Yup, the only reason Macs have higher memory bandwidth is because they use more memory channels, which gives them a wider bus. Both Intel and AMD only allow more than dual channel memory on server class processors these days.

▲

kstrauser 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The “Apple only does X better because they do Y” thing has been a meme for ages. I remember dismissals like “PowerPC is only faster at math because it has more integer units” or something along those lines, and thinking, uh, isn’t that a good thing?

▲

pdpi 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There's a qualitative difference between "they're doing a different thing" and "they're doing the same thing, tuned differently". GP is saying that this is a case of "they just tuned it differently".

This distinction doesn't change what the performance numbers look like today, but it does inform what changes would be necessary for those numbers to look different tomorrow. E.g. Apple Silicon isn't fundamentally orders of magnitude more efficient than x86, they just used smaller features. Newer Intel and AMD chips made on equivalent processes _also_ get similar efficiency gains.

	▲	sroussey 26 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		There are AMD and Intel devices on similar process (not talking about A20Pro or M6 which are set to ship later this week), and they do not get the same gains. And honestly, they have historically had different markets. When the design is for only one customer, you don't need to generalize things, and those things you generalize to give different customers different options has costs. AMD will soon be a larger customer for TSMC than Apple (NVIDIA is already there) so Apple's pre-booking new processes is likely to be gone in the near future.

▲

JohnBooty 8 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"You're only better than me at sports because you practice more and try harder!"

▲

pixl97 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Depends on the expense trade off.

If I get 10% more performance for 50% more cost it really depends on one's needs, for example.

▲

Rohansi 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I am just saying it's not magic and x86 is capable of doing the same. Quad channel memory used to be more common in consumer hardware but now it looks like you don't even have the option anymore for desktops. AMD's Strix Halo was the first sign to reversing that (it has quad channel memory!) and hopefully we see more of that in the future.

▲

colejohnson66 3 hours ago | parent [-]

AMD does market segmentation and limits consumer chips to dual-channel. You need to cough up the dough and get Threadripper for quad-channel. Or even more for Threadripper Pro to get octa-channel.

	▲	torginus an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Afaik steam deck is quad channel, despite it being a pretty low end chip (with a decent GPU though)
	▲	Rohansi 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		As I mentioned above AMD's Strix Halo has quad channel memory and is consumer level. But yes, other than that everything is segmented away.

▲

PunchyHamster 29 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Threadripper have that extra bandwidth and M5 still is faster

▲

Kon5ole 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The memory bandwidth is a small thing compared to the massive win you get by not having to move data between two memory pools at all.

	▲	fooker 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Often you don't move memory around as a programmer, but that's exactly what happens in the background. It's the address space that's unified, not always the physical hardware. The data movement (when needed) is handled transparently in the background by page faults and other tricks.
	▲	Rohansi 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Depends on your workload. And AMD has supported unified memory long before Apple Silicon existed anyway.

▲

throwaway85825 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Except strix halo.