This guy was one of the first people on youtube who claimed that an 8 GB of RAM on Apple's M1 is equal to 16 GB on intel machines. Plus, he has a history of making other clickbate-y videos with ludicrous claims. He's not exactly a reliable source.
What do you mean? He has 137 YouTube subscribers, and an Audi, he's where I get all my in-depth CPU architecture analysis. Be warned Ian Cutress, Vadim Yuryev is coming for you and your fancy Oxford PhD. /s
if apple ever took their m3 and dropped it into a steam/switch form factor and added the ability to run windows titles, it would absolutely eat the mobile market.
My question is why Apple would spend sweat and blood trying to make an “extreme” large chip for a very small handful of customers. To me, the economics don’t add up. The Ultra was already going beyond what they need and that at least was sensibly reusing multiple Max dies. Someone describe the effort:reward ratio to me.
> 6. M3 Extreme is going to be insanely power, without any E cores. This chip's integrated GPU will likely be neck and neck with Nvidia's flagship desktop GPUs.
And to compete against them Apple would need to make a separate GPU, not an integrated GPU.
The claim isn't plausible anyway. A single chip can't expend as much energy as a flagship desktop GPU, and Apple doesn't have some 10x more efficient method of computation.
I read somewhere (probably here) that apples a device company and so it makes sense for them to focus on device based AI.
With that in mind, having an apple ecosystem where you can prototype and train large models to then pack down to smaller apple devices makes a fair amount of sense.
I have an M1 ultra, it compiles large Xcode projects within a few percentages faster than a colleagues M1 Max; next time I’ll simply buy a max and save the money. This might be more an indictment on Xcode however. It seems a marginal business for Apple to bother making these, I wonder how they justify it.
Edit: not saying he’s always wrong but his intention is to get clicks.