this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2023
113 points (97.5% liked)
Apple
17602 readers
138 users here now
Welcome
to the largest Apple community on Lemmy. This is the place where we talk about everything Apple, from iOS to the exciting upcoming Apple Vision Pro. Feel free to join the discussion!
Rules:
- No NSFW Content
- No Hate Speech or Personal Attacks
- No Ads / Spamming
Self promotion is only allowed in the pinned monthly thread
Communities of Interest:
Apple Hardware
Apple TV
Apple Watch
iPad
iPhone
Mac
Vintage Apple
Apple Software
iOS
iPadOS
macOS
tvOS
watchOS
Shortcuts
Xcode
Community banner courtesy of u/Antsomnia.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It can be more complicated than “bigger number better”. I don’t think anyone’s trying to justify it, probably just speculate on why it is the way it is
Maybe Apple discovered that most software’s bottleneck isn’t at the RAM access for user land operations but is with cache misses, and they sacrificed some of the circuitry supporting memory access speed for additional on-die memory? So while you have less RAM bus speed, it doesn’t actually matter because you never could’ve used it anyway?
I don’t know any real world numbers of any of this, I’m spitballin’ here - but that’s an example of an optimization that could plausibly happen when you are working with hardware design.
People have been talking shit about Apple since the early 90s, but their stuff still works and they’re still selling it so, miss me with that “no no THIS time they’re playing us all for fools! No, seriously, guys! Guys? STOP HAVING FUN!” nonsense.
I’ll believe it when the benchmarks come out.