7 ms·

But doesn’t your statement prove that there are decisions and things the user of a node can make which effect the end result? Therefore, is not just process no

But doesn’t your statement prove that there are decisions and things the user of a node can make which effect the end result? Therefore, is not just process node that matters.

grogenaut 4y ago
I think it states that Qualcomm is not competing with apple on the success metrics that this post talks about re catching up, so you can't use it as a comparison. No idea how fast they could hit those specs up if they wanted to (was core to their business)
modeless 4y ago
Obviously you can choose not to aim for the best possible performance in order to reduce costs. But for the companies that are competing for the absolute best performance at any cost, which doesn't include Qualcomm, by far the biggest factor determining that performance is the fabrication technology.
- throw34 4y ago
  That’s an interesting take given this thread because Apple has explicitly stated they don’t prioritize performance, they prioritize performance per watt, which is not the same thing. And that also shows there’s a whole design space here and just focusing on one dimension, process node, is overly simplistic.
  - modeless 4y ago
    Top end performance is power limited, so optimizing for performance per watt is almost the same thing as optimizing for performance.
    - throw34 4y ago
      I’m not sure what point you’re arguing anymore. I’m arguing against this statement. I don’t think it’s true. “ You're looking in the wrong place. The magic comes from TSMC, not Apple.” My point is a good process is necessary but not sufficient to make a part competitive with Apple on performance per watt. There’s a lot of “magic” to go around.
      - xyzzy_plugh 4y ago
        I think the argument is that Apple would have significantly less magic were it not for TSMC, which seems to be correct regardless of process or design (vertical integration).
    - fomine3 4y ago
      Yes. Now every computers tend to be power limited (or say heat limited).

But doesn’t your statement prove that there are decisions and things the user of a node can make which effect the end result? Therefore, is not just process node that matters.

grogenaut 4y ago

I think it states that Qualcomm is not competing with apple on the success metrics that this post talks about re catching up, so you can't use it as a comparison. No idea how fast they could hit those specs up if they wanted to (was core to their business)

modeless 4y ago

Obviously you can choose not to aim for the best possible performance in order to reduce costs. But for the companies that are competing for the absolute best performance at any cost, which doesn't include Qualcomm, by far the biggest factor determining that performance is the fabrication technology.

throw34 4y ago
That’s an interesting take given this thread because Apple has explicitly stated they don’t prioritize performance, they prioritize performance per watt, which is not the same thing. And that also shows there’s a whole design space here and just focusing on one dimension, process node, is overly simplistic.
- modeless 4y ago
  Top end performance is power limited, so optimizing for performance per watt is almost the same thing as optimizing for performance.
  - throw34 4y ago
    I’m not sure what point you’re arguing anymore. I’m arguing against this statement. I don’t think it’s true. “ You're looking in the wrong place. The magic comes from TSMC, not Apple.” My point is a good process is necessary but not sufficient to make a part competitive with Apple on performance per watt. There’s a lot of “magic” to go around.
    - xyzzy_plugh 4y ago
      I think the argument is that Apple would have significantly less magic were it not for TSMC, which seems to be correct regardless of process or design (vertical integration).
  - fomine3 4y ago
    Yes. Now every computers tend to be power limited (or say heat limited).