LOL. Anyone who works in chip design would know much M1/M2 changed the hardware game. It is actually the dabbler enthusiast talking about how power/perf isn’t important because his LED-laden shitbox has a wall plug (muh absolute performance) that doesn’t grasp how utterly irrelevant DIY builders are in the market. Just look at the relative sales of servers, laptops and desktop and see what we care about.

Not a single second of thought is ever spent by the architects/designers on optimizing “absolute performance”. We only care about perf/area and perf/watt. It is the marketing teams that try to hype up gamer performance. Overclocking/high voltage performance requires the engineering knowledge of a freshman intern: go raise the voltage/freq, run the test program, make a SKU.

Source: worked on CPU/GPU arch/design for 20 years, including at Intel.

Cool story, but that's not the subject.

Intel fanboys whine about Apple/Intel CPU comparisons, here is their answer.

The takeaway from the story: connecting a bunch of shitty chiplets together makes a shitty SoC. Except this time, Intel paid TSMC a buttload of money to make their shitty design.

The original thread comment asked if this was a thing before "Apple Silicon", that's what I was referring to; I've seen it before, and not just years before but over a decade before, possibly even two decades.

As such it's not something Apple PR invented, but rather hijacked.

It used to be slang, though. Something you'd use to punch up the first paragraph of an article, not the way people actually talked. For some reason calling it "Apple Silicon" really grates on me, too. But such are the whims of megacorps.