Re: "Performance king"

On 2024-11-04 10:24, Tom Elam wrote:

On 11/4/2024 12:33 PM, Alan wrote:

'Apple's M4 Max is the single-core performance king in Geekbench 6 — M4 Max beats the Core Ultra 9 285K and Ryzen 9 9950X
>
All that power is in a small package.'
>
<https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/apples-m4-max-is-the- single-core-performance-king-in-geekbench-6-m4-max-beats-the-core- ultra-9-285k-and-ryzen-9-9950x>
>
'On the x86 end, AMD and Intel pale in contrast. The M4 Max handily keeps up even in multi-core at a fraction of the power—beating Intel's Core Ultra 9 285K by around 19% in the single-core category and 16% in the multi-core category. Compared to the Ryzen 9 9950X, the M4 Max showed 18% higher single-core performance and 25% higher multi-core performance.'
>
But there are those who believe that Apple is terrible at chip design.
>
:-)

 Could Apple be a reason Nvidia CPU tech may kill off Intel's laptop CICS CPU line.

You're hilarious when you tried to pretend you're not ignorant.
"CICS" is short for "Customer Information Control System"; and IBM middleware layer between their mainframe OSs and business applications.
I know this, because at various points in my parents careers, they both work on CICS systems.
The acronym you were groping for was "CISC", which is short for "Complex Instruction Set Computer".
CISC is a design philosophy of CPU design where there are many—complex—CPU instructions built into the architecture, and was in contrast to "RISC" (REDUCED Instruction Set Computer), but the distinction has been made moot as the decades since it was a debate about which is better have passed.
And why would what Apple does have any impact on what Nvidia CPU technology might do to Intel's CPUs?