I don't think so.
Ryzen (as an example) for a single core, single thread, is about 25% slower than M1, single core/thread. Turn on 2 threads on that same single core, and M1 and Ryzen 3 at the same GHz are about the same, except when very wide X86-extensions are used. X86 beats M1, CORE-for-CORE then. Takes 2 threads per core to do it, but it does.
However, under all but the most contrived circumstances, SMT only adds between 25% and 40% more per-core performance, per GHz. Certainly no-where near 100% better throughput. Nowhere near.
My thinking is that first RYZEN then belatedly (but rather impressively), Intel will both leap full-belly into the 5 nanometer EUV world, stepping up layer counts (at 5 NM) for some truly spectacular performance increases in the next 2 years. And the cores-per-chip will also rise. Cores and cache; for Ryzen, also with increasingly competent on-chip GPU coprocessor services. Like the M1, in a way. But bigger physical pinout package, for dedicated GPU memory not-affiliated with 'unified' memory of the M1. Non Von-Neuman machine.
Basically, we are looking at the breakthru to 6 GHz (or higher!) computing, at sub 0.8 V logic. 5 nm chip structures, very heavily weighted toward big.SMALL.gpu architecture. Also note that with little penalty, even the X86 architecture can be big.SMALL reconfigured. I could easily see AMD popping forth an 8s + 16B chip, single chiplet. 5 GHz before 'turbo'.
That'd give Apple a real run for the money. Never, ever underestimate the ability fo both AMD and INTEN to seriously invest-and-step-up to compete with the 'new guys'. Putting 12 chiplets ona single Threadripper package ... for 192 cores, maybe 300 threads ... seriously changes what a single-package compute device means.
GoatGuy
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram