Hacker News Reader

Comment by jeffbee | Hacker News Reader

I don't think that makes any sense, considering that the RAM is not on the same die as the processor. It's on the module, yes, but they're not making it on the same process.

I realize this image is a schematic representation rather than an actual photograph, but here it is.

https://www.apple.com/v/mac/m1/a/images/overview/chip__fffqz...

View on HN

The point being made is that the processors that they will package with more memory are going to exist on larger dies. When you increase die size you decrease yield so you need to have a mature process.

> The point being made is that the processors that they will package with more memory are going to exist on larger dies.

Are they? I don't think this is how AMD does things—all their desktop and Threadripper processors are constructed out of 8-core chiplets. The higher-core count processors just use more chiplets per package, not necessarily larger dies. If Apple's already putting multiple chiplets on one package (core + RAM), I wonder if they'll use the same approach to scaling.

Why does that follow? 4 cores and 32GB makes fine sense.

But why would you offer your i3 with 32GB when you know you are going to make i5 and i7 processors soon? Apple could offer 32GB here but choose to not offer every configuration at every level.

It's actually 8 core, 4 big (Fire) and 4 small (Ice)

> this image is a schematic representation rather than an actual photograph

If so, it's a incredibly shitty schematic. 0/10, would flunk any draftsman who turned this in for a class.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com