Re:M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores
by flashback2199 on Friday November 03, 2023 @03:47PM
(#38134041)
So why work only with Intel and not also with AMD. Never understood that. They chose vendor lock in so of course the vendor is going to sit on it same as Motorola did and later IBM. Now they still have vendor lock in except the vendor is internal. From a distance, it looks super dumb, betting that you can do better with an internal project than playing off the established duopoly. I'm sure I'm too out of the know to understand.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores
by acdha on Friday November 03, 2023 @07:45PM
(#38136505)
One thing to remember is that hardware designs have a much longer lead time than software and significant support commitments since they need to maintain a business relationship for a decade. When AMD started gaining on speed versus Intel, especially for the thermally-constrained systems Apple sells, Apple already had an in-house CPU design team which was doing good work and they were quite familiar with the benefits in terms of roadmap coordination, pricing, and support.
Re:M3 Macs: there's more to performance than counting cores
by wtallis on Friday November 03, 2023 @07:57PM
(#38136586)
Apple used the AMD chips that didn't absolutely suck: the GPUs (and they still got plenty of criticism for that). AMD's CPUs were not at all suitable for Apple's most important products until the past few years. The first Zen mobile processors were only a year before Intel's 10nm Ice Lake.