mjtomlin

viclauyyc said:

Well, it looks good on number in the presentation. But let’s not forget the Ultra is comparing with a 2 year old Xeon. 2 years is a lot in computer technology. Not to mention, arguably AMD’s Epyc is the fastest CPU in the PC world. 

Let’s hope the future Mac Pro will be even faster with 4/8 sets of CPU. But it might cost $8000 on the entry model.

But let's also not forget the cores in the Ultra are 18 months old now, first released in the Fall 2020, in the A14, so I'd say it is a fairly valid comparison. Especially when also considering the price of Xeons... that 28-core is a $7,000US upgrade option. The CPU/GPU cores in the upcoming A16 should have a notable increase in both performance and efficiency. I'm thinking once the transition is done, Apple will move towards amore steady upgrade cycle for all their SoC's. With the base variant (M1, M2, M3) on a yearly update alongside the A-series, and the "X" variant (Pro, Max, Ultra) updated every two years, jumping a generation each time for added perceived performance.

I'd also like to point out that on the GB5 CPU chart there is currently only 1 CPU that scored higher than the Ultra in multi-core performance... a 64-core AMD Threadripper that runs at a whopping 280W TDP, and above 350W in full "Boost" mode. Meanwhile the CPU in the Ultra tops out at 60W. One other thing of note with the Ultra is the linear CPU performance increase with each new core which is unheard of. Imagine if Apple released a discrete CPU with 64 cores!? Running at under 200W with scores well above 50,000 on GB5. Maybe this is the route Apple goes with the Mac Pro? After all, if the Ultra is the last SoC in the M1 family, maybe Apple created something unique for the Pro?

If M2 is based off A15 generation cores then that means Macs will end up being a couple of generations behind the iOS devices, and I don’t see that happening. The M1 was released with the A14 and they shared the same cores.. The M2 will more than likely be released in the Fall (regardless of what rumors say) alongside the A16 and they will also share the same cores.

The base M-series SoCs are basically the same as the “X” variant of the A-series and these can be produced relatively cheap enough for a yearly update, especially since they’re used by the iPad Pros plus all consumer level Macs. The “pro” M-series SoCs are a different beast and are probably very expensive to produce, so Apple will want to stretch out their run a couple of years to bring down costs.

bsimpsen said:

melgross said:

bsimpsen said:

I don't know the particulars of Apple's ARM architecture license, but if royalty payments for older versions decline over time, or if payments for new versions increase over time, there's financial incentive for Apple to drift away from ARM into its own custom designs. Whether the ARM design teams can keep Apple interested is an open question.

Apple doesn’t use ARM designs, so they don’t pay for them. Apple’s designs are entirely home grown. They have an architectural license which means they use the instruction set, basically.

Apple pays for the Architectural license. As instructions are added to the instruction set, I expect ARM will want compensation for them. To the extent those instructions support ancillary functions like AI, I expect Apple might not adopt them.

Huh? Apple licensed ARMv8 ISA and extended it as they needed. They don’t own ARM anything for that. Companies with an architectural license are completely free to extended the ISA as long as it remains backwards compatible - with the originally licensed version. Most of what ARMv9 offers, Apple has already implemented in their own designs, so there’s really no need to “upgrade”.

lorca2770 said:

Just a question, since time makes me forget. Wasn’t Arm developed by Apple, and Steve Jobs sold the company in the times of necessity? Careful! I am not talking about the false narrative of Microsoft. Only about Arm

No. The modern ARM architecture was a joint venture between, Acorn (ISA, design), VLSI (fabrication), and Apple (money)… Apple wanted an efficient mobile chip for the Newton.

Makes you wonder why Apple didn’t just buy Acorn and use their CPUs instead of switching to PowerPC?

22july2013 said:

mjtomlin said:

Agree with both comments above…
I also think Apple could start lowering their fees, especially for subscription services. 

Thanks, but don't you agree that Apple's $0 charge for free apps needs to be subsidized by the charge for the bigger companies?

Apple charges all developers $99 a year to distribute their apps in the App Store, regardless of price. If a developer wants to make money by selling that app, then Apple should be able to charge a fee for each transaction made. Apple is completely entitled to determined what that fee is as long as the developer is aware of those fees when joining the developer program.

Believing that doesn’t preclude me from thinking Apple might be better off if they lowered those fees as an option to get rid of all these antitrust accusations.