability of RAM isn't the issue, it's the price of getting access to that RAM. On PC you get it for cheap, you just pay for the RAM modules. On Apple, you get it for arm and a leg, as you don't pay for the modules, but for the privilege to use their higher end model with enough RAM.

throwaway55110 2y ago
Another point of view: The low end models are so cheap that Apple is definitely subsidizing them with revenue from the higher end models. If RAM upgrades were priced based on RAM stick costs, the base model would have to be much more expensive and less people would have access to it. Professional workstations have always cost an arm and leg - both arms and both legs usually, for example a SGI workstation used to cost 50K dollars! I think it's great that Apple also produces a subsidized low cost model so more people can get access to it.
- ben_w 2y ago
  They might be subsidising low-end models like that with the M-series, but as they were definitely overcharging for RAM way back when it was user-installable sticks… my gut feeling is RAM* is mostly a differential pricing strategy * for laptops and desktops, storage pricing tiers also give me this feeling; however in the case of tablets and phones, the way they're used — for most people they are the primary computing device in their lives — less so.
  - qwytw 2y ago
    > They might be subsidising Any (even the slimmest) evidence that this might be the case? Because it seems like an extremely far fetched claim... And year RAM/Storage upgrades seem like a clear example of market segmentation.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      When I chose "might be" rather than "are indeed", that was to say it's not impossible rather than to outright agree. Other companies do have loss-leaders, I cannot rule out the possibility that Apple also does exactly what was asserted in the comment I was replying to.
      - qwytw 2y ago
        I'm not sure even if that was the case it would fit the definition of a "loss-leader" unless we assume that Apple makes back the loss and more through the App Store and other services which seems extremely unlikely. Otherwise who would selling laptops at a loss increase the sales of higher-end laptops, most people don't buy both. > I cannot rule out the possibility That seems like an extremely high-bar.
        ben_w 2y ago
        > That seems like an extremely high-bar. Ironically, it was an attempt to avoid an argument about that point :P I think it's at least possible for this scenario, given they make more from services than from macs: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/pdfs/fy2024-q1/FY24_Q1_Consolidated_Financial_Statements.pdf https://www.apple.com/newsroom/pdfs/fy2024-q1/FY24_Q1_Consol... I'd still be on the surprised side if so, but it would be mild surprise rather than shock.