danox

melgross said:

danvm said:

danox said:

danvm said:

programmer said:

danvm said:

And I have work with some of those workstations, and the performance is not as pathetic as you mention.  Some of them have advantages over Apple Silicon, specially when comparing the GPU. 

You say "workstations" whereas what you quoted said "laptops".  Big difference.  Apple Silicon's performance really shines in power-constrained situations.  If you can run plugged into the wall and with big heat sinks, then the Intel/AMD CPUs and the nVidia/AMD GPUs can burn copious power to deliver serious performance.  They're still inefficient in terms of compute per watt, but you don't notice as watts are cheap in such a situation.

It would be interesting to see a large scale data centre built from ARM-based machines and compared to ones build from Intel/AMD-based machines, and compare the operating costs.  Some of the big cloud vendors offer lower cost ARM-based hosts just for this reason -- they greatly reduce energy and cooling costs in the data centre.  Not Apple's focus though, so we aren't likely to see Apple Silicon based data centres (except perhaps for Apple's own, but they are typically very secretive about that).

There is a group of laptops that are considered workstations (Dell Precision, HP Z mobile workstation, Lenovo ThinkPad P-series). The quality of componentes, warranty / service and specs are different from a notebook that you buy in a consumer retailer.  Also, they are certified for ISV's like Autodesk, Bentley Software, Siemens and others. That's the reason I used the term workstation and not laptops. 

I also know the benefits of Apple Intelligence and ARM in general, especially with power efficiency.  But there are cases where some specialized applications use CUDA / Optix, and you are required to use Nvidia adapters.  In datacenters is very difference, and even more with AI.  There are even rumors of Apple dealing with Nvidia for their datacenters.

Unlikely report claims Apple is buying 250 Nvidia servers for AI

Large cloud providers also have their own AI processors (Amazon Trainium2, Azure Maia and Google Axion).  Maybe these processors have advantages over ARM and Apple Silicon for AI tasks.  My point is that ARM and Apple Silicon is not the magic CPU that will solve all problems.  It has many advantages over Intel and AMD in some tasks.  But Intel, AMD and Nvidia have some advantages over ARM / Apple too. 

At the end, It's good to have competition working for us.  

The competition from Intel, AMD, and Nvidia is commendable in theory, but Apple boasts several in-house operating systems (ecosystems) that make direct competition with them impractical. I don’t believe any of these companies will be working for Apple again. Two out of the three had their chance, and like Samsung’s (chip division), they only caused trouble for Apple.

Apple Silicon isn’t magical, but the absence of an in-house OS prevents these companies from optimizing their hardware to an operating system, putting them behind Apple. This is also why Microsoft is frantically flailing around with Qualcomm, attempting to revive its failing and unprofitable Surface computer line.

You have to consider that Apple ecosystem may have some benefits.  But at the same time, it doesn't means it's the best experience for every case.  For example, gaming is far better with Nvidia, AMD and Intel than with Apple, even with all the advantages their ecosystem have.  The same can be said in the enterprise, where Microsoft have a big advantage, a no other company comes close. 

And you when you talk about the Surface line, you have to think that Apple is not the only one competing with them.  HP, Dell and Lenovo outsell Microsoft (and even Apple) by a large margin. And these are the top three among many others. With Windows, customers have choices, not that much with Apple.  That's the reason I think you cannot make a 1:1 comparison of sales numbers between Apple vs Microsoft.  

BTW, from I have seen, the Qualcomm Snapdragon Elite looks very competitive, even with Apple.  And there are rumors that Nvidia have something to announce soon.  

I don't want to get into the whole thing, but the Qualcomm chip isn't that competitive with Apple's chip. it's more of a conventual SoC, other than the better CPUs from Nuvia. It is more efficient than AND and Intel. but there is, right now, poor compatibility with Windows apps and computers using the chips have been sales disappointments.

stuffe said:

dewme said:

Apple Silicon is one of the best planned and best executed moves by Apple - ever. If you're going to talk about Tim Cook's legacy, Apple Silicon has to be one of the crown jewels of his accomplishments at Apple. Truly masterful. 

I think you are right that Cook has quietly masterminded an absolutely unmatched in house development in the industry, but I also recall that it was the purchase of PA Semi that laid the ground work for all this, and the A4 was really the point that this march was started.  Jobs had the foresight here, and Cook has done the legwork.  

This is no fluke or flash in the pan, this is 17 years of solid and measurable year on year progression and advancement from nobodies to top tier without a single blip.  That's a record anyone in any industry would be rightly proud of.

MplsP said:

Too bad but not unexpected. The auto execs have been digging their heels in the sand for years. Look how long it took them to adopt CarPlay. I saw a demo of the Aston Martin implementation on YouTube and Apple doesn’t completely takes over the car’s systems, rather they provide an API that allows the systems to be displayed through CarPlay. Importantly, the API also allows the manufacturers to maintain some control and customize the displays so they’re not a ‘generic Apple’ display. Customers can also opt for ‘CarPlay Classic’ if they prefer. At least it sounds like the manufacturers are still allowing that.

“[Volvo’s] chief executive Håkan Samuelsson did admit that car makers don't so software as well as tech companies. ‘There are others who can do that better, and then we should offer that in our cars,’ he insisted.” It’s rather ironic that he admits that while at the same time refusing to adopt CarPlay Ultra.

“Audi believes it should provide drivers ‘a customized and seamless digital experience.’” Another hypocritical statement. CarPlay Ultra does just that - integrates so the experience is more seamless rather than the rather clunky parallel setup they have now.

GM provides a classic example and warning. They decided they wanted to ditch CarPlay and try to make money on their own system and botched it so bad they had to issue a stop sale order to fix the problems. Then people found out GM was using the system to spy on them and was selling their driving data. No thanks, GM. You make second-rate cars to begin with and for this you can go to hell as far as I’m concerned.

sflagel said:

it is ludicrous for a car manufacturer to give Apple access to all its car systems, which will invariably lead to Apple becoming the gatekeeper to the entire tech stack of a car. This in addition to the branding impact. CarPlay is not the end of evolution, for example, the music app is well on CarPlay. Audi music controls are much better. 

There will be one car maker or two worldwide that will use Apple Carplay. Why because there’s fierce competition within the car manufacturing industry, remember when Apple Pay first came out, after designing it, Apple had to do the hard work of going around the world trying to get it established, later on when it became popular all the other financial institutions started to cry foul for their shortsightedness.

History is repeating itself again.