Apple's Chip Lab: Now 15 Years Old With Thousands of Engineers (cnbc.com) 68
"As of this year, all new Mac computers are powered by Apple's own silicon, ending the company's 15-plus years of reliance on Intel," according to a new report from CNBC.
"Apple's silicon team has grown to thousands of engineers working across labs all over the world, including in Israel, Germany, Austria, the U.K. and Japan. Within the U.S., the company has facilities in Silicon Valley, San Diego and Austin, Texas..." The latest A17 Pro announced in the iPhone 15 Pro and Pro Max in September enables major leaps in features like computational photography and advanced rendering for gaming. "It was actually the biggest redesign in GPU architecture and Apple silicon history," said Kaiann Drance, who leads marketing for the iPhone. "We have hardware accelerated ray tracing for the first time. And we have mesh shading acceleration, which allows game developers to create some really stunning visual effects." That's led to the development of iPhone-native versions from Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed Mirage, The Division Resurgence and Capcom's Resident Evil 4.
Apple says the A17 Pro is the first 3-nanometer chip to ship at high volume. "The reason we use 3-nanometer is it gives us the ability to pack more transistors in a given dimension. That is important for the product and much better power efficiency," said the head of Apple silicon, Johny Srouji . "Even though we're not a chip company, we are leading the industry for a reason." Apple's leap to 3-nanometer continued with the M3 chips for Mac computers, announced in October. Apple says the M3 enables features like 22-hour battery life and, similar to the A17 Pro, boosted graphics performance...
In a major shift for the semiconductor industry, Apple turned away from using Intel's PC processors in 2020, switching to its own M1 chip inside the MacBook Air and other Macs. "It was almost like the laws of physics had changed," Ternus said. "All of a sudden we could build a MacBook Air that's incredibly thin and light, has no fan, 18 hours of battery life, and outperformed the MacBook Pro that we had just been shipping." He said the newest MacBook Pro with Apple's most advanced chip, the M3 Max, "is 11 times faster than the fastest Intel MacBook Pro we were making. And we were shipping that just two years ago." Intel processors are based on x86 architecture, the traditional choice for PC makers, with a lot of software developed for it. Apple bases its processors on rival Arm architecture, known for using less power and helping laptop batteries last longer.
Apple's M1 in 2020 was a proving point for Arm-based processors in high-end computers, with other big names like Qualcomm — and reportedly AMD and Nvidia — also developing Arm-based PC processors. In September, Apple extended its deal with Arm through at least 2040.
Since Apple first debuted its homegrown semiconductors in 2010 in the iPhone 4, other companies started pursuing their own custom semiconductor development, including Amazon, Google, Microsoft and Tesla.
CNBC reports that Apple is also reportedly working on its own Wi-Fi and Bluetooth chip. Apple's Srouji wouldn't comment on "future technologies and products" but told CNBC "we care about cellular, and we have teams enabling that."
"Apple's silicon team has grown to thousands of engineers working across labs all over the world, including in Israel, Germany, Austria, the U.K. and Japan. Within the U.S., the company has facilities in Silicon Valley, San Diego and Austin, Texas..." The latest A17 Pro announced in the iPhone 15 Pro and Pro Max in September enables major leaps in features like computational photography and advanced rendering for gaming. "It was actually the biggest redesign in GPU architecture and Apple silicon history," said Kaiann Drance, who leads marketing for the iPhone. "We have hardware accelerated ray tracing for the first time. And we have mesh shading acceleration, which allows game developers to create some really stunning visual effects." That's led to the development of iPhone-native versions from Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed Mirage, The Division Resurgence and Capcom's Resident Evil 4.
Apple says the A17 Pro is the first 3-nanometer chip to ship at high volume. "The reason we use 3-nanometer is it gives us the ability to pack more transistors in a given dimension. That is important for the product and much better power efficiency," said the head of Apple silicon, Johny Srouji . "Even though we're not a chip company, we are leading the industry for a reason." Apple's leap to 3-nanometer continued with the M3 chips for Mac computers, announced in October. Apple says the M3 enables features like 22-hour battery life and, similar to the A17 Pro, boosted graphics performance...
In a major shift for the semiconductor industry, Apple turned away from using Intel's PC processors in 2020, switching to its own M1 chip inside the MacBook Air and other Macs. "It was almost like the laws of physics had changed," Ternus said. "All of a sudden we could build a MacBook Air that's incredibly thin and light, has no fan, 18 hours of battery life, and outperformed the MacBook Pro that we had just been shipping." He said the newest MacBook Pro with Apple's most advanced chip, the M3 Max, "is 11 times faster than the fastest Intel MacBook Pro we were making. And we were shipping that just two years ago." Intel processors are based on x86 architecture, the traditional choice for PC makers, with a lot of software developed for it. Apple bases its processors on rival Arm architecture, known for using less power and helping laptop batteries last longer.
Apple's M1 in 2020 was a proving point for Arm-based processors in high-end computers, with other big names like Qualcomm — and reportedly AMD and Nvidia — also developing Arm-based PC processors. In September, Apple extended its deal with Arm through at least 2040.
Since Apple first debuted its homegrown semiconductors in 2010 in the iPhone 4, other companies started pursuing their own custom semiconductor development, including Amazon, Google, Microsoft and Tesla.
CNBC reports that Apple is also reportedly working on its own Wi-Fi and Bluetooth chip. Apple's Srouji wouldn't comment on "future technologies and products" but told CNBC "we care about cellular, and we have teams enabling that."
Enabling (Score:1)
I wonder what sort of other things they are enabling.
Re:Enabling (Score:4, Interesting)
VR and AI seem like they will be the biggest future demand for CPU power. Beyond that, increased battery life/lighter and thinner laptop could be a big one.
Re: (Score:1)
ML, photos, video, .... privacy (Score:2)
VR and AI seem like they will be the biggest future demand for CPU power. Beyond that, increased battery life/lighter and thinner laptop could be a big one.
When not interpreting the the GP's "enabling" as a joke, look outside the traditional CPU and GPU. For example the Neural engine. As you indicate there is the ML support in there. There is also a bit of image processing support, correcting the brightness in photos, some motion stabilization for videos, etc. IIRC there is dedicated hardware for this, not merely GPU code.
Its also interesting to note that the apple watch has a neural engine, however it is restricted to smaller ML models. However it can hand
Had To Re-Read The Headline (Score:4, Funny)
billions and billions (Score:2)
The M3 Max has over 90 billion transistors, which is more than the number of neurons in the human brain (86 billion). Of course neurons are more powerful than transistors. Also most of them are in the cerebellum (50 billion). That's right, you only use 42% of your brain (about 36 billion neurons in the cerebrum). The "small brain" (cerebellum) contains more than half of the neurons in the brain. They are very small.
Its not about how big is .... (Score:3)
The M3 Max has over 90 billion transistors ...
Its not about how big is the transistor count, its about how you use them. And Apple customers are smiling. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a huge fan of the macOS, but I give Apple credit for designing an ARM-based CPU/GPU chip that gives Intel and AMD a challenge.
I might be tempted to try out an M3-based Windows machine running an optimized version of Windows natively rather than virtualized or emulated. It would be interesting to see how the performance compares to an Intel/AMD machine without all the Intel Management Engine/AMD Platform Security Processor overhead.
* Would that lead to more or less security vulnerabilities in a Wind
Re: (Score:3)
I run the ARM64 version of Windows 11 under Parallels Desktop on my M2 Max MBP, and it's impressively smooth for normal desktop use like web browsing and Microsoft Teams. (I haven't tried gaming, but I expect that would not be so impressive.) I don't think anyone has an incentive to port Windows to run directly on the hardware, and Windows will have its security problems mostly by virtue of being Windows -- virtualization is an effective way to sandbox those. So if you can live with virtualization, the f
Removing the "PC or Mac" question is BIG. (Score:2)
I don't think anyone has an incentive to port Windows to run directly on the hardware
Apple sales doubled when they removed the "PC or Mac" question by introducing Boot Camp and allowing Windows to run natively on Mac hardware. Windows running natively on Mac hardware, Intel or ARM, makes picking a Mac over a PC so much easier. Legacy Intel software is not the issue it was is WinNT 4 days when MS support PowerPC and Alpha, Microsoft has a Intel binary to ARM binary translator just like Apple. So legacy software will be running natively on the hardware as well, its a little less efficient tha
Re: (Score:2)
While Boot Camp was useful for some people, I'd peg it as a niche feature. It seems more likely the Intel portables were a serious upgrade from the stagnating G4 line. Similarly M1 sales were good, those machines presenting attractive upgrades from older Macs, despite losing the ability to run x86 operating systems.
I looked and couldn't find any details on adoption of Boot Camp. Could be I'm wrong, but I don't imagine anything but a minority of users wanting to dual-boot macOS and Windows. Certainly losing
Re: (Score:2)
While Boot Camp was useful for some people, I'd peg it as a niche feature.
Keep in mind its not merely about Boot Camp actually being used. Its about Boot Camp being there, just in case. Its about the removal of the PC or Mac question, formerly a barrier to buying Mac.
It seems more likely the Intel portables were a serious upgrade from the stagnating G4 line.
The switch to Intel and the ability to run Windows via Boot Camp were BOTH important to sales. However without Boot Camp there still was the "PC or Mac" barrier. Without Boot Camp the switch to Intel would have kept existing Mac users on Mac, but would not really cause many PC users to switch. It was Boot Camp that r
Re: (Score:2)
>Keep in mind it's not merely about Boot Camp actually being used. It's about Boot Camp being there, just in case. It's about the removal of the PC or Mac question, formerly a barrier to buying Mac.
>The switch to Intel and the ability to run Windows via Boot Camp were BOTH important to sales. However without Boot Camp there still was the "PC or Mac" barrier. Without Boot Camp the switch to Intel would have kept existing Mac users on Mac, but would not really cause many PC users to switch. It was Boot
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, that likely was a factor for some people. My point is that I don't see evidence it was the big factor. Look at market share. Back in 2006 when the Intel transition began, Apple wasn't in the global top five for computers shipped since the mid 90s. It was only in 2015 they made an appearance with 7.2%.
The timing of a switch from PC hardware to Mac hardware isn't really tied to Apple's introduction of new products, it has more to do with a person thinking they need to replace their current PC. PCs and Macs are so incredibly overpowered for what most people do that they last a long time. A 7 or 8 year old PC or Mac is kind of common.
I also think you need to look at the number of Macs sold not marketshare. It the number of Windows users is growing faster than the number of Mac users then Apple can be sel
Re: (Score:2)
>The timing of a switch from PC hardware to Mac hardware isn't really tied to Apple's introduction of new products, it has more to do with a person thinking they need to replace their current PC. PCs and Macs are so incredibly overpowered for what most people do that they last a long time. A 7 or 8 year old PC or Mac is kind of common.
Agreed, and that's my point. I don't think Boot Camp or its loss is particularly significant in terms of sales.
>I also think you need to look at the number of Macs sold
Re: (Score:2)
While you can run Mac native software incredibly well, virtualising x86 is nowhere near what it was on x86 hardware.
There is no virtualization. Both Apple and Microsoft convert native x86 code to native ARM code, binary to binary conversion. A full one-time conversion on first execution. The resulting apps are completely normal native ARM apps. Just a little less efficient than if they had been compiled from source code.
Virtualization only occurs when you are running ARM Windows in an emulator, ie Windows is running as an app under macOS. That has more to do with the protected mode operations that operating systems mu
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, binary translation works pretty well on macOS. I've only rarely seen software that's unusable.
I meant virtualisation. Although the virtualisation framework is coming alone, it has some annoying limitations that prevent the kind of testing I was able to do with virtualised macOS.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel like the utility of Boot Camp went away once VMs reached a point where the hosted OS doesn't take a huge performance hit from running virtually. At that point, it doesn't make sense to have to reboot just to get into a different OS when I can just run it along with everything else in the same session.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel like the utility of Boot Camp went away once VMs reached a point where the hosted OS doesn't take a huge performance hit from running virtually. At that point, it doesn't make sense to have to reboot just to get into a different OS when I can just run it along with everything else in the same session.
This is certainly true to a degree. If you don't have to emulate a CPU architecture, host and vm use the same CPU, then virtual machines often becomes practical. However there are still some hurdles. You may need to upgrade RAM to get reasonable performance. Some apps don't work under emulation. Video games, if they run, will probably be better under Boot Camp. If its a high performance app in general you may be better off in Boot Camp.
Like I mentioned elsewhere, Boot Camp may simply be a security blanke
Re: (Score:2)
Who's going to develop graphics drivers that work well under some other OS? Apple doesn't want to undercut their macOS ecosystem, and doesn't want to share the details of their graphics architecture (or other hardware) that would allow anyone else to do that. Apple Silicon hardware already supports bring-your-own boot images -- it is what Asahi Linux uses -- but Apple doesn't share the details to let anyone do useful things with that, and doesn't actively support other OSes either. Those are major impedi
Re: (Score:2)
Who's going to develop graphics drivers that work well under some other OS?
Apple has been doing such drivers for Windows for decades.
Apple doesn't want to undercut their macOS ecosystem ...
Any system needing such Apple drivers is a Mac sold by Apple. They are not undercutting their ecosystem.
Boot Camp does not replace macOS, it complements macOS, it increases the capabilities of Mac hardware.
Boot Camp makes it easier to bring new people into the Apple ecosystem by removing incompatibility fears.
Apple Silicon hardware already supports bring-your-own boot images
Boot Camp is more than that. It manages updating the disc partitions, the Windows installation, and adds Apple drivers. It makes the proces
Re: (Score:3)
That's right, you only use 42% of your brain (about 36 billion neurons in the cerebrum)
I assure you, you use the rest of them too.
Re: (Score:1)
I think the "you only use x% of your brain" claim mostly originates from the fact that a lot of your brain is busy doing stuff like running your body and making your autonomous muscles move, as opposed to doing stuff that we consider to be part of consciousness. I wouldn't want to do without it, but if you are trying to come up with a General AI that has the equivalence of human consciousness and thought, you probably don't need as many neurons and synapses as a healthy human brain, since you wouldn't need
Re: (Score:3)
The whole "General AI" thing is a red herring. What people actually are looking for is "human-like AI", which is not general in the slightest, but highly adapted to our physical surroundings. And we approach everything from that "training", whic
Re: (Score:2)
The whole "General AI" thing is a red herring. What people actually are looking for is "human-like AI", which is not general in the slightest, but highly adapted to our physical surroundings.
Forgetting the A part of AI for now. Yep, intelligence is a mixed bag. There's definitely a bunch of fixed purpose hacks in there (for example time to contact vision goes via a different and shorter neural circuit than the rest of the vision processing parts of your brain, to the point where people blinded by certain br
Re: (Score:2)
At some point though I reckon it gets easier to evolve
There's simply no such thing happening. There is no selection pressure to go beyond being adapted to the physical world.
A flock of sheep for example at their current level of evolution could never make any.
Yeah... not the point I was making.
We are slaves to the physical world, and we need computers with software that doesn't have a need to deal with physical representations to do the maths for us. To transcend our blindspots developed from physical intuition, which even the top mathematicians and physicists suffer from. They haven't managed to make real progress on String Theory or Loop Q
Re: (Score:2)
There's simply no such thing happening. There is no selection pressure to go beyond being adapted to the physical world.
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Evolution is never going to push things beyond what help for being adapted to the physical world, but after a certain point abstract reasoning assists problem solving in the physical world.
To transcend our blindspots developed from physical intuition, which even the top mathematicians and physicists suffer from. They haven't managed to make rea
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Even the vast majority of your "thinking" neurons in your brain do not participate in the production of consciousness. The "unconscious" neurons are programmed when you do things repeatedly (like opening a door or doing math problems) by creating and reinforcing paths, so there need to be a lot more of those compared to the "consciousness" participating neurons.
I find it fascinating that your conscious brain literally writes programs into the unconscious brain, which are then quickly executed later. Turns
Re: (Score:1)
Well, YOU do. :P
HE probably not
Re: (Score:2)
Each neuron is probably like a few hundred transistors of computation.
Right scenario, wrong players (Score:1)
The day China decides to overrun Taiwan and pop an EMP over the horizon
First of all, it's the U.S. that is going to be popping the EMP [eurasiantimes.com] in your scenario.
Secondly the U.S. and TSMC are trying kind of hard to get a TSMC plant going in America [theguardian.com]... so then it would not matter as much if Taiwan was overrun. If China was indeed it might fast-track the plant and aquision of the people TSMC needs.
Re: (Score:1)
First of all, it's the U.S. that is going to be popping the EMP [eurasiantimes.com] in your scenario.
And that's why all the "China is going to start a war for reasons" crowd on Slashdot are a bunch of morons who don't understand anything beyond video game and movie plots and childish Cold War "China is communist and it wants world domination" analysis.
The technology at TSMC is probably the most valuable thing China could get from Taiwan. Even if they destroy it, the knowledge exists in the West. So all that means is the West would be set back by a few years, while China loses access to decades of catch-
Re: (Score:1)
Is this coming from the same crowd who swore it made no sense that Russia would ever invade Ukraine?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, yes it is.
The "US will pop an EMP" theory is built entirely on the suggestion by one random member of the US's lower chamber of legislature suggesting that the US threaten to do that as a deterrent against mainland China actually invading Taiwan. The only notable achievement of said Representative seems to be earning one sarcastic Mean Tweet:
The Dow is down 573 points on the news that Representative Seth Moulton, whoever that may be, has dropped out of the 2020 Presidential Race!
Re: (Score:2)
I figured. These people are simultaneously completely sure of themselves and ready to believe anything that sounds clever on the surface.
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans are the ones who doesn't think Russia is doing anything wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah, Republicans are doing our usual "just bash whatever thing your political opponents are doing" that both sides do. It's how we make policy these days.
Biden is fighting a cowardly, half-assed war in Ukraine, as is his usual approach (see his almost impossibly incompetent Afghanistan pullout). Russia is NOT ever going to start WW3 over Ukraine. Putin doesn't want to die, and he's not insane. We should have told Putin very publicly that Russian boots on Ukrainian soil were a red line and we'd stop
Controversy about US ability to fight in Pacific (Score:2)
But even what little he's [Biden] doing in Ukraine is too much, if you listen to the Trump aligned, stupid wing of the Republican Party since the beginning of 2023.
Wrong. Their objection is two-fold. (1) Europe should be taking on more of the financial burden. (2) The US should not be depleting its inventory of munitions this heavily, we have to split our resources for simultaneous wars in Europe and the Pacific (oh, add the Middle East to that).
The reality is that it was a Republican administration that first sent lethal aid to Ukraine after the 2015 invasion. It was a Republican administration that approved of engaging and killing hundred of Russian Wagner Group
Re: (Score:2)
(1) Europe should be taking on more of the financial burden
Europe is taking on nearly ALL the financial burden. Are you really that fucking stupid that you don't know how bad it is over there economically due to the war and Russia's energy blackmail? You can't POSSIBLY be that ignorant!
No, the reason the usual Trumpites are parroting this point is they're ignorant AF and are just swallowing simplistic Russian propaganda out of pure partisanship.
(2) The US should not be depleting its inventory of munitions this heavily, we have to split our resources for simultaneous wars in Europe and the Pacific (oh, add the Middle East to that).
Again, you're a FUCKING moron operating entirely on simplistic political talking points. Virtually all the artillery munitions we have sent to Ukraine were ancient and in the process of being disposed of already. Getting to use them against Russia was massive positive. In any case, the freedom of tens of millions of people is worth 0.1% of our GDP!
The reality is that it was a Republican administration that first sent lethal aid to Ukraine after the 2015 invasion. It was a Republican administration that approved of engaging and killing hundred of Russian Wagner Group mercenaries in Syria.
And that's why you support fighting that and not Ukraine. It was a Republican administration and you'll confirm your bias every chance you get.
Re: (Score:2)
(1) Europe should be taking on more of the financial burden
Europe is taking on nearly ALL the financial burden.
Wrong. The US is paying for about 42% of the aid.
https://www.statista.com/chart... [statista.com]
Are you really that fucking stupid that you don't know how bad it is over there economically due to the war and Russia's energy blackmail? You can't POSSIBLY be that ignorant!
Europe is not a monolithic block. Some countries bear a greater burden than others. Are Ukraine's immediate neighbors, say Poland, doing their share. Yes. However as we move further west, less so.
And the fact remains that the US must maintain capabilities for a major conflict in the Pacific, unlike NATO.
No, the reason the usual Trumpites are parroting this point is they're ignorant AF and are just swallowing simplistic Russian propaganda out of pure partisanship.
Reality is quite different than your political talking points. For all Trump's flaws, his administration authorized leth
Re: (Score:2)
Aid, military or otherwise the financial burden, you absolute twat. I just explained this, but you're too goddamned stupid and hyperpartisan to grasp it.
Re: (Score:2)
Aid, military or otherwise the financial burden, you absolute twat. I just explained this, ...
You explained nothing, each of your points was debunked, proven false and ill informed.
... but you're too goddamned stupid and hyperpartisan to grasp it.
The only party failing to grasp in this conversation is you. With respect to hyperpartisan, I suggest you look up the psychological phrase of "projection". I am an independent, I want Ukraine to be free, I want Putin to fail. But I also want the Chinese CCP to fail, and North Korea to fail, and Hamas to fail. Like it or not the US needs to be involved in all of these to a degree NATO is not. Western Europe is going to ha
Re: (Score:2)
I did explain it, and you ignored what I said entirely. So go live in your little Republican dream land.
Re: (Score:2)
I did explain it, and you ignored what I said entirely.
Wrong. I proved your points wrong.
So go live in your little Republican dream land.
Not a republican. Again, you are projecting your own hyper-partisan outlook onto others.
Re: (Score:2)
I did explain it, and you ignored what I said entirely.
Wrong. I proved your points wrong.
I explained it was economic hardship that our European allies are suffering. We may be spending a little on munitions (a very tiny fraction of our nation's GDP), munitions which were were already going to be destroying over the next few years. They may be paying less directly, but their economies are suffering badly by opposing Russia. Therefore, to ask them to do more is extremely unreasonable and just political posturing.
But You ignored me because of your confirmation bias.
So go live in your little Republican dream land.
Not a republican. Again, you are projecting your own hyper-partisan outlook onto others.
Right, just susceptible to fr
Re: (Score:2)
I did explain it, and you ignored what I said entirely.
Wrong. I proved your points wrong.
I explained it was economic hardship that our European allies are suffering.
That was specifically debunked, re-read.
We may be spending a little on munitions (a very tiny fraction of our nation's GDP), munitions which were were already going to be destroying over the next few years.
That was specifically debunked, re-read.
They may be paying less directly, but their economies are suffering badly by opposing Russia. Therefore, to ask them to do more is extremely unreasonable and just political posturing.
Your exclusively European focus was debunked, re-read.
For many years the US warned various European nations about becoming dependent upon Russia. They ignored the US falsely assuming that such economic ties would moderate Putin, rather than allow Putin to coerce them. The US is not responsible for any economic hardship that results, the US is not obligated to bail out their policy gambles on Russia. We have our own economic h
Re: (Score:2)
My, what a short memory you have: https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/22... [cnn.com]
Four years later, the crooked Clinton campaign and DNC were publishing disinformation from Russia: https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/30... [cnn.com]
Russia knows which side their bread is buttered on. They re-invaded Ukraine under Biden, not Trump.
Actually Repubs OK'd killing of Russian soldiers (Score:2)
No, that guy is a Democrat. Republicans are the ones who doesn't think Russia is doing anything wrong.
It was a Republican administration that gave Ukraine lethal weapons to defend themselves.
It was a Republican administration that gave US troops in Syria approval to stand their ground and fire on Russian Wagner Group mercenaries, killing hundreds of Russians.
Personally, I always interpreted killing the other guy as an indication he was doing something wrong.
The crowd bluffed / bullied into inaction? (Score:2)
Is this coming from the same crowd who swore it made no sense that Russia would ever invade Ukraine?
And post invasion that we should not provide Ukraine with longer range artillery, or F-16s, and other more advanced equipment (relative to Soviet designs) because that might provoke Putin. And this is with respect to the second invasion where Russia tried to seize the Ukrainian government. After the first invasion of Ukraine, 2015, where Russia "only" seized some border territory the US would not supply lethal aid. Helmets, blankets and MREs only - essentially telling Putin fait accompli.
Similar with Put
Bombing threat only works with strong US president (Score:2)
First of all, it's the U.S. that is going to be popping the EMP [eurasiantimes.com] in your scenario.
And that's why all the "China is going to start a war for reasons" crowd on Slashdot are a bunch of morons who don't understand anything beyond video game and movie plots and childish Cold War "China is communist and it wants world domination" analysis.
Untrue, it depends on the US President. If they fear that the President will pop the EMP they are less likely to invade. More likely EMP plus high explosive bombs, reduce what can be salvaged and repaired, both electronically and mechanically. If they do NOT fear that the US President will do so, if they believe he or she is a weak appeaser who will be deterred from taking such action due to a risk of widening the war then they are more likely to invade since they expect to bluff/bully the US into inaction.
AI chip designer (Score:3)
Once the materials spec is provided by the fab, it seems like AI should be able to design a CPU, especially digital (analog maybe not) better than any human.
Re: (Score:2)
"better than any human"
Better than you? Sure.
Better than me? Well, there's a reason they're still paying me the medium bucks...
Real life Tyrell Corporation (Score:3)
If there was a company approximating Blade Runner's Tyrell Corporation it has to be Apple, right?
They're sitting on over $60 billion dollars in cash (those iPhones were VERY profitable). That's about 50% of Intel's market cap. Not including Apple's own market cap of almost $3 Trillion dollars--more than the GDP of most countries.
Instead of buying Intel, they decided to build their own! How long before they decide to build "replicants" iPeople, lol!
Re:Real life Tyrell Corporation (Score:5, Insightful)
How long before they decide to build "replicants" iPeople, lol!
Yeah, here's how that would go...
Scenario 1
You: Hi there, Sally Apple! How are you doing today?
Sally: (after a pause) Here's what I found on the web about "how are you doing today?"
Scenario 2
You: Sally Apple, I think I love you! Why don't you stay over at my place tonight?
Sally Apple (some time later that evening): It appears you are attempting to use a non-Apple-approved connector. I will remove it from you now.
Where's their AI accelerator chip? (Score:1)
Because all that so called AI stuff on their current chips is just child's play dipped in a lot of marketing.
Re: (Score:3)
Tell that to the llama.ccp [github.com] people, who treat Apple Silicon as roughly the gold standard for their work. The combination of available RAM size and bandwidth forgives a lot of other quirks. My M2 Max is much faster for any LLM size than my Threadripper 3960X with an RTX 2080 Super.
Yes, the "Apple Neural Engine" is heavily focused on certain problems, so it needs other things to run on the GPU or the CPU -- but Apple abstracts that behind an API so that application developers can defer worrying about it unti
But... (Score:2)
Apple has zero respect for... (Score:2)
...backward compatibility
They change processors and OS design whenever they feel like it, and expect the fanbois to throw out their old, perfectly good hardware and software, and buy all new stuff...every few years
They also oppose right to repair and sue recyclers who reuse parts. Yeah, they occasionally issue press releases claiming to support right to repair, but then use every trick in the "malicious compliance" book to make it nearly impossible to actually repair anything
They are truly the distilled ess
ARM was used in Apple's Newton 30 years ago! (Score:4, Informative)
And the StrongARM in particular used in the MP2000 was amazing for its time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
But sadly the Newton was discontinued in 1998. Big loss for a lot of reasons -- including ending use of ARM processors in Apple devices.
Apple returned to the ARM in 2007 with the iPhone (almost ten years later). And recently with the Mac.
A missed decade (and more) of opportunity there though.
But the RAM is Very Limited & Expensive (Score:2)
It would be nice if the next chip design included expanded RAM. 8gb is not enough to allow Macs to work for 10+ years, and Apple seriously must address the electronic waste created by an industry which thrives on selling This Year's Model.