[lonjil]

> The other CPU catch back after several months, the Apple Silicon is a good marketing prowess, the reality is that Apple CPUs wins because they are the first on to be produced on a new lithography node, because Apple can book a larger quantity than anyone else.

Uh, but M2 on TSMC's N5 node is faster and more efficient than AMD's products fabbed with TSMC's N4 node. Edit: more efficient in general, but I meant "faster" in comparison with AMD's latest laptop chips.

> Here Jim Keller explain why CPU architecture doesn't matter a lot in performance now: https://www.anandtech.com/show/16762/an-anandtech-interview-...

Let's see what he has to say:

> But instruction sets only matter a little bit - you can lose 10%, or 20%, [of performance] because you're missing instructions.

20% is quite a lot in the current competitive landscape. Jim Keller is stuck thinking like it's 10+ years ago.

[Kuinox]

> but I meant "faster" in comparison with AMD's latest laptop chips.

The 7940HS is way faster than the M2. Efficiency is harder to compare since TDP doesn't mean anything theses days.

[paulmd]

In cinebench, or in (eg) compiling or JVM/Javacode/other bytecode workloads etc?

because even in cinebench the m3 max is already ahead in cinebench 2024 let alone R23...

https://www.notebookcheck.net/R9-7940HS-vs-Apple-M3-Max-16-C...

[Kuinox]

We were talking about the M2.

The M3 max is on TSMC N3B, which have a +30% of transistor density compared to the TSMC nodes AMD is using (N4).