Pretty ironic comment coming from you. Apple has the world's first 3nm chip(s) under production. You need to show yourself out.
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.
Apple should convince Dr. Lisa Su (the CEO of AMD) to lead their chip division
- Thread starter Retskrad
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The fact that Apple panicked the entire chip-making world into getting off their asses and working hard again can't possibly be seen as a bad thing by anyone, including Apple.
AMD did not claim that the 7040 series is 20% faster and 50% more energy efficient than M2. It did claim that its AI engine is faster and more efficient than M2 media engine.
AMD unleashes Ryzen 7000 laptop CPUs with drastically different architectures
AMD launched its latest Ryzen 7000 laptop CPUs at CES with multiple processor architectures and a new XDNA AI core that will become Ryzen AI.
www.pcworld.com
How do you want to make a comparison with a rumored SoC that has not been released and has no public benchmarks?
Last edited:
Shouldn't you wait until AMD releases its ARM chip, at least for mobile first? If they can beat Apple both mobile chips and laptop chips, then yes, why not.
Whilst I agree this is a silly suggestion, the Apple circlejerk here is ridiculous. Whatever side of the fence you’re on, the latest Intel and AMD CPUs (especially the high end desktop chips) are mighty impressive. And before someone mentions power, 99% of people buying a 13900K or 7950X don’t care. We need the competition or Apple will sit on their hands and do nothing. I hope Meteor Lake and Zen 5 come out swinging hard.
Last edited:
While that maybe true it is also true that people who care about power wouldn't even consider these chips in the 1st place.
What IMO is far more important is "headroom", read how much better/faster can something get before it turns unusable for everything but an expensive to rent server?
I'm sorry but we're only the first revision of the M1 and now you're saying its sinking like the titanic. The M2 isn't even fully out. Even so, Many of AMD's iterations from year to year had only minor improvements. The Zen 3 line of CPUs had some really nice and fast CPUs, but not earth shattering release every year.
Give it time, the M1 is by far the most efficient and best processor, particularly for laptops.
Will Intel and AMD leap frog them from time to time? Yes. Will Apple leap frog Intel and AMD from time to time? Yes. That's the nature of the business and in no way constitutes a failure
I would suggest the CEO of Cape Cod Chips. Lay's is fine but I think CCC makes better kettle cooked.
Edit: I have misunderstood the topic.
Edit: I have misunderstood the topic.
Stop the lie! Since 2005 Apple only ever cared and bragged about performance per watt.
I draw my chip designs by hand and then carve them out of the wafers by hand with a tiny chisel. There is no I in “team” therefore a team is clearly inferior.
both,not just the perf/watt...apple did mention that one time with Intel , after that only when the mac begin to use apple own chips...otherwise, check every event with mac and iphone and ipads...to see that there are so many performance gain charts etc, so there are more performance mentions charts than performance per watt (intel, then Intel with haswell, and now macs with M series) ...so dont be like that when he is right and you arent
Last edited:
Short answer: No. She is exactly where she needs to be. CEO of Apple would be a better position for her to think about when Tim Cook decides to step down. She has not “conquered” Intel or NVIDIA OR Apple, but she’s doing somewhat better than average.
Srouji is doing fine. The M1 was/is a watershed moment in CPU/SoC history, but anyone expecting the same trajectory after it was released is deluding themselves. Pacing chip releases is always a tricky thing, but we live in times wear simply throwing tech out the door for the sake of throwing it out the door during these economic times makes zero sense. Pacing out releases allows Apple to ride out the storm until the economy gets back on track.
The cycles of who has the fastest CPU is always a fluid target, anyone with more than 5 minutes of experience understands this ebb and flow is completely normal.
Apple Silicon battery life and power efficiency is just crazy. I don't see anyone at Intel/AMD sleeping well in the next couple of years if things keep up being like this.
It's not just brute power these days.. especially for mobility chips.
It's not just brute power these days.. especially for mobility chips.
You could've at least waited until the release of M2 Pro/Max soon instead of making such a silly suggestion so close before the release and comparing an unreleased AMD chip to an old Apple CPU. You're also forgetting the most important question. Can AMD chips run macOS? No! Then I have no interest in their "fastest" chips.
Last edited:
Apple’s 14-Inch MacBook Pro Was Used For AMD’s CES Keynote, The Same Presentation That Undermined The M1 Pro's Performance
AMD was caught using Apple’s 14-inch MacBook Pro during CES 2023 to show a presentation while mocking the M1 Pro
lol ok
Wait, why replace Johny Srouji? He's done an incredible job and if he were to leave, the whole team might just collapse. I have to admit their chip team situation is stressing me out a bit. Apple's custom chips are like half of the magic of their products. Idk why so many of them would want to leave Apple and their incredible campus. I feel like that would be the dream -- to work on products that hundreds of millions or billions of people use every day.
What I’d much rather see is Apple put AMD chips in their machines. AMD have been killing it for years. It’d ultimately be so bad for the market if AMD lost all their talent to a company that only puts their chips in their own computers and charges exorbitant prices.
Bring back x86. Bring back Boot Camp!
Bring back x86. Bring back Boot Camp!
She is doing great work where she is. Pushing Apple to do better by making competitive chip (depending on the metric). Competition drives the progress, not the odd genius. Even if the competence was there, no company on the planet will change such large architectural approaches as the MX every year. I am quite confident that these companies (Apple and AMD) think decades ahead when it comes to chip development. Relying on a few "talents" is not sound strategically.
I would like to see at least RDNA GPUs in the Mac again.
They are much superior and feature packed than the mobile grade Imagination Technologies/PowerVR GPUs they are using right now.
I don’t think it makes sense to compare Apple chips with others. Apple Chipsets are highly optimized for Apple Software and Hardware. Apple does not really optimize for gaming. It’s not only cpu and gpu speed that counts. Also the thermals (GHz per Watt) is very important these days.
Apple sells an experience, made possible by integrating hardware, software and services together. Their processors make up just one aspect of this. It's hardly the end of the world.
It's disingenuous to claim that the only point of using tiered core architecture is to excel in benchmarks. If anything, the rational for having just one fast core can be explained easier than having two (or more) such cores. Your claim about Intel architecture makes even less sense. Intel started using two types of cores - just like Apple and other ARM processors. Yet, somehow, when Apple does it, it makes practical sense, but Intel does it to inflate their benchmark scores?
I am not criticizing the tiered core architecture itself. I am criticizing how it’s utilized. A phone doesn’t need excellent multi-core throughput to begin with. Nobody is running heavy-duty computations on phones. High multi-core capabilities of the iPhone is a consequence of its very fast CPU - but the CPU itself is designed for common user-facing applications and low latency work. High multi-core capabilities of the Snapdragon is due to Qualcomm throwing a large amount of cores together. This is not motivated by any real-world performance concerns. It’s purely marketing.
I don’t disagree. In fact, I’m sure that the iPhone would do just fine with a single P-core.
Intel uses a tiered architecture because they have reached the limits of performance scalability. Their main cores are fast but power hungry. Their auxiliary cores have ok throughput for die area and energy usage. So they use them to augment the main cores in power-constrained throughput scenarios. It’s an architecture driven by the need to be performance leader (where performance is defined by some rather artificial marketing metric) rather than by technological excellency. In other words, Intel does this only because they can’t do better. AMD for example doesn’t to as their cores have much better vertical scalability.
This approach is very different from Apple‘s, where E-cores are used for low-energy background computing only. You can’t use Intel’s auxiliary cores for that. They consume as much power as Apples P-cores. They are not power-efficiency cores. They are area-efficiency cores.
Different performance levels of P and E cores between Apple and Intel may be related to the fact that Apple design is prioritising mobile applications (iPhone specifically) and Intel design might be prioritising performance applications (desktops and, especially, servers). Apple E cores would be absolutely useless on the servers.
She announces a processor that rivals the M1 Pro (which is 15 months old at this point), and you say she should replace the guy who brought us that original chip? I'm not saying that an x86 chip that matches the M1 Pro SoC in all key areas is nothing (it's actually quite a success story). But, you don't just flip flop on long term architecture plans just because a rival had one good win.