|
| ▲ | Rohansi 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Assuming you're referring to Apple Silicon's memory bandwidth, that is not necessarily because the memory is on-die. The bandwidth comes from having more channels to access memory. This gives the SoC a wider bus to increase throughput vs. your typical x86 system with two channels. For whatever reasons Intel/AMD decided that two channels is all the typical consumer chips can support now so it's on them. |
| |
| ▲ | Melatonic 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | On laptops right? Weve seen more channels for years elsewhere | | |
| ▲ | Rohansi 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, on laptops, but even on most desktops now too. Higher number of channels is getting more limited to server systems. |
| |
| ▲ | dehugger 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Ah I see, thanks for breaking it down. |
|
|
| ▲ | dehugger 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I appreciate everyone's corrections here, my apologies. I clearly misunderstood the situation. |
|
| ▲ | ColonelPhantom 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You mentioned Strix Halo, which also has off-die memory. Strix Halo does have a real advantage from its wider memory bus (four channels for 256 bit instead of 128 bit), but Strix Point is equivalent-ish to Intel's platforms like Panther Lake or Arrow Lake in terms of memory setup. In fact, Intel also had Lunar Lake, which had on-package memory. However, it was still limited to 128-bit dual-channel, so there weren't really many performance benefits; it did however help with power efficiency. |
|
| ▲ | fulafel 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Macs or other competing systems don't have on-die memory. (Except for the caches, which everybody has) |
|
| ▲ | kcb 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Nonsense, Apple has on package memory and the primary reason for that is overall packaging and layout not performance |
