tipoo

I'm also wondering if the APFS encryption hit can be addressed and improve, or if that'll just take faster controllers (like the T2)




https://malcont.net/2017/09/apfs-vs-hfs-benchmarks-on-2017-macbook-pro-with-macos-high-sierra/

Sad truth is, large bill dodges aren't past Apple. 

Look at 2011s solder problems, they started the program years later, and for three years since the original purchase date...Most people either moved on or missed the window by then. Or not sending a user notification to come in for the free 6S bad battery batch swap. 

I hope they do the right thing here, and I hope we keep them accountable and not reduce to whataboutism to defend such behavior. 

So fully 6 years between them by 2019, that's crazy to think of the gap left. That a very long time in silicon terms.

The "pro workflow team" is encouraging. I'm hoping for myself it allows a lot of min/maxing, not fixed to relatively high end hardware on all parts like the iMac Pro. I need a lot of CPU for data science, but a GPU goes entirely unused, so I wouldn't need Navi Pro with HBM2 adding to the cost. 

It's interesting, isn't it, that they dedicate significant internal space to that heat pipe for better thermal management. However even so, neither chip (I assume, more testing needed) catches the A11s sustained performance over time. 

Makes me wonder what a heat piped version could do, or let alone an actively cooled one. The Apple TV 4K has an actively cooled A10X which is cool, but with more limited apps and games taking advantage of it, imagine an actively cooled A11X clamshell running iOS or something. I'd actually love to see Apple start small internal studios, or partially fund other studios, to take advantage of the impressive actively cooled chip in the A10X. 

maestro64 said:

it is now coming down to software optimization. pure processor power is not enough, unless the underlining code is optimize around the processor users will never see the performance. Even though the benchmarks try to work directly with the processor they can not they still have to interface with the operating system to execute code on the processor. The only way to eliminate the operating systems is to remove and replace it with the benchmark software which we know is not happening.

This is why Apple has the advantage and will always have the advantage. Google can not optimize their software to work with all the versions of processors.

Apple is shipping the widest ARM cores out there at 6-issue, everyone else is still playing with 4-issue. Nvidia tried 7 but their binary translation attempt made performance too weird. 

Since core complexity goes up exponentially with width, Apple is also spending twice as much silicon per core, or at least were last year as the competition. 

Point being it's not just some ambiguous whole banana optimization, Apple is shipping the most advanced ARM CPU cores in a phone period  regardless of OS. For the Exynos Anandtech does mention it's a pre-release scheduler so some of it could be software, but even if things were perfectly optimized it would not be as good per clock as Apples wide core.