I read this twice and I really don't have a single clue other than it having something to do with or requiring fast memory?

Back when the iPad Pro with the A10X came out, Apple claimed it was faster than half of all Laptops sold and people in the PC space were yamming on and on about how numbers don't show how much better x86 cpus are at 'desktop stuff' and that ARM cpus can't equal x86, even with the same thermal envelope and shouldn't ever be compared. Ironically, many are now stating that the reason why they are so good is because of ARM, which isn't true either lol.

Surface Go is nowhere close, half as fast in single core, 1/5th as fast in multicore. The 5W TDP is really a generic number with no real meaning as Intel doesn't really abide by it, I would say it probably uses about the same power as the M1, possibly much more under turbo while also having a much higher power floor (IE: When at idle the Surface go uses much more power)

Keep in mind that the Surface Go is very low-cost and the CPU is at a 14nm build.

You know the gap.

If you charge your phone every night it becomes a habit tied to your daily routine.

If you were to charge your phone every other night, you might lose track of what day you are on, not charge it and then the perceived battery life experience is worse. This is why smart watches with 3-4 days of battery have not prevailed over those with one heavy day of battery. They are annoying to know what day you are on so you might just charge it every night and if you do, the platform is trading off so much power that the experience is worse.

Plus, then you have to carry 2 days worth of battery or have half the power envelope as a laptop with one day. the concept all sounds great but the reality of people using things really has honed in on the fact that these things need to fit into habit and use cases that make sense.

Far more interesting to me is the idea that in heavy use, the Icestorm cores can run the OS, notifications and all that, allowing full uninterrupted use of the firestorm cores. Also when the mac is in idle it uses far less power.

Basically, I fail to see a reason to not keep them :).

Apple has the luxury of building two or three chips total per year and simply funding TSMC fab. All of this is to fund the largest grossing annual product launch. If their chips fail at being world beaters, hundreds of billions of dollars are on the table. All in, Apple spends an incredible amount of money here, ~$1 billion. Per chip design shipped, Apple is probably spending much more but also getting their return on investment. It's such a tight integration that if TSMC were ever delayed by say, four months, I have no idea what Apple would do.

AMD is playing smart, fast and loose. Best chip CEO by a wide margin. AMD's gains really are on Apple's back, their chip design is brilliant and they get to reap the leftovers when Apple turns out their latest chip. They don't have to fund Fab, they don't have to make crazy claims to appear relevant like Intel does. They just ship great bang for the buck and the fab gains and their own hard work has given them best performance title too. Going Fabless was one of the most controversial choices ever made in the industry...and wow, was it the right move.

The idea is that this can do the same as what was historically in a thick and heavy gaming laptop that got 4 hours of battery life in use..is very impressive. It firmly destroys all SKUs of the 15 inch MBP

It's really only intended to be one of many benchmarks to tell the whole story; of course Linus would attack that because it doesn't make any real sense in his use and isn't the full story for him. If Geekbench was not tested, it would not cover the majority of computing uses and it would weigh cpus that had poor turbo or burst performance unfairly high for most uses.

Geekbench is kinda like 0-60MPH times and other tests (like SPEC2006) are like top speed I guess? The whole story is between them.