It can be more complicated than “bigger number better”. I don’t think anyone’s trying to justify it, probably just speculate on why it is the way it is
Maybe Apple discovered that most software’s bottleneck isn’t at the RAM access for user land operations but is with cache misses, and they sacrificed some of the circuitry supporting memory access speed for additional on-die memory? So while you have less RAM bus speed, it doesn’t actually matter because you never could’ve used it anyway?
I don’t know any real world numbers of any of this, I’m spitballin’ here - but that’s an example of an optimization that could plausibly happen when you are working with hardware design.
People have been talking shit about Apple since the early 90s, but their stuff still works and they’re still selling it so, miss me with that “no no THIS time they’re playing us all for fools! No, seriously, guys! Guys? STOP HAVING FUN!” nonsense.
It can be more complicated than “bigger number better”. I don’t think anyone’s trying to justify it, probably just speculate on why it is the way it is
Maybe Apple discovered that most software’s bottleneck isn’t at the RAM access for user land operations but is with cache misses, and they sacrificed some of the circuitry supporting memory access speed for additional on-die memory? So while you have less RAM bus speed, it doesn’t actually matter because you never could’ve used it anyway?
I don’t know any real world numbers of any of this, I’m spitballin’ here - but that’s an example of an optimization that could plausibly happen when you are working with hardware design.
People have been talking shit about Apple since the early 90s, but their stuff still works and they’re still selling it so, miss me with that “no no THIS time they’re playing us all for fools! No, seriously, guys! Guys? STOP HAVING FUN!” nonsense.
I’ll believe it when the benchmarks come out.