Apple dumps Intel and shows Final Cut Pro on new Mac with Apple CPU !

[David Saraceno]

Good point but I am not sure if the original topic is less contentious!

Contentious with politeness is fine; politics, even tangentially, is not.

Thanks

[JAMedia]

Contentious with politeness is fine; politics, even tangentially, is not.

Thanks

I know I was being humorous.
Apple supporters get very protective and its as bad as arguing politics or region with them

[DLD]

MacBook ARM leak just revealed bad news . Apple Silicon MacBook Pro might not arrive until 2021

ARM’s RISC architecture is significantly different from the x86 architecture Intel chips use. That means to get macOS and its apps running on RISC architecture will take some effort, both on the hardware and software side. This is something Microsoft learnt with the Surface Pro X which uses an ARM-based Snapdragon chip.

https://www.tomsguide.com/news/macbo...ealed-bad-news

I'll add what I posted earlier in this thread. Microsoft Windows 10X, that was supposed to also be made for ARM CPU's without the compiler, is likewise being pushed into 2021. Both systems can do it with the compiler but lose performance because of it. I'll speculate that both companies are waiting for the new chips to arrive and then to keep working on the software side to achieve full compatibility.

[DLD]

Processors developed with ARM architecture usually adopt a design called big.LITTLE, in which two sets of cores are used, one focused on high performance, and the other on low energy consumption. The configuration is highly praised for its good performance levels, coupled with the extended battery life they provide in mobile devices.

https://www.somagnews.com/amd-may-re...ke-ryzen-cpus/

Intel already has the big.LITTLE chip in Lakefield. AMD is working on it. This doesn't directly relate to the ARM CPU's per se but should make the Windows OS portables be more efficient while maintaining decent performance.

Competition is a wonderful thing. For the consumer.

[DLD]

And sneaking from behind is Samsung.

Samsung Electronics Aiming to Become No. 1 Android AP Maker by Joining Forces with ARM and AMD.

http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/...ml?idxno=50279

[DLD]

Power, power and more power. I mean, less power.

NVIDIA is attempting to get into the ARM based server business, with a little help from its friends.

https://fudzilla.com/news/51345-nuvi...86-competition

[DLD]

Multi-core processors allow for massive parallel programming. This is where ARM chips can catch up with Intel and AMD. A single chip superiority is still with Intel/AMD but the multi-core performance depends on a number of other variables, such the cost of CPU/GPU, energy consumption and the software compatibility.

Below are some examples of the multi-chip solutions with several familiar names being mentioned.

https://builtin.com/hardware/paralle...essing-example

And for more technically inclined (of course, some had worked are are working in this field and know way more than covered here). Nonetheless.

https://computing.llnl.gov/tutorials/parallel_comp/

[joema]

Multi-core processors allow for massive parallel programming...

It appears plausible that Apple Silicon CPUs will eventually use higher (maybe significantly) core counts than Intel. However (as indicated in one of your links) this is constrained by Amdahl's Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law

Some things you just can't efficiently parallelize. Intel does currently have superior single-thread performance and with their new "Sunny Cove" micro-architecture this is expected to further improve.

Amdahl's Law is fundamental, but viewpoints and technical approaches change. When debating whether a few faster CPUs were better than many slower CPUs, Seymour Cray once responded "If you were plowing a field, which would you rather use: two strong oxen or 1024 chickens?"

However the supercomputer industry has totally changed to massively parallel designs, whether on the CPU or GPU side, or both. So for the type of algorithms they use they found ways to greatly parallelize those. It's unclear if that can happen for more conventional business software. But maybe it's just institutional lag from software developers who haven't had access to many-core machines or development tools which streamline coding for those.

[JAMedia]

It is a pity that Apple did not look at the transputer for really good multi core processing solutions.
ST own it these days

[Thomas Smet]

It appears plausible that Apple Silicon CPUs will eventually use higher (maybe significantly) core counts than Intel. However (as indicated in one of your links) this is constrained by Amdahl's Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law

Some things you just can't efficiently parallelize. Intel does currently have superior single-thread performance and with their new "Sunny Cove" micro-architecture this is expected to further improve.

Amdahl's Law is fundamental, but viewpoints and technical approaches change. When debating whether a few faster CPUs were better than many slower CPUs, Seymour Cray once responded "If you were plowing a field, which would you rather use: two strong oxen or 1024 chickens?"

However the supercomputer industry has totally changed to massively parallel designs, whether on the CPU or GPU side, or both. So for the type of algorithms they use they found ways to greatly parallelize those. It's unclear if that can happen for more conventional business software. But maybe it's just institutional lag from software developers who haven't had access to many-core machines or development tools which streamline coding for those.

If I could train the chickens I would use them. This isn't the most accurate comparison because they are very different animals that don't have the bodies for the same kind of work. You could have 10,000 chickens and it would still be a disaster. I think multiple cores is a very different scenario where the big core and little cores and the exact same kind of animal. So in this case its more like two really big oxen or 1024 smaller oxen. Both sets capable of doing the same kind of work.

I always thought a better analogy is vehicles. You can have a four seater car and a 12 seater van. The van will get 12 people to a destination at the same time as 4 people in the car so you get more people there. Once you add four cars to the mix however you are now able to transport 16 people. Each car can carry less people but together they still transport more. More gas and cost of course but it can get more done. Those cars can be smaller and less expensive as well and may get closer to the cost of the large 12 person van.

As it is CPUs are not really like a 4 person vs 12 person car. They tend to be much closer in clock speed. Like 4.0 Ghz vs 3.2 Ghz which is nowhere near 3x faster. Multi-core tends to only take a small speed hit. Some CPUS like arm are much slower per core but again they can do the same kind of work.