I doubt it would destroy the Switch as there have been any number of more powerful consoles released for generations of Nintendo products. What they all lack is Nintendo's line of titles.If Apple launches now a console, they would destroy the Switch at once!
They already did released new console...This is unavoidable... That chip could easily replace a Core i5 or even a Dual i7 Chip...
And if the GPU is as strong as an XBox One S... Poor nVIDIA... If Apple launches now a console, they would destroy the Switch at once!
But a True Console is needed. Nintendo would be outright killed by Apple if they do that.They already did released new console...
Its called iPad Pro.
Not with 4GB's of RAM. 8 GB's would make this chip capable of running 1:1 stuff from PS4 and Xbox One S.But a True Console is needed. Nintendo would be outright killed by Apple if they do that.
Also.... Puting that on an Apple TV with some overclock would make it a brutal beast capable to play Console grade games.
Which is an important realization many completely miss. Apple can do it because that SOC goes into exactly 1 product line: iPad which all cost an arm and leg just like the iPhones. Intel, QQ, Mediatech,... all need to design for much cheaper devices and hence such huge dies are a huge no-go. It's nothing new you can get performance by throwing more silicon at a problem but at higher cost obviously.10 billion transistors puts it at more than twice the 8 core Ryzen (4.8 billion) and the Snapdragon 845 (~5 Billion).
If they do this, they'll go all ARM and announce few main applications being ported to the new computers.And what about all the devs developing x86 software on mac books? That is a fairly large amount of user base which you will loose.
Why shouldn’t they still develop x86 software on macs? They simply output an x86 binary just like now, the only difference being that they test run it on Windows running on an emulated x86 if they do that part of the work on the same machine. Seriously, this is a non issue.Which is an important realization many completely miss. Apple can do it because that SOC goes into exactly 1 product line: iPad which all cost an arm and leg just like the iPhones. Intel, QQ, Mediatech,... all need to design for much cheaper devices and hence such huge dies are a huge no-go. It's nothing new you can get performance by throwing more silicon at a problem but at higher cost obviously.
And I still doubt Apple will replace x86 in mac line simply for the fact that they lack the needed scale there to create multiple dies. There is no way to serve the mac market with just 1 die, especially not mac pro. So if they go ARM, Apple will need to ditch some products. That is entirely possible.
And what about all the devs developing x86 software on mac books? That is a fairly large amount of user base which you will loose.
Good luck getting people to buy >$50 games for the iPad.They already did released new console...
Its called iPad Pro.
AMD's entire Ryzen/Threadripper/EPYC lineup is essentially based on one die, at least for all 14nm and 12nm products. Why can't Apple do the same thing?There is no way to serve the mac market with just 1 die, especially not mac pro.
What about all the devs who produced Power software for macs? When Apple tells you it's time to redo all your code, you do it or you fall off the bandwagon. The majority of Apple devs develop for iOS anyway. It will not come as a major shock to anyone if they announce that you'll have to port all your applications over to Swift.And what about all the devs developing x86 software on mac books? That is a fairly large amount of user base which you will loose.
Raven Ridge?AMD's entire Ryzen/Threadripper/EPYC lineup is essentially based on one die, at least for all 14nm and 12nm products. Why can't Apple do the same thing?
That sounds like a strawman. They already had 6 core in the new iPhones.I guess this answers the doubters concerns that Apple couldn't scale up to more cores...
Because you normal develop on the same platform you are targeting. Do you develop linux stuff on a windows laptop? Hardly. And for testing you will then need a second device that is x86 compatible. Why not develop on that device to begin with?Why shouldn’t they still develop x86 software on macs?
Fair enough. They could go full chiplet design. But is that even possible with big.little?AMD's entire Ryzen/Threadripper/EPYC lineup is essentially based on one die, at least for all 14nm and 12nm products. Why can't Apple do the same thing?
Starting when they released their first 64 bit part, and every iteration after that as their performance crept up to laptop/desktop performance you would have the usual cast of characters suggesting that they could never get high clocks or high core counts. The last couple of iterations those voices have been somewhat subdued.That sounds like a strawman. They already had 6 core in the new iPhones.
Adding more cores is a simple option everyone can do. I have been following these discussions for ages. I have never seen anyone state that Apple couldn't add more cores.
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
C | Question Intel Raptor Lake vs AMD Zen 4 vs Apple M2 | CPUs and Overclocking | 212 |
Similar threads |
---|
Question Intel Raptor Lake vs AMD Zen 4 vs Apple M2 |