or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Retina iPad mini teardown reveals larger battery, display supplied by LG
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Retina iPad mini teardown reveals larger battery, display supplied by LG - Page 2

post #41 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by akqies View Post


In no way does that make ARM or Samsung own Apple's A7. While the A7 couldn't exist with ARM existing, which Apple no longer is a apart of, Apple could make the A7 on a larger node than what Samsung offers. It wouldn't be as power efficient or as smaller but that doesn't mean Samsung owns the A7 because they have the best large scale 28nm process for ARM chips, the same way that without Foxconn Apple couldn't produce nearly as many iPads but in no way does that make the iPad a Foxconn product.

Nobody said anything about "owning" where are you pulling that from? My response was to the comment...

 

"Samsung has nothing to do with the design, power, efficiency of the a7"  

 

which is completely incorrect.

post #42 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by patpatpat View Post

Nobody said anything about "owning" where are you pulling that from? My response was to the comment...

"Samsung has nothing to do with the design, power, efficiency of the a7"  

which is completely incorrect.

No, it's not incorrect. Samsung has zero to do with the efficiency of Apple's design. They do have to do with the efficiency of their 28nm process but that lithography is separate from the design of the chip. You can easily look at the Apple A4 in the iPad 2 to see it comes in both 45nm and 32nm varieties but in both cases it's still the A4 and it's still Apple's chip design.
post #43 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by akqies View Post


No, it's not incorrect. Samsung has zero to do with the efficiency of Apple's design. They do have to do with the efficiency of their 28nm process but that lithography is separate from the design of the chip. You can easily look at the Apple A4 in the iPad 2 to see it comes in both 45nm and 32nm varieties but in both cases it's still the A4 and it's still Apple's chip design.

Again you're pulling stuff out of your ass, The original quote was, here we go again

"Samsung has nothing to do with the design, power, efficiency of the a7" 

 

No samsung has nothing to do with design of A7 but it has a lot to do with the power/efficiency. Wake up!

post #44 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by patpatpat View Post

Again you're pulling stuff out of your ass, The original quote was, here we go again
"Samsung has nothing to do with the design, power, efficiency of the a7" 

No samsung has nothing to do with design of A7 but it has a lot to do with the power/efficiency. Wake up!

Look, you're rampant anti-Apple rhetoric is clouding even basic logic that even trolls should understand. The A7 is a chip design that is independent of the node in which it's built atop. This is way, as previously shown, the A4 is both a 45nm and 32nm variant. This means that the A7 could just as well be made at 32nm or 22nm or 14nm etc. Power efficiency and size would change but that has to do with the lithography, not the design of the chip.

You're still claiming that the A7 design in and of itself is somehow 1) not possible without Samsung's 28nm node, and that the A7 would not be possible if built using Intel or TMSC's foundries. Both of those are completely false because you're premise is false. It's like you saying that a sports car's engineers can't be credited with the performance they achieved solely within the car because they can't properly test it without being on roads of a certain type. The roads are a completely different feat of engineering independent of the sports car just as the A7 is a completely different set of engineering independent on the node in which it was built.

Try being objective and fair for once. You may like it.
post #45 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by akqies View Post


Look, you're rampant anti-Apple rhetoric is clouding even basic logic that even trolls should understand. The A7 is a chip design that is independent of the node in which it's built atop. This is way, as previously shown, the A4 is both a 45nm and 32nm variant. This means that the A7 could just as well be made at 32nm or 22nm or 14nm etc. Power efficiency and size would change but that has to do with the lithography, not the design of the chip.

You're still claiming that the A7 design in and of itself is somehow 1) not possible without Samsung's 28nm node, and that the A7 would not be possible if built using Intel or TMSC's foundries. Both of those are completely false because you're premise is false. It's like you saying that a sports car's engineers can't be credited with the performance they achieved solely within the car because they can't properly test it without being on roads of a certain type. The roads are a completely different feat of engineering independent of the sports car just as the A7 is a completely different set of engineering independent on the node in which it was built.

Try being objective and fair for once. You may like it.

Again you are pulling crap from nowhere. The original quote, (and here i go again)

"Samsung has nothing to do with the design, power, efficiency of the a7"  

lists 3 factors that the OP says samsung had nothing to do with.

1. Design

2. Power

3. Efficiency

 

I'm not arguing point 1 which you seem hung up on. I'm arguing that the power and efficiency of the A7 is due in a large part to Samsungs 28nm HKMG process and in addition also largely due to ARMs redesign of the arm v8 instruction set.

post #46 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by patpatpat View Post

Again you are pulling crap from nowhere. The original quote, (and here i go again)
"Samsung has nothing to do with the design, power, efficiency of the a7"  
lists 3 factors that the OP says samsung had nothing to do with.
1. Design
2. Power
3. Efficiency

I'm not arguing point 1 which you seem hung up on. I'm arguing that the power and efficiency of the A7 is due in a large part to Samsungs 28nm HKMG process and in addition also largely due to ARMs redesign of the arm v8 instruction set.

Please wake up!

For fuçk's sake open your eyes and turn your brain on. The A7 has NOTHING TO DO with 28nm or Highgate or anything else. That's the process in which it's made. The A7 is Apple's design which itself includes it's own power efficiency. Samsung, TMSC, and Intel's processes include their own power efficiencies which is why you can take the A7, just like the A4, and use a different process for different results. The A7 would less power efficient OVERALL with 32nm just as it would be more power efficient OVERALL with 22nm but this not because the A7 is a different design it's because the process WHICH IS INDEPENDENT FROM THE A7 is different.

Stop lumping the foundry in which the chip design. They as different as an automotive engineer is from a race track.
post #47 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by patpatpat View Post

Wow you really are out in the weeds.....

One last time I'll try to explain what should be obvious to anyone on a tech forum. If you want to claim anything about the 28nm being used you'd have to refer specifically to the model number of the A7 chip since that would include the process and foundry upon which it was built. In this case it's the APL0698 SoC.

Not once did you mention the specific HW being used. You only mentioned the A7 which refers to the design which is INDEPENDENT of the process or foundry being used. Again, this means that the A7 can be used by elsewhere, like TMSC at 22nm later on if they ever get their act together, just as we saw the A4 at 45nm and 32nm BOTH WITH DIFFERENT MODEL NUMBERS in the iPad 2,3 and iPad 2,4.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Retina iPad mini teardown reveals larger battery, display supplied by LG
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Retina iPad mini teardown reveals larger battery, display supplied by LG