261–270 of 942 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't forget the entry-level 256GB SSD. With 1TB drives around 90€ at retail.
Apple always nickel-and-dimes storage. Overpriced storage is how they make probably 5-10% of their hardware profits. iPhone still have 64GB as their base storage in 2021...
One thing which I don't think has been commented on is the marketing effort behind the M1. It's getting a lot of prominence and its use across lots of computers means that there can be a consistent message that "M1 is great - get a new Mac and get an M1". It also provides an opportunity to distinguish between M1 and the next generation M2 (presumably). I've always thought Intel's marketing was a bit confused - i7 sta…
Yeah the marketing effort is immense, and it's really surprising to me how many eagerly lap up the angle Apple is pushing without much reflection, even on HN. Like the good old Apple hype days. Now to be fair, the M1 is an impressive iteration on the A* chip line. But the Ryzen 5000 mobile chips really don't look bad at all in comparison, and a 5nm version of those would level the field.
So no, the Ryzen 5000 with 5nm would NOT level the field.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But there isn't a 5nm version of those... And laptop battery life is vastly different between these two.
The difference isn't that big: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKN9nvXTGHE And for 5nm, I'm quite sure AMD already has contracts for that with TSMC. So the gap should be even smaller.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think they have the fab capacity to be able to do that. Since M1 products are selling very well, they likely have reallocated fab capacity they had planned for the successor to the M1 back to making the M1. A higher performance M1 would have a bigger die size. It would have a lower yield and get fewer dies per wafer. The same capacity would sell fewer products. Apple probably earns more profits by simply sell…
> I don't think they have the fab capacity to be able to do that Do you have a source for there being any fab capacity shortage for Apple (or anyone, for that matter) at 5nm? Older nodes are a different story because that's still where most of TSMC's customers are doing their high-volume production.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It could be clearer but I suspect they do it on purpose for a purpose I've never understood. I've always thought that a system like i7-4-8-10-M (4 cores, 8 threads, 10th gen - Mobile) i5-8-8-11-H (8 cores, 8 threads, 11th gen - High perf/Desktop) There has to be a reason they haven't just been explicit with it. When I shop for a cpu I care about a handful of things, manufacturer, cores, threads, generation, model
I like to read news and keep up to date on silicon development but when it comes down to buying a laptop with an Intel CPU I really can't tell how good it is from the name. I usually end up putting it into cpubenchmark to get any sort of comparable numbers. Nowadays a chip from 2014 and 2019 can both be named i5, and the 2014 can have higher clockspeed while being half as slow... You just can't tell, and maybe that's…
We've never really recovered from that.
Make it as fabulous as much as you want, $1700 for an 8 core, 8 gigs of ram machine is just one plain fabulous joke. This in the time when 16 gigs ram is the baseline if you plan to do anything more than facebook and instagram.
I'll stay with AMD and wait for 5nm...
The M1 processor is a direct result of the death of Moore's law. It's an amazing processor, but a sad sign of things to come. The performance gains from Moore's law have typically come from shrinking die size. That has ended, you can't juice more performance from general purpose CPUs. If general purpose processors no longer advance quickly enough, the only way to get performance gains is to build custom chips for com…
> The M1 processor is a direct result of the death of Moore's law.
It is a bit ironic since the M1 is a 5 nm processor, currently the finest process, and I think it plays no small part in its success. A very Moore's law-esque solution.
One thing which I don't think has been commented on is the marketing effort behind the M1. It's getting a lot of prominence and its use across lots of computers means that there can be a consistent message that "M1 is great - get a new Mac and get an M1". It also provides an opportunity to distinguish between M1 and the next generation M2 (presumably). I've always thought Intel's marketing was a bit confused - i7 sta…
The i7 name was ruined by dual core mobile parts It meant at one time “quad core”
Make it as fabulous as much as you want, $1700 for an 8 core, 8 gigs of ram machine is just one plain fabulous joke. This in the time when 16 gigs ram is the baseline if you plan to do anything more than facebook and instagram.
The plain fabulous joke is that we've spent 30 years thinking that increasing cores and increasing RAM is the only way to increase performance while the objective M1 benchmarks blow everything out of the water. The proof is in the pudding.