Originally Posted by wizard69
Not all of these tape outs are for production, for example one foundry (Global Foundries?) has produce working 22nm ARM chips in a lab. Also one of the gate array/programmable logic companies has an ARM core on one of their bleeding edge chips.
GlobalFoundries is so far behind, it's pitiful. They haven't yet begun 32nm production, and won't, until close to the end of the year. Anything they, or AMD has to say is irrelevant. Three years ago, Ruis stated when criticized at being a full year behind Intel on process size, that they had plans to catch up to no more than 6 months behind in less than two years.
Well, now they are a full TWO years behind. There's no evidence that they will ever catch up. TSMC and one other, which name I can't recall at the moment have said that they are working with 22nm in their labs. But TSMC has historically had problems when attempting to operate a new process size. No confidence there. Samsung has stated that they are looking at 32nm for next year. That's a full two generations behind.
Most other fabs are in the same boat. While memory, because of its simplicity in design and manufacturing, is on smaller die size now, but as it turns out, that has little relation to cpu and gpu production, other than for masking techniques.
There are a lot of questions about what is inside, I would not be surprised to find a lot of ARM IP that anybody can implement.
Of course, no one is denying that. After all these come from ARM's standard licensed designs. All you have to change is 10- to 20%, and you've made a major change.
If nobody knows what is in there then how can they acknowledge that it is Apple IP. If an article ever comes out about A5s internals I will be one of the first to read it. One way to settle this is to look at the SDK.
If you read the whole report, you would have seen that there are a lot of different areas on the chips that don't appear in the standard design. As they make the point, that shows that there is a lot of differences. You don't have to know what they are to know that.
SDK? You think that looking at Apple's software development kit is going to tell you anything about the chip design that's helpful? Good luck with that!
The performance of the A5 has nothing to do with it. There is a tendency to compare iPad to Android machines but Android has some very serums suckage going on. To start Java is just plain stupid in a handheld device so suckage++. Then we see very poor GPU support so suckage++. Beyond tha Linux is in there, now I love Linux but it isn't a low power OS so suckage++. I could go on but the point is the comparison is pointless as Android is an alpha quality platform.
There are a lot of tests that are OS agnostic. In fact most processor tests are cpu and gpu specific. Android has some problems, but there's no doubt that the A5 is a superior chip.
NVidia is likely highly motivated to succeed here. Other company will look to fill different performance levels. I think the issue us so serious for NVidia that success is a requirement to simply keep the company running.
Of course they are! their business will be destroyed by Intel adding a decent gpu to the cpu die, along with the memory controller. With Ivy Bridge, Intel's on die gpu will be good enough for most tasks for most people, and the fact that Nvidia can no longer mate their chips to Intel's was a major blow. By making ARM SoC's for the mobile market, they hope to keep their business alive.
But as of now, their top of the line SoC doesn't cut it, at least, not for a 10" tablet.
Nothing lasts forever!
Not literally, of course. But for the life of this new tablet technology era, it will.
Some roads are rockier than others. Also it is my understanding that this so called 3D tech isn't even Intel original. By the way I hate the use of the term 3D here as these are hardly 3D chips.
It doesn't matter that the new tech isn't original with Intel or not, as all these companies present papers at the various microprocessor conventions during the year. What's important, is who is able to implement these technologies first, and there, Intel has a big lead. Some other companies haven't even implemented Intel's current technology.
It doesn't matter whether you agree with the name or not, this is a big move in process technology, and as the gate does stand vertically, something never done before, 3D seems like as good a name as any.