6 ms·
That’s an interesting take given this thread because Apple has explicitly stated they don’t prioritize performance, they prioritize performance per watt, which
by 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 agoTop end performance is power limited, so optimizing for performance per watt is almost the same thing as optimizing for performance.
- throw34 4y agoI’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 agoI 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 agoYes. Now every computers tend to be power limited (or say heat limited).