131–140 of 414 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember when they bought a smart glasses company then refunded every buyer ever the full retail price. There hasn’t been an Intel acquisition that has worked out in some 20 years now it seems. Just utterly unserious people.
Isn't that true for virtually EVERY big tech merger? Like, which ones have actually worked?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only do they manufacture Apple Silicon, but Apple usually buys out the first runs of their new processes so they have a head-start against even other TSMC customers. I believe every 3nm wafer that TSMC makes is still going to Apple, hence the just-released Qualcomm SD8G3 flagship chip still being made on TSMC 4nm.
Nvidia's AI $trillions may influence this arrangement in the near future. In the recent past Nvidia has bid Samsung against TSMC in attempts to save costs, but Apple's strategy works well for as long as one foundry has a process advantage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
M1 was released in 2020, that puts it in line with Tiger Lake and Comet Lake, for which I'm seeing 7 different SKUs at 7W TDP. The fastest of which seems to be the Core i7 1180G7, which seems to perform almost as well as the M1 while using about half as much power: https://nanoreview.net/en/cpu-compare/intel-core-i7-1180g7-v... Just the first example I grabbed. Intel made quite a few more chips in the 15W and higher…
Did you make a mistake in your comparison link? Because I've been looking at it for a few minutes now and I don't get it. It doesn't support your contention that Intel was making comparable chips at the time to the M1, I'll say that at the least.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Intel's flaw was trying to push DUV to 10nm (otherwise known as Intel 7). Had Intel adopted the molten tin of EUV, the cycle of failure would have been curtailed. Hats off to SMIC for the DUV 7nm which they produced so quickly. They likely saw quite a bit of failed effort. And before we discount ARM, we should remember that Acorn produced a 32-bit CPU with a 25k transistor count. The 80386 was years later, with 275k…
Acorn’s original ARM chip was impressive but it didn’t really capture much market share. The first ARM CPU competed against the 286, and did win. The 386 was a big deal though. First, software was very expensive at the time, and the 386 allowed people to keep their investments. Second, it really was a powerful chip. It allowed 11mips vs ARM3’s 13, but the 486 achieved 54mips. ARM6 only hit 28mips. It’s worth noting t…
ARM would have been much more influential under Intel, rather than pursuing the i960 or the iAPX 432.
Just imagine Intel ARM Archimedes. It would have crushed the IBM PS/2.
Whoops.
Seriously, even DEC was smart enough.
Intel's 2010 7.6B$ purchase of mcafee was a sign that Intel doesn't know what its doing. In the CEO's words: The future of chips is security on the chip. I was like no, no its not! I wanted them to get into mobile and GPUs at the time. Nvdia's market cap was about 9B at the time. I know it would have been a larger pill to swallow, and likely had to bid a bit more than 9B, but I thought it was possible for Intel at th…
Intel pivoting to GPUs was a smart move but they just lacked the tribal knowledge needed to successfully ship a competitive GPU offering. We got Arc instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please correct me then. I'm willing to learn about the Intel laptop chip that Apple could have used to achieve M1 performance and efficiency at the time they switched. You're right that I am not familiar with every one of Intel's SKUs they produced at the time.
M1 was released in 2020, that puts it in line with Tiger Lake and Comet Lake, for which I'm seeing 7 different SKUs at 7W TDP. The fastest of which seems to be the Core i7 1180G7, which seems to perform almost as well as the M1 while using about half as much power: https://nanoreview.net/en/cpu-compare/intel-core-i7-1180g7-v... Just the first example I grabbed. Intel made quite a few more chips in the 15W and higher…
TDP doesn't seem to be the whole story - the datasheet is one thing, but I've yet to see a reviewer get 30 hours from an Intel laptop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The future of chips is security on the chip. I was like no, no its not! Putting aside whether the statement is considered true or not, buying McAfee under the guise of the kind of security meant when talking about silicon is... weird, to say the least.
McAfee makes their money from people being required to run it for certification. Imagine government/healthcare/banking/etc. customers being obliged to use only Intel chips because they'll fail their audits (which mandate on-chip antivirus) otherwise. I hate it, but I can see the business sense in trying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Was ARM really competitive until recently? Nope. Intel crushed them. Intel never "crushed" ARM. Intel completely failed to develop a mobile processor and ARM has a massive marketshare there. ARM has always beaten the crap out of Intel at performance per watt, which turned out to be extremely important both in mobile and data center scale.
I got curious about how ARM is doing in the data center and found this: >Arm now claims to hold a 10.1% share of the cloud computing market, although that's primarily due to Amazon and its increasing use of homegrown Arm chips. According to TrendForce, Amazon Web Services (AWS) was using its custom Graviton chips in 15% of all server deployments in 2021. https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/09/23/arm-holdings-data-...
I can get a top of the line Xeon Gold basically next day with a incredibly high quality out of band management from a reputable server provider. (HP, Dell).
Ampere? Give it 6 months, €5,000 and maybe you can get one, from Gigabyte. Not known for server quality.
(yes, I'm salty, I have 4 of these CPUs and it took a really long time to get them while costing just as much as AMD EPYC Milan's).
As someone that doesn’t really understand the space and stuff that the article is talking about, I was surprised that “Apple Silicon” didn’t appear here since from my perspective having used both Intel and Apple Silicon Macs, it’s a huge “wow” change. Was Apple leaving and Apple Silicon Macs being so incredibly better than Intel ones not actually a big deal for Intel?
Apple had been sandbagging the Intel chips for several generations of macbook with anemic cooling solutions, poor thermal throttling curves, and fans that wait until the last moment to turn on. To the extent that the fastest CPUs available in Macbook Pros did not outperform lower models, because both became thermally saturated. When properly cooled, the Intel silicon tends to perform a lot better. Additionally, both…
[2] https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/intel-core-i9-9980h...