robaba

tenthousandthings said:

melgross said:

tenthousandthings said:

melgross said:

tenthousandthings said:

Allow me to add that I don’t quite get the argument that it has to be M2 — I gather there is a technical reason for it, but I think that’s hard to say without knowing a lot more than we do. I find the idea that Apple would design this entire M1 line but not account for the Mac Pro to be absurd. 

In terms of naming, I don’t think they will call it the Ultra Pro or Ultra+, they will all be Ultra, just with different core counts. Basically an Ultra is 2 or 4 Max fused together. 

It’s pretty clear that they are finished with the M1. Will people please stop making new M1 chips up? They may use two or even four M1 Ultra chips. They may change their concept of introducing more powerful chips over the year, and have an M2 Ultra for the Mac Pro. We don’t know. But they won’t have a four chip Ultra. John made that pretty clear.

John was introducing the UltraFusion process when he said that. That process may also allow them to connect two Ultras together, much like what you’re suggesting when you say they may use multiple M1 Ultras in the Mac Pro. It’s a plausible technical solution to the problem. That’s the whole point of the “chiplet” approach. I think you’re getting hung up on semantics, although I’ll concede that it was not a live event and everything said was carefully reviewed.

It isn’t hard to imagine how John would introduce the idea, “UltraFusion not only allows us to fuse two M1 Max together and create the M1 Ultra, but it also allows us to connect two M1 Ultras together …”

Look, he made it pretty clear that the Ultra was the last M1 chip. I don’t know why people insist that isn’t true. He didn’t say it had anything to do with Ultra /fusion, or anything else, just that the Ultra was the last. Earlier on, when they announced the Pro and Max versions, they could have said that too, and then popped out the Ultra with the UF connect, and acted as though it was just the same chip.

but they didn’t. And like it or not, that means something. What would have wrong with not saying anything? It’s not semantics. Semantics is something that’s interpretable. A definitive statement is just that.

the other thing thats] you guys are forgetting is that the cost of making these chips increases more than the added area because of increased defects and the risk of unusable chips. The greater percentage of wafer area a chip takes up, the more the cost. It’s a $1,000 upgrade to go from a 48 core Ultra to the 64 core version. And the cheapest Ultra costs more than twice what the Max version costs. So, even if they would do it, this new chip would likely cost at least three times as much. Maybe more. would that be worth it? I’m not so sure.

The good thing is we’ll know soon enough. There’s no way this uncertainty is prolonged past WWDC. 

But reading your last paragraph here makes me think you haven’t looked at the mock-up I’ve been referring to, in conjunction with the patent about this packaging tech Apple filed in January. It’s two Ultras stacked on top of each other (back-to-back)—doing so doesn’t change anything about the wafer layout for making the Max/Ultra. That’s why, no matter how it works, it can’t be considered a new chip. Because it’s not. The Max Tech video that someone pointed to is goofy YouTube sensationalism, but the reading of the patent seems accurate. 

boltsfan17 said:

genovelle said:

tmay said:

danox said:

9secondkox2 said:

Weak. 

Gotta love the pundits Talking up this cop out like it’s something amazing. 

America is supposed to be the international policeman. Walking softly but carrying a big stick to use when necessary. 

Instead of defending freedom, we stand by and watch it crushed while shaking dollar signs the the bad guys with missiles. 

Putin has China as an ally and Russia counterfeits American goods anyway. This isn’t going to do squat unfortunately. 

Sanctions suck. Go and do some good in the world. Add the sanctions to that. 

You let a bully beat up other kids and he just gets worse. Not looking good. 

God help Ukraine. 

Ukraine had 20 years before Putin to get their corrupt selves together they didn’t, see Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania for a lesson on how it’s done….They thought they were special….

I'll repost this;

To the surprise of everyone in Moscow, Kyiv, Brussels, and Washington, Yanukovych’s decision to scuttle this agreement with the EU triggered mass demonstrations in Ukraine again, bringing hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians into the streets in what would become known as the Euromaidan or “Revolution of Dignity” to protest Yanukovych’s turn away from the democratic West. The street protests lasted several weeks, punctuated by the killing of dozens of peaceful protestors by Yanukovych’s government, the eventual collapse of that government and Yanukovych’s flight to Russia in February 2014, and a new pro-Western government taking power in Kyiv. Putin had “lost” Ukraine for the second time in a decade.

Yeah, having that shot at democracy in 2014 hasn't worked out perfectly, but it is evident that Ukraine wants to succeed. Putin can't allow that, hence, the invasion.

Putin has succeeded in further dividing the US and helping diminish us as a beacon for democracy, so he is attempting to use this moment in time to make his move. 

When you have a President who's foreign policy has been a complete disaster, it makes sense Putin would make his move for Ukraine. Putin is essentially playing chess while Biden is playing checkers. Putin was probably laughing histerically as Biden announced the sanctions that will do nothing to stop Russia. 

mjtomlin said:

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?

sconosciuto said:

$200 here we come

On October 6, 1997 Michael Dell said of Apple, "I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders," before a crowd of several thousand IT executives.

https://www.cnet.com/news/dell-apple-should-close-shop/

On that day, AAPL was worth $0.18 per share. AAPL closed at $159.22 or merely 88,355% higher at today's close, just prior to the Q1 '22 earnings report.

If you'd bought both a crystal ball and AAPL on 10/6/97 and sold around three weeks ago at the stock's all-time high of $182.94, the return would have been 101,533.33%.

#gloating