My guess is that they'd still keep the efficiency cores around, but provide more performance cores. So likely a 12 or 16 core processor, with 4 or 6 of those dedicated to efficiency cores.
The M1 supposedly has a 10w TDP (at least in the MBA; it may be speced higher in the MBP13). If that's the case, there's a ton of power envelope headroom to scale to more cores, given the i9 9980HK in the current MBP16 is speced at 45 watts.
I'm very scared of this architecture once it gets up to Mac Pro levels of power envelope. If it doesn't scale, then it doesn't scale, but assuming it does this is so far beyond Xeon/Zen 3 performance it'd be unfair to even compare them.
This is the effect of focusing first on efficiency, not raw power. Intel and AMD never did this; its why they lost horribly in mobile. Their bread and butter is desktops and servers, where it doesn't matter. But, long term, it does; higher efficiency means you can pack more transistors into the same die without melting them. And its far easier to scale a 10 watt chip up to use 50 watts than it is to do the opposite.
>This is the effect of focusing first on efficiency, not raw power. Intel and AMD never did this; its why they lost horribly in mobile.
If you want a more efficient processor you can just reduce the frequency. You can't do that in the other direction. If your processor wasn't designed for 4Ghz+ then you can't clock it that high, so the real challenge is making the highest clocked CPU. AMD and Intel care a lot about efficiency and they use efficiency improvements to increase clock speeds and add more cores just like everyone else. What you are talking about is like semiconductor 101. It's so obvious nobody has to talk about it. If you think this is a competitive edge then you should read up more about this industry.
>Their bread and butter is desktops and servers, where it doesn't matter.
Efficiency matters a lot in the server and desktop market. Higher efficiency means more cores and a higher frequency.
>But, long term, it does; higher efficiency means you can pack more transistors into the same die without melting them.
No shit? Semiconductor 101??
>And its far easier to scale a 10 watt chip up to use 50 watts than it is to do the opposite.
You mean... like those 64 core EPYC server processors that AMD has been producing for years...? Aren't you lacking a little in imagination?
Have no considered being less snarky as you careen your way through that comment without really understanding any of it? The efficiency cores on Apple’s processors perform tasks that the main, more power hungry processors aren’t necessary for, which a profoundly different situation from a typical server that is plugged in and typically run with capacity all the time. Honestly, besides being against the rules, the swipes you make against the commenter “not knowing about the industry” are just shocking to see considering how much you missed the point that was being made.
The M1 supposedly has a 10w TDP (at least in the MBA; it may be speced higher in the MBP13). If that's the case, there's a ton of power envelope headroom to scale to more cores, given the i9 9980HK in the current MBP16 is speced at 45 watts.
I'm very scared of this architecture once it gets up to Mac Pro levels of power envelope. If it doesn't scale, then it doesn't scale, but assuming it does this is so far beyond Xeon/Zen 3 performance it'd be unfair to even compare them.
This is the effect of focusing first on efficiency, not raw power. Intel and AMD never did this; its why they lost horribly in mobile. Their bread and butter is desktops and servers, where it doesn't matter. But, long term, it does; higher efficiency means you can pack more transistors into the same die without melting them. And its far easier to scale a 10 watt chip up to use 50 watts than it is to do the opposite.