Arm announces the Cortex X4 for 2024, plus a 14-core M2-fighter(arstechnica.com) |
Arm announces the Cortex X4 for 2024, plus a 14-core M2-fighter(arstechnica.com) |
If Microsoft can get Qualcomm to implement some of the same chip tricks Apple pulled off for x86 emulation performance they can use it for a potentially somewhat compelling laptop package. It's a tough ask though, as Qualcomm seems mostly to just use pretty vanilla ARM designs. And I don't expect anyone but Microsoft to be interested in taking that plunge.
As mentioned in the article, you might want to pay attention to the traditional difference between what ARM promises and what it delivers.
> these launch events have a history of making performance claims that don't align with what actually arrives in consumers' hands
So... I would honestly be surprised if anyone tried, at this point. Most of the potential stakeholders don't seem super interested.
> Every year with these Arm flagship chip announcements, the company also includes a wild design for a giant mega-chip that usually never gets built.
That being said, this 14-core figure is when doing a full-Arm SoC (with Arm internal bus). SoC vendors are still allowed (AFAIK [0]) to do their custom interconnect that goes higher than that
[0] there have been rumors seen here that Arm is pushing towards a model where SoC vendors must do all-Arm components. That still sounds weird to me, and I'm not witnessing any actual effect of this, so I still highly doubt it.
Smells like FUD spread by Qualcomm, who are currently in a legal battle with ARM.
No other manufacturer seems to be beholden to the terms that Qualcomm is claiming.
I’m very inclined to say QC are trying to push for sympathy in the tech sphere.
It's sad.
Finding this was helpful to me, as I can never keep track what is a fast (eg, Xeon equiv) type arm chip, and what's a low power embedded (Atom equiv) and what's a laptop / desktop chip.
> but these launch events have a history of making performance claims that don't align with what actually arrives in consumers' hands.
Sigh. Both are factually wrong.
First point, Where the heck did that 63 percent came from? The iPhone 14 is about 38% faster. With much larger die size, and larger cache.
Second point implies ARM is lying. When ARM is the only company that gives precise reading of their benchmarks and ISO performance. How about asking that from any other manufacturers.
My guess is that for hardware you should ignore Ars and only read Anandtech or other site who goes into deep dive. Ars is fast becoming Engadget or just another blog.
He’s woefully technically inept, his articles often have unchecked errors like this and he jumps to bombastic conclusions like the whole Samsung ROM size issue.
Almost certainly, when I see complaints about writing on Ars, it’s a Ron piece.
At this point it would almost be a good idea to bring Peter Bright back to replace him. Almost...
Cloud Computing, Computer Vision, Data Center Solutions, Edge Computing, High Performance Computing, IT Infrastructure, Network Connectivity, Robotics, Security, Broadcasting, Energy & Utilities, Financial Services, Government & Public Sector, Health & Life Sciences, Hospitality & Restaurants, Industrial, Manufacturing, Retail, Smart Cities, Transportation.
Intel, NVIDIA, AMD, Qualcomm, and Arm make devices or design IP for every single one of those sectors. Apples' portfolio is streamlined to just "lifestyle sectors"; stuff people directly interact with in their every day lives. How can you call them the number one chip maker when they don't compete in any of those markets, and even in the one they do they're only superior in performance per watt; not sheer performance benchmarks? Until we start seeing M2 chips in everything from server racks and satellites, I'm inclined to side with Gelsinger on this one.
Because they produce north of 300 million SoCs every year. They may not end up the number one chipmaker every single year but they're in the top ten and depending on other companies' demand vs Apple's demand may end up number one.
[1]: https://www.networkworld.com/article/3688288/amd-gains-share...
[2]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/263444/sales-of-apple-ma...
I don’t have the data, but tech companies are often full of Macs. Sometimes I also see small businesses running iMacs.
It’s no longer the 2000s where group policy is difficult for Macs.
So, pick those metrics, they're certainly pushing large volumes, they're pushing some of the highest performance and some of the most efficient CPUs available.
So, they're #1 in power efficiency, #1 in fanless performance, #1 in Tablets, #1 in Fanless computers, #1 in Mini computers.
The Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 is on TSMC 4nm compared to the A14 on TSMC 5nm.
Also, the Cortex X4 spec projections are based on the second gen TSMC 3nm process node that isn't in volume production yet. If the M3 is announced (as rumored) next week at WWDC on the first gen TSMC 3nm, we'll have some basis for comparison (at least as far as projected specs go).
Tech companies count as consumers, and many consume the Apple product even if it's to their detriment.
Then there are all the electronic devices that have CPUs on them and don't run any kind of Apple related software.
I don't think people appreciate the obscene number of leading edge chips that go into the industrial sectors. I've seen more chips go into a single Industry 4.0 factory than I have to an entire states Micro Center inventory.
And it works every well if you were to judge it by comments on Twitter, HN and Reddit.
Technical people are just as prone to it as anyone else.
>Fabless manufacturing is the design and sale of hardware devices and semiconductor chips while outsourcing their fabrication (or fab) to a specialized manufacturer called a semiconductor foundry. These foundries are typically, but not exclusively, located in the United States, China, and Taiwan
What about other categories
Gaming, Data Center?
I doubt the total chip number for the industry though - Intel alone ships ~100M. But it's clear Apple is very likely the largest manufacturer of CPUs.
* Correction: MediaTek shipped 350M units in 2020 and Qualcomm shipped 319M (due to the Trump embargo on China). So Apple is up there competing with manufacturers that sell their chips to anyone who will buy, but it may not necessarily be the largest.
Manufacturer? Where are Apple's fabs located at?
No? How?
The logic is pretty simple
Chip designers are fabless companies: AMD, Apple, etc.
Chip makers are companies that physically manufacture those CPUs, so TSMC, Intel, etc.
There is edge case if chip maker has some designs that are created in another company's fabs, but is it relevant for this discussion? I dont think.
> By 2021, this migration had become a trend. IDC claimed macOS device use across US enterprises reached 23% while iPhones accounted for 49% of business smartphones and iPads accounted for most tablets used in the workplace.
> especially in American business.
Well more American business can afford spending an extra $1000-2000 on superior hardware* for their employees without thinking about it that much. What's wrong with that?
*comparable laptops for Dell, Lenovo, HP etc. cost not that much less for Macs. What's the difference between a Dell XPS and a Macbook in that regard? Or Dell is also a lifestyle brand?
All I know that huge numbers of employees of both large and small companies regularly use company provided Macs and Iphones for work. Are you actually disputing that? Really?
They publish ads and write all their copy with the intention of framing their products as anything other than a computer.
Apple's just doing age-old value selling, where you promote the benefits of a product rather than the features. See https://blog.hubspot.com/sales/value-based-selling
I doubt Pat Gelsinger does either, since he's publicly stated that Intel would fab Apple Silicon chips at their ARM foundry if/when TSMC goes offline. The guy's just having a laugh by putting an awfully accurate label on a fruit that pays extra to resist labeling.
Maybe he should start caring* otherwise he risk running Intel completely into the ground? After all Apple was one of their largest clients until recently. Then a "lifestyle company" managed to somehow design better CPUs than Intel despite that just being an afterthought for them (since apparently Apple only focuses on the "lifestyle" stuff..).
I find it so fascinating the people get really obsessed by Apple (both in a negative and a positive way).
> I don't really care :)
Well a string of your comments would imply that you could actually care less about Apple.
*(I'm pretty sure he does in non imaginary reality )
I own no stock in Intel or Apple. It's worth discussing to me because it exposes how insecure people are about relying on "lifestyle" companies. Even Intel is a lifestyle company for some people, and those users are equally as pathetic as the people who let Apple, AMD or Nvidia define who they are. If Apple didn't go to such extreme lengths to appear different and look accountable, their staunchest defenders wouldn't have so far to fall.