Fred257

lkrupp said:

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.

mjtomlin said:

ApplePoor said:

I sure would not let Intel nor Samsung have access to build Apple's processors. They would then steal the technology for their own chips and Apple would loose their marketing and power advantages in both computers and the "I" devices.

Samsung stole Apple's designs years ago and they are not any different now. There is a different integrity mindset in other places in the world.

Samsung is a huge conglomerate and while their consumer electronics/appliance division is a cess pool full of turds, their industrial/manufacturing arms are of the best in the world - they haven't and wouldn't steal IP from a client.

Yes they would.  They’re not pure and neither is Apple. In design everyone copies everything and then adds and or subtracts from the design to come up with something new.  But, Apple did design the first consumer based PC and they rightfully need to keep their tech a secret because they’ve been ripped off numerous times by companies (like Samsung) over the years.

elijahg said:

Fred257 said:

? I know three engineers who work for Intel, one of them complained to me for years that the only solution was adding more capacitors which adds more heat.  All of this was true but Apples approach wins out because the engineers I talked to at Intel didn’t see a way forward and now the CEO knows today that they’re going to be destroyed by these new chips, obliterated is a more correct term to use…

Of course you do. There are no capacitors in CPU (cores) for a start, and if you meant transistors you'll find that Apple's M1 has ~16bn transistors, twice as many as the 24-core Xeon 8180. That's ballooned from 3.3bn in the A10.

Adding transistors doesn't necessarily = more heat, because they're not all constantly switching - which is the only time they are dissipating heat. Application specific silicon can reduce the heat produced but increase the transistor count because there are less total transistor flips for a particular piece of code to execute: it's more efficient. And as above, if that silicon is idle it's not using power. 

Intel CPUs are so inefficient because they are essentially a CISC interpreter ontop of a RISC CPU. Plus due to backward compatibility, there are thousands of SIMD extensions that are used by barely anything but can't be removed due to the few customers that do need them.