bsimpsen

About

Username
bsimpsen
Joined
Visits
102
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
1,343
Badges
1
Posts
408
  • Why Apple uses integrated memory in Apple Silicon -- and why it's both good and bad

    mfryd said:
    melgross said:
    Ok, so the writer gets it wrong, as so many others have when it comes to the M series RAM packaging. One would think that’s this simple thing would be well understood by now. So let me make it very clear - the RAM is NOT on the chip. It is NOT “in the CPU itself”. As we should all know by now, it’s in two packages soldered to the substrate, which is the small board the the SoC is itself soldered to. The lines from Apple’s fabric, which everything on the chip is connected with, extend to that substrate, to the RAM chips. Therefore, the RAM chips are separate from the SoC, and certainly not in the CPU itself. As we also know, Apple offers several different levels of RAM for each M series they sell. That means that there is no limit to their ability to decide how much RAM they can offer, up to the number of memory lines that can be brought out. This is no different from any traditional computer. Every CPU and memory controller has a limit as to how much RAM can be used. So, it seems to me that Apple could, if it wanted to, have sockets for those RAM packages, which add no latency, and would allow exchangeable RAM packages. Apple would just have to extend the maximum number of memory lines out to the socket. How many would get used would depend on the amount of RAM in the package. That’s nothing new. That’s how it’s done. Yes, under that scheme you would have to remove a smaller RAM package when getting a larger one, but that's also normal. The iMac had limited RAM slots and we used to do that all the time. Apple could also add an extra two sockets, in addition to the RAM that comes with the machine. So possibly there would be two packages soldered to the substrate, and two more sockets for RAM expansion. Remember that Apple sometimes does something a specific way, not because that’s the way it has to be done, but because they decided that this was the way they were going to do it. We don’t know where Apple is going with this in the future. It’s possible that the M2, which is really just a bump from the M1, is something to fill in the time while we’re waiting for the M3, which with the 3nm process it’s being built on, is expected to be more than just another bump in performance. Perhaps an extended RAM capability is part of that.
    Actually, moving the memory further away from the CPU does add latency.  Every foot of wire adds about a nanosecond of delay.

    Then there is the issue of how many wires you run.  When the memory is physically close to the CPU you can run more wires from the memory to the CPU, this allows you to get data to/from the CPU faster.   It's not practical to run a large number of wires to a socket that might be a foot or more of cable run away.  That means you transfer less data in each clock cycle.

    Generally socketed memory is on an external bus.  This lets various peripherals directly access memory.  The bus arbitration also adds overhead.


    Traditional CPUs try to overcome these memory bottlenecks by using multiple levels of cache.  This can provide a memory bandwidth performance boost for chunks of recently accessed memory.  However, tasks that use more memory than will fit in the cache, may not benefit from these techniques.

    Apples "System on a Chip" design really does allow much higher memory bandwidth.   Socketing the memory really would reduce performance.
    The trace lengths and widths of PCB memory busses and socket connections are substantially greater than those inside the chip carrier. That adds significant capacitance that must be driven by both the SOC on one end and the memory modules on the other. This takes considerable power. As trace lengths increase, timing skew increases. With clock frequencies approaching 6GHz, a "bit" is approaching one inch in length (PCB signal propagation speed is about C/2). Matching trace lengths is much harder to do as trace length increases. Keeping signals on the PCB also becomes harder as trace lengths approach 1/4 wavelength, turning traces into antennae. There are very good reasons for Apple to take the path they're on. Phones, tablets and laptops are the bulk of the Apple's business and those products don't want server farm memory architectures.
    baconstangAlex1NFileMakerFellerwilliamlondonmfrydkillroytenthousandthingswatto_cobra
  • Skydiver's iPhone survives 14,000-foot fall from a plane

    JP234 said:
    Wondering what the terminal velocity of an iPhone is? Guessing that a fall from 20-25 feet might generate the same impact force as falling from 14,000 feet.
    This isn't the first iPhone to fall from a plane.
    You are not the first person to wonder about terminal velocity.
    I think your guess is in the ballpark.
    The characteristics of the surface the phone lands on are probably the most important for determining survivability.

    https://www.wired.com/2011/04/what-is-the-terminal-velocity-of-an-iphone/
    Anilu_777JP234watto_cobra
  • MacBook Air 15-inch with 'M2-like' chip in testing behind closed doors at Apple

    bsimpsen said:
    Whether the New MacBook Air would have the M2 chip or an enhanced version of an M1 chip is unclear. Perhaps Apple might introduce an M1X processor, similar to various iPad chips.
    Why would Apple revert to M1 anything? That would be a terrible marketing blunder.
    Mac Pro m3x probably not until February 2024. 
    Apple has settled on Mn, Mn Pro, Mn Max and possibly Mn Ultra. Throwing "X" into the mix seems unnecessarily complex.
    Um… I don’t know how to break this to you, but “x” is a commonly used placeholder for an unknown variation (I.e. “ultra,” “extreme,” etc.) 

    so there’s no need for you to spend any more time worrying about complexity. 
    Its quite widely known, though perhaps not to you, that Apple uses "X" to indicate an upgrade to A series processors.
    williamlondonfastasleep9secondkox2
  • MacBook Air 15-inch with 'M2-like' chip in testing behind closed doors at Apple

    Whether the New MacBook Air would have the M2 chip or an enhanced version of an M1 chip is unclear. Perhaps Apple might introduce an M1X processor, similar to various iPad chips.
    Why would Apple revert to M1 anything? That would be a terrible marketing blunder.
    Mac Pro m3x probably not until February 2024. 
    Apple has settled on Mn, Mn Pro, Mn Max and possibly Mn Ultra. Throwing "X" into the mix seems unnecessarily complex.
    9secondkox2seanjwilliamlondonfastasleepTRAGcaladanian
  • Apple VP of industrial design details MacBook Air overhaul

    Beats said:
    I highly disagree with adding an SD card when they could have added an extra USB port. Why please 2% of your users when you can have pleased 98%? This is Apple
    going backwards post-Jony.

    You can always find a USB-C to SD adapter but try to find an SD Card to USB-C Cable.
    After years of lugging around a USB SD adapter, I can finally leave it home. I am routinely in the field with my MacBook Pro, a drone, and my camera. I can now move cards between them without hassle. Back at my desk, I need only one USB/Thunderbolt port for my dock.

    I might be in the 2%, but so are 100% of my colleagues.
    williamlondonFileMakerFellerBeatsspock1234d_2