Ask HN: Why hasn't x86 caught up with Apple M series?

They're big, expensive chips with a focus on power efficiency. AMD and Intel's chips that are on the big and expensive side tend toward being optimized for higher power ranges, so they don't compete well on efficiency, while their more power efficient chips tend toward being optimized for size/cost.

If you're willing to spend a bunch of die area (which directly translates into cost) you can get good numbers on the other two legs of the Power-Performance-Area triangle. The issue is that the market position of Apple's competitors is such that it doesn't make as much sense for them to make such big and expensive chips (particularly CPU cores) in a mobile-friendly power envelope.

Per core, Apple’s Performance cores are no bigger than AMD’s Zen cores. So it’s a myth that they’re only fast and efficient because they are big.

What makes Apple silicon chips big is they bolt on a fast GPU on it. If you include the die of a discrete GPU with an x86 chip, it’d be the same or bigger than M series.

You can look at Intel’s Lunar Lake as an example where it’s physically bigger than an M4 but slower in CPU, GPU, NPU and has way worse efficiency.

Another comparison is AMD Strix Halo. Despite being ~1.5x bigger than the M4 Pro, it has worse efficiency, ST performance, and GPU performance. It does have slightly more MT.

> Despite being ~1.5x bigger than the M4 Pro

Where are you getting M4 die sizes from?

It would hardly be surprising given the Max+ 395 has more, and on average, better cores fabbed with 5nm unlike the M4's 3nm. Die size is mostly GPU though.

Looking at some benchmarks:

> slightly more MT.

AMD's multicore passmark score is more than 40% higher.

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/6345vs6403/Apple-M4-Pro...

> worse efficiency

The AMD is an older fab process and does not have P/E cores. What are you measuring?

> worse ST performance

The P/E design choice gives different trade-offs e.g. AMD has much higher average single core perf.

> worse GPU performance

The AMD GPU:

14.8 TFLOPS vs. M4 Pro 9.2 TFLOPS.

19% higher 3D Mark

34% higher GeekBench 6 OpenCL

Although a much crappier Blender score. I wonder what that's about.

https://nanoreview.net/en/gpu-compare/radeon-8060s-vs-apple-...

  Where are you getting M4 die sizes from?

M1 Pro is ~250mm2. M4 Pro likely increased in size a bit. So I estimated 300mm2. There are no official measurements but should be directionally correct.

  AMD's multicore passmark score is more than 40% higher.

It's an out of date benchmark that not even AMD endorses and the industry does not use. Meanwhile, AMD officially endorses Cinebench 2024 and Geekbench. Let's use those.

   The AMD is an older fab process and does not have P/E cores. What are you measuring?

Efficiency. Fab process does not account for the 3.65x efficiency deficit. N4 to N3 is roughly ~20-25% more efficient at the same speed.

  The P/E design choice gives different trade-offs e.g. AMD has much higher average single core perf.

Citation needed. Further more, macOS uses P cores for all the important tasks and E cores for background tasks. I fail to see why even if AMD has a higher average ST would translate to better experience for users.

  14.8 TFLOPS vs. M4 Pro 9.2 TFLOPS.

TFLOPs are not the same between architectures.

  19% higher 3D Mark

Equal in 3DMark Wildlife, loses vs M4 Pro in Blender.

  34% higher GeekBench 6 OpenCL

OpenCL has long been deprecated on macOS. 105727 is the score for Metal, which is supported by macOS. 15% faster for M4 Pro.

The GPUs themselves are roughly equal. However, Strix Halo is still a bigger SoC.

What a waste of time.

"directionally correct"... so you don't know and made up some numbers? Great.

AMD doesn't "endorse benchmarks" especially not fucking Geekbench for multi-core. No-one could because it's famously nonsense for higher core counts. AMD's decade old beef with Sysmark was about pro-Intel bias.

  "directionally correct"... so you don't know and made up some numbers? Great.

I never said it was exactly that size. Apple keeps the sizes of their base, Pro, and Max chips fairly consistent over generations.

Welcome to the world of chip discussions. I've never taken apart and M4 Pro computer and measured the die myself. It appears no one has on the internet. However, we can infer a lot of it based on previously known facts. In this case, we know M1 Pro's die size is around 250mm2.

  AMD doesn't "endorse benchmarks" especially not fucking Geekbench for multi-core. No-one could because it's famously nonsense for higher core counts. AMD's decade old beef with Sysmark was about pro-Intel bias.

Geekbench is the main benchmark AMD tends to use: https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-ryzen-5-7600x-has-already-be...

The reason is because Geekbench correlates highly with SPEC, which is the industry standard.

Their "main benchmark"? Stop making things up. It's no more than tragic fanboy addled fraud at this point.

That three-year old press-release refers to SINGLE CORE Geekbench and not the defective multicore version that doesn't scale with core counts. Given AMD's main USP is core counts it would be an... unusual choice.

AMD marketing uses every other product under the sun too (no doubt whatever gives the better looking numbers)... including Passmark e.g. it's on this Halo Strix page:

https://www.amd.com/en/products/processors/ai-pc-portfolio-l...

So I guess that means Passmark is "endorsed" by AMD too eh? Neat.