They weren't weighed down by the legacy bloat in the x86 instruction set architecture.
Except we already had 30 years of other ISAs without that bloat, and they were all resoundingly beaten by Intel.
Ask HN: How did Apple manage to create such a better chip than Intel?
51–60 of 87 posts
Re: Ask HN: How did Apple manage to create such a better chip than Intel?
#52This makes me wonder: If there's such a benefit from creating an integrated and specialized chip, will the next consoles follow the same approach? Will they be ARM based? If Microsoft and Sony follow this same model then PC games might be left behind with poorer graphics and fewer titles.
Re: Ask HN: How did Apple manage to create such a better chip than Intel?
#53But in the end all of that went bye bye when Intel lost the process edge and therefore lost the transistor count advantage. Now with the 5nm process others can field gobs of transistors and they don't have the x86 frontend millstone around their necks. So ARM64 unlocked a lot of frontend bandwidth to feed even more execution ports. And with the transistor budget so high, 8 massive cores could be put on die.
Now, people have argued for decades that the instruction density of CISC is a major advantage, because that density would make better use of I-cache and bandwidth. But it looks like decode bandwidth is the thing. That, and RISC usually requires aligned instructions, which means that branch density cannot be too high, and branch prediction data structures are simpler and more effective. (Intel still has weird slowdowns if you have too many branches in a cache line).
It seems frontend effects are real.
Re: Ask HN: How did Apple manage to create such a better chip than Intel?
#54It's not just the M1's design, it's what they don't have to do: no need to support anything legacy. You can't change the x86 ISA to the point where it makes a huge difference because it would no longer run x86 code. Intel can probably make faster stuff than they currently do but then their customers (PC manufacturers for instance) would have to modify all their stuff as well and they don't want to, or at least, won't…
I respectfully disagree. Why can't Intel/AMD make new flavor of chips & motherboards explicitly saying - it doesn't support x86 ISA. Then, wouldn't we address that problem?
Re: Ask HN: How did Apple manage to create such a better chip than Intel?
#55I think the M1 chip finally proves the inherent design superiority of RISC over CISC. For years, Intel stayed ahead of all other competitors by having the best process, clockspeeds, and the most advanced out-of-order execution. By internally decoding CISC to RISC, Intel could feed a large number of execution ports to extract maximum ILP. They had to spend gobs of silicon for that: complex decoding, made worse by the…
Re: Ask HN: How did Apple manage to create such a better chip than Intel?
#56Re: Ask HN: How did Apple manage to create such a better chip than Intel?
#57ARM is RISC , Intel and AMD are CISC, One important reason is their new pipelining facility. Apple M1 has 16 units that can pipeline their instructions. Meaning, they can reorder sequential instructions that aren't dependent on each other to run in parallel. That is not threads or anything, that can be and is being done in a single threaded program. AMD and Intel have 4 units for reordering tops, because their archit…
2) Reordering is different than pipelining, and CPUs have done both for decades. The difference between the M1 and Intel/AMD is that the M1 is wider in spots and can do much more extensive reordering. The M1 can decode and issue 8 instructions at a time. AMD can do 4 or 8 depending on whether the instruction is coming from memory or a special cache for pre-decoded instructions. The M1 has a reorder buffer of over 600 instructions—meaning it can have 600 instructions waiting for completion at a time (e.g. some executing while others are waiting for data to come back from memory). Intel and AMD’s reorder buffers are half the size.
3) Special instructions and controlling the software interface has little to do with performance on general purpose code.
Re: Ask HN: How did Apple manage to create such a better chip than Intel?
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right the M1 is based on A14 - the iPhone/iPad chip. It’s just the first PC one based on that architecture. Making top of the line mobile chips has given them a huge efficiency leg up. The SoC also gives big gains compared to a traditional separation of memory modules and CPUs
SoC doesn't make as large of a difference as you'd think. The only place you really get hammered is if your moving a lot of memory between separate memory domains. As a real world example the X360 had a unified memory architecture and PS3 had a split along system/gpu. From a CPU performance perspective they were pretty close(although the SPUs in the PS3 could really go if you vectorized your data for them appropriate…
Re: Ask HN: How did Apple manage to create such a better chip than Intel?
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
SoC doesn't make as large of a difference as you'd think. The only place you really get hammered is if your moving a lot of memory between separate memory domains. As a real world example the X360 had a unified memory architecture and PS3 had a split along system/gpu. From a CPU performance perspective they were pretty close(although the SPUs in the PS3 could really go if you vectorized your data for them appropriate…
The code complexity to pipeline everything to be DSP-like to avoid memory latencies is very different. And you can be sure that most developers (particularly non-console developers) aren't thinking about it. Was super impressed with how Naughty Dog was able to use 70% of the SPUs on Uncharted 2 though - which was either at launch or close to launch.
Back in that era X360 had the edge by coming out slightly ahead schedule wise so most engines targeted that first and then had a brutal slog to cram things down to the SPUs on the subsequent PS3 port.
If you went the other way though your nicely linearized SPU friendly data code fit in-cache on the X360/PC and usually ran remarkably better.
Re: Ask HN: How did Apple manage to create such a better chip than Intel?
#60I think the M1 chip finally proves the inherent design superiority of RISC over CISC. For years, Intel stayed ahead of all other competitors by having the best process, clockspeeds, and the most advanced out-of-order execution. By internally decoding CISC to RISC, Intel could feed a large number of execution ports to extract maximum ILP. They had to spend gobs of silicon for that: complex decoding, made worse by the…
A bet doing 8-wide x86 decoding would be tough, but once you've got a micro-up cache, it's doable so long as you have a cache hit. Zen 3 is 8-wide the 95% of the time you hit the micro-up cache.
The real question is how does Apple keep that thing fed? An 8-wide decoder is pointless if most of the time you've got 6 empty pipelines: https://open.hpi.de/courses/parprog2014/items/aybclrPgY4nPyY... (discussing ILP wall). M1 outperforming Zen 3 by 20% on the SPEC GCC benchmark, at 1/3 lower clocks-speed. That's 80% more ILP than an Zen 3, which is itself a large advance in ILP.