OutdoorAppDeveloper

Apple really needs to start building chip fabs all around the world. The situation brewing between Taiwan and China poses an existential threat to Apple and the entire tech industry. It would cost Apple a hundred billion dollars or more but the investment would pay off for decades to come.

red oak said:

16 or 32 GPU cores?   10 CPU cores? You have got to be kidding me 

If true, these are going to obliterate anything other than “ high end” desktop workstations.  GeekBench scores will shake the PC industry 

You are exactly correct. This is a trend that has been going the past decade. Apple's mobile CPUs have been gaining performance at around 50% a year while Intel and AMD have been gaining about 5% a year. At some point the two curves would cross and cause massive disruption in the industry if the trend continued. That point happened last year with the introduction of the M1. The year before that, Apple's A series mobile CPUs started to beat common x86 laptop CPUs. This year the M1X could beat top end desktop CPUs and next year the M2 could be knocking on the door of the larger server CPUs. Currently all the hardware review sites are kind of ignoring the M1 when they review the performance of the latest Intel consumer CPUs.

Apple still has a ways to go before being a serious threat to the gamer PC GPUs but they are catching up rapidly. With 16 cores, the M1X could be in the same ballpark as the 5700 MX GPUs found in the 2020 iMac. With 32 cores, it could beat the current crop of AMD GPUs and newly released Intel GPUs with only NVIDIA having a clear advantage but only for very high end GPUs that are not obtainable in the market. The M1X could become the fastest integrated GPU on the market offering far greater performance per watt than any other GPU on the market.

Will server manufacturers be banging on Apple's door demanding chips? Is Apple thinking about making a gaming console? Where is the Mac Nano? Does Apple's management have the vision needed to take full advantage of the disruption they have created?

fastasleep said:

OutdoorAppDeveloper said:

PSA: Apple's Lightning has 480 Mbps which is over 80 times SLOWER than USB-C at 40 Gbps! And Apple decided to use Lightning on their flagship $1100 iPhone 13 over the vastly faster better and more compatible USB C because innovation.

Wrong — the first iPad Pros in 2015 had USB 3.0 (5Gbps) speeds on their Lightning ports, when used with compatible hardware. So, that's not a limitation of Lightning (which is a connector, not a data protocol). USB-C is also a connector, not a data protocol, and 40Gbps is a spec of Thunderbolt 3 which is a hardware interface that happens to use USB-C as a connector.. You'd think a "developer" who "turned down a job at Apple" would know these things.

Nope: "The iPad Pro, released in 2015, features the first Lightning connector supporting USB 3.0 host.[8] The only accessory that supports USB 3.0 is the new camera adapter. Normal USB-A - Lightning cables are still USB 2.0."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_(connector)

Even if you could somehow get USB 3.0 speed over lightning, that's 5 Gbps vs 40 Gbps for USB C. That's 8 times slower than USB C. Not 8%. 8 TIMES SLOWER.
There is no excuse that you or anyone else can cobble together for putting an obsolete Lightning port on an iPhone 13 Pro.

Dust and water resistance is no problem for the millions of other smart phones that have USB C. It is not a problem for the iPads which have it either.

PSA: Apple's Lightning has 480 Mbps which is over 80 times SLOWER than USB-C at 40 Gbps! And Apple decided to use Lightning on their flagship $1100 iPhone 13 over the vastly faster better and more compatible USB C because innovation.

Not buying an iPad with jelly scroll is also normal behavior as is returning one for a refund.