CPU Wars 2022 - Apple Silicon vs. Intel/AMD

[pshufd]

Those charts are scary though they are fully inline with global macro conditions forecast for the next two years. Micron reported last night:

Micron Technology Inc. executives warned about a semiconductor downturn in late June, but now say that a “sharp and sudden” drop in demand exceeded even those expectations, suggesting the current chip glut could get a lot worse.

Micron reported a worse-than-expected fiscal fourth quarter Thursday, with revenue plunging 23% from last year, but that wasn’t the big miss. Executives guided for $4 billion to $4.5 billion in revenue in the current quarter, more than $1 billion lower than analysts’ expectations, and suggested they could post a loss in the quarter even on an adjusted basis.

Micron earnings suggest the chip downturn could be worse than Wall Street expects

Micron Technology Inc. executives, who warned about a semiconductor downturn in late June, on Thursday described a worse-than-expected drop in business as...

www.marketwatch.com

I really think that Apple's approach with M1 in going first at the low end was the right approach in terms of financial results. I do not expect big sales for a Mac Pro product in the near term and leveraging progress on the Max and Ultra chips for MacBook Pros and Mac Studios; especially going into a global economic hard landing.

 

[diamond.g]

Part of the problem when going to gamer channels to review new parts is that they focus on maximum performance to start with.

That is true, though historically this channel has been all about SFF builds, so they tend to care about thermals a lot. Really this is just showing that AMD is allowing these chips to run as much power as they can thermally handle and if you want to limit the power you tend to not lose as much performance as you would think.

Really how AMD is handling thermals this time around is no different than how Apple does with the M series processors. Now MB makers will have to work on fixing their (historically garbage) fan curves so folks don't get annoyed with the noise (or they can do the sensible thing and go with Noctua silent fans and run at full tilt all the time).

 

[pshufd]

That is true, though historically this channel has been all about SFF builds, so they tend to care about thermals a lot. Really this is just showing that AMD is allowing these chips to run as much power as they can thermally handle and if you want to limit the power you tend to not lose as much performance as you would think.

Really how AMD is handling thermals this time around is no different than how Apple does with the M series processors. Now MB makers will have to work on fixing their (historically garbage) fan curves so folks don't get annoyed with the noise (or they can do the sensible thing and go with Noctua silent fans and run at full tilt all the time).

It makes sense that AMD and Intel seed the review sites with their most expensive parts as they want to generate market buzz with their highest margin products. I am glad that the review sites have at least talked about value for both Intel and AMD. Steve indicated that it looks like AMD is going after the high-end and Intel is going after the low-end. This probably reflects AMD having advantage in parts right now. It will be interesting to see which approach is right over the next year.

 

[diamond.g]

It makes sense that AMD and Intel seed the review sites with their most expensive parts as they want to generate market buzz with their highest margin products. I am glad that the review sites have at least talked about value for both Intel and AMD. Steve indicated that it looks like AMD is going after the high-end and Intel is going after the low-end. This probably reflects AMD having advantage in parts right now. It will be interesting to see which approach is right over the next year.

Plus we still have the 3d V-Cache parts coming on the AMD side and Intel has already teased their KS part.

 

[maflynn]

At full load.

I dont think so

AMD Ryzen 7000 CPUs Reportedly Run Hot, Ryzen 9 7950X Hits Up To 95C Thermal Threshold at 230W, Ryzen 5 7600X Up To 90C at 120W

 

[pshufd]

I dont think so

AMD Ryzen 7000 CPUs Reportedly Run Hot, Ryzen 9 7950X Hits Up To 95C Thermal Threshold at 230W, Ryzen 5 7600X Up To 90C at 120W

I didn't see anything in the article about power at idle. The article also indicated that their testing was done with engineering samples.

 

[diamond.g]

I dont think so

AMD Ryzen 7000 CPUs Reportedly Run Hot, Ryzen 9 7950X Hits Up To 95C Thermal Threshold at 230W, Ryzen 5 7600X Up To 90C at 120W

IIRC Steve's charts are all under load as well. Steve didn't mention idle temps (I'll have to watch the video again to verify).

 

[Tyler O'Bannon]

When it comes to power per watt, Apple is so far ahead that they are essentially unchallenged. This is the metric they will continue to push. They won’t increase power beyond a point of reducing efficiency. The change to 3nm will give a boost to this. Process optimizations across generations will too. Increased cores as well. But, they will keep that power per watt metric at the top of the list.

 

[dumastudetto]

Apple is so far ahead of the competition at this point it will take them generations to catch up, if ever.

 

[pshufd]

When it comes to power per watt, Apple is so far ahead that they are essentially unchallenged. This is the metric they will continue to push. They won’t increase power beyond a point of reducing efficiency. The change to 3nm will give a boost to this. Process optimizations across generations will too. Increased cores as well. But, they will keep that power per watt metric at the top of the list.

I like that they included the 8k video encode/decode in the base M2. I'm not doing 8k video in the next couple of years but the M1 didn't have the encode/decode so I assume that the base M2 will do 4k encode/decode in hardware. My M1 mini doesn't have that though my M1 Pro MacBook Pro does have it. Those are the kinds of improvements that are a lot harder for Intel and AMD to do because they don't control the operating system and applications.

 

[maflynn]

I didn't see anything in the article about power at idle. The article also indicated that their testing was done with engineering samples.

I agree, i said it AMD doesn't consider 95c a problem, people like Jayztwocents and GamerNexus calling 95c the new normal for AMD. I never said that the 7950x runs at 95c at idle i just searched the thread and I don't think I explicitly stated that. What I have said, it quickly goes to 95c. If I did say it, my apologies, my intent was to convey the point like Intel, AMD is pushing the wattage to eke out performance. I think Apple has advantages over those two with that regard.

 

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

When it comes to power per watt, Apple is so far ahead that they are essentially unchallenged. This is the metric they will continue to push. They won’t increase power beyond a point of reducing efficiency. The change to 3nm will give a boost to this. Process optimizations across generations will too. Increased cores as well. But, they will keep that power per watt metric at the top of the list.

Apple is so far ahead of the competition at this point it will take them generations to catch up, if ever.

This is simply not true, if you looked at the reviews. AMD 7950x appear to scores pretty much the same in benchmarks as the M1 Ultra, at the same wattage.

 

[pshufd]

I agree, i said it AMD doesn't consider 95c a problem, people like Jayztwocents and GamerNexus calling 95c the new normal for AMD. I never said that the 7950x runs at 95c at idle i just searched the thread and I don't think I explicitly stated that. What I have said, it quickly goes to 95c. If I did say it, my apologies, my intent was to convey the point like Intel, AMD is pushing the wattage to eke out performance. I think Apple has advantages over those two with that regard.

Intel chips quickly get up on power and thermals. My i7-10700 system runs cool but put a 25% load on the CPU and it gets up there in power consumption really quickly. It will exceed TDP if I put a 50% load on the CPU. I guess that AMD doing this is something new.

 

[ArkSingularity]

Intel chips quickly get up on power and thermals. My i7-10700 system runs cool but put a 25% load on the CPU and it gets up there in power consumption really quickly. It will exceed TDP if I put a 50% load on the CPU. I guess that AMD doing this is something new.

I really kinda miss the days when TDP actually corresponded with the general maximum amount of power the chip would consume. The "base-clock TDP" thing makes everything much more confusing. A 2.3 ghz chip with a 15W TDP is guaranteed to reach 2.3ghz under 15W, but it could use 40W once you fire it up at full blast with turbo.

 

[maflynn]

I guess that AMD doing this is something new.

I think their last set of chips prior to the 7950x started using more power, but now they do seem to be following in Intel's footsteps.

I'd love to see Apple come out with a true desktop cpu that blows the doors off the competition, the M1 Ultra is just two CPUs lashed together. You can do that in the PC world as well, I do understand the interconnect technology used mind blowingly impressive, don't get me wrong. Apple does need to a good follow up to the impressive M1 processor.

 

[pshufd]

I really kinda miss the days when TDP actually corresponded with the general maximum amount of power the chip would consume. The "base-clock TDP" thing makes everything much more confusing. A 2.3 ghz chip with a 15W TDP is guaranteed to reach 2.3ghz under 15W, but it could use 40W once you fire it up at full blast with turbo.

It's a nuisance when you're trying to design a system to be efficient. I think that the Xeons are better for that if your workload is well-threaded.

 

[leman]

This is simply not true, if you looked at the reviews. AMD 7950x appear to scores pretty much the same in benchmarks as the M1 Ultra, at the same wattage.

Where did you get that from? Are you referring to those 65W tests? Keep in mind that AMD's 65W TDP actually means 88W power consumption.

 

[diamond.g]

Hey looks like Optimum Tech has "fixed" their 7000 series CPU...

 

[Ethosik]

This whole idea of efficiency seems to be overblown in one use case-desktops. As long as it is able to be cooled more power use is not a primary concern for individuals but performance is. So if Intel can get more performance than Apple silicon by using more power on the desktop as long as it can be cooled who really cares?

For mobile devices Apple silicon pretty much destroys AMD and Intel. Both AMD and Intel have gotten better and Intel has the most area to be able to improve efficiency but for now Apple silicon has a pretty wide lead being able to deliver great performance and even greater battery life and delivering the same performance while on battery or plugged in.

I think Intel will be in the lead once they can shrink their process node to 7nm or less because of the big little architectural changes they have made to their CPU. The new 12th gen CPU’s are pretty great and deliver better battery life but they are still stuck on a less efficient process node. Once that changes using the same big little architecture they may catch up quickly.

On laptops Apple is king for now. On desktops Intel and AMD are still better and the ability to use a more powerful GPU is also a plus. Interesting times for sure!

I have limited my use of my 12th core i9 and 3080Ti due to my electric bill increasing. Also in the summer I have had to ban my use of that system as my AC couldn’t keep my office cool. This is the trap NVIDIA and Intel are in. Pump more watts and heat to improve.

 

[pshufd]

I have limited my use of my 12th core i9 and 3080Ti due to my electric bill increasing. Also in the summer I have had to ban my use of that system as my AC couldn’t keep my office cool. This is the trap NVIDIA and Intel are in. Pump more watts and heat to improve.

I live in a cold part of the country but the weather in some parts of the US this past summer was very hot. On the west coast, combine that with drought and more expensive hydro and my question is why deal with lower efficiency when you don't have to.

 

[Kimmo]

Interesting discussion.

I'd love to see Apple come out with a true desktop cpu that blows the doors off the competition, the M1 Ultra is just two CPUs lashed together. You can do that in the PC world as well, I do understand the interconnect technology used mind blowingly impressive, don't get me wrong. Apple does need to a good follow up to the impressive M1 processor.

Looking at a possible purchase of a Studio Ultra, I'd love to see Apple produce a version where its GPU's actually scale. From some of the graphs I've seen, the jump from 48 GPU cores to 64 isn't very compelling (especially for the $1,000 price).

I'd also like to see the option of purchasing additional memory in a Studio Max machine.

There are Adobe workflows where a 10 core CPU, 32 core GPU Max would be just fine. The catch is that Adobe is a notorious memory hog and the Max's max memory (64GB) might not be enough.

This is from Lloyd Chambers' Mac Performance Guide:

"The most important advice I can give is this: do not skimp on memory. That Adobe Lightroom was a memory pig to the tune of 74GB just to process 600 files should give pause to anyone contemplating only 64GB (or less)."

There are different types of efficiency and Apple's style of pushing a customer to the more expensive builds to get a certain feature they need (eg. memory) maximizes profitability, but is not terribly efficient, in my opinion.

When it comes to power per watt, Apple is so far ahead that they are essentially unchallenged. This is the metric they will continue to push. They won’t increase power beyond a point of reducing efficiency. The change to 3nm will give a boost to this. Process optimizations across generations will too. Increased cores as well. But, they will keep that power per watt metric at the top of the list.

The efficiency metric is great, especially for machines that run on battery power, but I'm having trouble understanding why it would be the primary criterion (or a top one, or two selling point) for a plugged desktop.

 

[Tyler O'Bannon]

Interesting discussion.

Looking at a possible purchase of a Studio Ultra, I'd love to see Apple produce a version where its GPU's actually scale. From some of the graphs I've seen, the jump from 48 GPU cores to 64 isn't very compelling (especially for the $1,000 price).

I'd also like to see the option of purchasing additional memory in a Studio Max machine.

There are Adobe workflows where a 10 core CPU, 32 core GPU Max would be just fine. The catch is that Adobe is a notorious memory hog and the Max's max memory (64GB) might not be enough.

This is from Lloyd Chambers' Mac Performance Guide:

"The most important advice I can give is this: do not skimp on memory. That Adobe Lightroom was a memory pig to the tune of 74GB just to process 600 files should give pause to anyone contemplating only 64GB (or less)."

There are different types of efficiency and Apple's style of pushing a customer to the more expensive builds to get a certain feature they need (eg. memory) maximizes profitability, but is not terribly efficient, in my opinion.


The efficiency metric is great, especially for machines that run on battery power, but I'm having trouble understanding why it would be the primary criterion (or a top one, or two selling point) for a plugged desktop.

Maybe the desktop chips will become 2x, 4x, even 8x+ variants of mobile chips over time to add juice. Th thermals could certainly handle it due to low power low heat. That, and desktop versions having double the cores of mobile, etc. the desktops definitely have more headroom. Now that apple is designing it all, I bet they have big things in the pipeline over the next few years

 

[Pressure]

This is simply not true, if you looked at the reviews. AMD 7950x appear to scores pretty much the same in benchmarks as the M1 Ultra, at the same wattage.

Are you comparing total package power of the M1 Ultra to just the power draw of the 7950X processor?

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Apple already does this today. The M CPU is overclocked compared to the A14/A15. It also adjusts clock speeds dynamically like any modern CPU.

Apple does not overclock their systems and they don’t provide an interface through which they can be overclocked. They do install chips in different devices with slightly different clock speeds, but all of that is within the very specific parameters for that device. And, while there are a lot of devices of those with the wherewithal to try, no one has gotten any of Apple’s SoC’s to consistently run outside those delivered parameters.

Apple could, in theory, overclock the CPU even more - well past the efficiency sweet spot. However, cool and quiet has been the priority thus far. Perhaps Apple just hasn't gotten around to optimizing the power curve on the Studio. Maybe we will see the SoCs get pushed more when the Mac Pro comes out.

It could be that it’s not an efficiency sweet spot, but, instead an “operational” sweet spot… efficiency is just a byproduct of how they’re forced to design and power a processor of this complexity. Which, when you consider that no one has gotten an Apple Silicon processor to run outside Apple’s parameters, could be a likely case.

All I’m saying is that there’s a quite a large difference between what Intel considers a CPU and what Apple considers a CPU. I wouldn’t assume that Apple could do what Intel does (massively increasing voltage or TDP) and yield increased performance.

 

[kvic]

Are you comparing total package power of the M1 Ultra to just the power draw of the 7950X processor?

I think what you suggested is more than a fair comparison to Apple silicon.

Apple silicon is monolithic and superb efficient. When GPU/NPU/etc not used, they consume close to zero power. Ryzen 7950x due to its chiplet design, the I/O die eats into the power budget in a non-trivial way.

For example, you cap both (M1 Ultra and 7950x) at 65W power limit (not TDP but actual power). M1 Ultra could make almost full use of the 65W power budget for 20 CPU cores. On the other hand, at 65W power budget, the I/O die in 7950x will consume ~15W, leaving behind around 50W for the 16 Zen 4 cores.

Zen 4 is very efficient once off the ramp of the peak power limit (~230W). I won't be surprised if 7950x on par with/if not better than M1 Ultra at the similar power budget.. running Geekbench 5