Design is over half the battle, look at Qualcomm n5 performance vs Apple M1 on n5 performance.
It's not even comparable in anyway.
Even AMD 6900U struggles in many regards compared to M1 pro, and even more so at performance per watt.
For example Cinebench runs at 118% more power draw on the Ryzen at only a 11% multi-core performance advantage.
Completely agree. There are many ARM SoCs available in the market, and Apple's ARM SoCs outperform most of them. Apple has also made significant design changes in its SoCs that really does differentiate it from current Intel and AMD chips and these design changes do give it a performance advantage. The unified memory access architecture (I think pioneered by SGI), is a good example of one such architectural difference. And ofcourse, manufacturing these SoCs on newer node tech also allows Apple to pack more transistors in their chip than Intel and AMD currently can. Altogether, it is undeniable that Apple engineers have created a great piece of hardware and a very decent and viable alternative to Intel and AMD chips.
But ... better tech doesn't always necessarily translate to more sales and popular acceptance. AMD is a great example here - despite having better technology than both Intel and Apple (on CPUs and GPUs), it still struggles to compete with either and is nowhere near the market size or capitalisation of either Intel or Apple. However, here we are not talking about a product from a new startup or small business but Apple - A huge behemoth with a fantastic team of management that knows how to sell stuff and make a profit. So it's not at all far-fetched to assume that the Apple Silicon chips are here for the long term and will continue to be a viable competitor to Intel and AMD chips. But how are they competing, and what company's vision will win in the long term?
Apple's long term business vision is to continue being a hardware + software company while evolving & increasing its recurrent revenue from services that is tied to monetising the personal data of its users. I have no clear idea of either Intel's or AMD's future business visions (which is perhaps telling in its own way of how both businesses are today), other than that they want to continuing innovating and selling the hardware that is their core business (CPU, GPU, Fab tech etc.) that is more "open" to integration with other systems (software and hardware).
So, keeping those visions in mind, let's compare the pros and cons of Apple and AMD / Intel chips.
Apple Silicon - Pros:
1. Latest tech, innovative design offering better performance in some areas. 2. Low power usage, great battery life. 3. Cheaper. 4. "Integrated" RAM leading to better performance. 5. Highly integrated with Apple ecosystem (Apple hardware + software + web services).
Apple Silicon - Cons:
1. It is not sold as stand alone part. 2. It is a closed box system with no hardware literature available to build alternative platforms on it. 3. Highly integrated with Apple's ecosystem. 4. Has built-in planned obsolescence (CPU is soldered, RAM is soldered, bootloader can be locked anytime). 5. Low power usage that unnecessarily sacrifices performance is undesirable in a desktop computer.
As is evident, the pros and cons of Apple Silicon are tied to the business vision of Apple - they believe that the best way to make recurrent revenues by selling Apple services, is to create a closed-box system and tightly integrated ecosystem that forces its users to only use Apple hardware and services. Built-in planned obsolescence makes it easier to sell new system. Similarly, AMD / Intel's business vision is reflected in pros and cons of their product too:
AMD / Intel CPUs - Pros:
1. Good support for multiple OS platforms. 2. Backward compatible (x86). 3. More open, better hardware literature on their SoC's support creating new platforms. 4. Better integration with other hardware allows more flexibility to users in building custom hardware. 5. Supports repairability (CPUs can be replaced and upgraded more easily in the same system, integrated GPU doesn't prevent you from adding and using a more powerful GPU etc).
AMD / Intel CPUs - Cons:
1. Lagging in newer tech. 2. Maintaining backward compatibility comes at a price - more complexity, limits exploring new designs and architectures. 3. Supporting multiple platforms can be somewhat limiting as hardware performance varies depending on software quality of the platform.
-----
As AMD and Intel have shown in the past, both have had better tech than the other at some point. It's the same today with Apple innovating and currently having better tech than AMD / Intel. So it isn't exactly a question of will the better tech win. What matters is who can sell their tech better.
My understanding is that they’re more responsible than other services with respect to personal data. Unless I’m mistaken, their strategy isn't to monetise and sell data, but is instead to sell services that allow users to interact with their own personal data, which is incredibly rich given the ecosystem that Apple Watch and HealthKit offers.
Apple are the first to actually do this properly by cross-app tracking, forcing developers to outline data collection statements, and providing clearer sharing acceptance pages.
> Once BigTech has your data, they can do anything with it in the future (despite what they say today) because of the lack of appropriate law and regulation to prevent this.
This is entirely incorrect. HIPPAA and GDPR are very clear about PII health data, and a large corporate like Apple will be fined through the teeth violating it. Changes to the PP are communicated, and allow the user to opt out by discontinuing the service. Sure they’re sometimes opaque, but Apple has built a reputation on responsible data policies, which are frequently contrasted with those of other big tech data factories like Facebook and Google.
This is a temporary matter. For notebook computers, Apple made the obvious decision to optimize for power usage. But in interviews their engineers have signaled that when the time comes they will be just as capable of optimizing for performance on a future Mac Pro.
what outsiders don’t realize is intel management never had to deal with competition. they spent their entire careers fighting each other in petty internecine political battles. if you think intel vs amd is a feud, you haven’t seen intel arch/design vs intel fabs. and in that kind of environment, loyalists and politicians are promoted, not people willing to critically inspect your own processes and improve things.
end result: intel has a massive competence gap. in the extremely unlikely scenario where intel can regain the process lead, they will still be behind the curve on innovation and execution.
> internecine, adj.:
> destructive to both sides in a conflict.
And inter is apparently the origin of intel, which is topical, and suggests Intelnecine, adj: destructive to all factions within Intel, or any company with a destructive amount of in-fighting.
What do you think of the new management? Too difficult to turn the tanker?
- The Sapphire Rapids validation catastrophe proves they haven’t learned a damn thing about high quality first silicon even after all these years of getting their asses handed to them by AMD/Apple on fast cadence updates.
- Arc, enough said.
Pat Gelsinger made some big moves on his direct reports but he doesn’t have the time to perform the necessary mass purge of the mid/mid-high level management (i.e. the baby VP tier). When you run a company with 100k staff you have to delegate a lot of things, but the problem is a huge amount of the toxic management are still there, hiding in nooks and crannies and surviving.
Intel is currently throwing a lot of money around to hire people from the companies thrashing them (got a text message from a VP a couple months back), I get the feeling the Intel immune system will spit them back out upon detecting deviance from “the Intel way”.
Are you seriously claiming that you expect a single node shrink from Intel 10nm (roughly equivalent to TSMC 7nm) to Intel 7nm (equivalent TSMC 5nm, the M1’s node) to give Intel an enormous 75% increase in IPC such that they’d be able to compete on performance per watt by not having to clock so stratospherically high (with the attendant voltage penalties) to compensate for their low IPC?
That would be an unprecedented outcome for several node shrinks, let alone a single one. It’s Apple’s super-wide design that’s the primary factor in the IPC here. To pin it all on a single node shrink is magical thinking.
So let's be clear, it's not like the good old days where Intel might get ahead by moving to 65nm earlier. TSMC 5nm is competing against Intel 10nm at a point where Intel 10nm can't really beat Intel 14nm. I know the actual measurements are bullshit (I've got flak for complaining about angstroms before) but TSMC 5nm is a long way ahead.
I don’t think we really know how much of the lead is due to Apple’s design.
I would bet it’s more due to fab than design, but the design plays a nontrivial role.
The reality is that multiple factors are working in Apple’s favor. Process, architecture, design, investment, focus, OS… firing on all cylinders as they say.
I’m arguing against this statement. I don’t think it’s true.
“ You're looking in the wrong place. The magic comes from TSMC, not Apple.”
My point is a good process is necessary but not sufficient to make a part competitive with Apple on performance per watt. There’s a lot of “magic” to go around.
Citation : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arm_(company)#Founding
Their GPU is similarly impressive, with a minimal TDP it handily crushes any other iGPU.
It is entirely plausible TSMC co-developed some of ASML’s IP and has exclusivity - or that the tech to make a working process out of ASML machines is intrinsically hard.
They're the only ones that make EUV lithography equipment. Competitors (Canon, Nikon) tapped out at DUV.
HAP GmbH Dresden, MBFZ Toolcraft GmbH, Corning Advanced Optics, AGC Inc, RUAG Space, Schmolz + Bickenbach, RORZE CORPORATION and GEWO Feinmechanik GmbH