They always do this comparison and it is always misleading. They are the first to get a processor on the new TSMC node, so of course the processor will be faster.
Saying the first new CPU on a new node is fastest is uninteresting from a technical standpoint, as there isn’t any competition yet, even if it is not inaccurate.
The average consumer doesn’t care why it’s the fastest. For a time, they’ll have a faster chip than their peers. Only people on Lemmy would say “yeah but that’s only because new nm process, so it doesn’t count!”
If the conversation is between chip manufacturers talking shop, that matters. For everyone else, it’s irrelevant.
For even a semi-informed user, it matters. E.g. you can buy the fastest processor (in this single benchmark, which might be or not be important to you) in a Macbook Pro from Apple for $3000.
But knowing that this is only because of the 2nm TSMC node that Apple got first, but Qualcomm, AMD, etc. will also get very soon (a few months), means that you probably will be able to buy an even faster chip in a laptop with Windows or Linux for $2000. Which, depending on what you plan to use the PC, might be just as viable to you.
So I would say it IS important to users to know the facts of the situation in order to make an informed decision on their next purchase.
Wouldn’t that always be the case though? If you wait until next year you will always be able to buy a faster and better computer. It will likely cost more as well. Seem like if you want the ‘fastest’ now, you’d buy something with the A20 pro, but hey tomorrow someone else may come out with something faster.
Okay, but that Intel CPU was part of the first family of CPUs on Intel’s equivalent node (18A) too. If nothing else, it serves as an interesting Intel vs TSMC lithography comparison. Which one would expect TSMC to win anyway, but at least now we have numbers.
They always do this comparison and it is always misleading. They are the first to get a processor on the new TSMC node, so of course the processor will be faster.
They’re the first to get the fastest chips, so saying their chips are the fastest is… misleading? But also “of course” it’s true?
I’m confused.
I don’t think anybody was misled into thinking it meant this chip would always be the fastest on the market.
Saying the first new CPU on a new node is fastest is uninteresting from a technical standpoint, as there isn’t any competition yet, even if it is not inaccurate.
The average consumer doesn’t care why it’s the fastest. For a time, they’ll have a faster chip than their peers. Only people on Lemmy would say “yeah but that’s only because new nm process, so it doesn’t count!”
If the conversation is between chip manufacturers talking shop, that matters. For everyone else, it’s irrelevant.
For even a semi-informed user, it matters. E.g. you can buy the fastest processor (in this single benchmark, which might be or not be important to you) in a Macbook Pro from Apple for $3000. But knowing that this is only because of the 2nm TSMC node that Apple got first, but Qualcomm, AMD, etc. will also get very soon (a few months), means that you probably will be able to buy an even faster chip in a laptop with Windows or Linux for $2000. Which, depending on what you plan to use the PC, might be just as viable to you.
So I would say it IS important to users to know the facts of the situation in order to make an informed decision on their next purchase.
Wouldn’t that always be the case though? If you wait until next year you will always be able to buy a faster and better computer. It will likely cost more as well. Seem like if you want the ‘fastest’ now, you’d buy something with the A20 pro, but hey tomorrow someone else may come out with something faster.
Okay, but that Intel CPU was part of the first family of CPUs on Intel’s equivalent node (18A) too. If nothing else, it serves as an interesting Intel vs TSMC lithography comparison. Which one would expect TSMC to win anyway, but at least now we have numbers.