Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple orders entire supply of TSMC's 3nm chips for iPhone 15 Pro and M3 Macs

macrumors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 467 posts

Re: Apple orders entire supply of TSMC's 3nm chips for iPhone 15 Pro and M3 Macs

#191

Post by snom380 »

coder543 wrote: post #164
tarsinge wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't know about the Microdrive but Wikipedia says model larger than 1GB up to 4GB were first available in 2004, nearly 3 years after the iPod. At that time for $499 it costed you could already get a 40GB iPod.

I had added this paragraph before you posted but probably after you saw my comment: >> Maybe Apple would have slightly higher storage capacities, but... we're talking about a relatively marginal difference compared to the gulf in storage capacity between these microdrive MP3 players and the flash based MP3 players of the time. An advantage, but not a revolution. Regardless, it turns out that it wasn't even a capacity…

I think the whole anecdote sounds like a story that's been told a few too many times (including variations of Toshibas helpless product department making stuff they didn't know how to sell), because finding "that one thing" that made a difference" makes for a good story.

Rubinstein saw the drive and realized that the price level and size was perfect for their product idea. And he had buy-in from the higher ups so they could negotiate a certain volume and price that made the project feasible.

That doesn't mean another company couldn't have been successful with a smaller 1GB drive (seeing the success of the smaller iPods later on) or a physically bigger 5GB drive (people were still carrying around walkmans and CD players).

What Apple managed to pull off was making a device that was easy to get music into (with iTunes) and easy to use (with the clickwheel) and, yes, compact and with good design and marketing.

Re: Apple orders entire supply of TSMC's 3nm chips for iPhone 15 Pro and M3 Macs

#192

Post by coder543 »

morcheeba wrote: post #187
coder543 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had added this paragraph before you posted but probably after you saw my comment: >> Maybe Apple would have slightly higher storage capacities, but... we're talking about a relatively marginal difference compared to the gulf in storage capacity between these microdrive MP3 players and the flash based MP3 players of the time. An advantage, but not a revolution. Regardless, it turns out that it wasn't even a capacity…

Ah, you must not have seen the pre-ipod players. The Personal Jukebox was 2.5 larger than an ipod. It didn't fit in a pocket and the grey plastic felt cheap compared to the ipod's shiny metal back. It really felt experimental, and nothing like the polished Walkmen Sony was making.

That's... also what I'm saying, yes. I think we agree?

iPod was not successful because it was the only thing offering high storage capacity. It wasn't the only one. iPod was successful because it offered a touch wheel, iTunes, and Apple's brand recognition. As you point out, it also had very good build quality. None of these things have to do with some exceptional storage capacity.

Re: Apple orders entire supply of TSMC's 3nm chips for iPhone 15 Pro and M3 Macs

#193

Post by coder543 »

snom380 wrote: post #191
coder543 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had added this paragraph before you posted but probably after you saw my comment: >> Maybe Apple would have slightly higher storage capacities, but... we're talking about a relatively marginal difference compared to the gulf in storage capacity between these microdrive MP3 players and the flash based MP3 players of the time. An advantage, but not a revolution. Regardless, it turns out that it wasn't even a capacity…

I think the whole anecdote sounds like a story that's been told a few too many times (including variations of Toshibas helpless product department making stuff they didn't know how to sell), because finding "that one thing" that made a difference" makes for a good story. Rubinstein saw the drive and realized that the price level and size was perfect for their product idea. And he had buy-in from the higher ups so the…

100% agree with your entire comment. That is exactly what I believe too, based on the evidence I've seen. That anecdote is entirely too clever to be accurate. It was probably built on a kernel of truth, but it has been embellished to a degree that appears to make it contradict the reality that existed at the time.

Re: Apple orders entire supply of TSMC's 3nm chips for iPhone 15 Pro and M3 Macs

#194

Post by 988747 »

cubefox wrote: post #126
officeplant wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regular M2 still has the same limitation of two total displays. Unless you use USB->HDMI adaptors that have their own display controllers.

This is crazy. Couldn't much weaker Intel chips do this years ago?

It's Apple approach to market segmentation: you want more than 1 external monitor? Buy macbook pro with M1/M2 Pro/Max, for a $1000 more.

Re: Apple orders entire supply of TSMC's 3nm chips for iPhone 15 Pro and M3 Macs

#195

Post by csunbird »

jnk345u8dfg9hjk wrote: post #154
thefounder wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EU and the US would not accept a merger in the first place.

why is the EU involved?

if Apple wants to sell their products in EU, they have to listen what EU says.

Re: Apple orders entire supply of TSMC's 3nm chips for iPhone 15 Pro and M3 Macs

#196

Post by nsteel »

turnsout wrote: post #127
nsteel wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> reduce power consumption by up to 50%, improve performance by 30% and reduce area by 35% To be clear, you don't get all three. Also, are these Apple's numbers? They are better than what TSMC say (1st gen) 3nm silicon provides: > N3 technology will offer up to 70% logic density gain, up to 15% speed improvement at the same power and up to 30% power reduction at the same speed as compared with N5 technology https://w…

> Also are these Apple's numbers? Hope it's obvious, but no, they are not Apple's numbers—this is a rumor about unreleased products.

Bizarrely it seems the parent plucked those numbers from a Samsung 3mn press release! That's why they don't make sense in the context of TSMC 3nm. I've never had a presentation from Samsung, I guess they need to say something special.

Re: Apple orders entire supply of TSMC's 3nm chips for iPhone 15 Pro and M3 Macs

#197

Post by cassianoleal »

Loveaway wrote: post #133
brailsafe wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'll help make the lightest and smallest devices even more capable than any other competing laptop. After using my work issued 16" M2 Pro, my 2019 intel mbp is crawlin slow, particularly with Docker. Build times can always be faster, battery life always better, cooling efficiency better. The real life luxury of just being able to toss a 14" macbook pro that weighs almost nothing into your bag and have a savage devel…

Similar for me, caved in and bought a M2. It's great and all, gotta say though, not entirely happy with how unbearable the 2019 intel mbp has become. Yeah, it struggles with YouTube videos and fans are spinning in vacuum cleaner mode. But it didn't in 2019. I feel OS and software updates ruined it. Not what I expect after only about 3 years of use. (obviously it wasn't cheap either) Oh well, still gave Apple my money…

It's worth it being aware that charging those 2019 Intel Macs from the right-hand-side USB-C ports will cause them to overheat and get thermal throttled.

Not saying you're doing that or that they are otherwise great machines (they're not) but they can go from being a steak grill back to being a relatively serviceable computer just by switching the charging port.

Re: Apple orders entire supply of TSMC's 3nm chips for iPhone 15 Pro and M3 Macs

#198

Post by nsteel »

SuchAnonMuchWow wrote: post #86
warrenm wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Speed" != "Performance" '70% logic density gain' sounds like 'reduce area by 35%' to me The only one that might not line up is 'reduce power consumption by up to 50%' vs 'up to 30% power reduction at the same speed as compared with N5 technology' ...but you have to know what's being compared before deciding the numbers do (or don't) make sense

About the area, keep in mind that not every part of a chip is composed of dense logic: Typically, sram (cache memories for example) doesn't scale as much as core logic, and interconnect (connections between the cores, DDR, etc...) almost don't scale at all. This is highly dependent on the design of the SoC, but the core logic is rarely the largest of the three, so you will not see a 35% reduction of the total area of…

Have you seen the 3nm SRAM scaling? It's really depressing. It won't bother CPUs too much but other devices are going to struggle to scale.

Re: Apple orders entire supply of TSMC's 3nm chips for iPhone 15 Pro and M3 Macs

#199

Post by ARandomerDude »

warrenm wrote: post #68
nsteel wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> reduce power consumption by up to 50%, improve performance by 30% and reduce area by 35% To be clear, you don't get all three. Also, are these Apple's numbers? They are better than what TSMC say (1st gen) 3nm silicon provides: > N3 technology will offer up to 70% logic density gain, up to 15% speed improvement at the same power and up to 30% power reduction at the same speed as compared with N5 technology https://w…

"Speed" != "Performance" '70% logic density gain' sounds like 'reduce area by 35%' to me The only one that might not line up is 'reduce power consumption by up to 50%' vs 'up to 30% power reduction at the same speed as compared with N5 technology' ...but you have to know what's being compared before deciding the numbers do (or don't) make sense

> "Speed" != "Performance"

Can you elaborate?

Re: Apple orders entire supply of TSMC's 3nm chips for iPhone 15 Pro and M3 Macs

#200

Post by cassianoleal »

nordsieck wrote: post #93
dewey wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know zero people with a 8k display, I wouldn't call that a significant new feature.

> I know zero people with a 8k display, I wouldn't call that a significant new feature. From what I understand, even 4k is usually a waste for a living room TV when viewed across the room from a couch. People just don't have the visual acuity to really tell the difference. But I can easily tell the difference between 4k and 8k when a 43" TV is 16" away from me. I get that companies want to make money so the new tech…

I have a 65" 4k TV and sit across the room from it. The difference from 1080p to 4k is definitely noticeable. It's not miles apart but the details are absolutely crisper and nicer.

I imagine the benefits of 8k only really start showing on 80"+ screens.

Post reply on HN