Nobody in industry describes "wider" as anything but "more op throughput and execution resources" - there are clearly many ways to scale performance without increasing those, as enumerated above
More op throughput - yes. But there's are different hardware possibilities to go there which aren't simplified to few parameters. CPU's are build around their register files - how much data they can shuffle around per clock is main factor for cpu core "wideness" It's just about optimization how much other stuff is put there to extract everything out from that data movement ability - and less is better.
Intel LPE cores are garbage. Intel can’t even match Arm’s A715/A720 (which clocked down is 2x less efficient than Apple’s but that’s not saying much), and it’s not close.Intel LPE cores are hyper efficient. Can apple match that?
Source?Intel LPE cores are garbage. Intel can’t even match Arm’s A715/A720 (which clocked down is 2x less efficient than Apple’s but that’s not saying much), and it’s not close.
Sure thing.Source?
lmao, “Apple hagiography” 😂 agreed.Nobody in industry describes "wider" as anything but "more op throughput and execution resources" - there are clearly many ways to scale performance without increasing those, as enumerated above
Not going to respond to the Apple hagiography because I don't think it's very relevant
M4's clock increase came with an exponential increase in power consumption. It was the same case with M3, where the power increased.Wider as cpu ability to extract IPC from code. Technical details to achieve that are irrelevant, stating that Cortex-X4 is "wider" than M3 is massively oversimplification. Minor performance increase can be found by widening any state of cpu pipeline but as increasing area of execution will also increase power logarithmically good cpu designer should instead minimize every stage at their design to find optimal performance/power and extract max clocks. Which clearly Apple does better than any of their rival today. Which actually is very curious case, they don't need to be fastest, they really don't chase maximum performance from their silicon and still they got the fastest cpu design. They sure make their rivals look incompetent.
Of course they won't match now cos Intel is currently in an older (i4) node which isn't that efficient compared to competition. Intel E core's PPW will experience massive gains once they move to a far better node (20A) shortly.Did you not hear what I said?
Apple has the most efficient E-core in the world
The question is whether Intel LPE can match Apple-E, not the other way around.
Not at all. Once they move to better/more power efficient node, they'll not only easily catch up, but may even surpass.Intel LPE cores are garbage. Intel can’t even match Arm’s A715/A720 (which clocked down is 2x less efficient than Apple’s but that’s not saying much), and it’s not close.
I don’t think they’re worried about a redesign right now. If between Andrei and Geekerwan they are successfully representing what the core structures are, there has been constant and sometimes back-and-forth changes with each release from M1 to M4. It would seem to me that they are still experimenting with the best design balance for this first architecture.In short: It's the very definition of resting on one's laurels.
It's exploiting existing capabilities but doesn't prepare for future bigger improvements. Making the most of what's already there makes it seem like the product keeps up well in the competitive environment, but bigger jumps are essentially delayed up to the point where work on redesigns resume (and those actually turn out to be successful, which is never a given). Intel did it will all the Skylake derivatives and lost its IPC lead over that. Apple seems to be on the way to do the same right now unless there is a major redesign coming soon for one of the following gens.
LOLNot at all. Once they move to better/more power efficient node, they'll not only easily catch up, but may even surpass.