techconc

dewme said:

Ouch. But congratulations to him in his new and expanded role with Intel. 

It's funny when I read comments... not really this one in particular, but the media spins this as if it's a huge loss for Apple, etc.  Not to diminish Mr. Wilcox's contributions, but Apple literally has thousands of chip engineers.  They have over a thousand back when they started making their own chips and that division has only grown in size.  While anyone leaving is a loss for Apple and I'm sure he'll bring back great knowledge to Intel, but in the end, there really isn't anyone that would have a significant impact on Apple's plans.  Maybe if Jonny Sourji left we should pause and take note.  Aside from that, there is no single engineer that leaving would have any real impact on Apple.

indieshack said:

Really…27”? 

I'm fine with that.  I don't need or even want anything bigger.  I'll be happy to replace my existing 27" Intel iMac.

JWSC said:

techconc said:

Jony Ive is a talented designer.  However, his quest for minimalism definitely led to form over function designs.  When Jobs past, nobody was in position to keep him in check.  At the end of the day, as the designer, he bares responsibility for flawed designs.  Attempting to deny this in ridiculous articles like this doesn’t change the facts.

A lot of odd supposition from people who clearly are not industrial designers and are shooting hot takes from the hip with half a clip.

(eye roll)

LOL... there is no need to be an industrial designer to know that the "Chief Design Officer" at Apple was ultimately responsible for such design decisions.  Seriously, your comment is like suggesting the CFO isn't responsible for a company's financial statements.  I'm not an accountant either, yet I understand where the responsibility belongs.  You should look into that.

(eye roll)

Jony Ive is a talented designer.  However, his quest for minimalism definitely led to form over function designs.  When Jobs past, nobody was in position to keep him in check.  At the end of the day, as the designer, he bares responsibility for flawed designs.  Attempting to deny this in ridiculous articles like this doesn’t change the facts.

KITA said:

I'd also note that the review didn't seem to touch upon the Neural Engine performance for AI, however, that's one area that Apple is rather behind on (just based off of raw numbers, ~50% the TOPS of the S888+).

You had nice post until this part.  It seems you're a victim of Qualcomm marketing.  When comparing something like TOPS, you need to do an Apples to Apples comparison.  Qualcomm advertises TOPS for their chips as a COMBINATION of CPU + GPU + DSP.  Apple is only advertising the TOPS for their Neural Engine only.  Anandtech reviews of the SD865 and SD888 make note of this. 

Example:  SD888+
"32 TOPS AI
(Total CPU+GPU+HVX+Tensor)"
https://www.anandtech.com/show/16789/qualcomm-announces-snapdragon-888-plus-5g-speed-bin-at-3ghz

Example: SD865
"Qualcomm advertises 15 TOPS throughput for all computing blocks on the SoC and we estimate that the new Tensor cores roughly represent 10 TOPS out of that figure."
http://https//www.anandtech.com/show/16789/qualcomm-announces-snapdragon-888-plus-5g-speed-bin-at-3ghz

Finally, if you actually think Apple is behind with AI / ML performance, then you should take a look at actual benchmark scores which show just the opposite.  Geekbench now has a Geekbench ML test for example.  They show scores for CPU, GPU and NPU performance of the same test.  

http://https//browser.geekbench.com/ml/v0/inference
Hint: the A15 is ~ 70% faster for this type of work as compared to the SD888.