Intel was once a Silicon Valley leader. How did it fall so far?
Intel was once a Silicon Valley leader. How did it fall so far?
The semiconductor manufacturer announced huge job cuts and a dividend pause after losing out on AI.
You're viewing a single thread.
The marketing and advertising and sales teams took over management from the engineering team, and decided to cut all the corners. It's a classic tale at this point, same thing happened to Boeing and Apple and Google and etc. It's why everything sucks nowadays.
There might be things that Apple is stagnating on, but silicon and ARM CPU transitions definitely ain’t one of those things. The rest of the industry is scrambling to catch up with them asap.
Just ask Apple, they'll tell you so.
Don’t trust any silicon manufacturer’s marketing department. Let the processing and battery life benchmarks and real world tests do the talking.
AMD's CPUs are faster and more power efficient on the same process node. (i.e. 5nm vs 5nm)
https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-amd_ryzen_ai_9_hx_370-vs-apple_m2
Apple just has a big budget to buy out TSMC process nodes a generation early, their designs and architectures aren't actually faster or more power efficient than AMD's x86 cpus.
https://www.macrumors.com/2023/02/22/apple-secures-tsmc-3nm-chips/
Am I blind? I don't see any information in there to draw any conclusions about power efficiency. The little information that I do see actually seems to imply the apple silicon chip would be more efficient. Help me out please?
24 threads at 2.00 GHz vs. 8 threads at 0.66 GHz with a 40% difference in TDP. The AMD chip may draw more power, but has much higher performance. Simplifying things, it can perform 9x the operations as the Apple silicon for only 1.4x the power draw.
That... is very naive and inaccurate approach. You can't use frequency and core counts to guesstimate performance even when the chips in question are closely related. They're utterly useless when it's two very different chips that don't even use the same instruction set. But anyway, there are benchmarks in that page and they clearly show that the amd chip is clearly not performing 9x the operations. It is obviously more powerful, though not nearly by that much.
I desperately want something to start competing with apple silicon, believe me, but knowing just how good the apple silicon chips are from first hand experience, forgive me if I am a little bit sceptical about a little writeup that only deals in benchmark results and official specs. I want to read about how it performs in real life scenarios because I also know from experience that benchmark results and official specs alone don't always give an accurate picture of how the thing performs in real life.
That's exactly how you guesstimate CPU performance. It obviously won't be accurate to real life use cases, but you don't necessarily need benchmarks to get a ballpark comparison of raw performance. The standard comparison is FLOPS, floating point operations per second. Yes different architectures have different instruction sets, but they're all relatively similar especially for basic arithmetic. It breaks down with more complex computations, but there's only so many ways to add two numbers together.
Both chips are 20w class cpus, but the AMD cpu is much faster.
Apple CPUs don't report wattage, so it's a bit tricky to measure actual power consumption, but I can't imagine the AMD cpu uses 50% more power under load.
The Apple CPU might score some wins for idle power consumption though, considering the optimizations in MacOS, and the focus on power consumption across the whole system design.
You can definitely get fairly accurate power draw readings from these chips in macOS, even with Apple's own debugging tools. If anything, it's harder (or at least more confusing) to get accurate readings for AMD chips (TDP != power draw).
Also, the TDP the manufacturer states in the spec sheet pretty much doesn't mean anything these days. These chips will be allowed to draw different amounts of power for different durations under different conditions. This is especially true for the AMD parts, as they run in a lot of different laptops with different power and cooling capabilities. But even for Apple's M chips there are different configurations: a MacBook Air only has passive cooling while the same chip in a MacBook Pro can have active cooling, which will impact maximum allowed (sustained) power draw and with that, performance.
You also link to CPU Monkey, a website I wouldn't use for anything but very rough estimates, because their seemingly random collection of benchmarks are likely just taken/stolen from somewhere else (I doubt they benchmarked every single CPU they list themselves) and it's unclear with what power limits and thermal constraints these benchmarks were run.
Even with all the data, it's still hard to make a 100 % accurate comparison. For example, the efficiency curves of these CPUs is likely quite a bit different. The M3 might achieve its highest performance/watt at 12 watts, while the Ryzen's best performance/watt might be at 15 watts (these numbers are just an example). So, do you compare at 12 or 15 watts then?
And yes, there absolutely can be situations where the AMD CPU draws 50% or even 100% (or more) more power under load, and depending on the configuration of the chip in a specific system, the opposite can be the case as well. This in itself doesn't tell you much about potential power efficiency though.
EDIT: Also, comparing the Ryzen 9 part with 12 cores to the smallest M2 doesn't make any sense. You'd much more likely compare it to the M2 Max which has 12 cores as well (and again, trying to match the TDP in the spec sheet doesn't make any sense, as especially for AMD, TDP isn't even close to actual power draw under load - PPT is at least a somewhat better number here).
I also get that you're trying to match the process node as closely as possible and TSMC N4 is "just" an improed variant of TSMC N5P, but it still differs. Also, the M2 was released two years earlier than AMD's AI 300 series, so you ignore two years of architecture improvements which happen regardless of the process node, just look at the (supposed) performance and efficiency improvements from desktop Zen 4 to Zen 5 on the same.
Maybe the new AMD chips are better in many ways even compared to more recent Apple chips, but the comparison you are trying to make is so deeply flawed on so many levels that it's completely useless and it doesn't prove anything whatsoever.
I've taken those facts into account.
I haven't seen any benchmarks that include power usage for Apple CPUs.
AMD cpus are not like Intel CPUs, they don't use more than the TDP under load. https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-ryzen-ai-9-hx-370/3
The difference between N5P and N4 isn't significant compared to architectural differences, and the fact that Apple's architecture is inferior is exactly my point. If the AMD 370 and the Apple M3 are neck and neck, despite Apple being an entire process node ahead (5nm vs 3nm), that shows that Apple's architecture is inferior.
I don't think it's a fair comparison to compare the 27w 370 to the ~50w M2 Pro.
It's true that power efficiency is such a hard metric to compare, especially on laptops and across different operating systems, but that's the point I'm making with the rough figures we have available.
Iirc the die area for Apple's chips are also a lot larger and that's expensive. It's a lot easier for them to tank that cost because they are building them for themselves rather than selling them to vendors who manufacture products like AMD.
Yeah, Apple's vertical integration and volume is enviable.
Where you see vertical integration, I see unnecessary and customer antagonistic siloing of function. Do you have any idea how impossible it is to send an apple user money from a non apple device?
What does unnecessary and customer antagonistic siloing of function have to do with Apple's vertical integration of manufacturing process? One doesn't prevent the existence of the other within the same company.
Minor nit, but I believe that AMD CPU is 4nm
I believe both M2 and Zen 5 use 4nm. 4nm is just a slightly improved 5nm, though. It's the same process node, not an entirely new process node like 3nm.
Everything I see says the M2 family is 5. Vanilla, pro, max, and ultra.
The nm process for each CPU is listed in technical details on cpu-monkey
Rumors before the M2 release said that it used 4nm.
https://www.macrumors.com/2022/03/10/m2-macs-with-tsmc-4nm-process/
Apple says they use "second generation 5nm technology"
TSMC's website says they have 6 different 5nm nodes: N5, N5P, N5A N4, N4P, N4X
https://www.tsmc.com/english/dedicatedFoundry/technology/logic/l_5nm
So the M2 likely uses N5P, N4, or N4P. N4 and N4P are usually called 4nm in marketing material.
There's probably a leaker out there with more knowledge.
Not trying to start a debate, just saying the specs in the link were different than what was mentioned.
My point is that the M series transition went very well.
Sure, I was just explaining it because the whole 5/4 thing is confusing.
These new snapdragon based windows laptops have to be a serious wake up call for intel. General personal computing is quickly moving away from x86 and the latest “efficiency” core processors from intel can’t compete.
For those that don't follow the industry at all, is there somewhere that has a good write up on what's been going on?
And? Linux was on ARM since about beginning.
What relevance does Linux have in this specific context? Does Linux have a marketing team? Does Linux compete on a hardware level with Apple? Is there a Linux corp we haven't heard about that's working with some chip manufacturer we also haven't heard about in order to create ARM processors that can compete with Apple silicon? No? Maybe don't shoehorn Linux into everything regardless of relevance, especially not in such a lane way.
Because compared to other OSes Apple just catches up.
Does Linux have a marketing team?
No marketing team = no enshittification by marketing
Is there a Linux corp we haven't heard about that's working with some chip manufacturer we also haven't heard about in order to create ARM processors that can compete with Apple silicon?
So you agree that transitioning to ARM isn't impressive. Now it's time to show you that making processors isn't something only oh-so-great Yoppl can do. Linux Foundation has its own chip designing subsidiary - CHIPS Alliance. They designed stuff like vector coprocessor, RISC-V core(and older VeeR cores), maintains Chisel HDL and many smaller projects. And I only named what only Linux Foundation does, community and other organizations(including chinese T-head) do even more.
Great, now show me the Linux ARM laptop that's competing with MacBooks at the consumer level. You do have something that's actively turning people away from Apple Silicon, yes?
How is competeing with macbooks at the consumer level is related to enshittification by marketing team becoming managment?
Now me Apple ARM laptop that's competeing with chromebooks.
It’s not just the big tech, some startups are the same because they’re vying for VC cash and that’s the best way to do it
Vulture Capital will collapse capitalism.
Better them than accountants and lawyers.
I was including the accountants and lawyers in that list, just to be clear. They're all bad if they don't have any idea how the technical side of their business functions.
I think they are different levels of bad. To paraphrase the old adage, If sales takes over your company, be wary. If accountants take over, start looking for a new job. If lawyers take over quit.
I can see how accountants and sales can be bad, but how exactly do lawyers fuck up? Not saying they don't, just asking how it plays out.
They only bring in the lawyers when something is truly fucked, like the Board taking control from administration. They usually take over when the time has come to investigate fraud, dismantle or otherwise heavily restructure the company.
Oh but then the lawyers are like white blood cells? They are good? Lawyers are friends? (Unless you're a black hat/criminal I guess)
The lawyers are there to safely burn everything to the ground, because if they have been brought in everything is already fucked beyond any hope of repair.
I mean, and I'm thinking more in the context of retirement investments here, the moment any of those things happen I'm inclined to jump ship. I am thoroughly unaware of any time such a move has turned out well in the long run. Same sentiment for stock buybacks, though that one because if that's the best thing the company can think of to spend money on they are completely out of good ideas.
If you're talking about the lastest gen desktop CPUs, they just clocked them too high.
This has been an ongoing problem ever since, like, Ivy Bridge/the 3000 series... and yes, probably has to do with management and marketing decisions tbh, so they can be 2% ahead of AMD in some stupid benchmark. AMD is guilty of this too, and you can see what "sanely" clocked chips look like with their X3D series.
That is absolutely not the only issue. They had oxidation issues in two successive generations of consumer CPUs, likely knew about it, and sold them anyways. They’re trying to get out of reimbursing, replacing, or compensating anyone for the fucked cores, and as a direct result, a massive class-action suit is starting to roll.
They’re trying to get out of reimbursing, replacing, or compensating anyone for the fucked cores, and as a direct result, a massive class-action suit is starting to roll.
Well, the big boys have gotten out of their responsibility for all such things in many-many seemingly unconnected areas in the last ~15 years. What do you want, it had to reach Intel.
Still the fact that this enshittification has accelerated to the extent that people notice it is just amazing. Civilization cracking all over on our eyes.
My point was that had proper engineers been in charge instead, they would have noticed and listened to the people on the ground that I am certain knew about the problem, and it would have been fixed before any consumers got their hands on the product.