or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Not to be outdone by Apple's iPhone 5s, Samsung pledges 64-bit chips in next Galaxy phones
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Not to be outdone by Apple's iPhone 5s, Samsung pledges 64-bit chips in next Galaxy phones - Page 6

post #201 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by djkikrome View Post

THE NEXT BIG THING IS HERE!

I taped 2 samsung phones together and have 64 bit processing. Thanks samsung. I want to be in the commercial next.

Not only that you doubled the RAM and SSD -- and you can access both over the super-fast S-Beam (NFC - WiFi Direct) connect with a 6-10 access time and Hi-Speed battery drain. 1biggrin.gif
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #202 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Not only that you doubled the RAM and SSD -- and you can access both over the super-fast S-Beam (NFC - WiFi Direct) connect with a 6-10 access time and Hi-Speed battery drain. 1biggrin.gif

Brilliant!
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #203 of 230

Samsung: "But this one goes to eleven!"

post #204 of 230

Samsung: "We're going to start our OWN 64 bit CPU, with hookers, and blackjack!"

post #205 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Is it possible that, while manufacturing and testing the A7, Sammy didn't know it was 64-bit?

 

Very unlikely.

 

Unless the die size increases significantly (and it hasn't), you can't really tell much about a chip as you manufacture it.

 

I could look at a wafer and tell you if it's DRAM, FLASH, logic or an image sensor, but not much beyond that.

 

There's not a cat in hells chance Apple will have allowed Samsung to do the probe testing while they were developing the chip.  Furthermore, while a lot of people here dislike Samsung, and for very good reason, they have dropped billions of dollars trying to get into foundry manufacturing.  If customers got even a sniff that Samsungs foundry would steal their designs and share with other Samsungs divisions, they would lose all their foundry business within six months.


They would need to sell a hell of a lot of phones with the stolen tech to make the $5bn+ fabs that are sat idle worth it.......

post #206 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post
 

 

You got all wrong, Apple is also doing business with TSMC.  Apple initially invested in ARM and licence ARM design ever since the Newton back in the early 90.  Intrinsity was the R&D shop for Samsung ARM processor until Apple bought them in 2010, and now part of the internal team at Apple responsible for the Ax and Mx development.  Beside saying there is absolutely no need for 64 bit on mobile is as dump as Bill Gate infamous quote: 640ko is more than enough for anyone.  I'm pretty sure Apple internal developers already put the 64 bit CPU in good use for video and image processing on iOS.

 

Sure, the rumor has been around for at least 3-4 years now; with no confirmation with Apple or TSMC.

 

Yes, Apple took a large stake in ARM Ltd in the early 90's under Scully, but Jobs sold them all for a huge loss in 1998 after his return.

 

Intrinsity was an independent company who developed low-power/high-performance technology, most notable for F14.  The ARM SOCs used in the first two generations of Apple iPhones were vanilla Samsung SOCs -- the A4 was the first SOC Samsung collaborated with Intrinsity to compete with Qualcomm.

 

Sure, perhaps one day when the iPhone comes with 8TB of memory or storage with a decent sized display. Until then, this 64bit brouhaha is nothing more than a marketing ploy.

post #207 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Samsung are an embarrassing company. I'm surprised more people in the western world buy into their garbage.

 

I've worried about Samsung products in my Apple hardware ever since I put their 256k memory chips into my Apple 2. They would always fail the first time I booted the system.

post #208 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post
 

 

Sure, the rumor has been around for at least 3-4 years now; with no confirmation with Apple or TSMC.

 

Yes, Apple took a large stake in ARM Ltd in the early 90's under Scully, but Jobs sold them all for a huge loss in 1998 after his return.

You got great imagination, Apple didn't sold all participation in ARM Holdings and they didn't sold at loss: http://news.cnet.com/Short-Take-Apple-sells-ARM-shares/2110-1001_3-221149.html

 

Intrinsity was an independent company who developed low-power/high-performance technology, most notable for F14.  The ARM SOCs used in the first two generations of Apple iPhones were vanilla Samsung SOCs -- the A4 was the first SOC Samsung collaborated with Intrinsity to compete with Qualcomm.

Apple started to build the internal team for designing a custom ARM back in 2008 with the acquisition of P.A. Semi, Intrinsity team helped for the design of the A4 and then being acquired by Apple before sending the A4 design to production.  Samsung as not be implicated into the A4 design. 

 

Quote:
Sure, perhaps one day when the iPhone comes with 8TB of memory or storage with a decent sized display. Until then, this 64bit brouhaha is nothing more than a marketing ploy.

I don't know from how long you are using a computer, but I've heard those denial for so many time before.  My first mac was 24/32 bit (not 32 bit clean) and the A7 will be my third transition to 64bit platform (other was the G5 and Intel C2D). And at each new generation,  I hear people having the exact same critics as yours,

 

You're narrowing you mind on the over 4GB limit which is merely one consequence of 64 bit addressing.  Just like the G5 or the Athlon 64 before, going 64bit will bring performance boost on many levels which every apps gain benefit from things like doubling internal I/O bandwidth, we don't know yet all the specs of the A7, no one as got a chance buy one yet.  I can't wait to read Chipworks analysis.


Edited by BigMac2 - 9/14/13 at 2:57pm
post #209 of 230
True you need to optimize the software to get it going with the hardware something apple does well another copy!
post #210 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Interesting... With all the hype about the iPhone announcement, I forgot about the recent Sammy releases.

Seems that Sammy is also stealing ideas from the late Adam Osborne... pity.

"Oh, Man! I got Osborned!!!" - Samsung CEO
post #211 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by n057828 View Post

True you need to optimize the software to get it going with the hardware something apple does well another copy!

 

Correction: True you need to optimize your software to get most benefits of a new platform, also true most softwares gain some benefits without being optimize for a new platform. 

post #212 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


With the RAM increases nearing 4 GBs they just about have to go 64-bit.

 

32 bit OSes have the ability to see more than 4GB of RAM, however, many  can't because of restrictions placed on them by the OS vendor/maker

post #213 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post
 

 

If we where talking about an Apps, of course Samsung could ported them self.  But the issue here is more than make android run on a 64 bit CPU, you need to port the IDE and developer tool and gives access to those tool, Samsung doesn't control the Android ecosystem, they can't bypass Google and goes alone without Google for distributing developers tools. 

 

Beside no other OS than OSX as capitalize on multiple arch binary, since Android apps can be Java apps or NDK its even more difficult without braking compatibility to come out with a 32/64 bit universal apps systems.  Even Microsoft doesn't comes out with a solution as good as OSX. 

Agreed.  Not only do they not control the IDE,  the IDE doesn't have a clue on what architectures are coming out next week (in theory), and if they did, they'd have to compromise across the 20 odd HW variations to make them all work.

 

The key on making binary architectures work, is to control the software, and design the hardware to exploit it.  And then Visa Versa.  Apple is doing that in spades.   Microsoft… maybe in 20 years.  

post #214 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post
 

 

32 bit OSes have the ability to see more than 4GB of RAM, however, many  can't because of restrictions placed on them by the OS vendor/maker

 

The Intel PAE features enable 32 bit CPU to address more than 4GB of physical ram.  While most Linux distribution and every Intel version of OSX support this feature, Microsoft artificially limit the functionality to high-end Windows Server Datacenter licence only. 


Edited by BigMac2 - 9/16/13 at 1:04pm
post #215 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post
 

 

One thing wrong with your view... Samsung doesnt do software, which is 50% of the user experience. 

 

Samsung does software.. Haven't you seen the Touch Wiz / Tizen ?

True they are all super shitty.

post #216 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikilok View Post
 

 

Samsung does software.. Haven't you seen the Touch Wiz / Tizen ?

True they are all super shitty.

 

Yeah, I know, 

 

Samsung is does software at the same level as other asian hardware maker, I don't consider much a replacement shell as high grade software engineering, beside Samsung development team are Indians sweatshop, not OS architects.

 

http://www.linkedin.com/vsearch/p?orig=TSEO_SN&company=samsung+software+center&companyScope=C&title=chief+engineer&trk=TSEO_SN

post #217 of 230

When Samsung offers its annual buy one Galaxy product get one free promotion then you will have 64 bits.

post #218 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post

 

Since the only legitimate way to code on iOS apps is thru the high level Objective-C language, developer never get down to the silicon assembly, and like any POSIX OS, porting an apps on different arch for the same OS only required a recompilation of the same code.  Xcode IDE makes things easier by making multi-segment executable, this tech doesn't yet exist on Windows, Linux or Android 

 

Now, I will definitely disagree on the Objective-C part. Actually, Apple provides quite a nicely structured hierarchy of APIs.

Low-level - pure C API and libraries

Mid-level - CoreFoundation, still C API, wrapping and extending lower-level APIs.

High-level - Cocoa/Objective-C wrappers and extensions of mid-level APIs.

 

This structure actually makes it very easy for a developer to add code at any level and seamleslly make it work with all other levels. That is something I've never seen on other platforms. Apple provides greater consistency than anyone else. Even C and C++ libraries are totally inconsistent compared to Apple's approach.

 

And that consistency actually makes transitioning between 32-bit and 64-bit architectures easy, even when talking about low-level C code.

post #219 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by capasicum View Post
 

 

Now, I will definitely disagree on the Objective-C part. Actually, Apple provides quite a nicely structured hierarchy of APIs.

Low-level - pure C API and libraries

Mid-level - CoreFoundation, still C API, wrapping and extending lower-level APIs.

High-level - Cocoa/Objective-C wrappers and extensions of mid-level APIs.

 

This structure actually makes it very easy for a developer to add code at any level and seamleslly make it work with all other levels. That is something I've never seen on other platforms. Apple provides greater consistency than anyone else. Even C and C++ libraries are totally inconsistent compared to Apple's approach.

 

And that consistency actually makes transitioning between 32-bit and 64-bit architectures easy, even when talking about low-level C code.

 

Thank you clearing this up for me.  I was much more old school in my reply to TheOtherGeoff about getting done to sillicon with assembly.  Still the only legitimate way to create iOS apps is thru pure objective-C or wrapping C or C++ code in objective-C project, which provide like you said a much more consistent IDE. 
 

post #220 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post
 

 

Thank you clearing this up for me.  I was much more old school in my reply to TheOtherGeoff about getting done to sillicon with assembly.  Still the only legitimate way to create iOS apps is thru pure objective-C or wrapping C or C++ code in objective-C project, which provide like you said a much more consistent IDE. 
 

 

Well, there are a few alternatives: MonoTouch and Apache Cordova. I think there are others, but who cares :) 

post #221 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by capasicum View Post
 

 

Well, there are a few alternatives: MonoTouch and Apache Cordova. I think there are others, but who cares :) 

 

Like pure C or C++ in Xcode, those solution are wrapped around Objective-C

post #222 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post
 

Apple started to build the internal team for designing a custom ARM back in 2008 with the acquisition of P.A. Semi, Intrinsity team helped for the design of the A4 and then being acquired by Apple before sending the A4 design to production.  Samsung as not be implicated into the A4 design. 

 

For those who don't know, Intrinsity, an Austin, TX based firm, traces it roots back to the PowerPC x704 in the 1990s. For those who weren't born or were still babies at the time, the PowerPC x704 was a high clock rate PowerPC processor (~500 MHz!) that they tried to sell to Apple for use in Apple PowerPC Macs.

 

It caused quite the stir at the time as they were using an "exotic" biCMOS process to get those clock rates. Anyways, Apple killed Mac clones, and that basically killed the processor, and the company had to pivot.

 

What comes around, comes around again, and Apple ends up buying them a little over a decade later. It's not that Intrinsity was some unknown company doing circuit designs. Apple certainly knew of them.

 

And yes, the A4, A5, A6 and A7 are all Apple designed, and increasingly custom as time goes on.

post #223 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post
 

You got great imagination, Apple didn't sold all participation in ARM Holdings and they didn't sold at loss: http://news.cnet.com/Short-Take-Apple-sells-ARM-shares/2110-1001_3-221149.html

 

Apple started to build the internal team for designing a custom ARM back in 2008 with the acquisition of P.A. Semi, Intrinsity team helped for the design of the A4 and then being acquired by Apple before sending the A4 design to production.  Samsung as not be implicated into the A4 design. 

 

I don't know from how long you are using a computer, but I've heard those denial for so many time before.  My first mac was 24/32 bit (not 32 bit clean) and the A7 will be my third transition to 64bit platform (other was the G5 and Intel C2D). And at each new generation,  I hear people having the exact same critics as yours,

 

You're narrowing you mind on the over 4GB limit which is merely one consequence of 64 bit addressing.  Just like the G5 or the Athlon 64 before, going 64bit will bring performance boost on many levels which every apps gain benefit from things like doubling internal I/O bandwidth, we don't know yet all the specs of the A7, no one as got a chance buy one yet.  I can't wait to read Chipworks analysis.

 

Do you work for DED in the fiction department?  From Cult of Mac:
 
“John Scully was running Apple at the time, and they were in real trouble, real financial trouble, and in fact they were about to go bust,” said Hauser. “The reason they didn’t go bust was because they sold their ARM stake that they had originally purchased for $1.5 billion for $800 million.”

That’s a staggering $700 million loss, but if not for selling ARM, Hauser says, Apple might not even be here today to give us iPhones and iPads."

The sales of ARM stakes started in 1998 and sold its entire stake in ARM over the next 2-3 years.

 

Samsung started making ARM based SOCs since 2006 and the first generations of iPhones, for instance, were based on ARM's vanila reference design. Apple bought PA-Semi two years later. Intrinsity was later brought on for their high-speed/low-power tech, F14, which culminated in the A4 based on Samsung's Hummingbird in 2010.  Apple bought Intrinsity after the Samsung-Intrinsity collaboration produced the A4.

 

No, you just have no idea what you are talking about.  You sound like one of those Microsoft serfs who got duped into believing that 64bit miraculously boosted their desktop performance.  All mobile devices are designed with limited resources (storage, memory, power) in mind and, likewise, the performance gain from 64bit is little or none.


Edited by tooltalk - 9/20/13 at 4:12pm
post #224 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post
 

 

Do you work for DED in the fiction department?  From Cult of Mac:
 
“John Scully was running Apple at the time, and they were in real trouble, real financial trouble, and in fact they were about to go bust,” said Hauser. “The reason they didn’t go bust was because they sold their ARM stake that they had originally purchased for $1.5 billion for $800 million.”

That’s a staggering $700 million loss, but if not for selling ARM, Hauser says, Apple might not even be here today to give us iPhones and iPads."

The sales of ARM stakes started in 1998 and sold its entire stake in ARM over the next 2-3 years.

 

Actually, DED had an article on the ARM shares topic. Since he is a shareholder and is present on each shareholder's meeting, I'm inclined to believe him, not Cult of Mac. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:

Quote:
The company was founded as Advanced RISC MachinesARM, a joint venture between Acorn Computers, Apple Computer (now Apple Inc.) and VLSI Technology.

 

Apple is one of the founders of ARM Holdings. Their initial investment is not considered just a stock purchase. And according to DED's article, Jobs sold almost all ARM shares in three years for a total of $1.1 billion, but not all. Apple still has a stake in ARM.

 

Quote:

Samsung started making ARM based SOCs since 2006 and the first generations of iPhones, for instance, were based on ARM's vanila reference design. Apple bought PA-Semi two years later. Intrinsity was later brought on for their high-speed/low-power tech, F14, which culminated in the A4 based on Samsung's Hummingbird in 2010.  Apple bought Intrinsity after the Samsung-Intrinsity collaboration produced the A4.

 

The A4 chip is designed by Intrinsity, and produced by Samsung. There is no collaboration other than setting up and configuring Samsung's foundries to produce the chip. Contrary to general belief, that last part is in no way simple, and requires a lot of expertise, especially on the part of the foundries. Nevertheless, there is no collaboration on designing of the chip.

 

Quote:
 No, you just have no idea what you are talking about.  You sound like one of those Microsoft serfs who got duped into believing that 64bit miraculously boosted their desktop performance.  All mobile devices are designed with limited resources (storage, memory, power) in mind and, likewise, the performance gain from 64bit is little or none.

 

I'll point you towards an Article of Anand Shrimpi:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7335/the-iphone-5s-review

The A7 SoC seems to have only 2 cores, run at the same 1.3GHz frequency and easily beats 4-core, 1.7-2.0GHz quad-core Cortex A15 processors. And it generally preserves the energy consumption to A6's levels.

 

Transition to 64-bit architecture gives around 10% performance boost in real-world applications.

But, from what is seen in the performance tests of Anandtech, Apple did boost the performance to x2.

post #225 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by capasicum View Post
 

 

Actually, DED had an article on the ARM shares topic. 

Who's DED?  

post #226 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
 

Who's DED?  

 

Daniel Eran Dilger, the article is http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/08/12/iphone-patent-wars-apples-11-billion-arm-injection-ignites-a-mobile-patent-race

post #227 of 230
Quote:

Oh, that guy. Oh, OK.  Just checking.  Thanks.

post #228 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post
 

 

Do you work for DED in the fiction department? 

I didn't know cnet was a PRO-Apple fiction blog.  I don't get you point here. 

 
Quote:
From Cult of Mac:
 
“John Scully was running Apple at the time, and they were in real trouble, real financial trouble, and in fact they were about to go bust,” said Hauser. “The reason they didn’t go bust was because they sold their ARM stake that they had originally purchased for $1.5 billion for $800 million.”

That’s a staggering $700 million loss, but if not for selling ARM, Hauser says, Apple might not even be here today to give us iPhones and iPads."

The sales of ARM stakes started in 1998 and sold its entire stake in ARM over the next 2-3 years.

 

According to your unreferenced quote fabrication from Cult of Mac, It was during Scully presidency they had financial trouble and sold ARM stake, John Scully left Apple in 1993

 

Quote:

Samsung started making ARM based SOCs since 2006 and the first generations of iPhones, for instance, were based on ARM's vanila reference design. Apple bought PA-Semi two years later. Intrinsity was later brought on for their high-speed/low-power tech, F14, which culminated in the A4 based on Samsung's Hummingbird in 2010.  Apple bought Intrinsity after the Samsung-Intrinsity collaboration produced the A4.

 

 

Again you're understanding is wrong here. Uses of ARM IP consist of two licences, the ARM Core licenses and ARM Architectural licences.  The first gives reference schematics and design to produce "vanilla" ARM core, other SoC components and final integration is up to the mfg, this is what license Samsung currently own.

 

In another hand the Architectural licences, gives liberty to implement and extend ARM design to whatever needs.  Intrinsity was an Architectural licensee and R&D shop to hire for Samsung, without Intrinsity Samsung cannot implement their own new core, the only way they got is multiplicating cores, like they do on there new and ridiculous Exynos Octo.

 

Quote:

No, you just have no idea what you are talking about.  You sound like one of those Microsoft serfs who got duped into believing that 64bit miraculously boosted their desktop performance.  All mobile devices are designed with limited resources (storage, memory, power) in mind and, likewise, the performance gain from 64bit is little or none.

 

 

You don't seams to differentiate software from hardware here. I don't have time to waste for educating you about CPU architecture. Beside believing that having a new ARM architecture only benefit will be 64 bit addressing is dumb of you, I don't think 64bit (for what ever meaning you think of) alone miraculously boosted performance.  But I do think doubling register size and counts, eliminating legacy architecture shortcomings, doubling the L1 and L2 caches and memory bandwidth do have a lots of benefits.

 

Here is a non-partisan article that could be a eyeopener for you.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7335/the-iphone-5s-review

post #229 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post
 

I didn't know cnet  was a PRO-Apple fiction blog.  I don't get you point here. 

 

 

 

According to your quote from Cult of Mac, It was during Scully presidency they had financial trouble and sold ARM stake, John Scully left Apple in 1993. My previous reference proves you and your meritless quote wrong. 

 

 

Again you're understanding of maters is wrong here. Uses of  ARM IP consist of two licences, the ARM Core licenses and ARM Architectural licences.  The first gives reference schematics and design to produce "vanilla" ARM core, other SoC components and final integration is up to the mfg, this is was licenses Samsung own.

 

In another hand the Architectural licences of which Apple unquestionably own since they helped founding ARM Holding, gives liberty to implement and extend ARM design to whatever needs.   Intrinsity was an Architectural licence and ARM R&D shop for Samsung to hire, without Intrinsity, Samsung cannot implement their own new core, the only way they got is multiplicating cores, like their new Exynos Octo.

 

 

You are the ignorant, you seams unable to differentiate software from hardware here. I don't have time to waste for educating you about CPU architecture. Here is a non-partisan article that could be a eyeopener for you.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7335/the-iphone-5s-review

I'm gonna play Mr. Moderator here.  Don't either of you have something better to do than argue about this subject matter?

 

I'm doing this because I get emails with your responses.


I mean SERIOUSLY, the whole thing is moot.   And all of this knowledge right, wrong or indifferent will NOT get you a free cup of coffee at Starbucks or a Free McDonald's Happy Meal.

 

NeXT topic of discussion.


Thank you.

post #230 of 230
Fake or Real S4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Edited by rolando - 9/28/13 at 9:35pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Not to be outdone by Apple's iPhone 5s, Samsung pledges 64-bit chips in next Galaxy phones
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Not to be outdone by Apple's iPhone 5s, Samsung pledges 64-bit chips in next Galaxy phones