At more them double the power requirement, and not on battery.
Thats not faster, that is just bigger.
Precisely. I cant wait to see the MacPro with Apple Silicon. Apparently, it will be four times faster than the MacBook Pro M1 Pro/Max which will just blow Alder Lake away, if it is indeed a shipping product by then
Competition is good. Apple will probably stick with their own silicon because now they control every aspect of their hardware, but we still want other competitors making really great silicon so that apple has to keep pushing performance with its own AS.
This is good news, and will push Apple to continue to innovate.
I read the article. It reads more like an ad with zero proof of anything.
Intel is really under a microscope right now. It knows that whatever they put out, it better be at least on par with Apple's offerings and I just don't see that happening. Its x86 architecture just cannot be optimized and provide the same-or-better performance per watt and thermals. It will be interesting, but this story in just full of ambiguity.
Sure. But Apple has already begun work on the M2 and M3 likely that will outperform the M1. Some things that are left out of the Alders Lake article is... what is the GPU performance? What is the performance per watt? How long will the battery last under load? Intel is desperate to keep its clients so of course they will say this to keep its customers. I don't see it happening fast enough.
Anyone notice how the Intel apologists have come out of the woodwork in these forums? The M1 Max must really have their full attention these days.
Bold words by you considering you wear the crown for being the King (or Queen) of Apple apologists even when it isn't warranted. And I don't mean that in a positive way.
Anyone notice how the Intel apologists have come out of the woodwork in these forums? The M1 Max must really have their full attention these days.
Bold words by you considering you wear the crown for being the King (or Queen) of Apple apologists even when it isn't warranted. And I don't mean that in a positive way.
And you’re one of the biggest negative trolls on this forum, so that assessment by you means less than nothing.
The problem with that is that their presumably not shipping desktop chips are barely outpacing Apple's shipping M1 Max Laptop chips! To put it mildly, it is a false-equivalency at best. To quote The Great One: Skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it is.
I think Apple would be all for Intel fabbing Apple Silicon chips. That's their usual supply chain play. Use multiple vendors to drive component costs down. So, presumably, Intel will have no problem fabbing Apple's chips. The issue of course is whether they can outbid TSMC and Samsung. Outbidding TSMC and Samsung will be a gigantic step for them. I don't know if they are structured to actually compete in the foundry business.
If Intel can design and make x86 chips that Apple wants, I don't think Apple would have no problem with that either. So, it's a race as usual.
What’s power consumption on that thing like though? And what kind of cooling does it require? That is the big question. If it requires substantially more power than the M1 Pro/Max then it’s not really competitive.
Competition is good. Apple will probably stick with their own silicon because now they control every aspect of their hardware, but we still want other competitors making really great silicon so that apple has to keep pushing performance with its own AS.
This is good news, and will push Apple to continue to innovate.
Exactly! It’s not just about cores and thinness, it’s all the other Apple native functions baked in. Well, said, O’Bannon!
Moore's Law originally applied to the number of transistors on a chip. More specifically, it was an observation that the number of transistors on a processor doubles every two years. However, the term has since shifted toward referring to performance and power consumption.
That's news to me! I never knew it to mean anything other than transistors. The only change I recall is that long ago it was every 18 months but then it was changed to every 2 years.
I think I read somewhere that Intel is now bending the meaning to count 3d-stacking as increasing density. But I've never heard Moore's Law being about anything other than density.
Moore's Law?!? HA!! What "relic" (I can't go into that discussion anymore).
What I can say is back in 2003, I had finally got a dual 533 G4 (Digital Audio) AND a 2.00 GHz Intel Pentium 4. I bought the G4 used, and built the Intel Windows XP machine. I was pumped because I had some tests I really wanted to do.
I had a Sony DV (firewire) camera and a one hour long video (720x480). I had QuickTime Pro installed on both. I opened the DV video and exported (I forget the settings LOL) but in summary the FANS were blowing and then went extreme wind tunnel, but the video "converted" in 30 minutes on the G4. On the PC the video "converted" in two hours. I was astonished. This was the RISC vs CISC test I wanted to see. But here is the catch:The PC with Win XP versus the Mac with 10.3.x the PC ran circles around the Mac with NO FANS going crazy. You know launching Excel Files, navigating the "Finder" But when doing video compression and such there was no comparison. I said hmm...
But then the G5 came out, my Intel died the next year, $2000! poof oh and the used G4 I bought for $500 still kept going. But that aside, the HEAT, POWER consumption, NOISE, etc with PPC G5s just was unusable. And the rest is [history], Apple in 2006 introduced the Mac [Pro] with Quad Intel 2.66 and 10.4.3, and Intel was making strides and oh man is that Mac Pro quiet.
Fast Forward 15 years, guess where the Intel Chips are at? The same place G4/G5 was. Fans going crazy noisy as hell BUT this time the ARM chip is as fast, but then with Video Compression, destroys Intel, and yes they have the ProRes chip(s) now, but irregardless. When the top of the line chip starts hitting the ceiling and the power/heat/fan are at the limit... we know what time it is... just a warning!
I think it's gonna take Intel 5-10 years to come up with a chip ON PAR with where the Apple Silicon (M generation) will go, when Intel can make strides and PASS Apple (if possible).
The only catch is, Intel only has their x86_64 products (essentially, among other silicon) while Apple had iPhone revenue (which was huge) and a FULL Business to stay afloat, and get CASH (should we mention macOS?). it's gonna be rough seas for Intel (x86_64)... but maybe all the businesses and x86 faithful will just continue to purchase Intel machines for 10 years?
The real question is how do we keep TSMC out of the hands of China? They WILL take back Taiwan, the only question is how and when? Before that happens TSMC needs to move all their fabs to the US or other secure countries. Or at the very least make plans to blow up the ones that remain on Taiwan as soon as the invasion begins.
Anyone notice how the Intel apologists have come out of the woodwork in these forums? The M1 Max must really have their full attention these days.
Bold words by you considering you wear the crown for being the King (or Queen) of Apple apologists even when it isn't warranted. And I don't mean that in a positive way.
And you’re one of the biggest negative trolls on this forum, so that assessment by you means less than nothing.
Unlike you and ikrapp, not everyone is here to kiss Apple's a**
Intel has had so many delays and setbacks, it's just hard to trust these types of claim. It's obvious that they have a lot of talent and capabilities, but their business operation has had them drag their feet until it was far too late. Foundry issues have also been a big part of their undoing. It's amazing how far behind they were on getting their 10 nm out the door. They've been known to have a few aces up their sleeve in the past, but it's just not so clear that will be the case this time around.
Anyone notice how the Intel apologists have come out of the woodwork in these forums? The M1 Max must really have their full attention these days.
Bold words by you considering you wear the crown for being the King (or Queen) of Apple apologists even when it isn't warranted. And I don't mean that in a positive way.
Ikrupp's posts are nothing short of cancerous with nothing of value to add to any discussion. The only aim of his posts are to promote hatred and divide among readers and members here.
Comments
stick with their own silicon because now they control every aspect of their hardware, but we still want other competitors making really great silicon so that apple has to keep pushing performance with its own AS.
This is good news, and will push Apple to continue to innovate.
If Intel can design and make x86 chips that Apple wants, I don't think Apple would have no problem with that either. So, it's a race as usual.
What I can say is back in 2003, I had finally got a dual 533 G4 (Digital Audio) AND a 2.00 GHz Intel Pentium 4. I bought the G4 used, and built the Intel Windows XP machine. I was pumped because I had some tests I really wanted to do.
I had a Sony DV (firewire) camera and a one hour long video (720x480). I had QuickTime Pro installed on both. I opened the DV video and exported (I forget the settings LOL) but in summary the FANS were blowing and then went extreme wind tunnel, but the video "converted" in 30 minutes on the G4. On the PC the video "converted" in two hours. I was astonished. This was the RISC vs CISC test I wanted to see. But here is the catch:The PC with Win XP versus the Mac with 10.3.x the PC ran circles around the Mac with NO FANS going crazy. You know launching Excel Files, navigating the "Finder" But when doing video compression and such there was no comparison. I said hmm...
But then the G5 came out, my Intel died the next year, $2000! poof oh and the used G4 I bought for $500 still kept going. But that aside, the HEAT, POWER consumption, NOISE, etc with PPC G5s just was unusable. And the rest is [history], Apple in 2006 introduced the Mac [Pro] with Quad Intel 2.66 and 10.4.3, and Intel was making strides and oh man is that Mac Pro quiet.
Fast Forward 15 years, guess where the Intel Chips are at? The same place G4/G5 was. Fans going crazy noisy as hell BUT this time the ARM chip is as fast, but then with Video Compression, destroys Intel, and yes they have the ProRes chip(s) now, but irregardless. When the top of the line chip starts hitting the ceiling and the power/heat/fan are at the limit... we know what time it is... just a warning!
I think it's gonna take Intel 5-10 years to come up with a chip ON PAR with where the Apple Silicon (M generation) will go, when Intel can make strides and PASS Apple (if possible).
The only catch is, Intel only has their x86_64 products (essentially, among other silicon) while Apple had iPhone revenue (which was huge) and a FULL Business to stay afloat, and get CASH (should we mention macOS?). it's gonna be rough seas for Intel (x86_64)... but maybe all the businesses and x86 faithful will just continue to purchase Intel machines for 10 years?
Ikrupp's posts are nothing short of cancerous with nothing of value to add to any discussion. The only aim of his posts are to promote hatred and divide among readers and members here.
Absolute poison.