JP234

Maybe stop giving Kanye West such an enormous media platform to document his mental illness? And I don't mean banning him from Apple Music. I mean just stop writing, blogging and talking about him all the time. Since he started these rants, his online presence has increased by a quantum level. So everyone, stop, just stop. Let him be Kanye, let his fans support him, and the rest of us can forget him.

About

Username
JP234
Joined
Visits
17
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
2,295
Badges
1
Posts
763
  • Intel just took the worst beating in earnings in over a decade

    blastdoor said:
    thadec said:
    All right folks. Time to get out of the kiddie pool delusions and join the adults in reality.
    1. Intel's decline in 2022 are due to the recession and the stuff going on with China, Russia and Ukraine. We know this because it impacted iPhone sales too, as their sales were down 15% year-over-year.

    2. Even with one of the worst years in history, 286 million PCs sold in 2022. Even with one of their best years in history, Apple accounted for only 23 to 28 million of those depending on who you believe. OF the remaining 260 million or so PCs that did sell, Intel had 70% of those to AMD's 30%. Intel projects that this is going to rebound to 300 million next year. Analysts are railing (from their MacBooks and iPhones) that Intel is crazy to project this, but the 3 year replacement cycle for devices that were bought at the start of the pandemic will end in 2Q 2023. The enterprise "refresh the hardware we bought during the pandemic" will last through 2024.

    3. Intel did take a big hit in servers ... but from AMD, not ARM. Despite all the hype that you have heard - 99% of it typed on MacBooks and iPad Pros since November 2020 - ARM has only 3% of the server business. Marvell left the ARM server business because they weren't making any money, leaving Ampere as the last major player there. (And Ampere's "major" is "fewer than 1000 global employees.") Granted, Nvidia will join Ampere in a few months. But, AMD released their response to ARM servers in 2022. Intel's response won't come until 2024 but it will be mighty substantial: Sierra Forest, a Xeon with 334 efficiency cores on a 6nm process. It removes the sole advantage that ARM servers have over x86, which is better power efficiency per thread. 

    4. Apple Silicon fans do their best to evade this, but even Apple acknowledges that Intel has superior single core performance. The M1 Ultra scored 1780. The M2 Pro? 1952. Fine but the last gen Intel Core i9-12900K (1986) as well as the current gen Core i9-13900KS (2286), Core i7-13700K (2107), and Core i5-13600KF (2011) all clearly beat it. You should know that the latter is in a budget gaming desktop (16 GB RAM, 1 TB SSD, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060) that costs $1200. Yes, the 3nm M3 will come out this year. No, it will not beat the 10nm Core i9-13900KS. It won't beat the 14th gen Core i7 will be out by the end of the year either.

    5. This makes the "Combined they are aiming for 1.8x improvement in performance-per-watt. That only brings them to where Apple is now if they deliver" wishful thinking. Intel's 14nm chips were already beating the M2 Pro. This means that when Intel reaches 3nm, they will be able to make 28W chips (the M2 Pro Mac Mini's TDP is around 26.5 W) that have the same performance as what Apple offers as well as 75W-125W chips that will crush it. How? Simple: where Apple currently has only 1 performance core design (used for smartphones/tablets, laptops and PCs) Intel has 5: Core i3, Core i5, Core i7, Core i9/Xeon. (This is down from 7, as Intel ditched Celeron and Pentium.) Core i7 and Core i9 are bigger, meaning better performance but worse efficiency. Core i5 and Core i3? Smaller cores for better efficiency but worse performance. As Intel shrinks the die from 10nm to 3nm, they will keep the 125W base for Core i9 and Core i7 ... but reduce it for Core i5 and especially Core i3. The Intel core i3-13100F, for example, has unofficial single core scores of about 1700, or 95% of the M1 Ultra. They only need to maintain that while significantly decreasing the TDP for certain Core i3 and Core i5 versions. Granted, this will occur in the laptop versions of the chips - for desktops their competition will be AMD's Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7, not Apple - but that doesn't matter because mini-PCs like the Intel NUC Extreme that are going to compete with the Mac Mini and Mac Studio will use laptop chips anyway. Wherever Apple is going to be in 2025 with 2nd gen TSMC N3E, Intel will be able to come up with a (likely) Core i5 to match it in 2026.  

    So long as Intel is inside 200 million Windows and Linux PCs sold each year, they aren't going anywhere. 
    It's as if somebody asked ChatGPT to imitate an Intel troll. 

    Here's my best attempt at a pro-Intel perspective. 

    Since Gelsinger's return, Intel has done a fantastic job of turning their lemons into lemonade. Lots of customers care about benchmarks, Apple has committed to keeping power and heat low, so Intel realized they can win single core benchmarks by overclocking one big core for brief periods of time. That doesn't lead to the best product or user experience, but it's good marketing. It gives OEMs something to say to keep people from going to Apple. 

    Besides running one core super hot to eek out a single thread benchmark win, Intel realized that they can compete on multi-threaded benchmarks if they throw in a large number of smaller cores running at lower clocks. And so we see products like the 13900K with 8 'performance' cores but 16 'efficiency' cores. Can software take advantage of all those little cores? Some can, for sure, but more importantly -- another benchmark win. 

    In theory, Apple could respond in kind -- they could run one of their big cores super hot for brief bursts to recapture the single core crown. They could also stuff in more of their far superior efficiency cores to win on multicore. But Apple's not doing that, leaving Intel some space for a 'win.' I suspect Apple will leave Intel with that space for quite a while because from Apple's point of view, creating a chip to beat Intel at their own game wouldn't actually lead to better Macs. 

    So in some sense, everybody wins. Intel is less profitable, but still in business and surviving to hopefully get their manufacturing back on track. Intel's customers 'win' in that they get cheap PCs that look good in benchmarks. Apple's customers win because they get computers that have excellent real world performance with low heat and great battery life. Apple wins because the customers that appreciate their products also happen to be highly educated and affluent. Happy happy joy joy. 
    Both of you ignore the obvious. Intel is a company in terminal decline. You're right that won't belly up, but only because it's "too big to fail." Kind of like Sears. All it's going to take is an activist CEO to break it up and sell it off for parts.
    danoxwatto_cobra
  • Intel just took the worst beating in earnings in over a decade

    tbornot said:
    It’s also likely that Apple sensed that Intel was a subsidiary of Microsoft, and their needs came first. “What do we have to lose?”,Apple thought as they took the M1 gamble. 
    Actually, at one point, Apple was run by the CEO of Intel, Andy Grove. And in his 500 days at the helm, he almost ran it aground.
    Alex_Vwatto_cobrarezwitsn2itivguy
  • Fortnite further crippled on iOS with January 30 update

    darbus69 said:
    Most people who use Apple products will, like me, stay away from 3rd party app stores, don’t even care about the prices, it’s all about data privacy and performance. And the video game industry doesn’t give a rat’s tush whether they turn every man woman or child into a zombie wanna be blood thirsty murderer, in fact they would prefer everyone come to their Lairs and spend every cent of their hard earned pay on bullets, bombs and moronic outfits. Save the world and send your kids and husbands outside to play instead…
    Couldn't have said it better.
    watto_cobra
  • Any Apple AR headset user may be able to create and sell content

    Here's what's behind these companies rushing these devices to market. Money, but not from selling headsets.

    The headset itself is just a means to an end. That end being able to sell "targeted" advertising directly to a user's retinas, with no outside interference to give a person pause to think about what they're seeing as it relates to the real world around them. Combine it with advances in AI and the trend is inexorably toward mind control. Think not? Then just remember how easy it was to convince about half of America that a presidential election was stolen, even without the benefit of "augmented reality," or any evidence whatsoever.

    Now imagine that scenario when the only thing the person sees is a larger than life depiction of some doomsday scenario, uninterrupted by real events occurring around them, beamed right into their temporal lobes. The chaos and mayhem to come from VR Twitter/Insta, AR Facebook, VR/AR FoxNews and MSNBC, VR Oathkeepers and Proud Boys… and those are just the domestic bad actors. Then there's hackers.

    I'll keep my eyes open and unobscured by someone else's idea of information or entertainment, thanks.
    DAalsethdanox
  • Fortnite further crippled on iOS with January 30 update

    Rhythmage said:
    Epic games is trash. Fornite is trash. 
    Playing Fortnite is the software equivalent of masturbation. Sure, it's fun, but it's solitary, and just substitutes fantasy violence for fantasy sex.
    darbus69watto_cobra