nospam wrote:

>> These numbers are from "Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 vs Apple A16 Bionic: It�s a
>> Close Call"
>
> actually, it isn't close at all. you're blindly repeating numbers you
> don't understand.

What's interesting is every rebuttal by nospam claiming that everything out
of Apple beats everything out of the rest of the world, uses EXACTLY the
same unthinking blind approach that nospam is claiming Steve is using here.

While benchmark scores have their place, Apple is so inept at chip design
that almost every Apple smartphone CPU has had unfixable holes in them.

Even the M series of chips contain unfixable unpatchable hardware flaws.

Worse - Apple's overall smartphone power delivery design is so bad that
Apple felt desperate to not only secretly cut speeds in half (as if nobody
would notice) but to secretly backdate the release notes claiming they told
us (when that was just another of Apple's bold faced public brazen lies).

The amount that Apple paid in civil & criminal penalties (yes, Apple was
forced to plead guilty to _criminal_ intent for doing that) is enough to
buy an entire aircraft carrier - complete with avionics, warplanes &
munitions.

To Apple, a few billion dollars is nothing - but the point I'm making here
is what good are Apple's CPUs when Apple is always lying about them?

Apple's design teams are so inept they can't even make a competitive modem,
let alone a CPU that doesn't have huge unfixable unpatchable holes in it.

*It's a fact that no smartphone is _less_ secure than an Apple iPhone*

On 2022-11-20 12:13, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>>> These numbers are from "Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 vs Apple A16 Bionic: It�s
>>> a Close Call"
>>
>> actually, it isn't close at all. you're blindly repeating numbers you
>> don't understand.
>
> What's interesting is every rebuttal by nospam claiming that everything out
> of Apple beats everything out of the rest of the world, uses EXACTLY the
> same unthinking blind approach that nospam is claiming Steve is using here.
>
> While benchmark scores have their place, Apple is so inept at chip design
> that almost every Apple smartphone CPU has had unfixable holes in them.
>
> Even the M series of chips contain unfixable unpatchable hardware flaws.

Every ARM chip using the same ISA has the same problems

>
> Worse - Apple's overall smartphone power delivery design is so bad that
> Apple felt desperate to not only secretly cut speeds in half (as if nobody
> would notice) but to secretly backdate the release notes claiming they told
> us (when that was just another of Apple's bold faced public brazen lies).

More bullshit.

>
> The amount that Apple paid in civil & criminal penalties (yes, Apple was
> forced to plead guilty to _criminal_ intent for doing that) is enough to
> buy an entire aircraft carrier - complete with avionics, warplanes &
> munitions.

This is a complete fabrication.

>
> To Apple, a few billion dollars is nothing - but the point I'm making here
> is what good are Apple's CPUs when Apple is always lying about them?
>
> Apple's design teams are so inept they can't even make a competitive
> modem, let alone a CPU that doesn't have huge unfixable unpatchable
> holes in it.
>
> *It's a fact that no smartphone is _less_ secure than an Apple iPhone*

It's not a fact.

>

On 2022-11-21 16:56:55 +0000, Alan said:

> On 2022-11-20 12:13, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> nospam wrote:
>>
>>>> These numbers are from "Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 vs Apple A16 Bionic: It�s a
>>>> Close Call"
>>>
>>> actually, it isn't close at all. you're blindly repeating numbers you
>>> don't understand.
>>
>> What's interesting is every rebuttal by nospam claiming that everything out
>> of Apple beats everything out of the rest of the world, uses EXACTLY the
>> same unthinking blind approach that nospam is claiming Steve is using here.
>>
>> While benchmark scores have their place, Apple is so inept at chip design
>> that almost every Apple smartphone CPU has had unfixable holes in them.
>>
>> Even the M series of chips contain unfixable unpatchable hardware flaws.
>
> Every ARM chip using the same ISA has the same problems

Yep. Android chips have some of the same/similar flaws, plus a pile of
their own flaws. Probably the biggest flaw is being pig slow in
comparison to Apple Silicon.

>> Worse - Apple's overall smartphone power delivery design is so bad that
>> Apple felt desperate to not only secretly cut speeds in half (as if nobody
>> would notice) but to secretly backdate the release notes claiming they told
>> us (when that was just another of Apple's bold faced public brazen lies).
>
> More bullshit.
>
>>
>> The amount that Apple paid in civil & criminal penalties (yes, Apple was
>> forced to plead guilty to _criminal_ intent for doing that) is enough to
>> buy an entire aircraft carrier - complete with avionics, warplanes &
>> munitions.
>
> This is a complete fabrication.
>
>>
>> To Apple, a few billion dollars is nothing - but the point I'm making here
>> is what good are Apple's CPUs when Apple is always lying about them?
>>
>> Apple's design teams are so inept they can't even make a competitive
>> modem, let alone a CPU that doesn't have huge unfixable unpatchable
>> holes in it.
>>
>> *It's a fact that no smartphone is _less_ secure than an Apple iPhone*
>
> It's not a fact.

It's an anti-fact ... the complete opposite of a true fact.

Your Name wrote:

> Yep. Android chips have some of the same/similar flaws, plus a pile of
> their own flaws. Probably the biggest flaw is being pig slow in
> comparison to Apple Silicon.

I wonder if you iKooks realize you have only seven excuses for why Apple
lied to you about Apple being holier than all the other smartphone OEMs...

One of your seven classic excuses for why Apple lied to you is that in the
end, Apple is even worse than every other smartphone manufacturer is.

And, your excuse (as it was above) is that you knew that all along...

*In other words, the excuse you proffer is that _Apple lied to you_.*

It's amazing that this is one of the seven excuses you iKooks always use!

*Your excuse is that Apple is just as bad as everyone else is*
*(And, you claim you knew that all along.)*

On 2022-11-21 13:18, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Your Name wrote:
>
>> Yep. Android chips have some of the same/similar flaws, plus a pile of
>> their own flaws. Probably the biggest flaw is being pig slow in
>> comparison to Apple Silicon.
>
> I wonder if you iKooks realize you have only seven excuses for why Apple
> lied to you about Apple being holier than all the other smartphone OEMs...
>
> One of your seven classic excuses for why Apple lied to you is that in the
> end, Apple is even worse than every other smartphone manufacturer is.
>
> And, your excuse (as it was above) is that you knew that all along...
>  *In other words, the excuse you proffer is that _Apple lied to you_.*
>
> It's amazing that this is one of the seven excuses you iKooks always use!
>
>  *Your excuse is that Apple is just as bad as everyone else is*
>         *(And, you claim you knew that all along.)*

No one has claimed that, Liarboy.

On 11/21/2022 12:09 PM, Your Name wrote:

<snip>

> Yep. Android chips have some of the same/similar flaws, plus a pile of
> their own flaws. Probably the biggest flaw is being pig slow in
> comparison to Apple Silicon.

You can repeat that endlessly, but the reality is quite different when
you look at the big picture of system performance and not just a raw CPU
benchmark.

Geekbench 5 Single-Core/Multi-Core (sorted by Multi-Core score)
1. Apple A16 Bionic: 1861 / 5198
2. MediaTek Dimensity 9200: 1292 / 4956
3. Apple A15 Bionic: 1733 / 4778
4. Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2: 1467 / 4723
5. MediaTek Dimensity 9000 Plus: 1329 / 4333
6. MediaTek Dimensity 9000: 1259 / 4285
7. Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Plus Gen 1: 1303 / 4168
8. Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1: 1204 / 3785

The A16 Bionic blows away the Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 and is
slightly faster than the MediaTek Dimensity 9200.

AnTuTu 9 System Benchmark Scores
1. MediaTek Dimensity 9200: 1264779
2. Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2: 119173
3. MediaTek Dimensity 9000 Plus: 1142627
4. Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1: 1036699
5. Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Plus Gen 1: 1031943
6. MediaTek Dimensity 9000: 999900
7. Apple A16 Bionic: 966983
8. Apple A15 Bionic: 793330

The MediaTek Dimensity is slightly faster than the Qualcomm Snapdragon 8
Gen 2, and both blow away the A16 Bionic.

But don't despair. The reality is that the lower system performance of
the Bionic SOCs is immaterial because there will not be any lag
noticeable by users. Similarly, the lower raw CPU performance of the
Qualcomm and MediaTek chips is immaterial because there will not be any
lag noticeable by users.

It might be possible to find an app where an end user could notice a
performance difference. The ISP on the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 can capture
and stream HDR videos using multiple cameras at once (not possible on
the A16 Bionic, but expected on the iPhone 15 Pro Ultra with the A17
Bionic).

For hard-core gamers, the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, the MediaTek Dimensity
9200, and the Samsung Exynos 2200 all support ray tracing (rumored to be
available on the A17 Bionic). But this may be immaterial because all the
true gaming phones are Android based anyway so a gamer would not be
using an iPhone.

Then there's the Google Tensor chip which has much lower benchmark
scores but powers the Pixel 7 and 7 Pro, both of which have capabilities
not present on the Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra or the iPhone 14 Pro/Pro Max.

In article <tlh5ib$3tjdc$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> > Yep. Android chips have some of the same/similar flaws, plus a pile of
> > their own flaws. Probably the biggest flaw is being pig slow in
> > comparison to Apple Silicon.
>
> You can repeat that endlessly, but the reality is quite different when
> you look at the big picture of system performance and not just a raw CPU
> benchmark.

calling it 'pig slow' is s bit of a hyperbole, however, his claim is
correct.

all you've done is spew numbers you don't fully understand while
failing to look at real world performance.

> But don't despair. The reality is that the lower system performance of
> the Bionic SOCs is immaterial because there will not be any lag
> noticeable by users. Similarly, the lower raw CPU performance of the
> Qualcomm and MediaTek chips is immaterial because there will not be any
> lag noticeable by users.

lag isn't the issue.

you can't accept the fact that apple silicon is well ahead of anything
on the android side, and even intel outside of high end power-hungry
chips, whereas apple silicon offers full performance on battery.

> It might be possible to find an app where an end user could notice a
> performance difference.

not only is it possible, but it's actually quite common.

in one test, adobe lightroom was *twice* as fast, at 7 minutes versus
14 minutes.

that's a *huge* difference that goes well beyond what you call lag and
*will* be noticeable by everyone who uses lightroom or similar apps.

<https://www.gizchina.com/2022/11/13/apple-iphone-14-pro-max-completely-
crashes-the-samsung-galaxy-s22-ultra-in-real-life-performance-test/>
Adobe Lightroom: For the Adobe Lightroom, we used a larger video file
for the test. The Bionic A16 powered iPhone was able to complete this
task within 7 minutes 2 seconds. The Samsung completed within 14
minutes, 2 seconds. Apple claims the point here as well.

> For hard-core gamers, the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, the MediaTek Dimensity
> 9200, and the Samsung Exynos 2200 all support ray tracing (rumored to be
> available on the A17 Bionic).

further evidence you do have any clue about apple products.

metal supports ray tracing, and has for quite some time.

> Then there's the Google Tensor chip which has much lower benchmark
> scores but powers the Pixel 7 and 7 Pro, both of which have capabilities
> not present on the Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra or the iPhone 14 Pro/Pro Max.

nothing significant, and does not offset the numerous disadvantages.

nospam wrote:

> further evidence you do have any clue about apple products.

*Nobody lies, like Apple lies.*

And yet, it's _you_, nospam, who is desperate to employ one or more of your
seven excuses for why Apple lied to you about everything you believe in.

*A16 Bionic CPU or otherwise*

My observation is that you _hate_ that Apple lied to you so much that you
are forced to come up with your seven excuses for why Apple lied to you.

*Nobody lies, like Apple lies.*

On 11/21/2022 4:36 PM, sms wrote:
> On 11/21/2022 12:09 PM, Your Name wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Yep. Android chips have some of the same/similar flaws, plus a pile of
>> their own flaws. Probably the biggest flaw is being pig slow in
>> comparison to Apple Silicon.
>
> You can repeat that endlessly, but the reality is quite different when
> you look at the big picture of system performance and not just a raw CPU
> benchmark.

<snip>

Also see:
<https://beebom.com/snapdragon-8-gen-2-vs-apple-a16-bionic-benchmarks/>

"It’s clear that Qualcomm has done a tremendous job at improving its
mobile SoC and the Snapdragon 8 gen 2 is proof of that. Besides the
single-core CPU performance, _the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 leads in all other
categories. The GPU gain is particularly noteworthy, this year._ Apart
from that, in the AI and wireless connectivity department, Qualcomm
already has a significant lead."

Experts agree that the A17 Bionic will likely leapfrog the Snapdragon 8
Gen 2 in 2023, at least in some categories. This is what typically
occurs with flagship phones and flagship SOCs, since the development
schedules are offset by half a year or so. The A17, expected to be
fabbed on TSMC's 3nm process, will increase performance and reduce power
consumption. But after 3nm for the A17, the next upgrade by TSMC, to
2nm, is not expected until sometime in 2025 (paragraph 7 of
<https://focustaiwan.tw/business/202211210011> so it's likely that it
will not be until the iPhone 18 in 2026.

The 2023 iPhone 15 Pro is expected to generate a super-cycle of users
upgrading. There are a bunch of features expected, including USB-C, a
periscope lens with wider optical zoom <sic>, and the Qualcomm X70
modem, and the A17 processor. No word on when Apple will begin using
their own modems, either discrete or integrated into the Bionic. One
report on Bloomberg cited thermal issues with prototypes (paragraph 10
at
<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2022-07-03/apple-aapl-iphone-apple-watch-take-a-back-seat-to-the-mac-in-chip-upgrades-l55d87p9>).

The bottom line is that no one should be too upset about this turn of
events. It's unlikely that end-users would ever notice the difference
unless they're doing graphics-intensive tasks and Apple will almost
certainly pass Qualcomm with the A17 Bionic.

In article <tllfju$daba$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> The 2023 iPhone 15 Pro is expected to generate a super-cycle of users
> upgrading.

no, because the iphone 14 series is already in what can be called a
super-cycle.

> There are a bunch of features expected, including USB-C, a
> periscope lens with wider optical zoom <sic>, and the Qualcomm X70
> modem, and the A17 processor.

none of those will cause a super-cycle, nor does that even matter at
all.

> The bottom line is that no one should be too upset about this turn of
> events.

sure seems like it's been upsetting you quite a bit since you've been
trolling all sorts of benchmarks that don't say what you think they do.

> It's unlikely that end-users would ever notice the difference
> unless they're doing graphics-intensive tasks and Apple will almost
> certainly pass Qualcomm with the A17 Bionic.

apple passed qualcomm long ago, notably with the 64-bit a7 a decade
ago, when qualcomm (and the industry) was completely caught off guard.

it took qualcomm a couple of years to release their version of a 64-bit
processor. and then android had to update to take advantage of it.

since that time, ios devices have consistently outperformed similar
android devices in real world performance (and in some cases, x86
laptops/desktops).

i've posted the adobe lightroom benchmark a few times, where the iphone
14 is *twice* as fast as the samsung s22.

that's just one example of many. here's another:

<https://www.tomsguide.com/news/iphone-12-benchmarks-this-destroys-every-
android-phone>
In both synthetic benchmarks and real-world tests, the new 5nm
A14 chip beat every Android phone out there. This means that the gap
between the iPhone 12 and the competition has widened again, at least
until Qualcomm can answer with its Snapdragon 875 chip.
....
The iPhone 12 Pro took care of our video in 27 seconds, while the
iPhone 12 shaved a second off that time. That's an impressive
improvement over the iPhone 11 Pro Max's previously pace-setting
time of 46 seconds.

The best an Android phone has mustered in our video encoding test has
been the 1 minute and 13 second time that the Galaxy S20 Plus turned
in earlier this year, though the Note 20 Ultra finished three seconds
behind that. It takes the OnePlus 8T and ROG Phone 3 more than 90
seconds to do something the iPhone 12 completes in less than
half-a-minute.

the iphone 12 was roughly *three* times faster than the fastest android
phone, at 27 seconds versus 73 seconds.

to claim that qualcomm is ahead is simply unsupported by the evidence,
not that it will stop you from bloviating.

nospam wrote:

>> It's unlikely that end-users would ever notice the difference
>> unless they're doing graphics-intensive tasks and Apple will almost
>> certainly pass Qualcomm with the A17 Bionic.
>
> apple passed qualcomm long ago, notably with the 64-bit a7 a decade
> ago, when qualcomm (and the industry) was completely caught off guard.

What you don't understand is how horribly flawed Apple CPUs are.
*All you know is the one datum that Apple wants to _feed_ you*

The problem you iKooks have is you only read what Apple feeds you.
*Apple never tells you almost every Apple CPU has _unfixable_ holes*

You can make excuses for all the Apple CPU unfixable holes (and you will),
but all the excuses in the world won't fix all those unfixable CPU flaws.
*All your excuses for Apple CPU flaws doesn't _fix_ those flaws*

When Apple ends up paying _billions_ of dollars in penalties (enough to
design, build & equip an entire aircraft carrier with weapons & avionics)
just because Apple was _desperate_ to secretly throttle CPUs, that's when
you realize what Apple is, is never what Apple told you it was going to be.
*Apple was _desperate_ to _secretly_ throttle billions of Apple CPUs*

Note Apple didn't have to admit guilt in civil court but since criminal
offenses don't allow that - Apple publicly plead guilty to this crime.

In summary, until Apple designs a CPU that is not horribly flawed,
all the marketing in the world won't fix the flaws that exist in them.
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information
which, in this case, is to point out most Apple CPUs are unfixably flawed.

Your Name wrote:

> Yep. Android chips have some of the same/similar flaws, plus a pile of
> their own flaws. Probably the biggest flaw is being pig slow in
> comparison to Apple Silicon.

*All your excuses for Apple CPU flaws doesn't _fix_ those Apple CPU flaws*

Pssst. It's not Apple Silicon. It's TSMC Silicon.

Only a fool thinks it's Apple Silicon.

HINT: That's what marketing does - it caters to you fools.

On 2022-11-23, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <tllfju$daba$1@dont-email.me>, sms
><scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> The 2023 iPhone 15 Pro is expected to generate a super-cycle of users
>> upgrading.
>
> no, because the iphone 14 series is already in what can be called a
> super-cycle.
>
>> There are a bunch of features expected, including USB-C, a
>> periscope lens with wider optical zoom <sic>, and the Qualcomm X70
>> modem, and the A17 processor.
>
> none of those will cause a super-cycle, nor does that even matter at
> all.
>
>
>> The bottom line is that no one should be too upset about this turn of
>> events.
>
> sure seems like it's been upsetting you quite a bit since you've been
> trolling all sorts of benchmarks that don't say what you think they do.
>
>> It's unlikely that end-users would ever notice the difference
>> unless they're doing graphics-intensive tasks and Apple will almost
>> certainly pass Qualcomm with the A17 Bionic.
>
> apple passed qualcomm long ago, notably with the 64-bit a7 a decade
> ago, when qualcomm (and the industry) was completely caught off guard.
>
> it took qualcomm a couple of years to release their version of a 64-bit
> processor. and then android had to update to take advantage of it.
>
> since that time, ios devices have consistently outperformed similar
> android devices in real world performance (and in some cases, x86
> laptops/desktops).
>
> i've posted the adobe lightroom benchmark a few times, where the iphone
> 14 is *twice* as fast as the samsung s22.
>
> that's just one example of many. here's another:
>
><https://www.tomsguide.com/news/iphone-12-benchmarks-this-destroys-every-
> android-phone>
> In both synthetic benchmarks and real-world tests, the new 5nm
> A14 chip beat every Android phone out there. This means that the gap
> between the iPhone 12 and the competition has widened again, at least
> until Qualcomm can answer with its Snapdragon 875 chip.
> ...
> The iPhone 12 Pro took care of our video in 27 seconds, while the
> iPhone 12 shaved a second off that time. That's an impressive
> improvement over the iPhone 11 Pro Max's previously pace-setting
> time of 46 seconds.
>
> The best an Android phone has mustered in our video encoding test has
> been the 1 minute and 13 second time that the Galaxy S20 Plus turned
> in earlier this year, though the Note 20 Ultra finished three seconds
> behind that. It takes the OnePlus 8T and ROG Phone 3 more than 90
> seconds to do something the iPhone 12 completes in less than
> half-a-minute.
>
> the iphone 12 was roughly *three* times faster than the fastest android
> phone, at 27 seconds versus 73 seconds.
>
> to claim that qualcomm is ahead is simply unsupported by the evidence,
> not that it will stop you from bloviating.

He'll just ignore these factual real-world results, as is his modus
operandi, and continue to troll.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

In article <tllimj$8gi$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> The problem you iKooks have is you only read what Apple feeds you.

having been to numerous apple events, both on and off campus, apple
feeds people quite well.

to be fair, there was a wwdc back in the 90s where the food was pretty
bad, but that was a different era. and then there were the box lunches.

nospam wrote:

>> The problem you iKooks have is you only read what Apple feeds you.
>
> having been to numerous apple events, both on and off campus, apple
> feeds people quite well.

That's actually humorous, but the point is that Apple CPUs are, and always
will be worthless until and unless Apple designs CPUs _without_ huge holes.

All the expensive Apple marketing in the world can't fix Apple's CPU flaws.

If Apple spent some of their huge marketing budget on R&D,
maybe all those huge unfixable Apple CPU holes wouldn't exist.

Jolly Roger wrote:

> He'll just ignore these factual real-world results, as is his modus
> operandi, and continue to troll.

All the iKook's excuses in the world can't fix the many Apple CPU flaws.

Don't tell us how fantastic _you_ "think" Apple CPUs are until you
can write to say all CPUs aren't filled with many unfixable flaws.

If Apple put some of it's huge advertising budget into testing its
CPUs, maybe then you could tell us how great you think they are.

But until Apple designs CPUs sans huge holes in them, you can't.

In article <tllnug$s3j$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> but the point is that Apple CPUs are, and always
> will be worthless

in fact, apple's cpus are so worthless that they give them away for
free to anyone who asks. grab a few for the holidays, before they run
out.

> until and unless Apple designs CPUs _without_ huge holes.

what's the point in that?

without holes, how would people put them on a keychain?

> All the expensive Apple marketing in the world can't fix Apple's CPU flaws.

that's not the purview of marketing.

nospam wrote:

> that's not the purview of marketing.

Can you name a CPU more flawed that the Apple CPUs, nospam.

On 2022-11-23 08:47, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Your Name wrote:
>
>> Yep. Android chips have some of the same/similar flaws, plus a pile of
>> their own flaws. Probably the biggest flaw is being pig slow in
>> comparison to Apple Silicon.
>
> *All your excuses for Apple CPU flaws doesn't _fix_ those Apple CPU flaws*

>
> Pssst. It's not Apple Silicon. It's TSMC Silicon.

So you want to have it both ways...

It's not really Apple's design...

....but Apple is still responsible for the flaws.

> Only a fool thinks it's Apple Silicon.
> HINT: That's what marketing does - it caters to you fools.

Hint:

Apple really does design their own processors (along with several other
kinds of chips).

On 2022-11-23 10:18, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> He'll just ignore these factual real-world results, as is his modus
>> operandi, and continue to troll.
>
> All the iKook's excuses in the world can't fix the many Apple CPU flaws.
>
> Don't tell us how fantastic _you_ "think" Apple CPUs are until you can
> write to say all CPUs aren't filled with many unfixable flaws.
>
> If Apple put some of it's huge advertising budget into testing its
> CPUs, maybe then you could tell us how great you think they are.
>
> But until Apple designs CPUs sans huge holes in them, you can't.

You claimed just a few minutes earlier that Apple doesn't design CPUs:

'Pssst. It's not Apple Silicon. It's TSMC Silicon.'

Are you really so addled that you can't remember that for less than 2 hours?

On 2022-11-23 14:49, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>> that's not the purview of marketing.
>
>    Can you name a CPU more flawed that the Apple CPUs, nospam.

Can you name an ARM ISA CPU that has fewer flaws, Arlen?

On 2022-11-23 23:05:37 +0000, Alan said:
> On 2022-11-23 10:18, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> Jolly Roger wrote:
>>
>>> He'll just ignore these factual real-world results, as is his modus
>>> operandi, and continue to troll.
>>
>> All the iKook's excuses in the world can't fix the many Apple CPU flaws.
>>
>> Don't tell us how fantastic _you_ "think" Apple CPUs are until you can
>> write to say all CPUs aren't filled with many unfixable flaws.
>>
>> If Apple put some of it's huge advertising budget into testing its
>> CPUs, maybe then you could tell us how great you think they are.
>>
>> But until Apple designs CPUs sans huge holes in them, you can't.
>
> You claimed just a few minutes earlier that Apple doesn't design CPUs:
>
> 'Pssst. It's not Apple Silicon. It's TSMC Silicon.'
>
> Are you really so addled that you can't remember that for less than 2 hours?

The moron can't remember the utter garbage claimed two seconds ago, let
alone 2 hours. :-\

On 2022-11-23 23:06:11 +0000, Alan said:
> On 2022-11-23 14:49, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> nospam wrote:
>>>
>>> that's not the purview of marketing.
>>
>>    Can you name a CPU more flawed that the Apple CPUs, nospam.
>
> Can you name an ARM ISA CPU that has fewer flaws, Arlen?

Intel chips are so badly flawed that some even had trouble correctly
dividing two numbers!
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug>

In article <tlm81v$1q0b$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> Can you name a CPU more flawed that the Apple CPUs, nospam.

yes.

nospam wrote:

>> Can you name a CPU more flawed that the Apple CPUs, nospam.
>
> yes.

Name it.