If you are a cpu designer, tell me why the PowerPC like M1 as RISC failed when Intel did ? Was then think different a scam ?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
After Anti-M1 Ads, Intel Wants to Make Future Apple Silicon Chips
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple reported another blowout quarter Wednesday, showing 54% revenue growth and authorizing a mind-melting $90 billion share buyback.
But while we usually spend each quarter talking about the performance of Apple’s iPhone and Services segments, it’s impossible to ignore the insane growth the company reported for Mac computers and iPads.
Apple isn’t just in the middle of a new iPhone supercycle of sales. It’s in the middle of a supercycle for everything.
Just take a look at the Mac and iPad segments’ performance during Apple’s fiscal second quarter:
Mac revenue: $9.10 billion, up 70.1% year over year
iPad revenue: $7.80 billion, up 78.9% year over year
Those are just wild numbers for two product categories that had been languishing for the last few years. Before 2020, the story behind the Mac was that Apple had put its PC development on the back burner in favor of focusing on its profit engine: the iPhone.
But that started to change last year with the perfect storm for Apple’s Mac and iPad sales growth: the launch of Apple’s own computer chip, the M1, and the spike in demand for devices to help people work from home.
www.cnbc.com
But while we usually spend each quarter talking about the performance of Apple’s iPhone and Services segments, it’s impossible to ignore the insane growth the company reported for Mac computers and iPads.
Apple isn’t just in the middle of a new iPhone supercycle of sales. It’s in the middle of a supercycle for everything.
Just take a look at the Mac and iPad segments’ performance during Apple’s fiscal second quarter:
Mac revenue: $9.10 billion, up 70.1% year over year
iPad revenue: $7.80 billion, up 78.9% year over year
Those are just wild numbers for two product categories that had been languishing for the last few years. Before 2020, the story behind the Mac was that Apple had put its PC development on the back burner in favor of focusing on its profit engine: the iPhone.
But that started to change last year with the perfect storm for Apple’s Mac and iPad sales growth: the launch of Apple’s own computer chip, the M1, and the spike in demand for devices to help people work from home.
Apple is in the middle of a supercycle for everything it sells, and the Mac and iPad are on a tear
Apple showed massive growth in Mac and iPad sales in its latest quarterly earnings report on Wednesday.
It’s not propaganda if it’s true. And most of what you‘ve heard about M1 has not come from apple, but from the hundreds of tech sites that have done analyses and reviews and say M1 kills Intel in performance/watt.
PowerPC didn’t fail. I designed PowerPC’s. In fact, I designed the PowerPC x704, which was the second fastest chip in the world at the time, behind the DEC Alpha. You can read my paper about it here:
A 533-MHz BiCMOS superscalar RISC microprocessor
This 533-MHz BiCMOS very large scale integration (VLSI) implementation of the PowerPC architecture contains three pipelines and a large on-chip secondary cache to achieve a peak performance of 1600 MIPS. The 15 mm/spl times/10 mm die contains 2.7 M transistors (2M CMOS and 0.7 M bipolar) and...
PowerPC architecture exists to this day and is still in use.
The reason it stopped being used by Apple is that IBM was designing primarily for the desktop, and didn’t have any solution for laptops in the pipeline. Neither did we. That had nothing to do with any inherent flaw in the PowerPC architecture - it was a series of design decisions made by companies that were incentivized by the fact that you made the most profit by selling chips with the highest possible clock speed, and not by selling chips that were highly efficient.
Right, because Steve Jobs was an easily-snookered moron, right?
Given the heat problems the Intel mac (other than the Mac Pro models) why would any professional get an Intel Mac? Thanks to heat throttling the Intel Mac never really lived up to their potential.
Bootcamp was desired by such a small percentage of the Mac user base that this claim belongs in the same basement as the 'Trump actually won the US election' nonsense.
Newsflash the M1 can run Windows for ARM in translation 2x what it can run natively. Which is thanks tot he tight integration the MacOS has to the M1. So your brilliant plan is allow an OS to boot and run half the speed it does in translation?
Last edited:
Just because it is insanely silly doesn't mean it is a troll."What if all these people aren’t trolls? What if they’re just, you know, disagreeable or stupid or merely wrong?" - Stop Calling Me a Troll
Intel goal is not to "defeat apple" but to spread as much FUD as possible because their chips suck even in the x86 space as showm by AMD. Heck, After Anti-M1 Ads, Intel Wants to Make Future Apple Silicon Chips shows just how much a mess Intel was back in March and Intel's roadmap is a total joke largely because they keep missing their original goals and when they do put out chips they are buggy messes for what Apple needs them to do. As for Oracle, well Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. didn't turn out so well for them.
Bootcamp was desired by such a small percentage of the Mac user base that this claim belongs in the same basement as the 'Trump actually won the US election' nonsense.
Hmm, he did
Newsflash the M1 can run Windows for ARM in translation 2x what it can run natively. Which is thanks tot he tight integration the MacOS has to the M1. So your brilliant plan is allow an OS to boot and run half the speed it does in translation?
Macbookprodude said (and mangled the quote so bad I have to do it this way):Bootcamp was desired by such a small percentage of the Mac user base that this claim belongs in the same basement as the 'Trump actually won the US election' nonsense.
Newsflash the M1 can run Windows for ARM in translation 2x what it can run natively. Which is thanks tot he tight integration the MacOS has to the M1. So your brilliant plan is allow an OS to boot and run half the speed it does in translation?
"Hmm, he did
- I will not disclose it here though, but I will say you better evacuate the USA in the future. Again, PRSI is not this forum !"Can't tell if this is being sarcastic, ignorant, or silly.
Macbookprodude said (and mangled the quote so bad I have to do it this way):
"Really, I don’t give… I hate apples machines in 2021 - built like garbage and no DYI."
DYI only works if
1)Don't consider the cost of doing DYI as part of the "price" (I do count it)
2)You really know what you are doing.
3)Something doesn't go horribly, horribly wrong. Poor sod. Talk about some real Murphy's Law there.
hmm.. Choice of SSD size ? Memory ? Where is proof that soldered memory does better than DIY memory ? Anything after 2012 is not fully upgradable, and 2015 macbook pro allows upgrade of SSD. Memory is soldered sadly.Macbookprodude said (and mangled the quote so bad I have to do it this way):
"Hmm, he did
Can't tell if this is being sarcastic, ignorant, or silly.
Macbookprodude said (and mangled the quote so bad I have to do it this way):
"Really, I don’t give… I hate apples machines in 2021 - built like garbage and no DYI."
DYI only works if
1)Don't consider the cost of doing DYI as part of the "price" (I do count it)
2)You really know what you are doing.
3)Something doesn't go horribly, horribly wrong. Poor sod. Talk about some real Murphy's Law there.
Yup, and the way it will be going forward. Performance is irrelevant, as is design.
Why? Because 99.9% f uses don't care if it is DYI, solder in; they just want a machine that works and will never go under the hood. The few that want DIY aren't worth the effort and cost.
Soldered memory always is better than “diy memory,” if you are referring to slotted memory. It’s just physics - the impedance is going to be lower, and the reason it’s not slotted is typically because it’s closer to the CPU, so the time-of-flight is less (by around 6 picoseconds per mm).
Non issue as you can boot off an external SSD.
Basic physics. Besides as explained in The scourge of fully soldered and non-upgradeable laptops:
"First and possibly foremost is manufacturing efficiency, which includes both quality control and cost reduction. Every additional removable piece, especially including a SODIMM slot, introduces more cost and another potential fail point. Plus, an actual RAM socket requires an actual human being be there to plug a RAM chip into every laptop that goes down the assembly line, further adding to cost."
Increased thermal efficiency thanks to streamlined motherboard design.
The Area 51m modular laptop shows the market just isn't there. "If the only things that an end user can swap out are the RAM and storage, just how worthwhile is it for manufacturers to potentially compromise and offer extra SATA or NVMe connectors and RAM slots?"
Never mind that as The Dirty Way Manufacturers are Downgrading Your PC shows having RAM slots makes it easy for those putting the computer together to do some shady stuff.
Sure. Keeps their costs down while not changing the basic specs.
As someone who used to regularly upgrade Ram and HD/SSDs in Macs, I really don't miss it.
The reality for me was unless you are doing right away to save a few bucks by the time you do it you're already a few generations behind i processor speed which introduces its own limitations. In addition, Macs were picky about what chips it liked so the savings were often not that great overall; although in the days of Computer Renaissance you could at lest sell the chips you pulled for a few bucks as they were good chips. You also often needed two to get all the advantages of faster and more ram.
If Apple would cut the upgrade costs by 40-50% I'd always upgrade.
Written 4 years ago.
People have been predicting Apple dying ever since Apple went stupid in the mid 1990s.
Written 4 years ago.
Even well before that.
Yup. Even in the Apple II days pundits predicted that because Apple wasn’t using CPM or because they didn’t use a Zilog Z80 that they wouldn’t be able to compete. This is pre-1980.
The most hysterical thing is that How Intel is Coming Back with a VENGEANCE! (vs Apple ) basically claims that Intel itself is going to to ARM/Risc-V and it has woken up the reality that x86 is a bloated heat producing mess of a instruction set.
TSMC Wafer Wars! Intel versus Apple! reveals it to be partly fake news "As per the latest report, TSMC, the world’s largest contract chipmaker will be unlikely to fulfill any orders for Intel till 2023." (Apple secures majority of TSMC’s 3nm production capacity over Intel: Report) "To be clear, wafer agreements are signed 2-3 years before the chip makes it into HVM and TSMC can build fabs faster than that so there will be no N3 shortages for anyone who signed a wafer agreement (apple, AMD, NVIDIA, QCOM, etc…)."
It's hard to know if this pro-Intel nonsense was from Intel or Intel fanboys who don't seem to realize that is effectively says "x86 is a dead end instruction set walking". As reddit explained "It's started by a post on a Chinese web, picked up by an Indian web and spread from there. Just like the fake rumors on Intel buying Global Foundries! Same "sources" with an agenda"
Even if Intel did go to RiSC-V or ARM they would have to design the chip to have something to give TSMC and that takes time. The desperation regarding Intel knowing what it is doing would be funny...if it wasn't so transparently pathetic.
TSMC Wafer Wars! Intel versus Apple! reveals it to be partly fake news "As per the latest report, TSMC, the world’s largest contract chipmaker will be unlikely to fulfill any orders for Intel till 2023." (Apple secures majority of TSMC’s 3nm production capacity over Intel: Report) "To be clear, wafer agreements are signed 2-3 years before the chip makes it into HVM and TSMC can build fabs faster than that so there will be no N3 shortages for anyone who signed a wafer agreement (apple, AMD, NVIDIA, QCOM, etc…)."
It's hard to know if this pro-Intel nonsense was from Intel or Intel fanboys who don't seem to realize that is effectively says "x86 is a dead end instruction set walking". As reddit explained "It's started by a post on a Chinese web, picked up by an Indian web and spread from there. Just like the fake rumors on Intel buying Global Foundries! Same "sources" with an agenda"
Even if Intel did go to RiSC-V or ARM they would have to design the chip to have something to give TSMC and that takes time. The desperation regarding Intel knowing what it is doing would be funny...if it wasn't so transparently pathetic.
Even during the PPC days, a RISC processor Intel was crying then. Then in 2004-2005 Apple gets rid of RISC for CISC X86 crap. And now it’s RISC-V that Intel is trying to top. The processor wars never ended.