or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Rumor: TSMC now building quad-core 'A8' chips for Apple's next-gen iPhone
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rumor: TSMC now building quad-core 'A8' chips for Apple's next-gen iPhone

post #1 of 46
Thread Starter 
While rumors of a partnership between Apple and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. have lingered for years, yet another report on Wednesday claims once again that the Taiwanese chipmaker is now producing chips for the company -- namely a next-generation "A8" processor for the 2014 iPhone.

TSMC Fab
TSMC's 12-inch wafer fab


The latest claims about Apple and TSMC were published by Taiwan's Commercial Times, and were summarized by AFP. The report suggests that TSMC has won "most" of the orders for Apple's next mobile processor, said to be a quad-core CPU, taking business away from rival Samsung.

Any claims regarding Apple and TSMC, however, should be taken with a grain of salt, as reports have suggested for years that the Taiwanese company would begin producing chips for the iPhone in the near future. To date, Samsung has produced all of the mobile CPUs for Apple's iPhone and iPad, including the 64-bit A7 processor found in the iPhone 5s, iPad Air and iPad mini with Retina display.

The latest such claims came in January, when it was said TSMC was ramping up production of its 20-nanometer chipmaking process to begin building Apple's rumored "A8" processor. At that time, production was allegedly slated to begin in the second quarter of 2014, which doesn't start until April.

Also suspect is the claim that TSMC will occupy most of the chip production capacity for Apple's iOS devices. While Samsung has proven capable of providing adequate silicon to Apple, there have been some concerns that TSMC may not be able to keep up with consumer demand for the iPhone and iPad.

Apple has been gradually moving away from its reliance on Samsung for components in its devices as the two companies have become fierce competitors. Claims of a chip partnership between Apple and TSMC date back to 2012, and have been incorrectly linked to both the A6X and A7 processors, both of which were actually manufactured by Samsung in Austin, Tex.

As for the next iPhone, it's expected that Apple will continue with its annual release cycle and debut a new handset in late 2014. Numerous rumors have suggested Apple is planning to increase the display with a so-called "iPhone 6," though it is not expected to be any larger than 5 inches.
post #2 of 46

Bring those rumors up, its been boring lately.  I want iphone, ipad, tv, watch rumors, or better, leaked parts.

post #3 of 46

Can someone explain why they manufacture rectangular chips on a round wafer?

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #4 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Claims of a chip partnership between Apple and TSMC date back to 2012, and have been incorrectly linked to both the A6X and A7 processors, both of which were actually manufactured by Samsung in Austin, Tex.
 

 

This is why I choose not the believe this rumor.  Fool me once (and twice)...

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #5 of 46
Quote:
Claims of a chip partnership between Apple and TSMC date back to 2012, and have been incorrectly linked to both the A6X and A7 processors, both of which were actually manufactured by Samsung in Austin, Tex.

 

Glad we saved 2 bytes by not using the full name of the state. Could have saved 3 by using a proper abbreviation...

post #6 of 46
I believe it is because when you grow the base silicon it comes out as a long cylinder which is then sliced to make the wafers.
post #7 of 46

I can see Apple finally making the move to quad core with a smaller process (like 20-22nm). The A7 cores are so far ahead of everyone else who uses ARM I just don't see how Apple is going to be able to make their usual "double the performance of last year" claim with the A8 simply by sticking to two cores and the same clock speed. But a quad core A8 (using A7 cores) would be a beast.

I think Intel should be worried. Apple has been making huge improvements to their processors at a rate that surpasses Intel. When's the last time a new Intel processor doubled the performance of the previous version?

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #8 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
 

Can someone explain why they manufacture rectangular chips on a round wafer?

 

The wafers are cut from silicon ingots which are large cylinders.

 

http://apcmag.com/picture-gallery-how-a-chip-is-made.htm

post #9 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Can someone explain why they manufacture rectangular chips on a round wafer?

Cotton Candy!

Back in the early 1960s I worked for Hoffman Semiconductor -- they made devices from Silicon.

The process begins with growing [pulling] an ingot from a container of molten silicon... Hoffman had a clean room visible from the lobby that showed this process in action -- like watching paint dry. AIR, the ingots were 5 or 6 inches in diameter.


I found the following, which shows how little this part of the process has changed in 54 years:



Growing the ingot is analogous to making cotton candy!
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #10 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

I can see Apple finally making the move to quad core with a smaller process (like 20-22nm). The A7 cores are so far ahead of everyone else who uses ARM I just don't see how Apple is going to be able to make their usual "double the performance of last year" claim with the A8 simply by sticking to two cores and the same clock speed. But a quad core A8 (using A7 cores) would be a beast.

I think Intel should be worried. Apple has been making huge improvements to their processors at a rate that surpasses Intel. When's the last time a new Intel processor doubled the performance of the previous version?
Agreed. However, Intel's bigger problem is there is less value in Intel making a faster, more efficient chip. The improvement in desktop performance is almost zero for most people and laptop performance improvements, while valuable, are for a relatively small and shrinking market. Apple and software developers are closing in on desktop performance with iPad. There is nothing Intel can do and nowhere to go except maybe contract manufacturing. Their market is going to be chipped away for the next decade. The next generation of kids will say, "who is Intel?"
post #11 of 46

If a far lower clocked dual CPU with less Ram can still compete very well with the Galaxy S5 which is a far newer phone, I am excited to see benchmarks and real world use tests with a quad-core that is likely to be clocked higher and also might bump up the Ram. Couple that CPU/Ram advancement with a larger display and that could be the death knell for Samsung's foray into high-end phones. Their sales could plummet. The only reason people had to buy a Galaxy type phone was the larger display and bragging rights about quad-core and more Ram. Sure there will still be some Apple haters who will always buy anything as long as it is not made by Apple but they are a vocal but tiny minority of actual customers. The iPhone will have a more premium feel thanks to the metal and sapphire glass, and will no longer be penalized in the minds of some due to a smallish display. Samsung will have a very tough job to convince people to buy one of their phones. They can't continue to make the displays any larger like they have done in the past since they have already reached the limit. If they offer metal that could increase their costs. They can't introduce 64-bit without Google making sure Android is optimized for that which is unlikely anytime soon. Their fingerprint scanner is likely to be widely panned in comparison to Touch ID. There is really not much they will be able to add or change to differentiate a Galaxy as they have done in the past. They better hope Google introduces a new version of Android after Kitkat that makes a large number of people want to stick with that platform because otherwise I see Apple dominating market share at the high-end next year. 

 

Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. 

Reply

 

Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. 

Reply
post #12 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
 

Can someone explain why they manufacture rectangular chips on a round wafer?

Originally Posted by DaveN View Post

I believe it is because when you grow the base silicon it comes out as a long cylinder which is then sliced to make the wafers.
Originally Posted by RalphMouth View Post
 

The wafers are cut from silicon ingots which are large cylinders.

 

http://apcmag.com/picture-gallery-how-a-chip-is-made.htm

In addition to the way the silicon is grown, they spin the disk while applying each layer of coating. Having a square disk would cause uneven distribution of the coating and would require a larger machine to spin it.

post #13 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post
 

If a far lower clocked dual CPU with less Ram can still compete very well with the Galaxy S5 which is a far newer phone, I am excited to see benchmarks and real world use tests with a quad-core that is likely to be clocked higher and also might bump up the Ram. ...They can't introduce 64-bit without Google making sure Android is optimized for that which is unlikely anytime soon. Their fingerprint scanner is likely to be widely panned in comparison to Touch ID. There is really not much they will be able to add or change to differentiate a Galaxy as they have done in the past. ...

I have yet to see information showing Android use all four cores or a quad core at the same time. OS X does this with many applications so I have no doubt iOS will be adjusted (if not already) to use more than two cores at the same time. Couple this with 64bit and I agree Android will be even further behind. The quad-core would be great for an iPad and possibly for a MBP Air if Apple sees any advantage in using an A8 over an Intel chip.

post #14 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53 View Post
 

I have yet to see information showing Android use all four cores or a quad core at the same time. OS X does this with many applications so I have no doubt iOS will be adjusted (if not already) to use more than two cores at the same time. Couple this with 64bit and I agree Android will be even further behind. The quad-core would be great for an iPad and possibly for a MBP Air if Apple sees any advantage in using an A8 over an Intel chip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBvaDtshLY8

back in 2011

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY37w7wxLFE#t=1m30s

current

 

ARM/Apple will never catch to Intel in high end raw performance.

post #15 of 46
I don't believe the rumor. That an A8 might appear is believable, but TSMC?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #16 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me View Post
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBvaDtshLY8

back in 2011

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY37w7wxLFE#t=1m30s

current

 

ARM/Apple will never catch to Intel in high end raw performance.

 

True, no ARM cpu will ever catch Intel on raw performance because they don't play with the same basic rules.  

 

But Its also true, Intel will never catch ARM on efficiency or performance per watt. 

 

Same applies to overhyped Nvidia Tegra, will having a more powerful graphics processor than Imagination PowerVR used by Apple, they can't compete on the efficiency level.

post #17 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post
 

I can see Apple finally making the move to quad core with a smaller process (like 20-22nm). The A7 cores are so far ahead of everyone else who uses ARM I just don't see how Apple is going to be able to make their usual "double the performance of last year" claim with the A8 simply by sticking to two cores and the same clock speed. But a quad core A8 (using A7 cores) would be a beast.

I think Intel should be worried. Apple has been making huge improvements to their processors at a rate that surpasses Intel. When's the last time a new Intel processor doubled the performance of the previous version?

 

Personally, I think this will be the year we see the iPad leap away from the iPhone in terms of performance. If Apple really wants the iPad to become the "Post-PC" productivity computer they always claimed it to be, it has to move past what mobile phones are capable of and really push the bounds of performance. Yes, I understand they are currently extremely capable and powerful now, but to many, that performance has to approach what's available in traditional computers; granted, it'll be a long while before they reach high or even mid level systems, but they could enter low end territory. Especially in real world use due to iOS being an extremely efficient OS with a fraction of the overhead that can bog down traditional desktop operating systems.

 

With that in mind, I think the iPhone 6 will have a dual core A8 clocked about the same or even less than it is now. Instead of trying to woo everyone with a huge performance leap, they'll concentrate on maximizing efficiency to extend the battery life beyond what any competitor will be able to match. The performance of the Cyclone cores found in the A7 are still far and away higher than anything else in the industry. (I'm not talking raw performance numbers, I'm talking about efficiency; performance per clock cycle.)

 

The next iPad Air will get a much beefier A8, the A8X. With four CPU cores running at an increased speed (1.5GHz or 1.7GHz) it will definitely push passed the bounds of "mobile" performance, but still be able to retain its industry leading battery performance at 10+ hours. With iPad Air becoming the "Pro" productivity tablet, the iPad mini will assume the role of the "consumption" device and as such will not have the A8X, but will use the same A8 that's found in the iPhone 6. (Or it may well in fact continue to use the A7.)

Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #18 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me View Post
 

ARM/Apple will never catch to Intel in high end raw performance.

 

True, but Apple could start designing their own x86_64 (AMD64) cores to use in Macs. 

Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #19 of 46
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post
but TSMC?

 

Say it enough and eventually it’ll be true.

 

That 2.5” iPhone is coming out any day now.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #20 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Can someone explain why they manufacture rectangular chips on a round wafer?

Mathematically, chip manufacturers have been able to "square the circle," a feat theoretical mathematicians had pursued up until the last century. Chasing Moore's Law has meant doing several things once considered impossible. Right now sub-20 nm chips are being produced, which is several orders of magnitude beyond what was once thought physically impossible. How was this accomplished, you may well ask? First off, we have long since left the world of macro-physics and entered into a quasi-Nano physical one. The next step beyond will be quantum physics. However, chip production has not got there yet, so let's contain this discussion to present-day quasi-Nano technology.

In this qN environment some rules of mathematics and space have been breached (see the work of McKenzie and Peters for a complete over-view). You may have wondered, "Why do chip manufacturers only use one side of a chip?" Think about it. They are struggling to fit more and more on one side, why do they not use both sides, it would make so much sense?" The answer is simple, although the reason doesn't make much sense to the layman, but it all comes down to one of the properties of qN devices. Simply stated, there is no other side in the qN world.

The nano-bit world handles the two-states of ones and zeros uniquely different from the macro-physics world. In the qN physics, "ones" are represented by "being present" while "zeros" are represented by being "not present" or, to be more accurate, zeros are on the other "side" of the chip. Using this new physics, fabricators were able to double what could be placed on a chip. Since the move to qN physics in chip design we've seen dual and quad core chips to become common and with only needing to produce "ones" the power consumption has remained the same and even dropped.
"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 #21 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by WS11 View Post
 

In the case of Intel, they'll be moving to 14nm production by the end of this year, even if the architecture is not as power efficient, the 14nm process will offer them a reasonable leap.

 

NVIDIA's Kepler based K1 has improved efficiency by a considerable margin making it pretty close to PowerVR 6.  Assuming the jump to Maxwell based SoC is anything like the cores seen in the 750/750 ti, it should allow NVIDIA to overtake Imagination.

 

ARM SoC are already more efficient and cheaper to produce than Intel CPU with worst fab process  This is a game Intel can't win that way, any fab process avantages Intel will develop can be eventually apply to ARM SoC.

 

Nvidia is really shy about giving the TDP specs of their Tegra CPU and since 4 generations later, near no phones and only a handful of tablets using Tegra processors have been ever produce, It proves they don't meet most mfg expectations. 


Edited by BigMac2 - 3/5/14 at 12:36pm
post #22 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by WS11 View Post
 

Suddenly quad core CPU's are the best!

 

I'll be sad if the quad-core rumor is true. It's a sign that Apple can't improve IPC much anymore, which isn't too surprising. Going the quad-core route won't benefit users as much as improving IPC. The last big low hanging fruit now will be using a SSD-in-a-package for storage.

 

If they can't improve IPC around 50%, hope they'll have a turbo that can up-clock 50% to 70% for a couple of seconds. That combined with a 20% improving in IPC would get another 2x performance for most smartphone use cases.

post #23 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post
 

 

True, no ARM cpu will ever catch Intel on raw performance because they don't play with the same basic rules.  

 

But Its also true, Intel will never catch ARM on efficiency or performance per watt. 

 

Same applies to overhyped Nvidia Tegra, will having a more powerful graphics processor than Imagination PowerVR used by Apple, they can't compete on the efficiency level.

Not according to recent benchmarks comparing devices with the same battery size

 

BayTrail

 

 

Tegra 4

post #24 of 46

So long SammaySungy!   Apple don't need you NO MORE!

 

Apple has been working on this for years, ever since Samsung became SameSham.

 

SlimeShame is getting exactly what they deserve.  ScamScum bit the hand that feeds them.  That's why they are losing so much money.  All they make is crappy phones, not like the iPhone which is a lot better because the SlimeShame phone is all plastic.

post #25 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post
 

 

This is why I choose not the believe this rumor.  Fool me once (and twice)...

 

I think one doesn't change a major supplier on a whim. If you think such a supplier is copying your products, you first politely and privately ask them to stop. Then you insist, privately, that they stop. The next step (sadly) is threatening to sue, then actually suing. And you start making noise about finding other suppliers.

 

You win a lawsuit, and you hope that that major supplier finally sees the writing on the wall. Only after all that, with no change, do you go through the hassle of actually moving production to a new (to you) company.

 

I'm no expert, but that's what I think happened. I think they were willing to give Samsung every chance to engage, reverse, and keep their business.  I think if the S5 doesn't sell like gangbusters (which I think it won't), and they lose the second lawsuit starting this month (which I think they will), and Samsung continues to miss revenue and earnings expectations (which I think they will), I think their CEO is going to start facing uncomfortable questions about their strategy these last few years in the face of this slow but very obvious evolution.

 

Changing major suppliers was a big, big deal. And Apple avoided it as long as they could. It's going to hurt both companies, but I think it's going to hurt Samsung a lot more, given the events I just mentioned. But then I'm an Apple fan, so I'm not exactly unbiased.

post #26 of 46
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
 

Can someone explain why they manufacture rectangular chips on a round wafer?

 

Because the ingot "growing" process naturally creates a cylindrical silicon crystal.

It's kind of like dipping candles.  The cylindrical crystal is then sliced into wafers which are then polished.

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_wafer

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #27 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post
 

True, but Apple could start designing their own x86_64 (AMD64) cores to use in Macs. 

all risk, little reward.   Sometimes its better to pass the risk to Intel, and pay wholesale.   Just keep reminding them of who is the largest High End Laptop maker, and that you have a few 'tweaks' you'd like them to do to speed up OSX, and occasionally let leak through back channels Macbook Airs running on prototype A8x chips (may be slow as molasses, but it tells Intel they can't stick it to one of their largest customers).

 

The fact that apple owns both the A'n' design and the coding of the only OS that is running on the chip, and controls the selection of all periphery chips and interfaces gives them an amazing edge drive what is done best in HW into HW, as well as optimize chip design for the code.   Doing the same in an x86_64 class chip just teaches intel and AMD how to do it for everyone else... why be someone else's R&D (See: Samsung/Google and smartphones before 2007)?

post #28 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT View Post
 

 

I'll be sad if the quad-core rumor is true. It's a sign that Apple can't improve IPC much anymore, which isn't too surprising. Going the quad-core route won't benefit users as much as improving IPC. The last big low hanging fruit now will be using a SSD-in-a-package for storage.

 

If they can't improve IPC around 50%, hope they'll have a turbo that can up-clock 50% to 70% for a couple of seconds. That combined with a 20% improving in IPC would get another 2x performance for most smartphone use cases.

 

I agree that quad-core on a smartphone is overkill and as I posted above I think the next iPhone will stick with a dual-core design and focus on efficiency to increase battery life. Apple's Cyclone core is extremely efficient and fairly powerful. With the next generation we may see customized changes to the ISA to further refine and optimize it.

 

However, I do believe they will go quad-core for the iPad. Why? The iPad has great battery life already. If they can push the performance while keeping the same battery life, they'll still be ahead of the competition.

Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #29 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

True, but Apple could start designing their own
x86_64 (AMD64) cores to use in Macs. 

They could, but it would not be cost effective to since Intel and AMD have 20 years of patents and cross-licensing under their belts.

ARM on the other hand, Apple actually helped start.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post

ARM SoC are already more efficient and cheaper to produce than Intel CPU with worst fab process  This is a game Intel can't win that way, any fab process avantages Intel will develop can be eventually apply to ARM SoC.

Nvidia is really shy about giving the TDP specs of their Tegra CPU and since 4 generations later, near no phones and only a handful of tablets using Tegra processors have been ever produce, It proves they don't meet most mfg expectations. 

The most important factors for mobile is TDP above everything. This is why Intel, nVidia and AMD don't make parts that belong in devices with small batteries. We only see "ultrabooks" and devices like the Microsoft Surface at all because of improvements in battery life in addition to die shrinks that lower the TDP. But look at a laptop from 1999 versus one from 2009. The batteries in a 1999 model you were lucky if you got an hour or two out of them. That continued to be the case, every single time. There has been no game changer for laptops. Only Apple has ever produced a laptop that focused on battery life. Every other manufacturer would put the weakest parts in the laptops to sell them, who cares how long they last.

It's this hardware/software disconnect that Apple is in the best position to stay on top of. Only Microsoft itself could do better, since they're the only ones who could actually design hardware that works with their OS. Android is completely broken in this regard as every manufacturer producing a device only cares about selling hardware.

I'm not even sure any software written for Android even can take advantage of threading of a quadcore CPU. There seems to be an intractable problem in software development in general that very little software is written with threads in mind, and instead insist on creating new processes (see Google Chrome) that require more RAM rather than just design software that works efficiently.
post #30 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misa View Post


They could, but it would not be cost effective to since Intel and AMD have 20 years of patents and cross-licensing under their belts.

ARM on the other hand, Apple actually helped start.
The most important factors for mobile is TDP above everything. This is why Intel, nVidia and AMD don't make parts that belong in devices with small batteries. We only see "ultrabooks" and devices like the Microsoft Surface at all because of improvements in battery life in addition to die shrinks that lower the TDP. But look at a laptop from 1999 versus one from 2009. The batteries in a 1999 model you were lucky if you got an hour or two out of them. That continued to be the case, every single time. There has been no game changer for laptops. Only Apple has ever produced a laptop that focused on battery life. Every other manufacturer would put the weakest parts in the laptops to sell them, who cares how long they last.

It's this hardware/software disconnect that Apple is in the best position to stay on top of. Only Microsoft itself could do better, since they're the only ones who could actually design hardware that works with their OS. Android is completely broken in this regard as every manufacturer producing a device only cares about selling hardware.

I'm not even sure any software written for Android even can take advantage of threading of a quadcore CPU. There seems to be an intractable problem in software development in general that very little software is written with threads in mind, and instead insist on creating new processes (see Google Chrome) that require more RAM rather than just design software that works efficiently.

 

Apple can easily purchase AMD, if it so chooses. Apple can easily become an OEM vendor for AMD and with both having ARM licenses [especially Apple having access to all ARM IP] could start stamping out AMD APU Excavator based solutions.

 

The only caveat is THUNDERBOLT.

post #31 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by WS11 View Post
 

Intel isn't only improving efficiency through fab, architecture will have a large impact.  The move from Airmont to Goldmont will still be 14nm to 14nm, but you will see an improvement in efficiency.   And the "eventually" is what matters, if Intel can produce a 14nm fab before the competition that is a real advantage if their competition is on 22nm and 28nm.  By the time the competition gets to 14nm, Intel will be onto 10nm and so forth.  Always a step ahead.  Silvermont SoCs are very cheap, $32 and $37 respectively, which is very reasonable considering they offer the highest CPU compute in an x86-64 package.

 

NVIDIA isn't shy about giving TDPs, heck mid-2013 they let Anandtech test a mobile Kepler SoC 1 year before the release.  Anand found that the pre-pre-production mobile Kepler offered ~5x the performance of the PowerVR inside the A6X with the same power consumption. The reason behind the lack of design wins in smartphones (in North America) is due to the lack of modem.  If you haven't noticed, Qualcomm has been dominating the SoC market in Android/Windows devices in North America due to their wireless capabilities.   

 

Both NVIDIA and Intel are finally setting their focus in the mobile market, and you would be a fool to brush them off in the manner you do.  Previous attempts with Tegra 4 and Atom CloverTrail had been using ancient designs, but that's no longer the case.  Mobile Kepler and Silvermont are using the same technology found in a laptop/desktop equivalent.

 

You see ARM Soc and Intel SoC aren't in the same league, ARM SoC are design to runs on battery powered platform ever since his born more than 20 years ago.  Every things in the A7 and every ARM SoC are design with power preservation and efficiency in mind. Where intel best mobile SoC TDP are above 4 watts, the Ax series TDP target is around 1 watt.  The A7 at 28nm already beats any current 14nm Intel chips on performance per watts, the next A8 will surely be a 22nm fab and got other tweaks.   BTW, 32$ to 37$ is pretty expensive when compared to the A7, around 19$ which already is one of the most expensive ARM SoC. 

 

If Nvidia isn't shy about efficiency specs where are they? According to Anandtech own test here is what they have to said about the Tegra 4:

Quote:
"Unfortunately compared to the Nexus 7 (2013) the Tegra Note lasts quite a bit less on battery."

 

 And about the modem misinformation, here a quote of Nvidia's Chief Marketing officer from mid 2012:

Quote:
 "Contrary to misinformation likely spread by our competitors, Tegra 3 does work with external LTE modems. Fujitsu will be shipping their Tegra 3-based Arrows X LTE phone starting July 20th, and more Tegra 3-based LTE phones from other vendors are coming later this year."

This was 2 years ago, still hard to find a Tegra phone today.

 

Every one is now focusing on today fastest growing market and leaves the aging desktop computing behind, Nvidia and Intel aren't fools, they want to protect their IP.  But using the same old technology found in Desktop computing designed for raw power and conquer the Ghz war and trying magically negate all their legacy inefficiencies and compete with an architecture designed for efficiency from day one is just doomed to fail.

post #32 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me View Post
 

Not according to recent benchmarks comparing devices with the same battery size

 

BayTrail

 

 

Tegra 4

 

Can't say the Tegra 4 shines in terms of battery life, BTW what is that PRISM things needed for having average battery life?

 

Here is more disastrous Tegra Note graph from Anandtech:

 

3D Battery Life - GLBenchmark 2.5.1 


Edited by BigMac2 - 3/5/14 at 5:02pm
post #33 of 46
Yes, because Apple would totally trust the Foundry that has botched up multiple node transitions, including the current 22/20nm for both Nvidia and Qualcomm. You keep on fantasizing there Taiwain Commercial Times.
post #34 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

I can see Apple finally making the move to quad core with a smaller process (like 20-22nm). The A7 cores are so far ahead of everyone else who uses ARM I just don't see how Apple is going to be able to make their usual "double the performance of last year" claim with the A8 simply by sticking to two cores and the same clock speed. But a quad core A8 (using A7 cores) would be a beast.

I think Intel should be worried. Apple has been making huge improvements to their processors at a rate that surpasses Intel. When's the last time a new Intel processor doubled the performance of the previous version?

My 2013 Air gets 13 hours with the Haswell chip in it. It may not have increased speed, but that was quite an accomplishment. If Intel wants to be relevant, they need to work on their graphics capabilities. There is MUCH room for improvement there.
I've been trying to come up with a lifestyle that doesn't require my presence.
Reply
I've been trying to come up with a lifestyle that doesn't require my presence.
Reply
post #35 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post
 

 

Can't say the Tegra 4 shines in terms of battery life, BTW what is that PRISM things needed for having average battery life?

 

Here is more disastrous Tegra Note graph from Anandtech:

 

3D Battery Life - GLBenchmark 2.5.1 

That graph shows Tegra 4 (Nvidia Tegra Note 7) performs almost the same a Qualcomm ARM SOC (Nexus 7 2013) which have almost the same battery capacity (15.01Whr vs 15.17Whr). Not a very "disastrous" graph

post #36 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivabign View Post

My 2013 Air gets 13 hours with the Haswell chip in it. It may not have increased speed, but that was quite an accomplishment. If Intel wants to be relevant, they need to work on their graphics capabilities. There is MUCH room for improvement there.
Agreed. In fact, why doesn't Intel buy AMD? They should be able to pass the regulatory hurdle now. They certainly don't have market power anymore. I think Intel-AMD merger makes more sence than the HP-Compaq merger.
post #37 of 46

In 6 months time, when the new iPhone is released, this story will be debunked and we'll find out that Samsung designed the A8 as well.

post #38 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post
 

I can see Apple finally making the move to quad core with a smaller process (like 20-22nm). The A7 cores are so far ahead of everyone else who uses ARM I just don't see how Apple is going to be able to make their usual "double the performance of last year" claim with the A8 simply by sticking to two cores and the same clock speed. But a quad core A8 (using A7 cores) would be a beast.

I think Intel should be worried. Apple has been making huge improvements to their processors at a rate that surpasses Intel. When's the last time a new Intel processor doubled the performance of the previous version?

 

This rumour might be completely false, of course. But if hypothetically Apple is going to put quad core in production, then we shall most probably have 4x graphics on larger screen iPhones. Which might be overkill for iPhone, but if you look at iPads and mirroring to 4K screens, then it does make a sense.

post #39 of 46
Where are the CURRENT 64 bit apps??
I want some bragging rights.
post #40 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me View Post
 

That graph shows Tegra 4 (Nvidia Tegra Note 7) performs almost the same a Qualcomm ARM SOC (Nexus 7 2013) which have almost the same battery capacity (15.01Whr vs 15.17Whr). Not a very "disastrous" graph

 

I case you've missed it, here is a quote from Anandtech review: 

Quote:
 "Unfortunately compared to the Nexus 7 (2013) the Tegra Note lasts quite a bit less on battery."
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Rumor: TSMC now building quad-core 'A8' chips for Apple's next-gen iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Rumor: TSMC now building quad-core 'A8' chips for Apple's next-gen iPhone