By: Doug S (foo.delete@this.bar.bar), November 18, 2020 4:02 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Dummond D. Slow (mental.delete@this.protozoa.us) on November 18, 2020 7:58 am wrote:
> Doug S (foo.delete@this.bar.bar) on November 18, 2020 7:44 am wrote:
> >
> > If so, then the only argument is that 4 big cores WITH SMT along with 4 little cores is faster
> > than 4 big cores without SMT and 4 little cores. Which is obvious, but then you could add 4
> > more little cores, or one more big core, to reach that level of performance without all the
> > extra design/verification/security headaches of SMT. Before someone says "but that costs more
> > because the die is bigger", yes, but we're talking about increasing the M1's die size maybe
> > 3% - and for something that will benefit ALL MT loads, not just the ones are helped by SMT.
>
> Oh, the die size argument. Well if adding a core costs so little, why didn't Apple already do it?
Because this is the CPU designed for the lowest end entry level Macs. And incidentally almost certainly the exact same piece of silicon that will be called A14X when it is installed in the next generation iPad Pro early next year.
There will be Apple Silicon CPUs with more cores for higher end Macs, all the way up to the Mac Pro. I'm sure no matter how fast the Mac Pro is, someone will make the argument "it could have been even faster if the big cores had SMT". I suppose whether that question matters depends on whether it ends up clearly faster than any x86 workstation available at any price at the time it is released.
> Doug S (foo.delete@this.bar.bar) on November 18, 2020 7:44 am wrote:
> >
> > If so, then the only argument is that 4 big cores WITH SMT along with 4 little cores is faster
> > than 4 big cores without SMT and 4 little cores. Which is obvious, but then you could add 4
> > more little cores, or one more big core, to reach that level of performance without all the
> > extra design/verification/security headaches of SMT. Before someone says "but that costs more
> > because the die is bigger", yes, but we're talking about increasing the M1's die size maybe
> > 3% - and for something that will benefit ALL MT loads, not just the ones are helped by SMT.
>
> Oh, the die size argument. Well if adding a core costs so little, why didn't Apple already do it?
Because this is the CPU designed for the lowest end entry level Macs. And incidentally almost certainly the exact same piece of silicon that will be called A14X when it is installed in the next generation iPad Pro early next year.
There will be Apple Silicon CPUs with more cores for higher end Macs, all the way up to the Mac Pro. I'm sure no matter how fast the Mac Pro is, someone will make the argument "it could have been even faster if the big cores had SMT". I suppose whether that question matters depends on whether it ends up clearly faster than any x86 workstation available at any price at the time it is released.
