← Back to context

Comment by gcanyon

11 hours ago

Anyone know how this compares to Apple’s M5 chips? Or is that comparison <takes off sunglasses> apples to oranges.

Features like hardware FP8 support definitely make it apples-to-oranges.

  • But doesn't the Apple M series NPU support FP8, and as it's a monolithic die (except for the GPU in the M5 Pro and Max) it could be argued it has hardware FP8 support, no?

    • By that logic, on the M4 (which still has the GPU on the same die as the CPU), CPU cores have hardware accelerated raytracing, which is obviously nonsense.

M5 are 9-18 cores and optimized for power-efficiency, those are more like Xeons, with 200-300W TDP, I'd bet.

  • If M5 has 9-18 cores and takes ~20w, then that's ~1-2w per CPU core. If these are 200-300W, and have ~100-200 CPU cores, then guess what? That's also ~1-2w per CPU core.

    Xeons, Epycs, whatever this is - they are all also typically optimized for power efficiency. That's how they can fit so many CPU cores in 200-300W.