Why Intel and AMD don't make chips like the M2 Max and M2 Ultra

[leman]

And I said, Apple has to use the most advanced lithography to compete with old tech. You said it to yourself, A17 is close to 12900K. 2 gen differences.


So is it good that Apple has to use 2 gen advanced tech to compete with old tech? Ironic.

You see, your argument failed after all.

I'm facepalming so hard right now.

"Wow, they made a scooter that goes as fast as a Concorde!" - "lame, Concorde was so 1970-ties..."

Dune, you are comparing a smartphone — a smartphone! — to a top enthusiast-class desktop CPU. I honestly can't say whether you are being ridiculous just to annoy us (who are tying to have a constructive conversation) or whether you tunnel vision has finally reached levels where you have completely lost any connection to reality.

 

[Basic75]

you can still increase your throughput by running that task multiple times

That's only true for very specific workloads. In all other cases it's not true. If the only thing you are interested in is a workload that scales near perfectly then that's good for you, but not representative.

 

[MRMSFC]

I’d be interested in your opinion as to why intel has failed so badly?

I’ll get the runaround on this, it’ll be something along the lines of “Intel didn’t fail, they still have the performance of a phone chip using an inferior node and using the power of a small gas generator!”

Clearly the superior processor.

And then any rebuttal in good faith will be responded with a laughing face emoji.

 

[Basic75]

As for a Mac with 16 or 24 e cores, I'd take it if I had a job for it.

That would be slower than a Mac with 4 P-cores for all everyday interactive applications including web browsing. And as for serious jobs, my work benefits both from high single-threaded and high multi-threaded performance. Sometimes I can only use 1 core, other times I could saturate up to a few dozen.

 

[sunny5]

So you confirmed that Intel is two generations behind and still can’t compete with Apple’s performance per watt?

Or are you saying that using newer technology is a failure? In that case I assume intel wont be moving to a newer node? That would be a failure right?


I’d be interested in your opinion as to why intel has failed so badly?

Yet, you just confirm that A17 is 2 generation behind than Intel in terms of performance. You see, Apple has to use 3nm to compete with Intel 7 in terms of performance. I'm not gonna waste my time on someone who can't understand what they are saying.

 

[bobcomer]

How much slower would you accept a multi core machine?

That's way to broad a question in one way (how many cores), and not broad enough in another (the job of the PC).

If you're talking 2 fast core version over 8 slower cores, general purpose user's computer computer running a real OS like Windows or MacOS, maybe 50% slower (each core). I'd, of course, would always like them to be faster cores, but this is just what I'd take if I had the choice of only a 2 faster core machine, or an 8 50% speed slower cores machine! Kind of how Apple likes their M series chips, lots of fast cores. <g>

 

[APCX]

Yet, you just confirm that A17 is 2 generation behind than Intel in terms of performance.

So you‘re confirming Intel has fallen behind the state of the art in terms of process node? I’m really curious what happened to cause such a failure.

You see, Apple has to use 3nm to compete with Intel 7 in terms of performance.

So Intel has to goose the power to compete with Apple’s superior technology and design, efficiency. Interesting thank you.

I'm not gonna waste my time on someone who can't understand what they are saying.

No need to get upset. I’m just trying to understand your statements as to why Intel has failed so badly.

 

[bobcomer]

That would be slower than a Mac with 4 P-cores for all everyday interactive applications including web browsing.

There is a huge difference between 2 fast cores and 4 fast cores. Moving the goalposts really makes a difference. Not to mention we didn't set out just how much slower each core was.

 

[APCX]

That's way to broad a question in one way (how many cores), and not broad enough in another (the job of the PC).

If you're talking 2 fast core version over 8 slower cores, general purpose user's computer computer running a real OS like Windows or MacOS, maybe 50% slower (each core). I'd, of course, would always like them to be faster cores, but this is just what I'd take if I had the choice of only a 2 faster core machine, or an 8 50% speed slower cores machine! Kind of how Apple likes their M series chips, lots of fast cores. <g>

For example, would you prefer 1 5ghz cpu or 2 2.5ghz cpus?

 

[bobcomer]

That's only true for very specific workloads. In all other cases it's not true. If the only thing you are interested in is a workload that scales near perfectly then that's good for you, but not representative.

I disagree quite a bit on that comment, it works for more workloads than it doesn't. And it doesn't have to scale perfectly, nothing scales that well on a multipurpose machine. And it doesn't have to be near perfectly -- just more throughput over the same timeframe.

 

[bobcomer]

For example, would you prefer 1 5ghz cpu or 2 2.5ghz cpus?

Still too hard a question, how any cores in each, and how many threads. What kind of cores too, that makes just as much a difference as the Ghz.

It's really nonsensical anyway, just take my word that I'd generally choose multicore over single core every time. Even the iPhone has more than a single core, and for a reason.

You can, of course, chose whichever core combination you like, it doesn't make a difference to me. The things I say here are what matters to me and the job I do, and have been doing for quite a few years over many types of computers.

 

[APCX]

Still too hard a question, how any cores in each, and how many threads. What kind of cores too, that makes just as much a difference as the Ghz.

It's really nonsensical anyway, just take my word that I'd generally choose multicore over single core every time. Even the iPhone has more than a single core, and for a reason.

You can, of course, chose whichever core combination you like, it doesn't make a difference to me. The things I say here are what matters to me and the job I do, and have been doing for quite a few years over many types of computers.

Let me be more specific. One 5ghz core vs Two 2.5ghz cores. Everything else is the same.

No one is telling you what you should use or not. The topic is about technical aspects of computer cores and as such personal preferences have no basis for discussion in this topic. Let’s try and keep this factual.

 

[bobcomer]

Let me be more specific. One 5ghz core vs Two 2.5ghz cores. Everything else is the same.

No one is telling you what you should use or not. The topic is about technical aspects of computer cores and as such personal preferences have no basis for discussion in this topic. Let’s try and keep this factual.

Okay, assuming the same kind of cores, just different clocks, I'd take the 2 2.5Ghz cores.

 

[APCX]

Okay, assuming the same kind of cores, just different clocks, I'd take the 2 2.5Ghz cores.

Oof.

 

[bobcomer]

Oof.

So tell me what is the trend for general purpose computers? Single core or multicore?

When I first started working with computers there wasn't any multicore machines, and the first ones I ever saw had to have a special OS to use those cores, not general purpose machines.

Yet, now we have 8 cores being the average that I've seen, and going way, way, up from there, into hundreds of cores. Now just why would that be, hmmmmm. Could it be that multicore makes a huge difference in a modern workload...

 

[leman]

Okay, assuming the same kind of cores, just different clocks, I'd take the 2 2.5Ghz cores.

So, in other works, you prefer to take the bus twice rather than be done in one trip. Got you.

 

[APCX]

So tell me what is the trend for general purpose computers? Single core or multicore?

When I first started working with computers there wasn't any multicore machines, and the first ones I ever saw had to have a special OS to use those cores, not general purpose machines.

Yet, now we have 8 cores being the average that I've seen, and going way, way, up from there, into hundreds of cores. Now just why would that be, hmmmmm. Could it be that multicore makes a huge difference in a modern workload...

You’re description is the perfect explanation for why you are wrong

The trend is multicore (in consumer computing) BECAUSE companies were unable to continue to sustain the doubling of performance every 18 months or so that lasted until the early/mid 2000s. If Intel/AMD had been able to do that, it’s very unlikely we would have had 2+ cores in consumer machines. In almost every situation, the single core machine with a much higher speed is better than the multicore one. It’s simpler, and applicable to every app.

Of course, they weren’t able to sustain the improvement in single core scores, so here we are. Obviously now meaningful improvement requires multiple cores.

 

[bobcomer]

So, in other works, you prefer to take the bus twice rather than be done in one trip. Got you.

You're thinking linearly, not the way a modern, general use, computer works.

That's not a good analogy at all. A better one is I'd prefer to get more work done in the same amount of time. Or to go with busses, I'd prefer to take less time getting there.

 

[bobcomer]

You’re description is the perfect explanation for why you are wrong

lol. You're actually proving me right, that multicore is the way to go.

Of course, they weren’t able to sustain the improvement in single core scores, so here we are. Obviously now meaningful improvement requires multiple cores.

Ding, ding, ding...

 

[APCX]

lol. You're actually proving me right, that multicore is the way to go.

Please read it again.

Ding, ding, ding...

Not really. The discussion was about the importance of single core. You dismissed it and said multicore was more important. That’s totally wrong. As shown to you, multi core is a work around for the industry's inability to increase single core improvements at the same scale they used to.

 

[APCX]

You're thinking linearly, not the way a modern, general use, computer works.

That's not a good analogy at all. A better one is I'd prefer to get more work done in the same amount of time. Or to go with busses, I'd prefer to take less time getting there.

It’s a very good analogy. Im not sure you understood it.

 

[bobcomer]

Not really. The discussion was about the importance of single core. You dismissed it and said multicore was more important. That’s totally wrong. As shown to you, multi core is a work around for the industry's inability to increase single core improvements at the same scale they used to.

Like I said before, since when does a thread here stick to the original topic. That's an irrelevant complaint, don't like it, don't argue it. I got in this thread because I didn't agree with that point *at all*, and I haven't seen anything to change my mind.

And to prove me wrong about single core, you would have to be able to prove that a single core processor can do more work than a multicore processor (generally).

 

[bobcomer]

It’s a very good analogy. Im not sure you understood it.

I'm not sure you understand multitasking and threading.

 

[APCX]

Like I said before, since when does a thread here stick to the original topic.

The fact that some can’t keep to a topic, is not a reason for you to do so.

That's an irrelevant complaint, don't like it, don't argue it. I got in this thread because I didn't agree with that point

With respect, you haven’t shown you comprehend the point.

*at all*, and I haven't seen anything to change my mind.

Is your mind capable of changing?

And to prove me wrong about single core, you would have to be able to prove that a single core processor can do more work than a multicore processor (generally).

Given the efficiencies in dividing work, dependencies and other issues. I can assure you, for anything you use a computer for, one 5ghz core will be faster than two 2.5ghz cores.

 

[leman]

You're thinking linearly, not the way a modern, general use, computer works.

That's not a good analogy at all. A better one is I'd prefer to get more work done in the same amount of time. Or to go with busses, I'd prefer to take less time getting there.

Two 2.5Ghz cores are not going to get more work done than a single 5Ghz core. In an ideal scenario, you’d get the same amount of work done. At worst, you’d get half that.

You are applying the pattern out of context instead of thinking about cause and effect. As @APCX explained, we only have multi-core CPUs because our ability to build fast single-core CPUs has hit a wall.