![]() ![]() For comparison, more recently people have called Apple Silicon "revolutionary" because it is a measly 10% or so faster than Intel or AMD's x86 chips. In this benchmark, Intel's Core M is an astonishing 3x faster than Apple's iPad Air. (In the benchmark below, Llama Mountain was Intel's proof-of-concept extremely thin fanless tablet powered by its Core M.) Arm is a meaningless debate and that, no, Intel was not behind Arm in power and energy efficiency. ![]() As such, this may be viewed as another proof point that x86 vs. This chip completely swept the best chip Apple had at the time. Although Intel was aiming to compete against the likes of Qualcomm ( QCOM) with its lower power and more efficient Atom architecture, Intel in 2014 actually launched its very first CPU aimed at fanless devices (such as tablets) that were built around its most performant Core architecture. Still, one of the few successes of that effort was its Core M in 2014. As Intel investors might know, Intel tried to enter mobile years too late, never gained any momentum, and then stopped its unprofitable money-losing efforts. Instead, the reality and the real reason why x86 wasn't widely used in mobile is simply because neither Intel nor AMD ever invested in that market. As an aside, note that the Senior Editor of AnandTech at the time, Anand Shimpi, has been working at Apple since 2014. The AnandTech article just cited is unambiguously titled: "The x86 Power Myth Busted". However, that "x86 power myth", as it was known, was completely debunked by AnandTech and several other publications, which actually measured the power and energy consumption. That would mean that x86 would never be able to compete in mobile, where efficiency is obviously of utmost importance. Legions of people claimed or thought that x86 was inherently power and energy inefficient. In short, exactly the same debate raged on for quite a while around a decade ago, when Intel missed mobile. When I saw those debates last fall, it very much seemed like a 'been there, done that' discussion. However, for all the ado, this debate is actually not new. For some Apple-Arm bulls, including Ark Invest and others, Apple Silicon was conclusive proof that x86's days were nearing their end. x86: Missing the pointĪs mentioned, Apple Silicon caused a new round of discussion of x86 vs. Apple's marketing created far more hype than the chip warrants (for example reviewers of the latest iPads forgetting that the M1 could just as well have been called the A14X) because the chip itself brought very little innovation to bear. Secondly, however, in my opinion, the Apple M1 is highly overhyped. That at the end of the day is the real and only reason (besides Intel's delays) why Apple Silicon has been received so well it is not because the chips run is based on something esoteric called "Arm". First, Apple has a world-class silicon engineering team, no doubt. The conclusion of this analysis will be two-fold. ![]() As such, there is not meaningful thesis for investors to be made on Arm vs. It remains the implementation of each individual CPU that determines its ultimate performance. However, I would like to challenge that view in this article: Arm and x86 simply refer to the "language" that software has to speak to talk to a CPU. Some investors such as Ark Invest or other contributors have proposed investment theses based on the technological dichotomy between the x86 and Arm instruction sets. Perhaps the primary benefit for Apple shareholders is that going forward Apple won't have to pay for Intel's >60% gross margins (on its highest-end CPUs). However, I would primarily attribute Apple's Mac strength in recent quarters due to the general strength of the PC market in the wake of work-from-home and similar trends (cf. In fact, the vast x86 software ecosystem (in both the PC and data center) could actually be seen as a competitive advantage, since Arm CPUs mostly cannot simply be used out-of-the-box.įor Apple, its silicon is fast to its own credit, as well as due to Apple being TSMC's ( TSM ) primary customer and adopter of its latest process nodes. Hence, this is a contrarian position compared to theses that discard Intel (solely) because its CPUs are x86-based. This means both Intel ( INTC) and AMD ( AMD) remain on equal footing against Arm to compete for market share. Arm debate, which has been fueled in the last one or two years by the Apple ( NASDAQ: AAPL) Silicon transition as well as some Arm wins in the data center.įirst, contrary to what some have suggested, x86 is not doomed: it does not have any inherent disadvantage. There are several investor implications from this discussion about the old x86 vs. Christopher Jue/Getty Images Entertainment Investment Thesis ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |