7 ms·

You’ll pry the ARM M series chips of my Mac from my cold dead hands. They’re a game changer in the space and one of the best reasons to use a Mac. I am not a c

You’ll pry the ARM M series chips of my Mac from my cold dead hands. They’re a game changer in the space and one of the best reasons to use a Mac. I am not a chip expert it’s just so night and day different using a Mac with an arm chip compared to an Intel one from thermals to performance and battery life and everything in between. Intel isn’t even in the same ballpark imo. But competition is good and let’s hope they both do —- Intel and AMD because the consumer wins.

mort96 1y ago
I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that if Apple's CPU engineers got half a decade and a mandate from the higher ups, they could make an amazing amd64 chip too.
- KingOfCoders 1y ago
  What you have to understand, these are all the same people.
  - cylemons 1y ago
    Dont high profile designers have strong anticompetes?
    - KingOfCoders 1y ago
      e.g. Jim Keller. CPU engineer 1982 - 1998, DEC Alpha processors (loved them) 1998 - 1999, AMD Athlon 1999 - 2004, MIPS 2008 - 2012, Apple A4/A5 2012 - 2015, AMD Ryzen/Zen 2016 - 2018, Tesla 2018 - 2020, Intel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Keller_%28engineer%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Keller_%28engineer%29
    - astrange 1y ago
      California doesn't allow noncompete clauses. It's why Silicon Valley exists in the first place.
kccqzy 1y ago
That's not mostly because of a better ISA. If Intel and Apple had a chummier relationship you could imagine Apple licensing the Intel x86 ISA and the M series chips would be just as good but running x86. However I suspect no matter how chummy that relationship was, business is business and it is highly unlikely that Intel would give Apple such a license.
- x0x0 1y ago
  > That's not mostly because of a better ISA Genuinely asking -- what is it due to? Because like the person you're replying to, the m* processors are simply better: desktop-class perf on battery that hangs with chips with 250 watt TDP. I have to assume that amd and intel would like similar chips, so why don't they have them if not due to the instruction set? And AMD is using TSMC, so that can't be the difference.
  - bryanlarsen 1y ago
    What's it due to? At least this, probably more. - more advanced silicon architecture. Apple spends billions to get access to the latest generation a couple of years before AMD. - world class team, with ~25 years of experience building high speed low power chips. (Apple bought PA Semi to make these chips, which was originally the team that build the DEC StrongARM). And then paid & treated them properly, unlike Intel & AMD - a die budget to spend transistors for performance: the M chips are generally quite large compared to the competition - ARM's weak memory model also helps, but it's very minor IMO compared to the above 3.
    - gigatexal 1y ago
      How many of those engineers remain, didn't a lot go to Nuvia that was then bought by Qualcomm?
      - bryanlarsen 1y ago
        Sure, but they were there long enough to train and instill culture into the others. And of course, since the acquisition in 2008 they've had access to the top new grads and experienced engineers. If you're coming out top of your class at an Ivy or similar you're going to choose Apple over Intel or AMD both because of rep and the fact that your offer salary is much better. P.S. hearsay and speculation, not direct experience. I haven't worked at Apple and anybody who has is pretty closed lip. You have to read between the lines. P.P.S. It's sort of a circular argument. I say Apple has the best team because they have the best chip && they have the best chip because they have the best team. But having worked (briefly) in the field, I'm very confident that their success is much more likely due to having the best team rather than anything else.
pengaru 1y ago
Your Intel mac was stuck in the past while everyone paying attention on PCs were already enjoying TSMC 7nm silicon in the form of AMD Zen processors. Apple Silicon macs are far less impressive if you came from an 8c/16t Ryzen 7 laptop. Especially if you consider the Apple parts are consistently enjoying the next best TSMC node vs. AMD (e.g. 5nm (M1) vs. 7nm (Zen2)) What's _really_ impressive is how badly Intel fell behind and TSMC has been absolutely killing it.
- gigatexal 1y ago
  that ryzen laptop chip perform it'll just do it at a higher perf/watt than the apple chip will... and on a laptop that's a key metric.
  - tracker1 1y ago
    And 20% or so of that difference is purely the fab node difference, not anything to do with the chip design itself. Strix Halo is a much better comparison, though Apple's M4 models do very well against it often besting it at the most expensive end. On the flip side, if you look at servers... Compare a 128+core AMD server CPU vs a large core ARM option and AMD perf/watt is much better.
    - gigatexal 1y ago
      Wait are you saying the diff in perf per watt from apple arm to x86 is purely on fab leading edge ness?
      - Jensson 1y ago
        Basically yeah, if you compare CPU from same fab then its basically the same. Its just Apple buys next gen fabs while AMD and intel has to be on last gen, so the M computers people compare are always one fab gen ahead. It has very little to do with CPU architecture. They do have some cool stuff about their CPU, but the thing most laud them for has to do with fabs.
KingOfCoders 1y ago
I think everything depends on circumstances. I've used laptops for 15+ years (transitioned from a Mac Cube to a white Macbook. Macbook Pro etc.) but have migrated to a desktop some years ago (first iMac Pro, now AMD), as I work at my desk and when I'm not at my desk I'm not working. Some years ago I got a 3900X and a 2080TI. And they still work fine, and I don't have performance problems, and although I thought of getting PCI5/NVMe with a 9950x3d/395+ (or a Threadripper), I just don't need it. I've upgraded the SSDs several times for speed and capacity (now at the PCI4/M2 limit and don't want to go into RAID), and added solar panels and a battery pack for energy usage, but I'm fine otherwise. Indeed I want to buy a new CPU and GPU, but I don't find enough reasons (though might get a Mac Studio for local AI). But I understand your point if you need a laptop, I just decided I no longer need one, and get more power with faster compiling for less money.

mort96 1y ago

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that if Apple's CPU engineers got half a decade and a mandate from the higher ups, they could make an amazing amd64 chip too.

KingOfCoders 1y ago
What you have to understand, these are all the same people.
- cylemons 1y ago
  Dont high profile designers have strong anticompetes?
  - KingOfCoders 1y ago
    e.g. Jim Keller. CPU engineer 1982 - 1998, DEC Alpha processors (loved them) 1998 - 1999, AMD Athlon 1999 - 2004, MIPS 2008 - 2012, Apple A4/A5 2012 - 2015, AMD Ryzen/Zen 2016 - 2018, Tesla 2018 - 2020, Intel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Keller_%28engineer%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Keller_%28engineer%29
  - astrange 1y ago
    California doesn't allow noncompete clauses. It's why Silicon Valley exists in the first place.

kccqzy 1y ago

That's not mostly because of a better ISA. If Intel and Apple had a chummier relationship you could imagine Apple licensing the Intel x86 ISA and the M series chips would be just as good but running x86. However I suspect no matter how chummy that relationship was, business is business and it is highly unlikely that Intel would give Apple such a license.

x0x0 1y ago
> That's not mostly because of a better ISA Genuinely asking -- what is it due to? Because like the person you're replying to, the m* processors are simply better: desktop-class perf on battery that hangs with chips with 250 watt TDP. I have to assume that amd and intel would like similar chips, so why don't they have them if not due to the instruction set? And AMD is using TSMC, so that can't be the difference.
- bryanlarsen 1y ago
  What's it due to? At least this, probably more. - more advanced silicon architecture. Apple spends billions to get access to the latest generation a couple of years before AMD. - world class team, with ~25 years of experience building high speed low power chips. (Apple bought PA Semi to make these chips, which was originally the team that build the DEC StrongARM). And then paid & treated them properly, unlike Intel & AMD - a die budget to spend transistors for performance: the M chips are generally quite large compared to the competition - ARM's weak memory model also helps, but it's very minor IMO compared to the above 3.
  - gigatexal 1y ago
    How many of those engineers remain, didn't a lot go to Nuvia that was then bought by Qualcomm?
    - bryanlarsen 1y ago
      Sure, but they were there long enough to train and instill culture into the others. And of course, since the acquisition in 2008 they've had access to the top new grads and experienced engineers. If you're coming out top of your class at an Ivy or similar you're going to choose Apple over Intel or AMD both because of rep and the fact that your offer salary is much better. P.S. hearsay and speculation, not direct experience. I haven't worked at Apple and anybody who has is pretty closed lip. You have to read between the lines. P.P.S. It's sort of a circular argument. I say Apple has the best team because they have the best chip && they have the best chip because they have the best team. But having worked (briefly) in the field, I'm very confident that their success is much more likely due to having the best team rather than anything else.

pengaru 1y ago

Your Intel mac was stuck in the past while everyone paying attention on PCs were already enjoying TSMC 7nm silicon in the form of AMD Zen processors. Apple Silicon macs are far less impressive if you came from an 8c/16t Ryzen 7 laptop. Especially if you consider the Apple parts are consistently enjoying the next best TSMC node vs. AMD (e.g. 5nm (M1) vs. 7nm (Zen2)) What's _really_ impressive is how badly Intel fell behind and TSMC has been absolutely killing it.

gigatexal 1y ago
that ryzen laptop chip perform it'll just do it at a higher perf/watt than the apple chip will... and on a laptop that's a key metric.
- tracker1 1y ago
  And 20% or so of that difference is purely the fab node difference, not anything to do with the chip design itself. Strix Halo is a much better comparison, though Apple's M4 models do very well against it often besting it at the most expensive end. On the flip side, if you look at servers... Compare a 128+core AMD server CPU vs a large core ARM option and AMD perf/watt is much better.
  - gigatexal 1y ago
    Wait are you saying the diff in perf per watt from apple arm to x86 is purely on fab leading edge ness?
    - Jensson 1y ago
      Basically yeah, if you compare CPU from same fab then its basically the same. Its just Apple buys next gen fabs while AMD and intel has to be on last gen, so the M computers people compare are always one fab gen ahead. It has very little to do with CPU architecture. They do have some cool stuff about their CPU, but the thing most laud them for has to do with fabs.

KingOfCoders 1y ago

I think everything depends on circumstances. I've used laptops for 15+ years (transitioned from a Mac Cube to a white Macbook. Macbook Pro etc.) but have migrated to a desktop some years ago (first iMac Pro, now AMD), as I work at my desk and when I'm not at my desk I'm not working. Some years ago I got a 3900X and a 2080TI. And they still work fine, and I don't have performance problems, and although I thought of getting PCI5/NVMe with a 9950x3d/395+ (or a Threadripper), I just don't need it. I've upgraded the SSDs several times for speed and capacity (now at the PCI4/M2 limit and don't want to go into RAID), and added solar panels and a battery pack for energy usage, but I'm fine otherwise. Indeed I want to buy a new CPU and GPU, but I don't find enough reasons (though might get a Mac Studio for local AI). But I understand your point if you need a laptop, I just decided I no longer need one, and get more power with faster compiling for less money.