Hacker News Reader

Comment by jackothy | Hacker News Reader

What is that, 6 years for less than a doubling? Nothing against the Apple chips themselves, but gone are the days of Moore...

View on HN

Moore was just about the transistor count doubling. Not performance.

Performance is an excellent proxy for transistor count. Somebody else replied with the actual transistor counts, which had basically equal scaling.

Not necessarily. If single core speed doubled but we also doubled or tripled the number of cores, doesn’t that count as keeping up with Moore?

M1 has 16bn transistors, M4 has 28bn. Increasing the core count is useful for some applications (particularly GPU cores), but there are still many critical workloads that are gated by single-threaded performance.

That's not what was being talked about.

Moore's law was never about single threaded performance, it was about transistor count and transistor cost, but people misunderstood it when single threaded performance was increasing exponentially.

GP mentions cores and the article is about benchmarks. The relationship between transistor count, core count, and performance, is exactly on topic.

Single core performance and transistor count are not the same thing and have been disconnected for two decades.

Did you think I said otherwise?

Moore's law was about transistors and cost, you were equating it to performance.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45434910

Your reply here is not directly related or an answer to the comment you replied to.

You have brought a lot of your own assumptions to that reading. OP asked if doubling or tripling core count counted as keeping up with Moore’s law. I pointed out that in the case of the M series (the topic of the thread), regardless of core count, transistor count did not double or triple.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com