I doubt it. I mentioned on another thread that Apple’s benefit is that they don’t have to worry about anyone offering “the same thing just slightly better” while they’re trying to offer “A WHOLE NEW PARADIGM”. Because there are other companies waiting in the wings to offer sideways solutions in competition against any new thing that Intel creates, there’s only so much innovation they’re able to do. Now, would it be possible for them to cooperate with AMD to create a new amazing thing? Sure. The question is, would AMD see it as a business opportunity they need to be a part of OR a way for Intel to maintain relevance? If AMD saw it as the second, they’d turn Intel down and just watch them flounder.
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.
Intel Urged to Take 'Immediate Action' Amid Threats From Apple Silicon and AMD
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The Intel Macs would run a LOT cooler if... ahhh, if they had the same quality of processor as the M1. You know, small, powerful, efficient? The kind of processor Intel told Apple they were making, buuuut Intel kinda missed their mark by about 20-30 watts.
Intel or whatever other mass market processor is available. Datacenters are commodity things. If there’s no benefit to differentiate at a hardware level, then there’s no need to.
“Digital content creators” WILL do fine with apple silicon. That doesn’t even take any technical knowledge OR being a processor architect to realize. Most of the current tools run as well or better in Rosetta and the performance is only going to improve as the apps become native.
”While standing on the ground, letting go of a rock will cause it to accelerate downwards” is another “normie” analysis that it’s just realllllly not worth challenging. You COULD though. You totally could.
I'm not sure if Intel's heat issues is due to the Mac's internals. I have a mid 2019 15" MBP. Apple made significant improvements on the 16" which came out about 4 months later, with redesigned cooling features etc.
The reality is it all comes down to Intels mobile chips and how fast they heat up vs the M1, as heat is an issue in other brands of laptops too with the last few years of Intel processors.
The mid 2015 Intel processors were a completely different design so its not a reasonable comparison. I agree that having an larger enclosure would help though as the 2016-2021 MBP design is pretty tight, but I bet there would still be issues.
That's a bold statement. There is a big list of products (while I don't love them all, I would still call some innovative), and even design choices that have pushed the industry forward as a whole to provide better technologies.
Right?! The lowering of carbon footprint alone would be enormous. Going from an average power consumption of 300w per server to 10-25w would be massive. And that doesn't even take in to account the lower cooling requirements.
It also means fewer and smaller buildings - one thing people forget is that you can only bring so much electrical power and cooling into a building. The total building volume goes way down if you use M1s instead of x86 chips.
Clearly you don't know many people at either company.
Apple has been a sweat shop for years. Employees complain about burnout and what keeps them there is the RSUs.
Intel has the same issue, but people are leaving.
Both have a culture where being different or thinking outside the box is not what they want.
Only people in "creative positions" have their opinions valued.
Diversity is horrible and managers hire who looks like or talks like them.
As a chip architect, I'll pass on either company.
I won't say the engineers and architects are terrible.
I think their design process is terrible.
The are definitely stuck in the Stone Age with design methodology.
Exactly,
Intel can't spin off its fabs.
They make more than processors and those fabs are an advantage, no matter what some people think.
If you are in a commercial fab, you are at the mercy of the capacity and schedule of the fab.
Intel can do hot lots, experimental wafers etc.
People need to stop comparing process nodes based on what a company calls it.
7nm just means the smallest feature size and not transistor density.
Last edited:
Compared to what?
The M1 has no external memory bus.
It's unified memory architecture for CPU and GPU operations is a bottleneck.
It doesn't support very many lanes of PCIe Gen3 and no Gen4 support.
For all intent and purpose the M1 is a general purpose embedded processor with limited external peripheral support.
Call me on power consumption when it can support more than 16GB of memory via LPDDR4 or LPDDR5.
The current iteration is far from a pure RISC processor.
ARM hasn't been RISC in years.
As the guy who created AMD’s design process in the early 2000s when I co-ran EDA in Sunnyvale, it’s hard for me to see a difference there. Engineers create the process.
ARM is suitable for plenty people just weren't paying attention to Ampere and others.
The big issue that I see is that people want to compare the M1 against processors that have much better peripheral support and an external memory interface.
It's not an accurate comparison until apple has LPDDR and better than 16GB of memory and 24-48 lanes of PCIe.
Those differential drivers for PCIe ar power hungry.
DRAM controllers and schedulers aren't free.
Not free, but comparatively cheap. The 16” MBP and higher end 13” MBP will use a variant of M1 with those features (and probably a bigger L2).
The engineers being hired now or in recent past aren't the ones that created the messed up design methodology at Intel. I separate the two because Intel's methodology does not encourage thinking or innovation. Most engineers at Intel don't even know how to run synthesis tools.
But let's face it, at Apple they also don't want the rank and file engineer doing much thinking. They like, for lack of a better term, "vertically integrated" engineers. They can do a couple of things really well and don't/can't do much else.
Boeing is "too big to fail". Honestly, so is Intel. People are predicting their demise, but if they really were in trouble, the government will bail them out. They're not going to let the company with America's most advanced semiconductor tech go under.
Were you under the impression that Apple wouldn't be able to fill its foundries if it owned one?
For me, those will give a much better picture of the processor potential and power consumption.
Right now the M1 is great for an entry level machine.
I want to see the processor with 8/12 cores and 16/24 threads with 64-128GB of RAM, 32 lanes of PCIe Gen3/4 that is running my ProTools/AVID setup.
As they go higher performance, on chip memory bandwidth will also be an issue and a unified model for CPU/GPU memory isn't optimal.
Now we need to see them replace a Xeon.
I think it's interesting.
I also do not know how to run synthesis tools
. (Ok, i know *how* to run dc_shell, and I even know how to write and read verilog, but I certainly don’t enjoy it or advocate that anyone do it Yep. Nokia,Blackberry,Kodak,so many more. There's room for you at the table Intel.
Damn that just got me thinking of the energy, and therefore cost,savings of ARM in a huge data center. The direct energy savings coupled with the smaller cooling load etc. would seem to be a huge incentive to fast track whatever is needed to start the changeover.