Now that Intel claims that the new i9 is faster than the M1 it will be interesting, how Apple competes in the future. Especially when Intel gains access to the 5nm TSMC manufacturing process that Apple currently uses. So we will see how much of Apple Silicon speed is due to its design and how much is due to the manufacturing process...
Yeah…14 cores using several times the power of apples 10 cores.
Let’s see what happens when apple brings out a system with two M1 max chips.
Nope, from the benchmark Intel used the i9 was also competitive regarding power usage and this chip is using 10nm technology.
Guys like Wilcox can pretty much write their own tickets anywhere they want. That's an enviable position to be in.
I wonder if Apple even made an effort to retain him. Maybe he wanted a bigger title and Intel was prepared to give it to him? Was it money? Was it both? Would be interesting to know the details someday.
I’m pretty sure Intel was willing to give him a hell of a lot more than Apple was, AS is well underway and maybe he’s not as vital as he might have been a year or two ago. Bringing Wilcox on board makes his Intel bosses look serious about re-gaining lost ground (you bet they’ve been feeling the heat from their bosses since AS was announced). Wilcox is also kind of a big deal all on his own.
Sometimes to move up, you gotta move on. Good for him!
Sounds bad on the front end, but I wonder if he contributed all he could s as me has nothing left. I guess we will see.
Lead designer is a big role.
Intel is clearly gaining here.
But Apple has far more resources to retain the people it wants to. So you have to wonder if this was not an amicable parting of ways at this point.
Jeff's work at Apple is probably mostly done for the next 20 years. Apple probably has designs up to M5 at 1 nanometer already. Intel is an American icon at risk of peril at this time. Since Jeff left Intel to go to Apple, I see nothing wrong with going back to Intel. I wish them the best. I wonder what kind of deal Intel made with TSMC if any?
So it took 7 years for Apple to put out M1? Any effort before he joined Apple?
I don't think that they had a plan to transition Mac to an ARM architecture back then, but Intel's lack of delivery forced them to take things to a new level, and I'm so glad they did!
I can see why people leave Apple. Compared to other companies, Apple's product lineup moves like a slug.
Suddenly everyone claims Intel is doomed....as they are typing comments on their Intel based Mac. Intel will do just fine, considering they are the #1 chipmaker and PCs still outnumber Macs. Apple was a small customer for Intel, but Intel Macs were a huge hit and saved them from the dying PowerPC. Apple did not invent ARM, so not sure what people are concerned about alleging Apple should sue. Apple should do more to keep their top engineers, and they haven't done so and lost a lot of key people. But, that was Apple's decision. We will see how it pans out.
The M1 Macs were okay for low end, but they lost features that Intel Macs have, and that people used. Not sure why Apple removed features and then claimed how superior they are. The new 14" and 16" MacBooks are a huge improvement, except for the odd decision of a notch. The 24" iMac should have had the Pro and Max CPUs for higher RAM and graphics capabilities. The ethernet in a power brick is a just a kludge. Jony Ive is gone. No one wants a super thin desktop computer that feels like you can tip it over if you adjust the display. Now people are concerned that the replacement 27" iMac will be in awful colors and have a big notch in the display as that seems to be Apple's new trademark visual feature.
People were making the same comments during the Intel switch. Suddenly bashing the PowerPC and praising Intel. As most people know, you don't buy the first generation stuff. Wait it out for better, more refined hardware, and by then, more developers will have native software. Same was true during the PowerPC switch and the Intel switch. Go to the Apple refurb store and look how many pages and pages there are of refurb 24" iMacs.
180K bonus is sad for a man of that stature, for that company. $10M in stock, at the very least, as a signing bonus. Then again, if someone’s not happy, no money can solve it.
We have no idea what Apple did, if anything, to try and retain the guy. The $180k number is something totally different and is rumored to be the top end of retaining "normal" engineers. Why AI or any writer has to add irrelevant info at the end of an article is beyond me.
Go to the Apple refurb store and look how many pages and pages there are of refurb 24" iMacs.
I had to fact check you, since you are making statements that are not true. That "M1 Macs are only good for the low end", when the M1 Macs factually run circles, around Intel Macs.
AND, for more proof of your slanted remarks, I just went to the Apple refurb store and counted how many M1 Macs AND Intel Macs were factually in the Apple refurb store as of 10:56 PM EST, on Jan. 6, 2022. Results: (136) Intel Macs; (50) M1 Macs. Seems like almost 3 time more Buyers remorse, when going with Intel, to then learn, that the M1 Macs, blow those Intel Macs away !!
Go to the Apple refurb store and look how many pages and pages there are of refurb 24" iMacs.
I had to fact check you, since you are making statements that are not true. That "M1 Macs are only good for the low end", when the M1 Macs factually run circles, around Intel Macs.
M1 Macs run circles around Intel Macs ... that use 9th and 10th gen Intel chips. Well 11th gen is current and 12th gen is now available. 13th gen that will be announced 4Q will be very interesting because Intel's 10nm process will be mature and there will be performance and efficiency optimizations in the design. And in 2023, 14th gen will arrive using Intel's 7nm process. Ultimately, you had brand new 5nm M1 chips outperforming 3 year old 14nm Intel ones. Mark that under "supposed to happen." In 2023, the comparisons between Intel and Apple are going to be fascinating because some Intel chips are going to be made on the same 3nm TSMC process as Apple - which makes AMD the odd man out as they lack the financial resources to outbid either Apple or Intel - and others are going to be made on Intel's 7nm node.
Also, his statement that the M1 was only good for low end is absolutely true. Apple didn't put the M1 in the 14' or 16' MacBook Pro or the 27' iMac for a reason. With the M1 you were limited to 16 GB of RAM, and it also has only 8 GPU cores. While it is Thunderbolt-compatible, eGPUs are not and there is a maximum of 2 displays (likely due to the GPU and CPU sharing the same memory pool and - again - the GPU only having 8 cores). That renders it only acceptable for entry level machines like the MacBook Air and Mac Mini and for general productivity machines like the 13' MacBook Pro. Machines for pros and specialists need more RAM, graphics capability etc.
Jeff's work at Apple is probably mostly done for the next 20 years. Apple probably has designs up to M5 at 1 nanometer already. Intel is an American icon at risk of peril at this time. Since Jeff left Intel to go to Apple, I see nothing wrong with going back to Intel. I wish them the best. I wonder what kind of deal Intel made with TSMC if any?
Intel is not "in peril" in any sense. Quite the contrary, Intel is #1 by a mile. AMD is #2 even if only because being forced to share TSMC with Apple, Qualcomm, MediaTek and Nvidia means that they can't come close to matching Intel's volume. (AMD is FINALLY shifting manufacture of their low end chips to Samsung later this year.) Apple is a distant #3. ARM CPU makers like Qualcomm, MediaTek and Samsung are going to be held back by the limitations of Windows on ARM (though there is some potential with Chrome OS ARM, which works a lot better). Indeed, now that Intel is re-entering the discrete GPU market, they are going to sell more chips in 2022 without Apple than they ever did with them.
Intel's deal with TSMC is only short-term: 2022-2024. In 2025, Intel will start producing chips on their 5nm process and will no longer need TSMC to compete with AMD. (Despite what Apple fans believe, Intel's competition is AMD, not Apple.) Yes, the primary benefit of Intel buying capacity from TSMC is that it will further exacerbate AMD's supply problems. Which leaves poor AMD between a rock and a hard place: capacity problems at TSMC and yield problems at the only viable alternative Samsung.
The "Intel is in trouble" crowd is populated entirely by people who only use Macs (or they use Windows because professional obligations force them to and they hate every second of it). However, this seems to describe like 95% of the people who work for the tech and mainstream media.
Intel’s newly announced chips remind me of 3DFX video cards back in the day. Trying to compete with new hotness nvidia. 3DFX was behind on th tech curve so they cobbled together power hungry cards to get the win. The only problem was the competition had a superior architecture and won out in the next gen and beyond. That’s what we are seeing happen here. At least Intel is lessening and copying aspects of apples designs where they can. But the writing is on the wall. Intel can mix and match cores and throw watts at the issue. But Aple is already ahead and will only pull further ahead with each generation. The tiny RISC cores Apple is using should need many more cores than x86 in order to compete. Instead we are seeing Intel add cores to compete. That’s going to be a problem even in the first gen as Apple comes out with duo and quad versions of its M1 Max. And then there is M2 and 3. Unless Intel commits to an all new architecture, they are fighting a losing battle. And that’s where I expect this poach comes in. Probably going to build a RISC 5 or ARM architecture. It’s really the only way for them. Could be ready by the time MICROSOFT AND OEMs have ARM software sorted. But by the ,Apple will be too far in.
It's not just that Intel fell behind Apple, related is how far they fell behind TSMC. I'm working to calculate how much Intel contributed to global warming with generation upon generation upon generation of power inefficient chips from their shamefully lagging fab processes.
Soon Intel will be back on track. They just have to use an Apple engineer... and a TSMC fab! Makes you wonder though about what's inside the "Intel inside"... probably "Intel outside on the label" is more accurate.
Intel is not "in peril" in any sense. Quite the contrary, Intel is #1 by a mile. AMD is #2 even if only because being forced to share TSMC with Apple, Qualcomm, MediaTek and Nvidia means that they can't come close to matching Intel's volume. (AMD is FINALLY shifting manufacture of their low end chips to Samsung later this year.) Apple is a distant #3. ARM CPU makers like Qualcomm, MediaTek and Samsung are going to be held back by the limitations of Windows on ARM (though there is some potential with Chrome OS ARM, which works a lot better). Indeed, now that Intel is re-entering the discrete GPU market, they are going to sell more chips in 2022 without Apple than they ever did with them.
Hello Intel employee.
I worked for Nokia around 2008/9. At the time, they were selling hundreds of millions of smartphones a year, outselling Apple by an order of magnitude. Comfortably the number #1. But the writing was on the wall. Everyone internally knew it.
I doubt Intel will ever crash and burn like Nokia but it's only a matter of time until Microsoft crack ARM on Windows. Once that happens, no-one is going to pay Intel's inflated prices for CPUs.
I wonder if Apple will sue, considering he might leak designs
Oh please. You can bet any non-disclosure and non-compete agreements were fully vetted through all three legal teams.
If he works on similar projects he could definitely be investigated. If Apple didn’t have him sign an enforceable NDA Apple lawyers need to be fired.
That's why I said whatever agreements are in place were likely agreed to between all three parties. Too high profile and with too many public announcements. Not like he left for undisclosed reasons and then quietly decided to work for Intel again.
180K bonus is sad for a man of that stature, for that company. $10M in stock, at the very least, as a signing bonus. Then again, if someone’s not happy, no money can solve it.
Nor is it known whether Apple tried to keep Wilcox. Separately, Apple has recently beenoffering $180,000 bonuses to engineers to prevent them leaving.
Go to the Apple refurb store and look how many pages and pages there are of refurb 24" iMacs.
I had to fact check you, since you are making statements that are not true. That "M1 Macs are only good for the low end", when the M1 Macs factually run circles, around Intel Macs.
M1 Macs run circles around Intel Macs ... that use 9th and 10th gen Intel chips. Well 11th gen is current and 12th gen is now available. 13th gen that will be announced 4Q will be very interesting because Intel's 10nm process will be mature and there will be performance and efficiency optimizations in the design.
Apple is definitely running circles around Intel in terms of performance per watt.
Jeff's work at Apple is probably mostly done for the next 20 years. Apple probably has designs up to M5 at 1 nanometer already. Intel is an American icon at risk of peril at this time. Since Jeff left Intel to go to Apple, I see nothing wrong with going back to Intel. I wish them the best. I wonder what kind of deal Intel made with TSMC if any?
Intel is not "in peril" in any sense. Quite the contrary, Intel is #1 by a mile. AMD is #2 even if only because being forced to share TSMC with Apple, Qualcomm, MediaTek and Nvidia means that they can't come close to matching Intel's volume. (AMD is FINALLY shifting manufacture of their low end chips to Samsung later this year.) Apple is a distant #3. ARM CPU makers like Qualcomm, MediaTek and Samsung are going to be held back by the limitations of Windows on ARM (though there is some potential with Chrome OS ARM, which works a lot better). Indeed, now that Intel is re-entering the discrete GPU market, they are going to sell more chips in 2022 without Apple than they ever did with them.
Intel's deal with TSMC is only short-term: 2022-2024. In 2025, Intel will start producing chips on their 5nm process and will no longer need TSMC to compete with AMD. (Despite what Apple fans believe, Intel's competition is AMD, not Apple.) Yes, the primary benefit of Intel buying capacity from TSMC is that it will further exacerbate AMD's supply problems. Which leaves poor AMD between a rock and a hard place: capacity problems at TSMC and yield problems at the only viable alternative Samsung.
The "Intel is in trouble" crowd is populated entirely by people who only use Macs (or they use Windows because professional obligations force them to and they hate every second of it). However, this seems to describe like 95% of the people who work for the tech and mainstream media.
If the king of the hill starts running ads about a minor competitor in their space, it speaks volumes about what they know. If Apple was not kicking their butt, there is no way they would poach this guy by offering him a major promotion. Unless of course they realized they need him to succeed.
Comments
Sometimes to move up, you gotta move on. Good for him!
unless you’re Steve Jobs
I don't think that they had a plan to transition Mac to an ARM architecture back then, but Intel's lack of delivery forced them to take things to a new level, and I'm so glad they did!
I can see why people leave Apple. Compared to other companies, Apple's product lineup moves like a slug.
The M1 Macs were okay for low end, but they lost features that Intel Macs have, and that people used. Not sure why Apple removed features and then claimed how superior they are. The new 14" and 16" MacBooks are a huge improvement, except for the odd decision of a notch. The 24" iMac should have had the Pro and Max CPUs for higher RAM and graphics capabilities. The ethernet in a power brick is a just a kludge. Jony Ive is gone. No one wants a super thin desktop computer that feels like you can tip it over if you adjust the display. Now people are concerned that the replacement 27" iMac will be in awful colors and have a big notch in the display as that seems to be Apple's new trademark visual feature.
People were making the same comments during the Intel switch. Suddenly bashing the PowerPC and praising Intel. As most people know, you don't buy the first generation stuff. Wait it out for better, more refined hardware, and by then, more developers will have native software. Same was true during the PowerPC switch and the Intel switch. Go to the Apple refurb store and look how many pages and pages there are of refurb 24" iMacs.
AND,
for more proof of your slanted remarks, I just went to the Apple refurb store and counted how many M1 Macs AND Intel Macs were factually in the Apple refurb store as of 10:56 PM EST, on Jan. 6, 2022. Results: (136) Intel Macs; (50) M1 Macs. Seems like almost 3 time more Buyers remorse, when going with Intel, to then learn, that the M1 Macs, blow those Intel Macs away !!
Also, his statement that the M1 was only good for low end is absolutely true. Apple didn't put the M1 in the 14' or 16' MacBook Pro or the 27' iMac for a reason. With the M1 you were limited to 16 GB of RAM, and it also has only 8 GPU cores. While it is Thunderbolt-compatible, eGPUs are not and there is a maximum of 2 displays (likely due to the GPU and CPU sharing the same memory pool and - again - the GPU only having 8 cores). That renders it only acceptable for entry level machines like the MacBook Air and Mac Mini and for general productivity machines like the 13' MacBook Pro. Machines for pros and specialists need more RAM, graphics capability etc.
Intel's deal with TSMC is only short-term: 2022-2024. In 2025, Intel will start producing chips on their 5nm process and will no longer need TSMC to compete with AMD. (Despite what Apple fans believe, Intel's competition is AMD, not Apple.) Yes, the primary benefit of Intel buying capacity from TSMC is that it will further exacerbate AMD's supply problems. Which leaves poor AMD between a rock and a hard place: capacity problems at TSMC and yield problems at the only viable alternative Samsung.
The "Intel is in trouble" crowd is populated entirely by people who only use Macs (or they use Windows because professional obligations force them to and they hate every second of it). However, this seems to describe like 95% of the people who work for the tech and mainstream media.
I worked for Nokia around 2008/9. At the time, they were selling hundreds of millions of smartphones a year, outselling Apple by an order of magnitude. Comfortably the number #1. But the writing was on the wall. Everyone internally knew it.
I doubt Intel will ever crash and burn like Nokia but it's only a matter of time until Microsoft crack ARM on Windows. Once that happens, no-one is going to pay Intel's inflated prices for CPUs.
That's why I said whatever agreements are in place were likely agreed to between all three parties. Too high profile and with too many public announcements. Not like he left for undisclosed reasons and then quietly decided to work for Intel again.