So does this cut out Intel/x86 from all the massive new datacenter buildouts entirely? They've already lost Apple as a customer and are not competitive in the consumer space. I don't see how they can realistically grow at all with x86.
x86 and Apple already sell CPUs with integrated memory and high bandwidth interconnects. And I bet eventually Intel's beancounter board will wake up and allow engineering to make one, too.
But competition is good for the market.
They also dropped the ball on the data center, having left OS X Server behind.
Those markets are now served by Windows or Linux based configurations.
Nah, as so-called "analysts" expected. The no-effort crybabies deriding Apple for being "behind on AI" have turned out to be, shocker of shockers, wrong. Anyone who even put a few minutes of thought into Apple's business realized that it (and its customers) didn't stand to benefit much from "AI."
It's sad that Apple hurried to pander to these clowns, only to be derided further... and to encounter the appropriate apathy from customers, who were and are doing just fine without asinine "AI" gimmicks.
In any case, that article is also looking forward to next-gen models like the sparse Gemini model Google trained for Siri. Apple Silicon simply isn't powerful enough to compete for that inference.
AFAIK they still dominate on clock rate, which I was surprised to see when doing some back of the envelope calculations regarding core counts.
I felt my 8 core i9 9900K was inadequate, so shopped around for something AMD, and IIRC the core multiplier of the chip I found was dominated by the clock rate multiplier so it’s possible that at full utilization my i9 is still towards the best I can get at the price.
Not sure if I’m the typical consumer in this case however.
>8 Cores and 16 processing threads, based on AMD "Zen 5" architecture
which is the same thread geometry as my 9900K.
My main concerns at the time were:
1. More cores for running large workloads on k8s since I had just upgraded to 128G RAM
2. More thread level parallelism for my C++ code
Naively I thought that, ceteris paribus and assuming good L1 cache utilization, having more physical cores with a higher clock rate would be the ticket for 2.
Does the 9800X3D have a wider pipeline or is it some other microarchitectural feature that makes it faster?
You can research microarchitecture differences if you want, it's a fascinating world, or you can just skip to looking at benchmarks/reviews. Little hard to compare against quite that large of a generation gap, but eg https://gamersnexus.net/cpus/rip-intel-amd-ryzen-7-9800x3d-c... or https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-9800x3d-linux/2
A 9800X3D is twice as fast as your 9900K in benchmarks like GeekBench, despite having similar clock speed and the same core count.
If you could downclock the AMD part to 2.5GHz as an experiment it would still beat your 5GHz 9900K.