Apple's Silicon Magic Is Over!

Summary

视频脚本回顾了苹果M1芯片发布以来的发展历程，讨论了M1芯片在性能、效率和散热方面的突破性成就，以及M2和M3芯片的迭代改进。同时，分析了芯片制造工艺的局限性，如晶体管密度的提升速度放缓以及成本的增加。此外，提到了高通Snapdragon X Elite SoC作为苹果硅片的潜在竞争对手，以及苹果在硬件设计上的创新潜力。最后，呼吁苹果继续创新，不要满足于现状，以免被竞争对手迎头赶上。

Takeaways

• 🔥 苹果M1芯片的推出是一次革命性的改变，它不仅保持了MacBook的轻薄，还显著提升了性能，并且不需要风扇。
• 🔋 M1芯片的MacBook Air在不改变电池大小的情况下，续航时间比前代提升了50%。
• 💻 苹果后续的MacBook Pro和M2 MacBook Air改进了蝶式键盘的问题，带回了MagSafe和其他I/O接口，提升了显示屏、扬声器和键盘。
• 📈 M1 iMac和iPad Pro证明了即使是小尺寸的设备也能实现高效率，M1芯片的性能在发布时几乎无视物理定律。
• 🚀 苹果当前的计算机产品线不仅是苹果历史上最好的，也可能是任何公司中最好的产品线之一。
• ⚙️ M1芯片的三个主要性能驱动因素包括：Arm64的现代指令集架构、苹果专用的芯片硬件块，以及从硬件到应用的深度垂直控制。
• 📉 M2芯片采用了TSMC的N5P工艺，性能提升了7%，功耗降低了15%，同时增加了晶体管数量，但这也导致了更高的功耗和热量。
• 🤔 M3芯片在TSMC的3nm工艺上的性能提升没有达到预期，因为晶体管密度的提升并不如预期那样显著。
• 💰 随着制程节点的升级，每个新节点的成本都在增加，这可能会影响苹果芯片的性价比。
• 🌊 高通正在与微软合作，推动基于Arm的Windows笔记本电脑的发展，其Snapdragon X Elite SoC在性能上已经接近M2和M3。
• 🚀 苹果需要继续创新，不能仅仅依赖于其芯片的性能，而应该探索新的硬件设计，以保持其产品的领先地位。
• 📊 尽管M3的性能提升不如预期，但对于大多数用户来说，M1芯片的性能已经足够，苹果应该考虑开发更多样化的硬件设计，以满足不同用户群体的需求。

Q & A

为什么五年前Mac电脑会因为过热而导致性能下降？

五年前，Mac电脑使用的是高热设计功耗（TDP）的Intel芯片，与不足的冷却系统相结合，导致了过热问题，进而影响了性能基准测试的得分。

苹果硅片M1的推出对Mac电脑有何影响？

M1的推出是一次重大变革，它不仅保持了Mac的轻薄设计，还在不增加风扇的情况下显著提升了性能，并且电池续航时间比前代产品延长了50%。

M1芯片的哪些特性使其性能如此出色？

M1芯片的性能得益于其使用的Arm64指令集架构、苹果专用的芯片硬件模块，以及从硬件到内核再到操作系统和应用程序的深度垂直控制。

M2芯片相对于M1有哪些改进？

M2使用了台积电改进的N5P工艺，性能提升了7%，功耗降低了约15%，并且将晶体管总数从160亿增加到200亿。

M3芯片在制造工艺上有哪些变化？

M3芯片采用了台积电的N3E 3nm工艺，虽然晶体管密度的增加并不如预期，但仍然实现了一定的性能提升。

为什么说M3芯片的性能提升没有达到预期？

尽管M3采用了更先进的3nm工艺，但由于晶体管尺寸和成本的增加，以及SRAM和IO密度的提升有限，导致其性能提升并不如预期中的那样显著。

高通的Snapdragon X Elite SoC有哪些特点？

Snapdragon X Elite SoC是一款专为笔记本电脑设计的芯片，它基于台积电的4nm工艺，拥有12个高性能核心CPU、Adreno GPU和内置的Hexagon NPU。

苹果硅片的性能提升是否已经达到了物理极限？

苹果硅片的性能提升正在接近物理极限，尤其是在散热和功耗方面，这限制了单纯依靠增加晶体管数量或提高时钟频率来提升性能的空间。

苹果未来的Mac电脑设计应该关注哪些方面？

苹果未来的Mac电脑设计应该更多地关注硬件设计，利用苹果硅片的高能效比，创造出更多样化的笔记本电脑形态，如更轻薄的笔记本或具有更大散热空间的高性能笔记本。

为什么说苹果在M1系列之后需要再次冒险？

M1系列的成功为苹果带来了巨大的市场优势，但随着技术的发展和竞争对手的追赶，苹果需要继续创新和冒险，以保持其产品的领先地位。

苹果如何通过硬件设计来提升用户体验？

苹果可以通过探索新的笔记本电脑形态，如更轻薄的设计或针对特定用户群体（如游戏玩家和创作者）的高性能设计，来提升用户体验。

Outlines

00:00

😀 苹果硅片的革命性变革

第一段主要回顾了五年前苹果Mac电脑的散热问题，以及随后苹果硅片M1的推出如何彻底改变了Mac的设计和性能。M1芯片不仅提高了性能，还实现了无需风扇的散热解决方案，同时电池续航时间增加了50%，而价格却没有提高。此外，还提到了MacBook Pro和M2 MacBook Air的重新设计，以及M1 iMac和iPad Pro展示的高效能。最后，作者提出了对M3系列的期望，以及对未来计算机行业发展的警告。

05:05

🤔 M2和M3的性能提升与挑战

第二段深入探讨了M2和M3芯片的技术细节，包括它们的性能提升、功耗问题以及制造工艺的挑战。M2通过采用更先进的制程技术(N5P)和增加晶体管数量(从160亿增加到200亿)来提升性能，但这导致了更高的热输出和功耗。尽管如此，M2的性能提升仍然保持了每瓦性能的增长。而M3作为首个采用TSMC 3nm工艺的芯片，其性能提升并未达到预期，这表明工艺缩减带来的性能提升正在减少，且成本效益比也在降低。

10:06

📈 高通骁龙X Elite与苹果硅片的竞争

第三段讨论了高通骁龙X Elite芯片，这是一款专为笔记本电脑设计的芯片，基于TSMC的4nm工艺制造，具备高性能CPU、GPU和NPU。作者通过比较X Elite与苹果M系列芯片的性能，指出尽管苹果在高端市场仍占优势，但高通的芯片在性能和功耗方面与M3相当，显示出高通在笔记本芯片市场的竞争力。同时，文中提到高通和微软的合作，以及对未来可能采用NVIDIA或AMD的高性能GPU的暗示。

15:10

🚀 苹果硬件设计的创新与风险

最后一段强调了苹果在硬件设计上的创新潜力和需要承担的风险。作者认为，尽管苹果的硅片技术已经非常出色，但苹果的其他竞争对手正在迎头赶上。因此，苹果需要在硬件设计上进行更多的创新，比如开发更轻薄的笔记本电脑，或者为游戏玩家和创作者设计更强大的笔记本电脑。作者呼吁苹果不要安于现状，而应该继续冒险和创新，以保持其在行业中的领先地位。

Keywords

💡Apple 硅片

Apple 硅片是指苹果公司自行设计并使用的处理器。在视频中，它指的是 M1 系列芯片，这些芯片以其高效的性能和低功耗而著称，改变了人们对 Mac 电脑性能的看法。例如，视频中提到 Apple 硅片让 Mac 电脑在保持轻薄的同时，性能大幅提升，且不需要风扇散热。

💡M1 芯片

M1 芯片是苹果公司推出的第一款基于 ARM 架构的自家处理器，它在视频中被描述为一个革命性的产品，不仅性能显著提升，而且在设计上允许 Mac 电脑不使用风扇，同时电池续航时间增加了 50%。

💡性能每瓦

性能每瓦是衡量处理器能效的指标，即在每消耗一瓦特电力的情况下能提供的性能。视频中提到，Apple 硅片的推出使得 Mac 电脑在性能每瓦上取得了巨大进步，这使得即便在更小的机身尺寸下，也能实现强大的计算能力。

💡蝴蝶键盘

蝴蝶键盘是苹果公司在某些 MacBook 型号上使用的一种键盘设计，因其独特的蝶形开关而得名。视频中提到，苹果在 MacBook Pro 和 M2 MacBook Air 的重新设计中修复了蝴蝶键盘带来的问题，提升了用户体验。

💡MagSafe

MagSafe 是苹果公司为其 MacBook 系列笔记本电脑开发的磁性电源连接器。视频中提到，苹果在新一代 MacBook Pro 和 M2 MacBook Air 中重新引入了 MagSafe，这是对之前设计的一种改进。

💡Snapdragon X Elite

Snapdragon X Elite 是高通公司开发的一款针对笔记本电脑的系统芯片（SoC），基于 ARM 架构。视频中提到，这款芯片在性能上与 Apple 的 M2 和 M3 芯片相当，表明高通正在努力提升其在笔记本处理器市场的竞争力。

💡指令集架构（ISA）

指令集架构（Instruction Set Architecture, ISA）是计算机体系结构中用于执行程序的指令集合。视频中提到，ARM64 使用的 ISA 比 x86 更现代化，没有 x86 的历史包袱，这使得 Apple 硅片在性能上能够取得显著优势。

💡统一内存池

统一内存池是指在处理器设计中，CPU、GPU 和其他处理单元共享同一内存空间的技术。视频中提到，Apple 的 M1 芯片拥有统一内存池，这有助于提高数据访问效率，从而提升整体性能。

💡能效比

能效比是指在执行计算任务时，处理器的性能与其能耗的比例。视频中强调了 Apple 硅片在保持高性能的同时，也注重了能效比的优化，这是其产品受到市场欢迎的一个重要原因。

💡热设计功率（TDP）

热设计功率是指在正常工作条件下，计算机硬件产生的最大热量。视频中提到，早期的 Mac 使用的 Intel 高 TDP 芯片因冷却不足而导致性能下降，而 M1 芯片则在不使用风扇的情况下有效控制了热设计功率。

💡垂直控制

垂直控制是指一家公司对产品从硬件到操作系统再到应用程序的全面控制。视频中提到，苹果公司拥有从硬件到内核到操作系统到应用程序的深度垂直控制，这有助于提高效率和性能。

Highlights

5年前，Mac电脑因高热和性能下降问题而饱受诟病，但M1芯片的推出彻底改变了这一局面。

M1芯片不仅保持了Mac的轻薄设计，而且性能提升了3.5倍，且无需风扇。

M1芯片的电池续航时间比前代产品提升了50%，且价格未增加。

MacBook Pro和M2 MacBook Air的重新设计修正了蝴蝶键盘的问题，提升了I/O、显示屏、扬声器和键盘。

M1 iMac和iPad Pro证明了没有哪种形态对Apple芯片的高效率来说是太小的。

Apple目前的计算机产品线可能是有史以来最好的产品线之一。

M1芯片的成功归功于Arm64架构、专用硬件模块和Apple从硬件到应用的深度垂直控制。

M2芯片通过采用TSMC的N5P工艺和增加晶体管数量，实现了性能提升和能效优化。

M2芯片虽然在峰值时消耗更多能量，但由于性能提升，任务完成速度更快，单位任务能耗相对较低。

M3芯片在TSMC的3nm工艺上的性能提升没有达到预期，表明工艺缩减带来的性能提升正在减少。

随着工艺节点的升级，芯片的成本也在增加，这可能会影响Apple芯片的性价比。

高通展示了基于4nm工艺的Snapdragon X Elite SoC，预示着对Apple芯片的潜在竞争。

Snapdragon X Elite SoC在性能上介于M2和M3之间，展示了高通在笔记本芯片市场的野心。

Apple Silicon的核心优势在于提供足够的性能和极端的能效，但正面临物理限制的挑战。

Apple需要在硬件设计上再次创新，利用Apple Silicon的高能效比，开发出更多样化的产品形态。

Apple应该考虑开发更轻薄的笔记本电脑，或者为游戏和创作者市场推出更强大的Mac。

Apple需要继续冒险和创新，以保持在行业中的领先地位，而不是仅仅依赖于M1时代的成就。

Transcripts

It's hard to believe that just over 5-years-ago,  I was ripping into the internals of brand-new Macs  

looking to hodge-podge a fix together, such that  they wouldn’t overheat and cause benchmark scores  

to plummet. High TDP Intel chips paired with  inadequate cooling made for a deadly combo—one  

that created the worst Macs in decades—but  then this happened: [insert M1 unveiling]

Apple silicon was a revelation to  what had been deemed an ill-suited  

form factor. Not only did they *keep* things  thin and light, but they launched with the  

literal identical MacBook Air chassis just  to prove—HEY—not only is this 3.5x faster,  

but we don’t even need a fan. Oh, and by  the way, we didn't touch the battery size  

at all but it lasts 50% longer than before.  Price increase? Nah. Send me a G and we coo.

The redesign of the MacBook Pro and M2 MacBook  Air righted the wrongs caused by the butterfly  

keyboard-sporting laptops of yore bringing  back MagSafe and other I/O, improving displays,  

speakers, keyboards, and more. Meanwhile, the M1  iMac and iPad Pro proved that no form factor was  

too small for this master-class in efficiency.  It’s not a stretch to say that Apple’s current  

computer lineup is not just Apple’s best ever,  but perhaps one of the best lineups ever from  

*any* company. But be warned, because changes  need to happen—and fast—if Apple wants that to  

continue being true into the future. Let's  tackle why the M3 series doesn't measure up  

to the almost physics-defying standards the M1  set at launch; and, how for the first time ever,  

real competition is just months away  from almost every PC maker imaginable.

I’ve talked a lot about why Apple silicon  has absolutely dominated since launch,  

but there were really three main drivers behind  M1’s incredible performance: (1) Arm64 itself uses  

significantly more modern (ISAs) instruction set  architectures that don’t carry the legacy baggage  

of x86—nerdy crap like weakly-ordered memory  models, a larger number of general-purpose  

registers for parallelizable code, etc., (2)  Apple’s dedicated on-chip hardware blocks like the  

video engines, Neural Engine, matrix coprocessor,  and unified memory pool, handle specific tasks  

vastly more capably than a general-compute  CPU or GPU, and, (3) deep vertical control  

from hardware to kernel to OS to application  helped eliminate cruft and streamline efficiency.

All of the work had to be paved for M1.  Sure, M2 and M3 benefit from that work,  

but they’ve been iterative—and Apple is now  somewhat limited in the same way everybody  

else is: transistor density. M1 launched  on TSMC’s 5nm process and unlike the 90s  

and 2000s when transistor density and node  naming actually correlated with one another,  

process names today like “5nm” don’t really mean  anything. There’s more to chips than logic gates  

and hardly any of those features precisely measure  at the marketed process size anyways. Regardless,  

the M1—not to even mention the M1 Max—was a an  enormous die that was not just the biggest TSMC  

5nm chip to date, but one of the largest Arm  chips ever produced period. So what do you do  

to get a faster chip like M2? There’s really  three options: (1) shrink the size and power  

consumption of the transistors so you can add  more of them in the same envelope, (2) keep  

the transistor size the same but increase the  number of them which makes for a larger die with  

greater heat and power drain, or, (3) keep the  transistor size and count the same but increase  

the voltage to push up the chip’s clock-speed  which creates even more heat and power drain.

M2 did a combination of options 1 and 2. They  were able to move to TSMC’s refined N5P process  

which netted both a 7% performance improvement  over N5 while drawing about 15% lower power;  

and then to speed things up even more, they  increased the total number of transistors  

from 16 billion to 20 billion. But this  increase didn’t come free. Do some shotty,  

“not really the full story” napkin math, and the  data would suggest the M2 is more power-hungry  

than M1—running hotter and drawing more energy  as a total package over its predecessor. And  

that’s not theoretical: we proved back when the  M2 MacBook Air launched that the chip was more  

difficult to keep cool and experienced more  rapid and more severe performance throttling  

due to those thermals. So why wasn’t this more  widely reported? Well, because M2’s performance  

per watt increased as well—not just total package  consumption. Imagine a high-performance sports  

car. The car runs hotter and consumes more fuel  when it reaches its top speeds, much like the M2;  

however, because it's so fast and efficient, it  can complete a 'race' much quicker than a regular  

car, reducing the total time it is running at  its hottest most fuel-consumptive state. So,  

while yes, the M2 consumed more total energy  at its peak, that extra compute was able to  

get tasks done more quickly—reducing time spent  at peak and therefore maintaining lower energy  

consumption per task relative to M1. Sounds  like a win-win—so what’s the problem? Sand, man.

When M3 launched on TSMC’s N3E 3nm process,  it was the first chip to do so—and performance  

expectations from pundits were high. I mean, doing  napkin math anew would suggest a 2.8x increase in  

transistor density—HUGE performance gains! But  then M3 came out and we got… a slightly better  

jump than we did from M1 to M2—and those on the  same process! Huh? Well, I guess we learned our  

lesson – using napkins for calculations can be as  messy as using a lipstick for math. First of all,  

TSMC’s 3nm node uses transistors that are  much physically larger than 3nm—they’re  

closer to 3.5. Okayyy, but even that would  suggest a 2x density increase. Ah, but only  

the logic density comes close at 1.7x.  SRAM and IO density barely increases at  

all. And chips—even magical ones—contain  all of these components. Realistically,  

there’s only about a 1.3x shrink. The era of  massive improvements from one process shrink  

to the next are over. The shrinks themselves are  now YEARS apart. And even worse, each new node  

is orders of magnitude more expensive than the  prior, per unit area. It’s estimated that Apple’s  

cost on these N3E chips is greater—not lesser—than  just using a bigger area on an older node. Alas,  

that would not yield the same  efficiency gains we’ve come to  

expect from Apple. More transistors on a  bigger chip means more heat. So what do?

We’ve spent several minutes getting really  nerdy and into the weeds on a lot of stuff  

that normal people don’t care about—and  at the end of the day, normal people buy  

the vast majority of Apple’s products. Sure,  the jump from M2 to M3 wasn’t as massive as  

expected and the jump from M3 to M4 will likely  be even smaller, but might I suggest something  

heretical for a minute? That’s OK! The silicon  isn’t the problem in Apple’s lineup any longer.

Look, Qualcomm invited me out to San Diego  a few weeks ago and I got to check out their  

reference design laptops (which basically  means they’re not real—they’re prototypes)  

for the Snapdragon X Elite SoC. You  may recall, a year-and-a-half-ago,  

we bought Microsoft’s Arm-based Windows  Dev Kit. It utilized the same Microsoft SQ3  

chip (which was just a rebranded Snapdragon  8cx gen3) found in a few quirky low-power,  

low-performance Windows laptops. No offense to  the folks at Qualcomm or Microsoft, but this thing  

sucked. Its performance under ideal conditions  was mediocre and ideal conditions were hard to  

come by because so much of the Windows experience  was wildly unoptimized for Arm—even after a decade  

following the original release of Windows RT.  But that was then—we live in the now. Not only  

has every single native app for Windows made  the transition to Arm, but massive quantities  

of 3rd party apps have too—including big ones—like  Google Chrome. Graphics APIs like DirectX, Vulkan,  

and OpenGL are said to work through mapping  layers and both Microsoft and Qualcomm have made  

huge efforts to ensure a smooth transition—they  were quick to volunteer that Apple is better at  

this than anyone and they hope to be compared to  them this summer when the X Elite laptops ship.

So, what is the Snapdragon X Elite? Well, they  gave me one in a cute little acrylic trading  

card. It is a bespoke laptop chip—not based on  a mobile chip—built on TSMC’s 4nm process coming  

with a 12 high-performance core CPU, Adreno  GPU, and in-house Hexagon NPU. Additionally,  

the on-board sensing hub houses an additional ISP,  on-board WiFi 7 by default, and the capability to  

be paired with up to 64GB of LPDDR5 memory,  a Snapdragon X65 5G modem, and NVMe storage  

over PCIe. The specs suggest Qualcomm is not  messing around—and from the benchmarks I saw,  

it consistently placed itself in between  the M2 and M3. Not shabby at all. Now,  

Apple is still certainly going to have the  upper hand with their Pro, Max, and Ultra chips,  

but this doesn’t aim to compete with those. While  OEMs can push the X Elite to run up to 90W for an  

extra performance boost, its reference-design  consumes just 24W peak. Very, very close to M3.

Now do I think that Qualcomm’s going to come out  blazing with the best laptop chips within the next  

3-years? Not really, no. But they’re hungry,  they’ve got Microsoft behind them, and they  

alluded to the fact that using heavy-duty GPUs  from NVIDIA or AMD wouldn’t be off the table in  

the future—something Apple has zero  aspirations for. And just like Apple, Intel,  

and everybody else, they’re really leaning into  their NPU for tasks that can use software-defined  

hardware for maximum efficiency and speed.  It’ll be exciting to see what form factors  

the Snapdragon X Elite embodies given its massive  power envelope available to OEMs—from netbooks to  

power-hungry beasts. Layer in the fact that this  is just their first foray into the X Elite line  

and that higher-performance chips are on the  roadmap, and well, we’ve got competition, baby.

So what’s Apple to do? Rush TSMC to the next  process shrink? Pivot to developing hotter  

more consumptive chips in the name of speed?  No. And Apple knows that’s not their core  

competency. Apple Silicon has always been about  sufficient performance with extreme efficiency,  

but physics are a cruel mistress and many  watching this channel don’t realize they’re  

already pushing up against boundaries that didn’t  exist for the M1 series. I still see comments that  

Apple silicon laptops are dead silent and  that’s just… dead wrong. We edit videos for  

this YouTube channel on a 14” M3 Max MacBook  Pro and the fans run at full-tilt nearly all  

the time—not just when exporting. And even with  fans ablaze, our NLE struggles to get exports  

out even close to the time the 16” MacBook  Pro can. It’s throttling—hard. Now, does it  

throttle to the point that it’s no faster than  an M3 Pro 14” MacBook Pro? No, but its sometimes  

slower than an M1 Max Mac Studio—something that  benchmarks would very much suggest is impossible.

My point here is that for years, Apple had  the exact same Intel chip SKUs as other  

computer makers. The silicon was never  their selling point. That is until M1,  

when that formula got flipped on its head and  Mac owners were—for the first time ever—able to  

be braggadocios about their computer’s speed. But  Apple is pushing against technological limits and  

others are catching up—so lets sit the silicon  aside for a minute and focus again on Apple’s  

hardware design. As I see it, the entire  MacBook lineup is basically the same. Sure,  

the Air has a lower-quality display and worse  speakers than the 14” MacBook Pro and the 15”  

Air is cheaper than the 16” Pro, but I mean  come on… these machines are closer in design,  

size, footprint, weight, and feature-set than  ever before. There’s no laptop that truly takes  

advantage of the form-factor provided by Apple  silicon’s insane performance per watt. Imagine  

a laptop even thinner, smaller, and lighter than  the 2015 12” MacBook—a computer that still feels  

impossible today—nearly a decade after its  release. Only this time, it doesn’t have to be  

hamstrung by a crappy low-TDP Intel chip and lousy  I/O. Would it be slower than an M3 Air? Sure. But  

how many people own—heck—a base M1 MacBook Air  and have never even approached the limits of that  

chip? I’d venture to say MOST—and if your silicon  can enable those impressive form factors… do it!

On the other end of the spectrum, why not  put an M3 ULTRA in a 16” laptop that’s a  

bit on the hefty-side—the style that gamers and  creators buy all the time on team Windows/Linux?  

A chip that just absolutely screams when  needed with the thermal headroom to do it,  

but while maintaining the excellent idle  efficiency offered by Apple’s low-power  

cores. It could be the first “gaming” laptop  with a battery that doesn’t die in like 4 hours.

What I'm getting at is this - when  Apple decided to make their own silicon,  

it was a bold, risky move. It paid off massively.  The M1 series will be remembered as some of the  

greatest computers ever. But it also feels like  that was the last time Apple really took a risk,  

and I think its time they stop sitting on  their laurels and get back to work before  

the rest of the industry catches up. What do  you think? Let me know in the comments below,  

but most importantly—and as always—stay snazzy.