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

Intel's Humbling

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 414 posts

Re: Intel's Humbling

#41

Post by B1FF_PSUVM »

this_user wrote: post #26

Intel has truly been on a remarkable spree of extremely poor strategic decisions for the last 20 years or so. Missed the boat on mobile, missed the boat on GPUs and AI, focused too much on desktop, and now AMD and ARM-based chips are eating their lunch in the data centre area.

And the manufacturing failed to save them:

[...] when Intel’s manufacturing prowess hit a wall Intel’s designs were exposed. Gelsinger told me: 'So all of a sudden, as Warren Buffet says, “You don’t know who’s swimming naked until the tide goes out.” [...]'

Re: Intel's Humbling

#43

Post by timschmidt »

cookingmyserver wrote: post #27
timschmidt wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> When properly cooled, the Intel silicon tends to perform a lot better. Of course, but the average Joe does not want to wear ear protection when running their laptop. Nor do they want the battery to last 40 minutes or have it be huge brick, or have to pour liquid nitrogen on it to not get it to not thermal throttle. Apple innovated by making chips that fit the form and function most people need in their personal dev…

It seems like you think I'm trying to dunk on Apple. I am not. Apple Silicon is a great first showing for them. Performance simply isn't better than Ryzen APUs running in the same power envelope. And power usage is what you'd expect of silicon running on the latest node. Further, some of Apple's choices - bringing memory on package, only two display outputs - caused regressions for their users compared to the previous Intel offerings.

I wouldn't call what Apple did innovation - they followed predictable development trajectories - more integration. They licensed ARM's instruction set, Imagination's PowerVR GPU, most of the major system busses (PCIe, Thunderbolt, USB 3, Displayport, etc), they bonded chiplets together with TSMC's packaging and chip-to-chip communication technologies, and they made extensions (like optional x86 memory ordering for all ARM instructions which removes a lot of the work of emulation). Incidentally, Apple kicked off it's chip design efforts by purchasing PA Semi. Those folks had all the power management chip design expertise already.

But again, it's been a good first showing for Apple. I think they were smart to ship on-package DRAM in a consumer device. Now is about the right time for the CPU to be absorbing DRAM, as can be seen by AMD's 3D VCache in another form. And it's cool for Apple folks to have their own cool thing. Yay y'all. But I've run Linux for 20 years, I've run Linux on every computer I can get my hands on in that time, and through that lens, Apple silicon performs like any x86 APU in a midrange laptop or desktop. And as regards noise, I never hear the fans on my 7800x3D / 3090Ti, and it is very very noticeably faster than my M1 Mac. Apple Silicon's great, it's just for laptops and midrange desktops right now.

Re: Intel's Humbling

#44

Post by topspin »

"Intel’s argument is that backside power will make chips much easier to design, since the power is separated from the communications layer, eliminating interference"

That makes a lot of sense to me: that's how and why PCBs are usually designed as they are. How true it that there is an actual advantage vs TSMC?

Re: Intel's Humbling

#45

Post by whynotminot »

timschmidt wrote: post #7
noopl wrote: post #2

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…

Intel stopped making good chips for the things Apple cared about: efficient, cool designs that can run well with great battery life in attractive consumer products.

Apple "sandbagging" was them desperately trying to get a poor Intel product to work in laptops they wanted to be thin and light.

Even today though their designs haven't really changed all that much--in fact the MacBook Air is actually just as thin and now even completely fan-less. It just has a chip in it that doesn't suck.

Re: Intel's Humbling

#46

Post by gryn »

alwayslikethis wrote: post #23
kristianp wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple had been sandbagging the Intel chips for several generations of macbook with anemic cooling solutions I don't think that was deliberate. Apple has a long history of not cooling their computers enough.

They still do it. Apple silicon macs run at 100+ degrees at load. Apple would rather run their chips hot than turn on the fans, which may or may not be justified. We don't really see chips dying from high temps, especially for typical workloads a casual user would use.

Just wait for them to get a little older and you'll probably have a wave of motherboards dying in the future like what happened with the MBPs from around 2011 - 2013 with apple denying it for years until the threats of class action lawsuits before offering replacements with other motherboards that also fail.

Re: Intel's Humbling

#47

Post by brutus1213 »

autokad wrote: post #5

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…

I remember when they did random stuff like the whole IoT push (frankly, their offerings made no sense to humble me .. Microsoft had a better IoT than Intel). They did drone crap .. gave a kick ass keynote at CES I recall .. also .. made little sense. Finally, the whole FPGA thing .. makes little sense. So much value being destroyed :(

Re: Intel's Humbling

#49

Post by timschmidt »

jdewerd wrote: post #30
timschmidt wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Absolutely ridiculous. No, Apple did not juice the M1 by giving it better cooling than x86. Quite the opposite, they took a big chunk of their design+process wins to the bank and exchanged them for even cooler and quieter operation because that's what they wanted all along. Cool and quiet was a deliverable . It's absurd to point out that apple could have gotten higher perf from x86 at higher power as if it's some kin…

Maybe it's not clear to everyone... hot transistors waste more power as heat. It's a feedback loop. And it doesn't require liquid nitrogen to nip in the bud. Running the chip hot benefits no one. Kicking on a fan, and racing to idle without throttling would use less battery power.

I'm not sure what's so upsetting about the assertion that chips composed of a similar number of transistors, on a similar process node, cooled similarly, might function similarly. Because when all variables are controlled for, that's what I see.

Re: Intel's Humbling

#50

Post by BirAdam »

Everyone acts as though Intel should have seen everything coming. Where was AMD? Was AMD really competitive before Ryzen? Nope. Core 2 series blew them out of the water. Was ARM really competitive until recently? Nope. Intel crushed them. The problem for Intel is the inertia of laziness due to a lack of competition. I wouldn’t count them out just yet, however. The company’s first true swing at modern GPU was actually good for a first attempt. Their recent CPUs while not quite as good as Ryzen aren’t exactly uncompetitive. Their foundry business faltered because they were trying a few things never before and not because they were incompetent. Also, 20A and 18A are coming along. I am not an Intel fan at all. I run AMD and ARM. My dislike isn’t technological though, it’s just that I hate their underhanded business practices.
Post reply on HN