> I don't think Apple's server side is big or interesting. Far
Tangent but I wish they would!
Apple's e-cores would be great for servers, and they are very area/transistor efficient (even considering the node). 0.69mm2 for something with (broad strokes) Gracemont-ish performance/skylake-ish performance (but no SMT) is really good even considering the 5nm node.
I think the real-world density shrinks on 5nm ended up being around 60%... so 0.69mm2 for Blizzard is like 1.1mm2 equivalent on 7nm and Avalanche is 4.1mm2, versus Zen3 at 3.1mm2 and Zen2 at 2.72mm2.
10ESF density is supposed to be similar to TSMC 5nm, dunno how true that really is in practice on actual products. But on paper that means you have Gracemont at 1.7mm vs Blizzard at 0.69mm2 and Golden Cove at 5.55mm2 vs Avalanche at 2.55mm2.
Or comparing to AMD using the 1.6x conversion factor, that gives you a 7nm-area-equivalent (assuming 5nm density on 10ESF) of 2.72mm2 for Gracemont (vs Zen2 at 2.72mm2) and 8.88mm2 versus 3.1mm2 for Zen2. And that's why they're doing e-cores, and AMD is just squeezing the last little bit of space out of their existing uarch, lol.
The M1 Pro/Max dies are mostly consumed by a gigantic iGPU (in a way it's similar to the latter days of Intel quadcore era) but the cores themselves are actually quite svelte - it's actually not a case of Apple "just throwing more transistors at it", sure they are doing that in the GPU but the CPU cores themselves are very area-efficient (again, even considering the node).
A Sierra Forest-style product with multiple chiplets full of nothing but e-cores would be a fantastic thing. I completely agree that Apple doesn't have any notable presence in server, but, you could make some real good products with the pieces Apple has already demonstrated.
I don't have an exact source, but I recall the Asahi folks saying that based on their reverse engineering, Ultra/2-chiplets isn't the limit, the architecture is laid out to go higher on chiplets (I want to say 4 or 8) and they just aren't exploiting it right now.
The big problem is that Apple just can't really work with Linux. They've tried offering server hardware in the past, but it's a raw deal for datacenters and users alike.
...but, if core size is your jam (for whatever reason), keep an eye on Nvidia's Grace CPU. It's their stab at a datacenter-scale ARM SOC, and it should be releasing before EOY. Then there's the Ampere offerings that already have acceleration for PyTorch, ONNX and Tensorflow, along with Graviton for general-purpose efficiency... there's a lot of low-profile ARM cores in the datacenter today.
A good start for Apple would be updating the rackmount Mac Pro with an 80 core Double Ultra chip, but even that feels fairly pedestrian next to the 144-core-complex Grace is teasing. I'm sure it sounds silly to the readers of this website, but I genuinely don't think Apple is up to the task of competing in the datacenter. Obviously so on the software side, but arguably not even on the hardware front either.
Apple's business is squarely with the frontend of computing: The desktops, laptops, phones, tablets, and even watches that your mom and pop, artists, designers, and engineers use in daily life.
I don't see what Apple stands to gain from getting into the enterprise market, other than simple diversification of their portfolio.
Apple explicitly failed in the enterprise space because they didn't care. They built a very well-decorated walled-garden, but it's not what enterprise customers wanted. Apple wanted to sell UNIX, the customers wanted to buy servers. When the dust settled, Apple made no attempt to respond to customer demands. They smothered the product with a pillow and told their enterprise partners to pound sand or buy a Trash Can Mac.
Tangent but I wish they would!
Apple's e-cores would be great for servers, and they are very area/transistor efficient (even considering the node). 0.69mm2 for something with (broad strokes) Gracemont-ish performance/skylake-ish performance (but no SMT) is really good even considering the 5nm node.
I think the real-world density shrinks on 5nm ended up being around 60%... so 0.69mm2 for Blizzard is like 1.1mm2 equivalent on 7nm and Avalanche is 4.1mm2, versus Zen3 at 3.1mm2 and Zen2 at 2.72mm2.
10ESF density is supposed to be similar to TSMC 5nm, dunno how true that really is in practice on actual products. But on paper that means you have Gracemont at 1.7mm vs Blizzard at 0.69mm2 and Golden Cove at 5.55mm2 vs Avalanche at 2.55mm2.
Or comparing to AMD using the 1.6x conversion factor, that gives you a 7nm-area-equivalent (assuming 5nm density on 10ESF) of 2.72mm2 for Gracemont (vs Zen2 at 2.72mm2) and 8.88mm2 versus 3.1mm2 for Zen2. And that's why they're doing e-cores, and AMD is just squeezing the last little bit of space out of their existing uarch, lol.
https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/qlcptr/m1_pro_10c...
The M1 Pro/Max dies are mostly consumed by a gigantic iGPU (in a way it's similar to the latter days of Intel quadcore era) but the cores themselves are actually quite svelte - it's actually not a case of Apple "just throwing more transistors at it", sure they are doing that in the GPU but the CPU cores themselves are very area-efficient (again, even considering the node).
https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/File:kaby_lake_(dual_core)_(ann...
https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/File:kaby_lake_r_die_shot_(anno...
A Sierra Forest-style product with multiple chiplets full of nothing but e-cores would be a fantastic thing. I completely agree that Apple doesn't have any notable presence in server, but, you could make some real good products with the pieces Apple has already demonstrated.
I don't have an exact source, but I recall the Asahi folks saying that based on their reverse engineering, Ultra/2-chiplets isn't the limit, the architecture is laid out to go higher on chiplets (I want to say 4 or 8) and they just aren't exploiting it right now.