4 ms·
Apple has way stronger leverage than AMD when it comes to forcing "new standards" lets say. AMD cannot go and tell its customers "hey we are changing ISA, go a
by high_na_euv 1y ago
Apple has way stronger leverage than AMD when it comes to forcing "new standards" lets say.
AMD cannot go and tell its customers "hey we are changing ISA, go adjust.". Their customers would run to Intel.
Apple could do that and forced its laptops to use it. Developers couldnt afford losing those users, so they adjusted.
- StopDisinfo910 1y agoIt’s a chicken and egg problem. Nobody supports the new ISA because there is no SoC and nobody makes the new SoC because there is no support. But in this case, that’s not really true because Linux support was ready. More than forcing volumes, Apple proved it was worth it because the efficiency gains were huge. If AMD had release a SoC with numbers close to the M1 before Apple targeting the server market, they had a very good shot at it being a success and leveraging that to success in the laptop markets where Microsoft would have loved to have a partner ready to fight Apple and had to wait for Qualcomm for ages. Anyway, I stand that looking at how the stock moved tells us nothing about if the cancellation was a good or a bad decision.
- high_na_euv 1y ago>More than forcing volumes, Apple proved it was worth it because the efficiency gains were huge. If AMD had release a SoC with numbers close to the M1 before Apple targeting the server market, they had a very good shot at it being a success and leveraging that to success in the laptop markets where Microsoft would have loved to have a partner ready to fight Apple and had to wait for Qualcomm for ages. Apple proved that creating your own high end consumer SoC was doable and viable idea due to TSMC and could result in better chips due to designing them around your needs. And which ISA they could use? X86? Hard to say, probably no. So they had RISCV and ARM Also about Windows... If PantherLake on 18A actually performs as good as expected, then why would anyone move to ARM on Windows when viable energy eff. cpus like lnl and ptl are available
- StopDisinfo910 1y ago> If PantherLake on 18A actually performs as good as expected, then why would anyone move to ARM on Windows when viable energy eff. cpus like lnl and ptl are available Well yes, exactly, that’s the issue with arriving 10 years later instead of being first mover. The rest of the world doesn’t remain unmoving.
- dagmx 1y agoRISC-V wasn’t a thing when Apple started designing their own chips. It was always going to be ARM. Look who founded ARM after all…
- nottorp 1y ago> Apple proved it was worth it because the efficiency gains were huge Thing is, those efficiency gains are both in hardware and software. Will a Linux laptop running the new AMD SoC use 5 W while browsing HN like this M3 pro does?
- spookie 1y agoSteam Deck does about 8w.
- Crespyl 1y agoIsn't the Deck x86 though?
- dcm360 1y ago5W while browsing is already less efficiënt than my old laptop with a Zen 2 CPU (and most of the power is consumed by the display). Newer CPU's or SoC's should do quite a bit better than that.
- rangestransform 1y agodid your laptop display have the same brightness and pixel density
- nottorp 1y agoIt's good that x86 is coming close. Does Windows have working sleep now? I hear it's dangerous to throw a wintelmd laptop in a backpack without shutting it down.
- kimixa 1y agoDuring "light" browsing pretty much any laptop's power use is massively dominated by things that aren't the CPU, assuming there's been any attempt at enabling that use case (which doesn't always seem to be the case for many SKUs, certainly on the cheaper end). A huge amount of Apple's competitive edge is in the "other 90%", but they don't seem to get the headlines.
- pier25 1y ago> Their customers would run to Intel. Data centers and hosting companies are probably the biggest customers buying AMD CPUs, no? If those companies could lower their energy and cooling costs that could be a strong incentive to offer ARM servers.
- high_na_euv 1y agoWhat kind of difference we are talking about? 1% 3% 6% 10% 30%?
- pier25 1y agoNo idea but it should be significant. AFAIK cooling and energy are the biggest data center costs.
- AnthonyMouse 1y agoAMD servers are already below 3 watts per core. ARM doesn't actually confer any power advantage. Most ARM processors use less power because they're slower. Apple has a slight advantage because they use TSMC's latest process nodes, but it isn't very large and it isn't because of the ISA.
- pier25 1y agoI was looking at EPYC chips from 2-3 years ago and those do consume more like 8-10W per core but you're right. The latest EPYC 9005 are actually quite efficient.
- AnthonyMouse 1y agoEPYC 7702(P) is only slightly more than 3W/core (it's 3.125) and that's from 2019. But the newer ones use even less and they're faster.
- andy_ppp 1y agoExcept they literally did exactly that with x86-64 so I’m confused by your comment.
- high_na_euv 1y agoIsn't x86 64 backward compatible, so that's fine?