I wonder how the 3070 and 3060 are going to compare, in terms of performance per watt, when compared to the 2080/2070 series. Based on the current numbers, they'll possibly show very little improvement.
Is 3080 vs. 2080 Ti the correct comparison?
Given the 3090 is not too much faster than 3080, it seems there may not be room there. But then again, the 1080 Ti was as fast as the Titan X. So…yea.
I think 3080 vs 2080 Ti is the only possible comparison, but websites should make it very clear that it's an unfair comparison.
Probably the only comparison that actually makes sense is the (future) 3070 vs 2080 Ti. I'm not suprised that Nvidia pushed the release (it was supposed to be released earlier).
Algorithmic improvements, custom domain specific ASICs, and maybe quantum computing or other physical processes in the future are where large efficiency deltas might come, but for now small improvements are here to stay for all chip makers.
>Wong, who is vice president of corporate research at Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corp, gave a presentation at the recent Hot Chips conference where he claimed that not only is Moore’s Law alive and well, but with the right bag of technology tricks it will remain viable for the next three decades.
“It’s not dead,” he told the Hot Chips attendees. It’s not slowing down. It’s not even sick.”
https://www.nextplatform.com/2019/09/13/tsmc-thinks-it-can-u...
[0] https://www.eetimes.com/bipolar-zener-combo-takes-on-cmos/
In fact, multiple gates can be created in the same transistor, in an effect SFN calls “multi-tunnel.” Multiple NOR and OR gates can thus be created from a single Bizen transistor, allowing creation of logic circuits with many fewer devices. This can result in a three-fold increase in gate density with a corresponding reduction in die size for integrated circuits based on the transistors. Summerland said that SFN is also creating a reduced device count processor architecture to enable analogue computing with Bizen transistors.
What makes sense to accelerate, how to integrate it and balance accelerators vs. general cpus, and how to expose it all to the programmer all seem like fun and interesting problems.
The 2xxx series wasn't terribly impressive to many so they've just started to peak out in the way that Intel did at least 5 years ago. We're heading into AMD's 4th iteration of processors that basically mop the floor with Intel from a price/performance and performance/watt standpoint and it's just starting to become accepted in the mainstream that Intel is in trouble. It will take another generation or two of products before the press catches on to the fact that what nVidia is telling everyone isn't true. Of course it will be helpful if there's some competition to point to that helps make the case.
They may be very nice machines but they won’t be in the race for a very large portion of the market.
That is not the market that Apple cares about, nor NeXT did that much, other to gain market share when things were looking dim.
It’s a lot different from the Win32/x86 duopoly situation.
Platforms have been mostly abstracted away.
Yes, most tools are cross platform (not necessarily cross-arch but that's a matter of time) and performance is important - I don't care if it's Apple silicon or Intel or AMD, or what OS GUI I'm using - I just want faster builds and iteration
So there’s good reason to believe it may be macOS only.
Personally I’ll believe it when I see it... because right now there are no 3rd party iPad or iPhone operating systems. So a better question is probably: what makes you think there will be 3rd party OS support?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24636166 (Apple’s T2 security chip jailbreak)
Yep, curious world.
Getting Windows to run on this is a pretty tall order, and without significant investment it won't happen. And significant investment from whom? Not Apple surely. I'm guessing Microsoft has more stake if anyone. At best we're going to see Windows on ARM virtual machines.
Speaking from what people expect from a "Windows PC" - Windows on a current MacBook makes a decent Windows PC. Windows on a future MacBook makes for a very poor Windows PC that will make customers regret their purchase.
Apple currently uses standard PC architecture, with identical CPUs, GPUs and Wifi chips to standard PCs, and a (sort of) standard EFI booting mechanism. With ARM Macs, it won't. Clearly Apple in its hardware design is already not invested enough to support Windows - they could use standard EFI on ARM, for example. So why would they spend a lot of money to do it in software, so people can run a "crippled" version of a competitor's OS?
Note I don't actually believe Apple will actively lock this down. I do believe we will get native Linux on these things to some extent. But I do believe Apple will not lift a single finger to make alternative OSes happen on ARM Macs. Apple only cares about macOS and virtualization. I also think Windows on ARM is a great product, but I also know that common people that just want to use a Windows computer won't agree with me.
The "Apple is going to lock down the Mac just like the iPhone" narrative has been with us since, well, the iPhone. But despite the alarm at tighter security measures in more recent versions of macOS, that hasn't happened yet -- and if a Secret Nefarious Lockdown Plan (tm) was going to come to fruition, the year that they shifted CPU hardware and radically redesigned the operating system's UX would sure as heck seem to be The Perfect Moment. And it still hasn't happened.
Past performance is not a guarantee of future returns and all that, but I don't think there's any reason to think Apple is going to make it any harder to run different operating systems on Apple Silicon hardware than they do on Intel hardware. (Of course, I don't think there's any reason to think they'll make it easier, either.)
But arm macs are really an Apple A series processor plus a number of coprocessors like the t2, nueral engine, etc.. and the default is that windows will not work on this specialized hardware.
So unless there’s evidence that Apple is actively going to help 3rd parties develop operating systems for the Mac, the best we can hope for is a fairly acceptable OS with reverse engineered drivers for those chips. We’re either going to get an unstable OS or a severely crippled OS.
With intel macs Apple just had to stand back and let 3rd parties do their work. But they would have to actively assist with arm macs.. and there’s no indication theyve ever done that much less intend to do so in the future.
And I don't think it's a coincidence Apple is slowly but surely moving OSX towards a locked down platform. It's already made pretty hard to run normal software.
“We’re not direct booting an alternate operating system,” says Craig Federighi, Apple’s senior vice president of software engineering.
There's no reason to believe this is true.
apple iphones run ios, only.
apple computers run macos and windows.
Thing is - which precedent will win?
“We’re not direct booting an alternate operating system,” says Craig Federighi, Apple’s senior vice president of software engineering.
Apple has already confirmed they have no plans to allow third party software to run on Apple Silicon based notebooks.
The former requires their support. The later just says they won’t oppose reverse engineering. The later is far more difficult and will likely mean any OS will be buggy and flaky. Unless Apple comes out and says they will actively support 3rd parties, it’s just going to be a shit show with no good alternative OS options.
How so? Apple's market share is something like 10% so it's a minority of Intel's market.
People will instinctively write off this idea, but this is the new pricing strategy Apple has been employing with the $329 entry level iPad, $399 iPhone SE, and the new $279 Apple Watch SE. The Macintosh now remains Apple’s only major consumer product line that hasn’t seen aggressive price reductions to make Apple services accessible to a broader range of consumers. The move to Apple Silicon, which could save Apple potentially hundreds of dollars per device, is the perfect time to move the Mac to this pricing strategy. If this happens, it would absolutely eat into Intel’s consumer market share.
iPhone SE: 1321
OnePlus 8: 898
On multi-core it's a little better since there seem to be seven Android phones that can outperform the iPhone SE:
iPhone SE: 2737
OnePlus 8: 3281
OnePlus 8 Pro: 3216
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G: 3107
Samsung Galaxy S20+ 5G: 3102
Samsung Galaxy S20 5G: 3078
Huawei Mate 30 Pro 5G: 2918
Huawei Mate 30 Pro: 2835
However, all of those Android phones cost quite a bit more than the SE.
Intel’s failure to get their fabs running has put them into a death spiral unless they pull off a miracle.
Also, if Apples ARM chips are really that fast they will be purchased by the shipload to be sent to performance critical operations like HFT. They will be put into servers or turned into them to squeeze and eek out every possible advantage... which will shit on intels most profitable lines (Xeons for single threaded workloads).
It’s gonna be a crazy time.
It’ll help Apple cement their dev tools as industry standard, it’ll further amortize overall dev costs by increasing volumes, people can develop better algorithms with their custom hardware accelerators for ML and etc, it’s a great way to fight the current anti-trust cases against Apple.
There are some pretty good reasons for Apple to sell their chips to 3rd parties.
Then again, they started their own TV studio, so what do know.
They're just ARM chips. So long as Amazon otherwise plans to build their own ARMs, there's no real benefit. Apple is looking out for #1.
I'd like to see the ARM16 and ARM32 variants die too, as they are also bad.
Actually, the Xserve platform really had nothing to do with that. Xserve’s were partly designed and built for the high end video production industry (as an extension of the Mac Pro hardware) and partly as a general purpose small to medium size business file server / web server (which the Mac Mini has subsumed what’s left of that space).
Apple Silicon may beat Intel/AMD and Apple Silicon is ARM, but that doesn't mean that ARM is beating Intel/AMD.
I hope bootcamp will be updated for the new macbooks eventually. I don't expect it to be out on day 1 but maybe a couple months after release?
Now, the Tiger Lake performance per watt story just isn't that impressive compared to the competition.
>Here we present the 15W vs 28W configuration figures for the single-threaded workloads, which do see a jump in performance by going to the higher TDP configuration, meaning [Tiger Lake] is thermally constrained at 15W even in [single threaded] workloads.
Comparing it against Apple’s A13, things aren’t looking so rosy as the Intel CPU barely outmatches it even though it uses several times more power, which doesn’t bode well for Intel once Apple releases its “Apple Silicon” Macbooks.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/16084/intel-tiger-lake-review...