Hacker News Reader

Comment by throw34 | Hacker News Reader

But doesn’t your statement prove that there are decisions and things the user of a node can make which effect the end result? Therefore, is not just process node that matters.

View on HN

Obviously you can choose not to aim for the best possible performance in order to reduce costs. But for the companies that are competing for the absolute best performance at any cost, which doesn't include Qualcomm, by far the biggest factor determining that performance is the fabrication technology.

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.

Top end performance is power limited, so optimizing for performance per watt is almost the same thing as optimizing for performance.

I’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.

I 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).

Yes. Now every computers tend to be power limited (or say heat limited).

I think it states that Qualcomm is not competing with apple on the success metrics that this post talks about re catching up, so you can't use it as a comparison. No idea how fast they could hit those specs up if they wanted to (was core to their business)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com