By: Anon (no.delete@this.spam.com), June 2, 2022 12:35 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Eric Fink (eric.delete@this.anon.com) on June 2, 2022 12:20 am wrote:
> I would agree with everything you said, but there is still the fact that M1 — while prioritising
> power consumption — is essentially reaching identical performance as the x86 chips. Sure, binned
> desktop Alder Lake is marginally faster (~20% , but it also pays a significant ~5x penalty in power
> consumption to get at most ~20% higher ST performance. So I am not sure about the accuracy of the statement
> that Apple prioritises power over performance — kind of seems to me that Apple gets both.
Apple is using TSMC 5nm while Intel is using 10nm which they call 7nm and AMD uses TSMC's 7nm, and both Intel Intel and AMD supports SMT.
So, yes, Apple achieve almost the same performance at much lower power, but because they have power advantage and Intel and AMD are willing to use A LOT of extra power to get 20% single thread.
Zen 4 will be more apples-to-Apple comparison, at least on throughput, where perf per watt is what matters.
> I would agree with everything you said, but there is still the fact that M1 — while prioritising
> power consumption — is essentially reaching identical performance as the x86 chips. Sure, binned
> desktop Alder Lake is marginally faster (~20% , but it also pays a significant ~5x penalty in power
> consumption to get at most ~20% higher ST performance. So I am not sure about the accuracy of the statement
> that Apple prioritises power over performance — kind of seems to me that Apple gets both.
Apple is using TSMC 5nm while Intel is using 10nm which they call 7nm and AMD uses TSMC's 7nm, and both Intel Intel and AMD supports SMT.
So, yes, Apple achieve almost the same performance at much lower power, but because they have power advantage and Intel and AMD are willing to use A LOT of extra power to get 20% single thread.
Zen 4 will be more apples-to-Apple comparison, at least on throughput, where perf per watt is what matters.
