Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple is TSMC's top customer and AMD is third: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-becomes-tsmc-third-largest-customer

Seems to still be the case recently too: https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2022/12/08/2003790298

Would love to see references because near as I can tell Apple blow AMD away at TSMC?
And there is good reason for that. iPhones, iPads and now laptop/desktop computers. Just more volume.
It is still not "easy" to get EPYC from say Dell. I'm sure that's a different story with Supermicro or maybe HP. But, it adds up.
 
I move the goal posts? So if above 3000$ before tax is the price for most of the planet, it's not important? the US discounted price is the one that's more important? LoL
Inflation. Sorry the rest of the world is experiencing it more than the US.
 
AMD high end should compare itself to M1 Max. Apple’s high end for MBP 16”.
This comparison they performed at CES is ridiculous!
It is not in AMD's favor to compare itself to the M1 Max. A good strategy is to compare yourself to something you know is not the best (or on par) and claim you are better. However, I do agree that AMD should have compared itself to the M1 Max.
 
Is an 80% improvement in speed that impressive if users almost never end up benefiting from it?

The unique value proposition of the M1 chip so far is that it offers long battery life and sustained performance even when your laptop is not plugged in to an external power source.

With that many cores, it sounds like these processors will either need lots of thermal headroom (meaning thick and bulky laptops), or they throttle all too quickly. We also don't know the impact this has on battery life.

I am willing to bet that these advertised paper gains will not translate into significant real-world benefits.
At some point, the speed improvements will be so little in terms of how beneficial it will be for most because of the diminishing returns. I like Apple's philosophy of balancing power consumption, battery life, and performance.
 
Actually AMD is TSMC's second largest costumer overall having their share in TSMC's revenue increase by more than 2x in the last 3 years while Apple's share is largely the same.
Long term AMD has way more potential than Apple as it has it's fingers in way more markets(servers, super computers, Machine Learning AI, to name a few).

So? US fabs have quite low capacity, Taiwan will remain +90% of TSMC's chips manufacturing share for quite some time.

Would love to see references because near as I can tell Apple blow AMD away at TSMC?
Well, go back, read my comment and try to understand what I actually meant, not what you think I meant. Problem solved.
 
Last edited:
We will all get to see when reviewed. I'll reserve full judgement till shown. Mainly because their showing against M1 Pro and M2 in my view isn't enough to validate anything they stated. I didn't see any power usage while running blender render. But, I know for a fact it doesn't matter with the M1 Pro. Not to mention, the clock speed is as you state 4Ghz base. What is M1 Pro 3.2Ghz? That's your 30% right there. And if its hitting 5.2Ghz.. I would expect more. Again, at 45 Watts its more power for more clock. Verses a 1 and a half year old design.
The clock speed is as AMD confirmed it by officially publishing 7940HS's specs.

Anyway you very obviously have 0 idea how AMD's clocks and power scaling work and what does the 5.2Ghz actually mean(AMD has an official explanation of how boost technology works on their chips in case you want to find out).
I honestly can't understand why you insist on having all these opinions and assumptions when you lack very basic knowledge regarding AMD's CPUs, it really exhausting, like talking to a child. Now you are trying to suggest performance expectations for 2 different CPU architectures based on clock frequencies? That's a good one.

This is a guess. Just like I can guess the reason it was delayed was due to it needing to be on 3nm. And selling an M2 at the current process was "good enough" for now. Maybe they could have gotten a 20% improvement on the M2 with 3nm. And its up to 30% for M2 Pro and Max? IDK, neither do you.
Very small chances M2 Pro is on 3nm.
Mass production for 3nm just started and rumors say yields are worse than 5nm were at launch and M2 Pro will be a huge chip. At first 3nm is adequate for smaller chips like the ones found in phones.
These new AMD APUs are really great if M2 Pros need to be on a more advance node in order to compete.

Lots of cores, lots of power, and lots of performance. Nothing confusing here. Did they compare it to an M1 Max or Ultra? If so, I'd like to see it. What's the performance per watt as it scales up is a good to know..

Actually lots of cores and great performance period.
AMD also recently launched the desktop non K 7000 CPUs and the 12 core 7900 uses the same amount of power as the 8 core 7700 in order to complete the task ~30% faster. This is at default specs. More cores don't necessary mean vay more power and lower efficiency. It's really exhausting to explain 101 things about CPUs on this site, but it is what it is.
The 7945HX will burry any M2 Max in total CPU performance, this is a promise, feel free to get back at me in few months, taking in consideration 7950X's performance in eco mode I have no doubts regarding the fact that the 7945HX will be an outstanding laptop chip.

I'll not comment on Nvidia's $#!Tshow of a power-hungry GPU. Whoops.

Great because you absolutely have 0 idea about Ada Lovelace efficiency gain vs Ampere.
 
Last edited:
Well, go back, read my comment and try to understand what I actually meant, not what you think I meant. Problem solved.
Perhaps you can help me with some references for the information you’re sharing? Would love an opportunity to read more based on what you’ve seen. It might help me understand what you actually meant not what I thought you meant. Thanks in advance!
 
Perhaps you can help me with some references for the information you’re sharing? Would love an opportunity to read more based on what you’ve seen. It might help me understand what you actually meant not what I thought you meant. Thanks in advance!
LoL. It's obvios whta I meant, there's no point for me to waste my time with trolling.
 
LoL. It's obvios whta I meant, there's no point for me to waste my time with trolling.
I’m not trolling I’m genuinely interested in seeing where you’re getting your information from. It shouldn’t be too hard to share references to AMD being the top customer? I must admit when I went looking I found what I shared and couldn’t see anything that related to what you’re sharing but perhaps I’m doing it wrong.
 
I’m not trolling I’m genuinely interested in seeing where you’re getting your information from. It shouldn’t be too hard to share references to AMD being the top customer? I must admit when I went looking I found what I shared and couldn’t see anything that related to what you’re sharing but perhaps I’m doing it wrong.
I didn't say AMD is TSMC's top costumer overall.
 
I didn't say AMD is TSMC's top costumer overall.
You wrote:
AMD right now is TSMC's biggest 7nm costumer and soon they will be TSMC's biggest 4/5nm costumer.
I’m curious to see what references are behind this, I can’t find any myself but again I could just be looking in the wrong place. I was also mildly curious about the volume stuff as well given Apple ship something like 400 million devices almost entirely with chips they’ve designed themselves and I can’t really find a good number for AMD shipments.
 
Its the current high end laptop soc from Apple. True it's not a flagship like M1 Max but no way in hell it's low-end midrange, that title goes to M2.
Before the M2, the lineup was:

M1 → M1 Pro → M1 Max → M1 Ultra

M1 Pro was the second lowest level in the hierarchy.

That is ”lower midrange.”
 
Before the M2, the lineup was:

M1 → M1 Pro → M1 Max → M1 Ultra

M1 Pro was the second lowest level in the hierarchy.

That is ”lower midrange.”

They said high end laptop SoC. As far as the CPU goes, there is nothing higher-end; the Ultra isn’t available and the Max makes no measurable difference for the CPU.
 
You wrote:

I’m curious to see what references are behind this, I can’t find any myself but again I could just be looking in the wrong place. I was also mildly curious about the volume stuff as well given Apple ship something like 400 million devices almost entirely with chips they’ve designed themselves and I can’t really find a good number for AMD shipments.
Common sense. Most devices Apple ships that don't have micro-chips are smartphones, smartwatches and tablets.
AMD already got their latest GPU's and CPU's(both consumer and server) on 4/5nm. Once Apple moves their smartphone chips to 3nm AMD will become TSMC's top 4/5nm costumer.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: jdb8167
Common sense. Most devices Apple ships that don't have micro-chips are smartphones, smartwatches and tablets.
AMD already got their latest GPU's and CPU's(both consumer and server) on 4/5nm. Once Apple moves their smartphone chips to 3nm AMD will become TSMC's top 4/5nm costumer.

So you stand by "AMD's long term potential in chip volume is higher than Apple's"? What product does AMD make that's higher-volume than smartphones?
 
Quite pointless complains honestly. AMD compared performance pure and simple there's nothing vague about it. They didn't try to mix performance and power in order to suggest something that isn't remotely true.



AMD used the M2 exclusively for AI performance comparison and I already explained why, you should go back and read my comment. If they would have used the M1 Pro in that graph the AI performance discrepancy would have been larger.


Quite an illogical question taking in consideration AMD's press release and specs of their chips.


Yeah it is, it's ridiculous to suggest that the 2 are in the same power category.
What exactly makes you think the 7940HX alone can go up to 115W or 215W?


That's for the reviewers to show. AMD doesn't feel like they have to mainly relay on efficiency graphs to make their chips look good.

Anyway these constant suggestions about AMD's CPUs using "crazy amounts" of power shows one thing: people here have no clue what they are talking about and equate AMD CPUs to Intel CPUs because "they are both X86" so they both should be "the same" no?? They both should run Hottt. The funny thing about temperature, the newly released desktop non K 7000 Ryzen CPUs are ridiculously efficient and run very cold like 40 degrees Celsius in Prime95(if you know what this means, you probably don't) witch is absolutely crazy(I'm talking about the Ryzen 7900).




It's a product launch, there will be plenty of reviews which will show all kinds of power numbers. One thing that is certain: the 7940HX won't get anywhere near an M1 Ultra in power usage.


The M1 Max can't be considered competition for the 7940HX, AMD made it clear. AMD hasn't done anything dishonest in relation to Apple. They don't have to compare in their launch event their mid-range chip with Apple's high-end.


The 7940HX doesn't compete in the same price category as the M1 Max they already made it clear.


You are quite stretching it. I doubt there's anything close to a relevant number potential AMD costumers that are "on the fence of getting an M1 anything Mac". It doesn't make sense for AMD to cater to a very small niche in a time limited launch event.



If performance is so important there will be 7845HX laptops in decent sizes and thinness.
The 7940HX will be used in laptops that are +1000$ cheaper and in some instances more than half the price of an M1 Max Macbooks. That's a huge price difference much larger than any performance difference.



If they aren't clear to you than that's OK, the most important thing is that they are logical and clear for most of the industry. I already said 7940HX vs M1 Pro = better performance in similar priced/lower priced laptops + very good efficiency. We will see the exact details and differences in full reviews. If AMD was not confident about their chip's efficiency they would have only compared it to Intel which they beat by mile, they can already offer better performance than Intel for less than half the power usage.




If you go back to the first page and look at the graphs you will see that the M2 is only used for an AI performance comparison and that's because the M2 has 40% better AI performance than an M1 Max as is has an updated NPU.


LoL that has nothing to do with what I wrote.


Not at all.
I think you're giving too much credit to AMD too soon.

Now, I don't always agree with this reviewer. However, he did a pretty good job here


Providing at least some more context to the debate based on what is "known". And even from what AMD did not say during the keynote. If you're being objective in this. You will see that AMD isn't telling the whole story. And it begs the question as to why they would even show it in the light they did. Again, at best they should have shown the ML/AI to include the M2 and left it at that. I'd have more respect for them if that is what they did. But, they didn't. They put in the M1 Pro and left out both M1/2 in gaming. I'm sure they could have found a game that ran on an M1. Didn't that resident evil game just come out for it? Perfect opportunity to prove the point.
 
The clock speed is as AMD confirmed it by officially publishing 7940HS's specs.

Anyway you very obviously have 0 idea how AMD's clocks and power scaling work and what does the 5.2Ghz actually mean(AMD has an official explanation of how boost technology works on their chips in case you want to find out).
I honestly can't understand why you insist on having all these opinions and assumptions when you lack very basic knowledge regarding AMD's CPUs, it really exhausting, like talking to a child. Now you are trying to suggest performance expectations for 2 different CPU architectures based on clock frequencies? That's a good one.


Very small chances M2 Pro is on 3nm.
Mass production for 3nm just started and rumors say yields are worse than 5nm were at launch and M2 Pro will be a huge chip. At first 3nm is adequate for smaller chips like the ones found in phones.
These new AMD APUs are really great if M2 Pros need to be on a more advance node in order to compete.



Actually lots of cores and great performance period.
AMD also recently launched the desktop non K 7000 CPUs and the 12 core 7900 uses the same amount of power as the 8 core 7700 in order to complete the task ~30% faster. This is at default specs. More cores don't necessary mean vay more power and lower efficiency. It's really exhausting to explain 101 things about CPUs on this site, but it is what it is.
The 7945HX will burry any M2 Max in total CPU performance, this is a promise, feel free to get back at me in few months, taking in consideration 7950X's performance in eco mode I have no doubts regarding the fact that the 7945HX will be an outstanding laptop chip.



Great because you absolutely have 0 idea about Ada Lovelace efficiency gain vs Ampere.
Then maybe you should save your typing for a better conversation on another forum. Just saying.
 
You could in theory. In practice, there’s neither a boot loader nor a device tree, so no, you can’t.
Microsoft also has to allow the sale (license) on ARM that they don't make.
We are able to get it because they make the OS on the Qualcomm ARM chip. But they don't retail/sell it. If they did, Apple would more than likely bring back boot camp so we could install. Not to mention:


So, it's very doable.
 
I think you're giving too much credit to AMD too soon.

Now, I don't always agree with this reviewer. However, he did a pretty good job here


Providing at least some more context to the debate based on what is "known". And even from what AMD did not say during the keynote. If you're being objective in this. You will see that AMD isn't telling the whole story. And it begs the question as to why they would even show it in the light they did. Again, at best they should have shown the ML/AI to include the M2 and left it at that. I'd have more respect for them if that is what they did. But, they didn't. They put in the M1 Pro and left out both M1/2 in gaming. I'm sure they could have found a game that ran on an M1. Didn't that resident evil game just come out for it? Perfect opportunity to prove the point.
LOL, the clip you posted is a joke, he did a terrible job. The guy thinks that when AMD showed Gaming performance in the launch presentation they were talking about the iGPU. That's nonsense, the top 6000 series APU has like at least 40% iGPU performance in gaming than Intel's iGPU, the new 7000 series iGPU should at least be 40% faster vs 6000 series(some say it should reach double the iGPU performance). The Radeon 680M is 3.379 TFLOPS and that guy thinks the Radeon 780M will be 2.6 TFLOPS. That's a laughable poor analysis.

Also the focus of 7940HS presentation was clearly CPU performance, the 7940HS doesn't need a huge iGPU as it will also be paired with dedicated mobile GPUs.

I'm fully confident I didn't give AMD any credit too soon.
AMD showed the 7940HS the way they did because they are very confident about the performance and efficiency of their little chip. There's no reason to show gaming performance vs the M1 Pro because: 1) There are hardly any AAA games available for ARM Macs 2) An 7940HS laptop with a dedicated GPU will smoke any Apple laptop in gaming anyway and 3) A 7940HS without a dedicated GPU will most likely be cheap enough to be considered M2 Macbook Pro competition and it will smoke it in gaming anyway.
I mean for Christs sake Asus just announced new Ryzen 7940HS ROG Zephyrus G14s, so 14inch laptops, with dedicated mobile RTX 4090s and 4080s GPUs. That will smoke any Macbook in gaming without breaking a sweat.
 
Last edited:

Microsoft also has to allow the sale (license) on ARM that they don't make.
We are able to get it because they make the OS on the Qualcomm ARM chip. But they don't retail/sell it. If they did, Apple would more than likely bring back boot camp so we could install. Not to mention:


So, it's very doable.

Yeah, I know.

oh please, not that POS channel...
"they" reverse reality at will when Apple is inferior

Their key point isn’t wrong. The 7940HS burns a lot more power, making the comparison flawed. A U-series chip would be more interesting.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.