* TSMC N3B being a bit of a flop (yield issues, too expensive)
* Brain drain from Apple's chip design teams over the last few years
* Tim Cook trying to push the average selling price up to keep revenue growth going in the face of sales declines (e.g. hobbling memory bandwidth, reducing the number of performance cores for M3 Pro)
I don't expect there to be a M1 style generational leap for a long time, expect 2010s Intel style yearly performance gains from here on out.
Another point is the CPU improvements are constant. In about two years the base M3 is now on par with the M1 Max.
Even if they did, there is very little in Apple Arcade which taxes the GPU, most target the lowest common denominator in terms of supported iOS/phone combinations.
The original Apple Arcade strategy was for AAA titles, but for whatever reason that wasn’t pursued, so now we have a tonne of casual games and re-releases of old titles.
Apple just seems to run hot and cold on gaming.
Can you prove that statement? I bet you can't, cause it's simply not true. Every Arcade title is playable from an iPhone to a Mac by way of Apple TV. It was never going to get AAA titles.
I own almost every Apple device in the ecosystem, but I never game on them…
Apple wants more Grindstones.
There’s no correlation.
Is it? Does it matter? Unified RAM is cool. But I’d rather have an Nvidia 4090.
Apple Silicon is amazing. But if you’re doing heavy GPU it’s not very exciting.
Intel saw very little gain this year at all in return for a 400 watt power draw under load.
The plain old M3 saw a 20% performance gain along side efficiency gains.
Having a 22 hour battery life is insane and you certainly aren't going to manage that with a 400 watt power draw.
20% increase on performance is compared to M1 not, M2 - which also had 20% increase in performance on M1.
Nope.
> The M3 chip has single-core and multi-core scores of about 3,000 and 11,700, respectively, in the Geekbench 6 database. When you compare these scores to those of the M2's single-core and multi-core scores (around 2,600 and 9,700, respectively), the M3 chip is indeed up to 20% faster like Apple claims.
https://www.laptopmag.com/laptops/macbooks/apple-m3-benchmar...
> 400 watts is on a desktop chip where there is no concept of battery life.
Yes, and in exchange for that ridiculous 400 watt power draw, Intel saw negligible performance gains.
> In some areas, the extra clock speeds available on the Core i9-14900K show some benefit, but generally speaking, it won't make much difference in most areas.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/21084/intel-core-i9-14900k-co...
Intel only wishes they could hit a 20% gain in exchange for all that increased power draw and heat. As that review noted the best improvement they saw in any of the common benchmarks was just 6%.
From a generational perspective, the M3 Max is offering the same level of performance as the M2 Ultra. That's amazing as the m3 max is 12p/4e vs 16p/8e in the m2 Ultra. The M3 Ultra should be a substantial lift.
Now, if they want a wider core for M4, that means more transistors and more heat. They are then forced to: not go wider, decrease max clockspeed, hold max clockspeed for a pitiful amount of time, or increase power consumption.
On the whole, I'd rather have a wider core and lower clockspeeds then turn the other power savings into either battery life or a few more E-cores.
At least according to Geekbench, it's a 20% performance increase.
> The M3 chip has single-core and multi-core scores of about 3,000 and 11,700, respectively, in the Geekbench 6 database. When you compare these scores to those of the M2's single-core and multi-core scores (around 2,600 and 9,700, respectively), the M3 chip is indeed up to 20% faster like Apple claims.
https://www.laptopmag.com/laptops/macbooks/apple-m3-benchmar...
Along side a battery life increase to 22 hours? It's been a pretty good showing.
In case you didn’t notice, A17 Pro on iPhone 15 has hardware accelerated ray tracing as well.
I don't think we're going to see the performance increases past the ~10-20% each fab cycle now.
Performance per watt and having dedicated HW for video decoding / other tasks(AI?) I think might end up being the answer to the continuation of Moore's law. Especially considering that we are in the era of heterogenous computing.