Hacker News Reader

Comment by deepstack | Hacker News Reader

>>On the Intel front, Apple saw how underperforming, short lasting battery and hot the 12” MacBook was.
Then they saw how performant, long battery lasting and cool their iPad (ARM chip) was.

This became an easy decision for Apple to ditch Intel when they saw how much better their own iPad Pro was relative to the 12” Intel MacBook.

For those who have being using Mac since the PowerPC days all have used this argument against X86 chips. As you all know, Apple actually had to switched from RISC chips to Intel X86 chips, before they switched back to ISAs chips now. Just saying performance is not the main reason to switch chip sets.

View on HN

IBM's PowerPC chips were high performance workstation chips, which means you're going to get performance and heat. In a desktop computer, you can add robust cooling, in an ultra-portable laptop, you cannot.

Apple abandoned PPC after it became obvious that laptops were going to become more popular than desktops, and the G5 cheese grater Mac Pro required liquid cooling for the dual CPU chip versions.

Apple moved from Intel to ARM for the exact same reason. Intel no longer cares about pursuing high performance with a low power draw. They have returned to the Pentium 4 strategy of performance via clock speed and power increases.

I believe the specific reason (as far as Apple disclosed) was that lower performance / higher efficiency PowerPC CPUs just weren't on IBM's roadmap and whatever quantity of CPUs Apple was buying and/or willing to commit to buying wasn't enough for IBM to consider it. Intel was focusing on power efficiency after the whole Netburst disaster.

Have they really gone back to the pentium 4 strategy or are they behind in process node tech and can only compete with AMD’s performance by pumping power into their cpus? I think Intel’s top priority right now is to catch up to Tsmc’s node tech to have as close to performance per watt (or beyond) parity as they can against AMD (and Apple)

>Raptor Lake to Offer ‘Unlimited Power’ Mode for Those Who Don’t Care About Heat, Electric Bills

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/338748-raptor-lake-to-...

If that isn't a return to the Pentium 4 strategy, I don't know what is.

Stop feeding into hyperbole. The 13900k is for maybe 5% of the market, and the non k will give crazy enough performance for most buyers (if they even exist at this point). Giving the 13900 a high heat mode is just for the chance to keep up/beat AMD for bragging rights.

Intel isn’t relying on an architecture thats about to run them into a wall like the Pentium 4’s architecture was about to, what keeping them is second is being behind on their process, and beyond that, execution.

Sorry, but Intel is pretty obviously chasing performance via higher and higher clock speeds and ridiculously high power draws just like they did previously with their Pentium 4 strategy.

You can argue that it's not what they "want" to be doing, but it's certainly what they are doing.

I'm obviously not going to change your mind so you do you

>Intel Raptor Lake boosts performance, but the [power] requirements are staggering

https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/intel-raptor-lake-ma...

What you can't change is the reality of Intel's actions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com