Definitely.
Did he explain to you why getting a PhD was dumb?I interviewed with Dobberpuhl twice.
The first time was in 1991 or so. I remember very little about it, but I got the general impression it didn’t go well, and I did not get the job. Honestly I cannot even remember *where* the interview happened, though it must have been in Massachusetts for the Alpha team, and I do vaguely remember talking about their emulation technology (they had a way to run x86 and SPARC code on alpha).
Around 1995 I interviewed again, this time in Palo Alto for the strongarm team. I remember that one a bit better. I recall being asked to design a RAM cell, and nailing it. But then it was time for DobberpuhL to talk to me. And he starts with “so I remember you from 4 years ago. That didn’t go well. Let’s hope you did better today. Why did you get a Ph.D, anyway? That was dumb.”
Six months later I was at Exponential Technology interviewing one of the guys who interviewed me at DEC. I think we made him an offer. Can’t recall if DEC made me an offer, though I would bet they did not. If they had I wouldn’t have taken it, anyway, because the Exponential job was such a perfect match for my technical experience (i had been designing bipolar CPUs for 4 years, which was super unusual, and the folks at Exponential had actually been monitoring our research to see what we were up to since they were also doing bicmos).
At AMD I worked with a half dozen or so folks from the Alpha team. They were all incredibly smart (and they still are
That's what Apple said in the presentation. The fastest cpu core in the world right now.
Well, Apple has a very long history of using ARM ip to build their chips. They are the basis of hundreds of millions of iOS devices. This transition from Intel to M Series was planned for years.
Except Cinebench is not a good representation of “real world.” It is a synthetic benchmark that ignores many real world variables.
The problem is that even if Apple's ARM processors continue to perform in real world applications, similarly to other desktop processors from AMD/Intel, Apple is still pricing the Mac's far higher, even though the cost of the device to them becomes lower because they don't have to pay Intel for the processor.
While I wouldn't agree with the 99.9 number, certainly more performance is not needed in a lot of cases. However that the M1 can even outperform the current chips at lower power consumption is a game changer. Who doesn't like longer battery life?
It still beats AMD's new Ryzen CPUs which are on the 7nm process....
You should read the Anantech article about the M1 that is linked on MR.
That’s exactly what I’ve done. Saved a lot of money in the process too.Sitting here on a newly purchased 2019 MBP 16" and wondering if I should return it and get the MBP 13" now
Not only the fastest but also the fastest per watt by a factor of at least 5. The desktop AMD 5600x chip almost ties the score but uses 28w to achieve that compared to 5w for the M1. The 5600x achieves a 10% faster multi score but uses about 5 times the power at 76w compared to 15-20w.
So what you're saying is that while Apple was using Intel chips it was sort of OK to charge a high price, but now that they invested billions into their own chips which outperform Intel they should lower prices?
How can the MacBook Air have a higher multicore score? They are the same chip and the MBP is much more likely to have a higher multicore speed due to having a fan.
Apple introduced the first MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, and Mac mini with M1 Apple Silicon chips yesterday, and as of today, the first benchmark of the new chip appears to be showing up on the Geekbench site.
The M1 chip, which belongs to a MacBook Air with 8GB RAM, features a single-core score of 1687 and a multi-core score of 7433. According to the benchmark, the M1 has a 3.2GHz base frequency.
When compared to existing devices, the M1 chip in the MacBook Air outperforms all iOS devices. For comparison's sake, the iPhone 12 Pro earned a single-core score of 1584 and a multi-core score of 3898, while the highest ranked iOS device on Geekbench's charts, the A14 iPad Air, earned a single-core score of 1585 and a multi-core score of 4647.
Single Core benchmarks
In comparison to Macs, the single-core performance is better than any other available Mac, and the multi-core performance beats out all of the 2019 16-inch MacBook Pro models, including the 10th-generation high-end 2.4GHz Intel Core i9 model. That high-end 16-inch MacBook Pro earned a single-core score of 1096 and a multi-core score of 6870.
Though the M1 chip is outperforming the 16-inch MacBook Pro models when it comes to raw CPU benchmarks, the 16-inch MacBook Pro likely offers better performance in other areas such as the GPU as those models have high-power discrete GPUs.
Multi Core benchmarks
It's worth noting that there are likely to be some performance differences between the MacBook Pro and the MacBook Air even though they're using the same M1 chip because the MacBook Air has a fanless design and the MacBook Pro has an new Apple-designed cooling system. There's also a benchmark for the Mac mini, though, and it has about the same scores.
The Mac mini with M1 chip that was benchmarked earned a single-core score of 1682 and a multi-core score of 7067.
Update: There's also a benchmark for the 13-inch MacBook Pro with M1 chip and 16GB RAM that has a single-core score of 1714 and a multi-core score of 6802. Like the MacBook Air, it has a 3.2GHz base frequency. A few other MacBook Air benchmarks have surfaced too with similar scores, and the full list is available on Geekbench.
Article Link: Apple Silicon M1 Chip in MacBook Air Outperforms High-End 16-Inch MacBook Pro
A +-630 deep ROB is an immensely huge out-of-order window for Apple’s new core, as it vastly outclasses any other design in the industry. Intel’s Sunny Cove and Willow Cove cores are the second-most “deep” OOO designs out there with a 352 ROB structure, while AMD’s newest Zen3 core makes due with 256 entries, and recent Arm designs such as the Cortex-X1 feature a 224 structure.
Lol, that is some pretty good mental gymnastic there. Don’t be dumb? Only someone dumb would try to justify comparing the M1 with a Ryzen 5600X because it was the CHEAPEST AMD new processor. The 5600X is a $300 DESKTOP chip that sits at the higher end of the mainstream tier. The only reason it was cheapest because AMD decided to release the higher end SKUs 5950, 5900, etc first. There will soon be 5300, 5500 etc. It is like saying the Nvidia 3070 is the cheapest Nvidia new graphics cards. While it is true, it is actually on the very high end in terms of performance and price.
Well, a 999$ laptop offering i7 level of performance with other, best in class specifications is not expensive either..
