or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › TSMC hopes to land orders for 20nm chips from Apple in 2014 - report
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

TSMC hopes to land orders for 20nm chips from Apple in 2014 - report

post #1 of 36
Thread Starter 
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company has reportedly placed an early investment in 20-nanometer chip technology, in hopes of landing orders from Apple as soon as 2014.

TSMC is focusing on 20-nanometer chips because the company currently faces a shortage of processors built using the 28-nanometer production process, according to DigiTimes. At present, the company is "unable to provide sufficient capacity" to existing 28-nanometer companies, the report said citing industry sources.

"While having a tight supply of 28nm, TSMC now hopes an early investment in 20nm technology will help the foundry engage in collaboration with potential clients such as Apple in advance and ensure enough capacity to meet demand," Wednesday report said.

Sources in the overseas supply chain reportedly believe that SMC has a "good chance" of winning CPU orders from Apple in 2014. Currently, Apple still uses the 45-nanometer chip process from Samsung to make its A5X CPU that powers the new iPad.

Apple is said to have viewed newer chips built on smaller production processes to be a risk to their products, as potential shortages could cause issues for newer versions of the iPhone and iPad. Instead, Apple has stuck with older production processes to ensure availability and reliability.

To aggressively court Apple's business, TSMC reportedly plans to invest about $700 million U.S. in a 20-nanometer research and development line this year. Originally, the company planned to spend that money in 2013.



TSMC also plans to accelerate the pace of its 28-nanometer capacity expansion. The company expects to have its supply meet demand by the first quarter of 2013.

TSMC began generating revenues from its 28-nanometer chips in the fourth quarter of 2011, when they accounted for about 5 percent of the company's sales. But the company has been significantly ramping up production of those chips in 2012.

The custom chips Apple put in its new Apple TV and latest version of the iPad 2 have been seen as evidence that the company is testing the 32-nanometer chipmaking process. Moving to a smaller 32-nanometer node allows the chips to be more efficient, allowing for improved battery life in iOS devices.

Apple's primary chipmaker remains Samsung, though Apple was said to have signed a major foundry agreement with TSMC last year to build future ARM-based process.
Rumors have suggested that Apple has looked to forge a closer alliance with TSMC to move away from rival Samsung, with which Apple is engaged in a series of lawsuits.
post #2 of 36
That's a bit optimistic, thinking Apple will still be around by then...

1wink.gif
Apple Products: So good that their ‘faulty' products outsell competitor’s faultless ones...
Reply
Apple Products: So good that their ‘faulty' products outsell competitor’s faultless ones...
Reply
post #3 of 36
Has anybody stopped to think about another possibility here. That is that Apple is looking towards TSMC because they need the additional capacity. I really don't see them moving away from Samsung unless Sammy slips technology wise. However Sammys ability to meet Apples demand must be a real concern, thus signing up an alternative vendor.

Apple doesn't buy all their RAM, Flash or other chips from a single supplier so why would they have an exclusive CPU vendor?
post #4 of 36
Why Apple is sticking with Samsung and there ancient fabrication process? 45nm is so 2008. 32nm has been around since 2010 and yet Samsung continued to make Apple's chips with 45nm process. Imagine how much more energy efficient the iPad and iPhone would have been if their processors were made with 32nm process.

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply
post #5 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Apple doesn't buy all their RAM, Flash or other chips from a single supplier so why would they have an exclusive CPU vendor?
That certainly makes sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aizmov View Post

Why Apple is sticking with Samsung and there ancient fabrication process? 45nm is so 2008. 32nm has been around since 2010 and yet Samsung continued to make Apple's chips with 45nm process. Imagine how much more energy efficient the iPad and iPhone would have been if their processors were made with 32nm process.
That's not accurate at all. There are technical reasons that kept the iPhone 3GS, iPad, iPhone 4, iPad 2, iPhone 4S, and iPad (3) at the 45nm process. Apple has been testing the 32nm lithography with the new Apple TV and newly lowered price iPad 2s. These are important steps before production is ready for millions per week.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #6 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

That's not accurate at all. There are technical reasons that kept the iPhone 3GS, iPad, iPhone 4, iPad 2, iPhone 4S, and iPad (3) at the 45nm process. Apple has been testing the 32nm lithography with the new Apple TV and newly lowered price iPad 2s. These are important steps before production is ready for millions per week.

Makes no sense. 32nm has been in commercial production since 2010. It shouldn't take Apple or anyone 2 years to move to it.

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply
post #7 of 36

I called it on the nose. Digitimes. I was not disappointed.

 

It will be interesting to see if this turns out to be true.

post #8 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aizmov View Post


Makes no sense. 32nm has been in commercial production since 2010. It shouldn't take Apple or anyone 2 years to move to it.

 

32 nm has been in production by SOME foundries. The ones that Apple uses have still not converted. For that matter, there are a lot of products in the market that are still on older process technologies.

What percentage of Samsung's production is 32 nm? Or TMSC? Or anyone else? Heck, even Intel hasn't completely converted.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #9 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

 

32 nm has been in production by SOME foundries. The ones that Apple uses have still not converted. For that matter, there are a lot of products in the market that are still on older process technologies.

What percentage of Samsung's production is 32 nm? Or TMSC? Or anyone else? Heck, even Intel hasn't completely converted.

 

Intel already moved to 22nm! They are a full 2-year ahead of anyone. Their SSDs are 22nm and their Ivy Bridge processors are 22nm. Only the Intel Atom line of processors is still on 32nm.

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply
post #10 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aizmov View Post
They are a full 2-year ahead of anyone.

 

"Not in handhelds, they ain't." lol.gif It'll be a few years before they can compete with ARM.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #11 of 36
32nm is only available in GF for AMD and Intel Only. So to say Apple is lacking behind and 32nm has been in commercial production since 2010 is truly nonsense.
Quote:
Why Apple is sticking with Samsung and there ancient fabrication process? 45nm is so 2008. 32nm has been around since 2010 and yet Samsung continued to make Apple's chips with 45nm process. Imagine how much more energy efficient the iPad and iPhone would have been if their processors were made with 32nm process.

Then there is the different between Custom SoC and NAND / RAM, You can RAM and NAND chips within spec and quality and they would 99.9% work out with your memory controller. SoC has to be tweaked with different foundry and you cant just re make the chip on different fab since the tooling is different.
Edited by ksec - 5/2/12 at 8:48pm
post #12 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

"Not in handhelds, they ain't." lol.gif It'll be a few years before they can compete with ARM.

I meant process technology. But with the latest Atom SoC (Mefield) they already compete very well with ARM.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5365/intels-medfield-atom-z2460-arrive-for-smartphones

 

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply
post #13 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aizmov View Post

Why Apple is sticking with Samsung and there ancient fabrication process? 45nm is so 2008. 32nm has been around since 2010 and yet Samsung continued to make Apple's chips with 45nm process. Imagine how much more energy efficient the iPad and iPhone would have been if their processors were made with 32nm process.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aizmov View Post

 

Intel already moved to 22nm! They are a full 2-year ahead of anyone. Their SSDs are 22nm and their Ivy Bridge processors are 22nm. Only the Intel Atom line of processors is still on 32nm.

 

Xeon is still at 32 nm, as well.

Notice, though, that Intel is not manufacturing ARM chips. Which ARM chip manufacturer is able to ship chips in multi-million quantities at 22 nm? That's right - NO ONE.

Even 32 nm is just now getting started - Samsung is shipping some chips at 32 nm, but not all. Name another supplier who can ship the quantities of ARM chips that Apple needs at less than 32 nm. Oh, yeah. No one.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #14 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aizmov View Post

I meant process technology. But with the latest Atom SoC (Mefield) they already compete very well with ARM.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5365/intels-medfield-atom-z2460-arrive-for-smartphones

 

 


Yes, Intel has finally managed to produce a chip that's competitive with ARM for phones. Slower graphics performance, but better CPU performance with competitive battery life (if Anand's tests are representative).


However, Apple's pretty well entrenched with ARM. I don't see them switching to Intel and forcing all their developers to recompile unless there's a significant advantage. With Intel stabbing Apple in the back over the Ultrabook, it's going to take a MAJOR advantage for Apple to put more eggs in Intel's basket.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #15 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

 


Yes, Intel has finally managed to produce a chip that's competitive with ARM for phones. Slower graphics performance, but better CPU performance with competitive battery life (if Anand's tests are representative).


However, Apple's pretty well entrenched with ARM. I don't see them switching to Intel and forcing all their developers to recompile unless there's a significant advantage. With Intel stabbing Apple in the back over the Ultrabook, it's going to take a MAJOR advantage for Apple to put more eggs in Intel's basket.

I don't agree with you here. You are ignoring the long term advantages that Apple picks up by Intel pushing this processor class. They want to grow the cpu class overall, which should provide Apple with superior cpus assuming better research funding.

post #16 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

I don't agree with you here. You are ignoring the long term advantages that Apple picks up by Intel pushing this processor class. They want to grow the cpu class overall, which should provide Apple with superior cpus assuming better research funding.

 

That's ridiculous. How in the world does Apple benefit from Intel subsidizing Apple's competitors with $300 M? 

Apple had an incredible lead over the competition and they were capturing a huge percentage of that class of computer sales. Intel didn't do much to increase the size of that market. Rather, they reduced Apple's share. Now, if Intel had used the $300 M to cut prices across the board for those processors, you might be right. Or if Intel had put that $300 M into improving the process technology, you would have a point. But directly subsidizing Apple's competitors doesn't do a thing for Apple.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #17 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aizmov View Post

Why Apple is sticking with Samsung and there ancient fabrication process? 45nm is so 2008. 32nm has been around since 2010 and yet Samsung continued to make Apple's chips with 45nm process. Imagine how much more energy efficient the iPad and iPhone would have been if their processors were made with 32nm process.

Ahem. I remember when production hit 1000 nm and most everyone was confident that a limit had been reached. 

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #18 of 36
More importantly Samsung, in apparent partnership with Apple, just built a huge NEW factory in Texas to make product at these new nodes. It takes time to build out these production lines. Beyond that Sammy is one of the partners with Globak Foundries researching these new processes.

In the end Samsung appears to be doing rather well at 32nm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

32 nm has been in production by SOME foundries. The ones that Apple uses have still not converted. For that matter, there are a lot of products in the market that are still on older process technologies.


What percentage of Samsung's production is 32 nm? Or TMSC? Or anyone else? Heck, even Intel hasn't completely converted.
post #19 of 36
Many of Intels chips are still at 65nm or 45nm. Beyond that 22nm doesn't appear to be the run away success for Intel as was first implied. The chips are still relatively power hungry.

Beyond that the smaller process geometries do not appear to be helping Intel relative to the ARM competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Xeon is still at 32 nm, as well.


Notice, though, that Intel is not manufacturing ARM chips. Which ARM chip manufacturer is able to ship chips in multi-million quantities at 22 nm? That's right - NO ONE.


Even 32 nm is just now getting started - Samsung is shipping some chips at 32 nm, but not all. Name another supplier who can ship the quantities of ARM chips that Apple needs at less than 32 nm. Oh, yeah. No one.
post #20 of 36

Intel will never make ARM cpu.

Intel's current medfield soc beats most CPU but are using PVR old  pvr gpu

Intel's dual core clovertrail sadly will still use PVR

Intel's 3rd gen soc for phones will use their own gpu and will meet or beat pvr fastest gpu.

 

So apple moving to Intel for phones is a smart idea. Better cpus better process.

post #21 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me View Post

Intel will never make ARM cpu.

Intel's current medfield soc beats most CPU but are using PVR old  pvr gpu

Intel's dual core clovertrail sadly will still use PVR

Intel's 3rd gen soc for phones will use their own gpu and will meet or beat pvr fastest gpu.

 

So apple moving to Intel for phones is a smart idea. Better cpus better process.

 

The only problem with that is that you're assuming that ARM will stand still.


You're also assuming that Apple wants to do more business with Intel than they already do. I can see it now - Intel spending $300 M to subsidize iPhone clones from HTC, Motorola, and Samsung. It would take a HUGE performance advantage for that to be worthwhile for Apple.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #22 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

 

The only problem with that is that you're assuming that ARM will stand still.


You're also assuming that Apple wants to do more business with Intel than they already do. I can see it now - Intel spending $300 M to subsidize iPhone clones from HTC, Motorola, and Samsung. It would take a HUGE performance advantage for that to be worthwhile for Apple.

 

How did I assume that.  

Medfield can go toe to toe with current chips

Clovertrail will go toe to toe on a15 cpu which will be release around the same time.

 

Once Intel gets the ball rolling it will be hard to stop them. 

post #23 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me View Post

 

How did I assume that.  

Medfield can go toe to toe with current chips

Clovertrail will go toe to toe on a15 cpu which will be release around the same time.

 

Once Intel gets the ball rolling it will be hard to stop them. 

 

 

So after many years, they've managed to catch up in CPU performance and power consumption, although they still trail badly in GPU performance.


At the next generation, they will remain roughly comparable on CPU performance.

So how do you conclude that Intel is suddenly going to be in the lead?

Furthermore, why should Apple spend all the time and money to switch to a CPU that is, by your own admission, only comparable to what they already have - and risk Intel subsidizing their competitors' clones again?

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #24 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me View Post

Intel will never make ARM cpu.
Intel's current medfield soc beats most CPU but are using PVR old  pvr gpu
Intel's dual core clovertrail sadly will still use PVR
Intel's 3rd gen soc for phones will use their own gpu and will meet or beat pvr fastest gpu.

So apple moving to Intel for phones is a smart idea. Better cpus better process.

Intel dont make ARM CPU, but they do make ARM SoC, and for themselves, SSD Controller / Network Controller etc.
Intel has considered, and is stilling considering to Fabs SoC for Apple. Why? Because you either get catched up by Samsung, pass them the deal, or help Apple with it.

To answer why Sammy is doing way better with 32nm, is simply because they have WAY more fabs running at 2xnm already for NAND and RAM. These expertise and results will make them much more prepared for manufacturing complex CPU when these Fabs are ready.

And no, Intel 3rd Gen SoC with Ivy Bridge Gfx wont beat PVR's gen 6 Rogue. Not by far. And you are counting on Intel making progress in their Drivers development which is pretty much hopeless. ( They are improving though )....

But yes, at the current state and pace, it looks like it will only be Intel who can win in the long run. Fabs Cost and building SoC is just not sustainable in the future.
post #25 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

 

 

So after many years, they've managed to catch up in CPU performance and power consumption, although they still trail badly in GPU performance.


At the next generation, they will remain roughly comparable on CPU performance.

So how do you conclude that Intel is suddenly going to be in the lead?

Furthermore, why should Apple spend all the time and money to switch to a CPU that is, by your own admission, only comparable to what they already have - and risk Intel subsidizing their competitors' clones again?

They are currently comparable current generation as their are no A15 out.

Previous edition havent been release because they werent comparable (green ridge). It took years for Intel to create something can compete.

Intel designs and makes their soc. 

 

GPU is from the same people who make the ones for apple. PVR.  

Intel will not use their own gpu until they are comparable or faster then PVR

 

Cloverfield is a dual core medfield  on a better process.

There's a reason why Apple jump shipped to Intel. Intel makes the best SOC.  Look at the performance difference between intel and amd in cpu. Even in gpu Intel is more efficient per area than AMD.

The A5X are the same cpus android uses. Biggest difference is gpu.

post #26 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksec View Post


Intel dont make ARM CPU, but they do make ARM SoC, and for themselves, SSD Controller / Network Controller etc.
Intel has considered, and is stilling considering to Fabs SoC for Apple. Why? Because you either get catched up by Samsung, pass them the deal, or help Apple with it.
To answer why Sammy is doing way better with 32nm, is simply because they have WAY more fabs running at 2xnm already for NAND and RAM. These expertise and results will make them much more prepared for manufacturing complex CPU when these Fabs are ready.
And no, Intel 3rd Gen SoC with Ivy Bridge Gfx wont beat PVR's gen 6 Rogue. Not by far. And you are counting on Intel making progress in their Drivers development which is pretty much hopeless. ( They are improving though )....
But yes, at the current state and pace, it looks like it will only be Intel who can win in the long run. Fabs Cost and building SoC is just not sustainable in the future.

TSMC and Global foundries have yield issues with their latest process.  None of them even come close to the yields intel gets and why Intel has a 60% margin (better than apples)

 

We will see how SOC ivy bridge Gfx will compete with gen 6 Rogue or any other gpu of its type.

 

Apple has cash to make fabs of their own yet they still contract their fab and manufacturing process

post #27 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me View Post

They are currently comparable current generation as their are no A15 out.

Previous edition havent been release because they werent comparable (green ridge). It took years for Intel to create something can compete.

Intel designs and makes their soc. 

 

GPU is from the same people who make the ones for apple. PVR.  

Intel will not use their own gpu until they are comparable or faster then PVR

 

Cloverfield is a dual core medfield  on a better process.

There's a reason why Apple jump shipped to Intel. Intel makes the best SOC.  Look at the performance difference between intel and amd in cpu. Even in gpu Intel is more efficient per area than AMD.

The A5X are the same cpus android uses. Biggest difference is gpu.

 

Still waiting for you to explain why Apple should do the work to switch to a comparable CPU and require all of their developers to rework their apps. And then deal with the very real possibility that Intel will subsidize HTC and Motorola and Samsung to make iPhone clones. You haven't given a single reason why that makes sense for Apple. "Intel is catching up and might actually reach parity some day" isn't justification.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #28 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

 

Still waiting for you to explain why Apple should do the work to switch to a comparable CPU and require all of their developers to rework their apps. And then deal with the very real possibility that Intel will subsidize HTC and Motorola and Samsung to make iPhone clones. You haven't given a single reason why that makes sense for Apple. "Intel is catching up and might actually reach parity some day" isn't justification.

Why are you waiting. I have answered it before. 

 

Fab Process (4 years ahead everyone)

Processor Speed.  Intel isnt catching up. It has caught up. Beats most phone processors out there

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5770/lava-xolo-x900-review-the-first-intel-medfield-phone/4

 

Whats your evidence "Intel will subsidize HTC and Motorola and Samsung to make iPhone clones"

post #29 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me View Post

Why are you waiting. I have answered it before. 

 

Fab Process (4 years ahead everyone)

Processor Speed.  Intel isnt catching up. It has caught up. Beats most phone processors out there

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5770/lava-xolo-x900-review-the-first-intel-medfield-phone/4

 

Whats your evidence "Intel will subsidize HTC and Motorola and Samsung to make iPhone clones"

 

Fab process is irrelevant. In fact, it argues against your point. Intel is only able to reach near parity by using a far more advanced process. If ARM manufacturers catch up with Intel's process, their chips will be better. Until then, Intel is, at best, equivalent.

Processor speed is irrelevant. No one cares about clock speed. What matters is performance. Intel is slightly better on CPU but much worse on GPU, so there's no clear advantage. You keep claiming that Intel will get better, but so will ARM.


Intel subsidized Apple's competitors to the tune of $300 M to make MacBook Air clones. Apple would be foolish to not consider that Intel might do the same thing with the iPhone if they were supplying Apple's chips.

So there's nothing there that provides any compelling reason for Apple to change. AT BEST, Intel may have caught up. Even if they have a very slight performance advantage, that wouldn't be enough to make Apple switch.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #30 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

 

Fab process is irrelevant. In fact, it argues against your point. Intel is only able to reach near parity by using a far more advanced process. If ARM manufacturers catch up with Intel's process, their chips will be better. Until then, Intel is, at best, equivalent.

Processor speed is irrelevant. No one cares about clock speed. What matters is performance. Intel is slightly better on CPU but much worse on GPU, so there's no clear advantage. You keep claiming that Intel will get better, but so will ARM.


Intel subsidized Apple's competitors to the tune of $300 M to make MacBook Air clones. Apple would be foolish to not consider that Intel might do the same thing with the iPhone if they were supplying Apple's chips.

So there's nothing there that provides any compelling reason for Apple to change. AT BEST, Intel may have caught up. Even if they have a very slight performance advantage, that wouldn't be enough to make Apple switch.

Medfield is on 32 nm not 22nm.  Having better fabs process means no delay when moving forward to next gen fabs.  This is important when comparing to TSMC and global foundries who have yield issues and cant keep up with demand. Supply is the reason why apple is still in bed with Samsung.

 

Processor speed = performance. More speed = better performance.

 

GPU is currently not by Intel. You keep saying gpu is bad, and I will continue to keep telling you PVR designs the GPU. Same people who design iphones GPU.

 

So you translate one behavior to extrapolate another as your evidence of Intel helping iphone competitors.  So looking at how Apple jumped to intel cpu for their desktop, apple will do the same for phones.

 

Code sharing would be another benefit with using and x86 cpu on both phone and desktop

post #31 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me View Post

TSMC and Global foundries have yield issues with their latest process.  None of them even come close to the yields intel gets and why Intel has a 60% margin (better than apples)

 

We will see how SOC ivy bridge Gfx will compete with gen 6 Rogue or any other gpu of its type.

 

Apple has cash to make fabs of their own yet they still contract their fab and manufacturing process

 

When Apple is considering where to get their chips from, I would think they consider two factors: 1) chip capabilities (CPU, GPU, I/O, power/performance, etc.) and 2) the semiconductor's ability to produce the chips in high volume.  I seriously doubt that Apple would be the leading customer for TSMC at 20nm.  TSMC hasn't been able to produce anything in high volume at 28nm, so why on Earth would Apple think TSMC could do it at 20nm?  They wouldn't take the risk that TSMC drops the ball again.  Look at all of the Nvidia-TSMC drama and how Nvidia is airing their TSMC garbage in public.  Apple doesn't want to be in their shoes.

 

I think that's why they are sticking with an older process technology for their A-series SoCs.  It's proven (even if it is older) and they likely get it for cheaper.  Apple is such a high-volume customer that they won't go to a new process until it's 100% reliable.

 

That's why I think they will stick with Intel on their Mac line.  Nobody else has a proven track record to produce in high volume like Intel does at leading process technology.

post #32 of 36
Just_me, where do you get this nonsense? AMDs GPUs run rings around Intels offerings. As to whom makes a better SoC AMD has been getting an awful lot of design ins for it SoC because it offers a very very good balance when it comes to performance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me View Post

They are currently comparable current generation as their are no A15 out.
Previous edition havent been release because they werent comparable (green ridge). It took years for Intel to create something can compete.
Intel designs and makes their soc. 

GPU is from the same people who make the ones for apple. PVR.  
Intel will not use their own gpu until they are comparable or faster then PVR
Don't you mean Imagination?
Quote:

Cloverfield is a dual core medfield  on a better process.
There's a reason why Apple jump shipped to Intel. Intel makes the best SOC.  Look at the performance difference between intel and amd in cpu. Even in gpu Intel is more efficient per area than AMD.
The A5X are the same cpus android uses. Biggest difference is gpu.
No surprise there it is after all an ARM CPU. In any event you havent offered one sound reason to support Intel in a tablet or cell phone.
post #33 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by junctionscu View Post

 

When Apple is considering where to get their chips from, I would think they consider two factors: 1) chip capabilities (CPU, GPU, I/O, power/performance, etc.) and 2) the semiconductor's ability to produce the chips in high volume.  I seriously doubt that Apple would be the leading customer for TSMC at 20nm.  TSMC hasn't been able to produce anything in high volume at 28nm, so why on Earth would Apple think TSMC could do it at 20nm?  They wouldn't take the risk that TSMC drops the ball again.  Look at all of the Nvidia-TSMC drama and how Nvidia is airing their TSMC garbage in public.  Apple doesn't want to be in their shoes.

 

I think that's why they are sticking with an older process technology for their A-series SoCs.  It's proven (even if it is older) and they likely get it for cheaper.  Apple is such a high-volume customer that they won't go to a new process until it's 100% reliable.

 

That's why I think they will stick with Intel on their Mac line.  Nobody else has a proven track record to produce in high volume like Intel does at leading process technology.

You are arguing my point that Apple should or will switch to Intel for phones cpu. We are on the same side

post #34 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Just_me, where do you get this nonsense? AMDs GPUs run rings around Intels offerings. As to whom makes a better SoC AMD has been getting an awful lot of design ins for it SoC because it offers a very very good balance when it comes to performance.
No surprise there it is after all an ARM CPU. In any event you havent offered one sound reason to support Intel in a tablet or cell phone.

AMD llano does run faster than Intels iGX. Even runs faster than the just release IVB.  But if you look at the percentage AMD dedicates on the die for GPU you will see that the SNB has a better GPU performance per percentage on the cpu die. With IVB thaentert efficiency increases. Intel also makes more power efficient device. A few years ago AMD had then crown but now Intel has it. AMD has stated they will not enter the phone market anytime soon.

 

Biggest reason to support Intel in the mobile market is to one day have 1 device that you can use for cell phone and a desktop replacement on one device.  Ubuntu is releasing a version of their OS on android that will launch when you connect an HDMI cord to the phone. Pair that a bluetooth keyboard and mouse you can replace a desktop computer for most people.  You may not even need to connect a hdmi in the future when utilizing Intel's widi.

 

So if android can run ubuntu I would like Apple see iOS be able to run a full desktop OSX and remove the need for most people who use computers to run office products and surf the web.

post #35 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

 

That's ridiculous. How in the world does Apple benefit from Intel subsidizing Apple's competitors with $300 M? 

Apple had an incredible lead over the competition and they were capturing a huge percentage of that class of computer sales. Intel didn't do much to increase the size of that market. Rather, they reduced Apple's share. Now, if Intel had used the $300 M to cut prices across the board for those processors, you might be right. Or if Intel had put that $300 M into improving the process technology, you would have a point. But directly subsidizing Apple's competitors doesn't do a thing for Apple.

I wasn't referring to the subsidy, which came after anyway. Apple's business with whatever other customers were buying those chips may not have been enough to justify heavier R&D. How do you figure they reduced Apple's share? Not many people buy a Mac if they intend to primarily run Windows.

post #36 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me View Post

AMD llano does run faster than Intels iGX. Even runs faster than the just release IVB.  But if you look at the percentage AMD dedicates on the die for GPU you will see that the SNB has a better GPU performance per percentage on the cpu die. With IVB thaentert efficiency increases. Intel also makes more power efficient device. A few years ago AMD had then crown but now Intel has it. AMD has stated they will not enter the phone market anytime soon.
Again your metrics are nonsense. But if you want to convince me post the Math that shows Intel getting better GPU performance per WATT.
Quote:
Biggest reason to support Intel in the mobile market is to one day have 1 device that you can use for cell phone and a desktop replacement on one device.  
That might be feasible for some users in the distant future, but current desktops and laptops are so far from having the performance I want that I honestly think I will be dead and gone before there is a cell phone that can effectively replace my Mac.

Mind you I just got through with a session on my MBP where I had to resist the temptation to chuck it through a Window. So while it is nice to dream reality is another issue. In fact I'm fairly certain that Silicon technology will not get us there, if that is the case who cares about legacy hardware designs.
Quote:
Ubuntu is releasing a version of their OS on android that will launch when you connect an HDMI cord to the phone. Pair that a bluetooth keyboard and mouse you can replace a desktop computer for most people.  You may not even need to connect a hdmi in the future when utilizing Intel's widi.
You can already do this on Apple hardware. That is connect up a Bluetooth keyboard and use the device as a computer replacement. A computer replacement for your simpler needs.
Quote:

So if android can run ubuntu I would like Apple see iOS be able to run a full desktop OSX and remove the need for most people who use computers to run office products and surf the web.

You are grossly out of touch here!! Have you even used an iPad? MacOS isn't needed to run office type apps or to surf the web.

In any event I think you have a thin understanding of technology, ATOM is an embarrassment for Intel. It implements far to much legacy technology for devices that don't need it. More so these devices are actually at a disadvantage because excess power usage.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › TSMC hopes to land orders for 20nm chips from Apple in 2014 - report