What point are you trying to make here? That poster has actual real world design experience on some of the most important chips ever made.And MIPS? And SPARC?
What are you trying to nitpick? That time has marched forward?
What point are you trying to make here? That poster has actual real world design experience on some of the most important chips ever made.And MIPS? And SPARC?
Then what is your point?First, Apple was never a customer of Exponential for various reasons, I said it was the fastest PowerPC chip, not the fastest chip from anyone. Second, Apple moved from PowerPC because the two companies making PowerPC chips (IBM and Motorola) were not focused on the same types of systems that Apple wanted to sell.
Motorola’s primary customers wanted processors for embedded systems, lower performance and inexpensive. IBM was making Big Iron and they did not care about performance per watt which is fine in a data center, but not so good for a laptop.
SPARC suffered from a lack of scale, hence an inability to invest enough to keep it at the cutting edge.
Apple’s Silicon has a guaranteed market many times larger than that for Windows, ensuring that they have the budget to invest to maintain their lead.
My point? That there are other factors at play other than RISC versus CISC. Of the four processors he claims to have worked on two are dead and one is almost dead. All three of which are RISC processors. The only one still standing, by a long shot, is the CISC design.What point are you trying to make here? That poster has actual real world design experience on some of the most important chips ever made.
What are you trying to nitpick? That time has marched forward?
No, it is not a change of name. They're related but they're not the same. If you're claiming they are then your credibility is even worse than originally thought.It’s a change of name. Same fundamental architecture. Like Xeon vs. Celeron.
You clearly not only seem to have no clue about processor design, but you lack all respect for great engineering tasks as well. My advice: instead of trolling here, go to AnandTech, ArsTechnica or so and learn one or two things about technology. The x86-64 is a great improvement over the x86 and I draw my hat in respect to anyone having contributed to such a project. I'd gladly invite you to a beer or two, cmaier, and have a bit of insight into such a great piece of work.Not impressed with your resume. Your experience is with dead end, almost dead end, and poorly (according to you) processors. One doesn't need to be the captain of a ship to say the captain of the Titanic didn't do a good job.
Your number don't seem right. Mac has been steady, if not increasing, for the past few years. https://www.statista.com/statistics/576473/united-states-quarterly-pc-shipment-share-apple/another mean spirit towards Intel.
PS the Mac is having a hard time surviving. roughly 7 to 8 percent of all computers are Mac
92 Percent are windows and use Intel.
Where do you see the best prospect for customers, business and money? The 92 Percent. The majority.
And if the M1 Macs don't sell well the Apple OS Share will be less than 7 or 8 percent.
LOL! Typical response on this site. Claim someone as no clue. I've heard all of this before when Apple switched from 68K to PPC. Then they abandoned a RISC design for a CISC design. Perhaps you can explain why?You clearly not only seem to have no clue about processor design, but you lack all respect for great engineering tasks as well. My advice: instead of trolling here, go to AnandTech, ArsTechnica or so and learn one or two things about technology. The x86-64 is a great improvement over the x86 and I draw my hat in respect to anyone having contributed to such a project. I'd gladly invite you to a beer or two, cmaier, and have a bit of insight into such a great piece of work.
Neither are celeron and Xeon. I didn’t say they were the same.Well, there goes your credibility. It is not a change of name. Power and PowerPC are related but they are not the same.
And MIPS? And SPARC?
You clearly not only seem to have no clue about processor design, but you lack all respect for great engineering tasks as well. My advice: instead of trolling here, go to AnandTech, ArsTechnica or so and learn one or two things about technology. The x86-64 is a great improvement over the x86 and I draw my hat in respect to anyone having contributed to such a project. I'd gladly invite you to a beer or two, cmaier, and have a bit of insight into such a great piece of work.
However, I marvel at the M1 as well, these numbers are insane. I have a 2015 iMac, and the geekbench single-core rating is at 1100, the 2020 imac is at around 1200, but the mac mini is at 1700. It's insane. I also marvel at the Ryzen family. Gosh, that would be a lot of beers... ;-)
My next computer will probably be a mac mini for everything except games, for which I might build a zen 3, nvidia 3080/90 machine. Hehe, maybe I can put the mac mini inside the pc tower... squeeze it diagonally into two drive bays or so...
There is no need to bash x86 or any other architecture. Compete and learn from each other to improve all mankind.
LOL! Typical response on this site. Claim someone as no clue. I've heard all of this before when Apple switched from 68K to PPC. Then they abandoned a RISC design for a CISC design. Perhaps you can explain why?
Well, I guess its been you who questioned @cmaier’s expertise in the first place. So you of all people are guilty of what you are accusing others more than anyone else. cmaier, who, by way way, forgets more about CPU design every single day than you know about CPUs at allLOL! Typical response on this site. Claim someone as no clue. I've heard all of this before when Apple switched from 68K to PPC. Then they abandoned a RISC design for a CISC design. Perhaps you can explain why?
Did you not say "It’s a change of name."?Neither are celeron and Xeon. I didn’t say they were the same.
Well, then the world should bow down to your greatness.I also didn’t keep working on Mips, and I didn’t keep working on SPARC. The ones I did work on were the fastest chips in the world at the time.
Why couldn't IBM or Motorola deliver chips suitable for laptops? Wasn't the PPC a RISC processor?It’s been explained to you many times. IBM was focussed on chips for its own workstations. Motorola was inept. Neither was able to deliver chips suitable for laptops. Not the fault of PowerPC architecture, but the fault of business decisions and circumstances. And 68k was a huge mess, but it’s actually less of a mess than x86. Anyone designing these chips today, no matter how good they are, are constrained by decisions made by other people decades ago. Even Intel understood this, when they tried Merced. Which didn’t work for the same reasons that the risc chips didn’t work - they didn’t run windows in a reasonable way. Intel had to resort to sticking a crappy x86 core in the corner of the chip. Because business considerations, not technology, got in the way.
Envious? Obviously!Well, then the world should bow down to your greatness.
I agree. Hence why I said "The performance benefit of M1 has less to do with CISC versus RISC...". IMO RISC is not the primary reason for M1s performance advantage. Other factors are more important.ehm... yes, sorry, that was a bit harsh, I apologise... maybe you have a clue but I cannot recognize it from the posts I read.
The RISC vs CISC debate was not really meaningful then and it is even less meaningful now, imo. I have no real insight on why they switched, but very convincing reasons have been written here before:
- there was no path forward for the PowerPC, both IBM and Motorola had their focus elsewhere.
- PowerPC did not do well on the laptop level, which would become a major segment
And there is always the economies of scale. At that time, Intel looked much more trustworthy than any other option. It gave Apple stability, continuity and, most importantly, the time to slowly build up their own capacity in chip design, to never be dependent of such 'partners' anymore. The time has come, we see the fruits in the iPhones/iPads and now the M1.
Did you not say "It’s a change of name."?
Motorola couldn’t deliver chips that didn’t suck even for desktops. They were bad at chip design.Why couldn't IBM or Motorola deliver chips suitable for laptops? Wasn't the PPC a RISC processor?
I am not making it say anything. Did you or did you not write those words?If you are going to just pick a few words out of a sentence you can make it say anything you want.
What factors? You just keep throwing these statements out without any details. What are the factors, why are they more important, and what background do you have that suggests that your opinion is meaningful?I agree. Hence why I said "The performance benefit of M1 has less to do with CISC versus RISC...". IMO RISC is not the primary reason for M1s performance advantage. Other factors are more important.
I said “It’s a change of name. Same fundamental architecture. Like Xeon vs. Celeron.”I am not making it say anything. Did you or did you not write those words?