I have no doubt they have builds of Snow Leopard (and Lion) running on ARM in Apple HQ. In a few years the MacBook Airs will probably be running on ARM.
I think it would be a good move on both parts. The A5 could be ported to 32nm, the A6 have access to 22nm. Intel is still king when it comes to process nodes and the mobile business could help drive the advanced processes. Apple's customized designs would benefit from the chip size reduction, power consumption reduction, etc...
The A5 and IOS are completely linked architectures which is one of the big reasons they perform so well together so Apple has built in IP protection. I for one hope Apple and Intel find a way to win together.
We've been hearing a lot about Global Foundries for many years now. Would love to see some objective data on how much and what exactly they produce compared to Intel, TSMC, etc.
Global foundry was spun off from AMD. Everything with AMD label on it came from Global foundry.
Seems to me that the more diversified Apple's supplier base is, the more insulated they are from unexpected interruptions. Let's see Foxconn in Brazil, and Intel in Cali, etc. Spread the wealth and spread the RISC. Sorry.
Intel will charge a lot more than Samsung for manufacturing the chips. Doesn't make sense to pick a higher-cost manufacturer just to stick it to Samsung.
This will go to ARM's Global Foundries, not Intel.
Apple would dump Intel if the ARM was as capable as the Intel because they could expand their custom SoC designs.
Oh, I hope not. Global Foundries isn't the highest quality company out there. One of the biggest reason why AMD's chips over the years have been late, or perform poorly has been because of the poor state of their foundry. I've no reason to believe it's any better now that they've sold off so much of it.
By the way, as you can tell from my post, that Global Foundries doesn't have anything to do with ARM. It's an AMD unit, or partly so today.
i've had the very same thoughts. i always get a little nauseated when i read his website, and it's nice to hear someone reaffirm my suspicions. they're so prolific with their stories though, i at least try to follow their RSS feed.
anyway, this story makes a lot of sense to me. there's a lot of incentives for apple to partner with intel. i think apples IP would be more protected in the states with less chance of leaking and copying. apple already has a lot of IP that they have acquired, and it doesn't matter if intel has the ability to design competitive chips, they are hindered by their lack of ARM IP (didn't they buy intrinisity though?) also, it would be great to keep some manufacturing/money in the USA. lastly, samsung doesn't seem like a great partner if they blatantly rip off IP without remorse.
Yes, they bought Intrinisity right after the A4 came out.
Intel doesn't keep its fabs in the US because of some altruistic concern for the US economy. It's just that there is more protection for IP in the US than there is in other countries, e.g. China. Intel doesn't want its IP getting ripped off in another country. That's why even though they have to pay higher salaries to do it in the US, they can at least keep an eye on the fabs to prevent someone from walking off with proprietary technology. I heard this from a friend who works for Intel.
Intel has a factory in China, and other parts of the world. Most of their fabs are here in the USA.
We've been hearing a lot about Global Foundries for many years now. Would love to see some objective data on how much and what exactly they produce compared to Intel, TSMC, etc.
Global Foundries is still mostly a fab for AMD, producing CPU's for them.
TSMC produces the GPU's for both ATI and Nvidia.
I'm not thrilled with them as a manufacturer, as they always have problem with their new processes. Both ATI and Nvidia have been forced to tone down their highest end designs, and to put back the introduction of a number of new products, sometimes form months, because TSMC was having problems. The latest ATI chips were supposed to be on a new process from TSMC, except that they couldn't get yields up high enough. ATI was forced to rework their chips to function on the older process. Nvidia has seen the same problems.
I would also get nervous at the prospect of them producing 150 to 200 million chips a year for Apple, as they will need by the end of this year. I have no problems in expecting that Intel would be able to do it, and on a process that's at least one generation ahead. We've seen how that's worked for them as compared to AMD. Even in a few cases with poorer designs, performance was noticeably better, and as Intel's designs moved ahead, AMD fell into the wayside again.
Intel has a factory in China, and other parts of the world. Most of their fabs are here in the USA.
I'm not denying that at all. Intel has a fab in China and other countries in the world, but most of its fabs are in the USA. I don't doubt that.
All I'm saying is that don't think that Intel keeps its fabs in the USA out of some altruistic concern for American jobs. Intel wants to protect its IP, and it's easier to keep an eye on fabs if they're in the US.
I agree with melgross and I have done tape-in's at Global. TSMC's track record at the smaller feature size isn't all that great either.
Intel is a node ahead for sure and the time between process nodes is stretching out. I say it would be a good move for Apple and Intel if the deal is right.
I'm not denying that at all. Intel has a fab in China and other countries in the world, but most of its fabs are in the USA. I don't doubt that.
All I'm saying is that don't think that Intel keeps its fabs in the USA out of some altruistic concern for American jobs. Intel wants to protect its IP, and it's easier to keep an eye on fabs if they're in the US.
But if they have a fab in China, and I believe they're building another one there, how does having fabs here protect their IP? We would have to have some idea of what it is they produce in these different fabs. And a number are in countries where foreign IP has little protection.
Global Foundries is still mostly a fab for AMD, producing CPU's for them.
TSMC produces the GPU's for both ATI and Nvidia.
I'm not thrilled with them as a manufacturer, as they always have problem with their new processes. Both ATI and Nvidia have been forced to tone down their highest end designs, and to put back the introduction of a number of new products, sometimes form months, because TSMC was having problems. The latest ATI chips were supposed to be on a new process from TSMC, except that they couldn't get yields up high enough. ATI was forced to rework their chips to function on the older process. Nvidia has seen the same problems.
I would also get nervous at the prospect of them producing 150 to 200 million chips a year for Apple, as they will need by the end of this year. I have no problems in expecting that Intel would be able to do it, and on a process that's at least one generation ahead. We've seen how that's worked for them as compared to AMD. Even in a few cases with poorer designs, performance was noticeably better, and as Intel's designs moved ahead, AMD fell into the wayside again.
Intel consistently has problems with their fabs. You're not reading much about it due to the overall total fab capacity they have to use to compensate until they fix their issues. No fab provider is devoid of issues.
The issue isn't fab capacity, as Apple can build several fabs if it wants to see it through. The issue is actually ARM and Apple isn't abandoning that advantage for all the tea in China.
The base ARM designs are indeed open to anyone, Apple has made a lot of modifications however and the SoC they design with the same underlying ARM architecture regularly outperforms the competition in leaps and bounds. So while Hummingbird chips are based on the same architecture, the A5 runs rings around it at equivalent Megahertz.
You have a reliable source for that? Everything I've read indicates the A4 in the iPhone is very similar to the Hummingbird core in Samsungs products. The cortex-A9 cores in the A5 may change this trend, but i don't believe the nextgen dualcore cortex-A9-like Samsung chips are out yet...
But if they have a fab in China, and I believe they're building another one there, how does having fabs here protect their IP? We would have to have some idea of what it is they produce in these different fabs. And a number are in countries where foreign IP has little protection.
Processors using older technologies are produced in fabs outside the country, such as China, since that IP is not very important. Processors based on newer technologies are fabricated in US fabs. For example, apparently, the Core 2 Duo processors are manufactured in China or other countries where it is cheaper to produce them.
Intel consistently has problems with their fabs. You're not reading much about it due to the overall total fab capacity they have to use to compensate until they fix their issues. No fab provider is devoid of issues.
The issue isn't fab capacity, as Apple can build several fabs if it wants to see it through. The issue is actually ARM and Apple isn't abandoning that advantage for all the tea in China.
Intel's fabs are recognized as the best in the industry. This isn't a secret. Every company has problems. But they have fewer. They're also instituting a new technology using "3D" transistors in their 22nm process bode. Not only are they a year ahead in moving to 22nm, at least, but they're a year to three years ahead in this technology as well, which has great benefits.I read industry publications. EE Times is one of the vest for this as well as other industry related subjects. I've quoted them often here, and recommended that people read it.
I don't know why you mentioned that Apple won't abandon ARM. I never said they would. But, if the Atom gets the boost it might from this new tech, Apple might see a use for it as well.
You have a reliable source for that? Everything I've read indicates the A4 in the iPhone is very similar to the Hummingbird core in Samsungs products. The cortex-A9 cores in the A5 may change this trend, but i don't believe the nextgen dualcore cortex-A9-like Samsung chips are out yet...
The mods Apple made in the A4 were actually made by Intricisity, before Apple bought them. The changes relate to efficiency, which is what Intricisity was known for.
But that was the first "Apple"design. The A5 is acknowledged to be far more modified from the basic ARM design. For example, the die is much larger than any other ARM die. That's an indicator that the chip has extra units inside. As the design is proprietary, no o e actually knows exactly what's in there, but there are some good guesses. It's acknowledged that the A5 is much more an Apple design.
No doubt, newer chips will be coming out by others. But from all the reviews, the iPad2 is so far ahead in performance, that at best, these newer chips, when they do come out late this year, might just come up to the performance of the A5. a couple of articles have stated, that just going by the die size, which is a standard way of getting an idea of chip costs, the A5 cost Apple about $25, whereas the Tegra 2 (the standard chip for current high end Android and RIM tablets), costs about $15—a significant difference at that price level. Other manufacturers may not be willing to spend that much for their chips, and it's also possible that Apple's cost is mitigated by the sheer number they buy, meaning that at the much lower purchasing levels other manufacturers are making, it would cost even more. That would make the price of the Tegra lower at Apple's purchasing levels. That means that the cost and performance differential would be even greater than they seem. Other chip manufacturers may not be able to duplicate the performance this year. And of course, next year, and another new chip from Apple.
It's hard to imagine the advantage Apple could get by going with intel's 22nm process. Especially with Intel's newly announced new technology appearing on 22nm, Apple could get so far ahead of every other ARM user that it would be impossible to overcome, possible for years, possibly forever. A bold statement, but when you get that far ahead, it becomes very difficult for others to catch up because of the chip design experience.
Processors using older technologies are produced in fabs outside the country, such as China, since that IP is not very important. Processors based on newer technologies are fabricated in US fabs. For example, apparently, the Core 2 Duo processors are manufactured in China or other countries where it is cheaper to produce them.
I doubt if the new plant being built there will be used to produce older tech. intel moves new tech to newer plants, while modding the newest of the older plants as upgrades for the new technology. Intel has already had some of their tech stolen by the Chinese, as have other US technology companies. If they really want it, they will get it, even from US based plants.
The only protection that can be gotten these days is the promise by governments that they will regard foreign tech as owned by the companies who developed them. With the Chinese, there are no such realistic promises.
Comments
But again not duh, because it means they have to do something they DISMISSED 10 or so years ago or so.
i see that we differ on our definitions of the word, "duh".
I have no doubt they have builds of Snow Leopard (and Lion) running on ARM in Apple HQ. In a few years the MacBook Airs will probably be running on ARM.
please, let it be true!
The A5 and IOS are completely linked architectures which is one of the big reasons they perform so well together so Apple has built in IP protection. I for one hope Apple and Intel find a way to win together.
We've been hearing a lot about Global Foundries for many years now. Would love to see some objective data on how much and what exactly they produce compared to Intel, TSMC, etc.
Global foundry was spun off from AMD. Everything with AMD label on it came from Global foundry.
This will go to ARM's Global Foundries, not Intel.
Apple would dump Intel if the ARM was as capable as the Intel because they could expand their custom SoC designs.
Samsung is a major partner in this. Lol Samsung is everywhere
Intel will charge a lot more than Samsung for manufacturing the chips. Doesn't make sense to pick a higher-cost manufacturer just to stick it to Samsung.
And you know this because...?
This will go to ARM's Global Foundries, not Intel.
Apple would dump Intel if the ARM was as capable as the Intel because they could expand their custom SoC designs.
Oh, I hope not. Global Foundries isn't the highest quality company out there. One of the biggest reason why AMD's chips over the years have been late, or perform poorly has been because of the poor state of their foundry. I've no reason to believe it's any better now that they've sold off so much of it.
By the way, as you can tell from my post, that Global Foundries doesn't have anything to do with ARM. It's an AMD unit, or partly so today.
i've had the very same thoughts. i always get a little nauseated when i read his website, and it's nice to hear someone reaffirm my suspicions. they're so prolific with their stories though, i at least try to follow their RSS feed.
anyway, this story makes a lot of sense to me. there's a lot of incentives for apple to partner with intel. i think apples IP would be more protected in the states with less chance of leaking and copying. apple already has a lot of IP that they have acquired, and it doesn't matter if intel has the ability to design competitive chips, they are hindered by their lack of ARM IP (didn't they buy intrinisity though?) also, it would be great to keep some manufacturing/money in the USA. lastly, samsung doesn't seem like a great partner if they blatantly rip off IP without remorse.
Yes, they bought Intrinisity right after the A4 came out.
Intel doesn't keep its fabs in the US because of some altruistic concern for the US economy. It's just that there is more protection for IP in the US than there is in other countries, e.g. China. Intel doesn't want its IP getting ripped off in another country. That's why even though they have to pay higher salaries to do it in the US, they can at least keep an eye on the fabs to prevent someone from walking off with proprietary technology. I heard this from a friend who works for Intel.
Intel has a factory in China, and other parts of the world. Most of their fabs are here in the USA.
We've been hearing a lot about Global Foundries for many years now. Would love to see some objective data on how much and what exactly they produce compared to Intel, TSMC, etc.
Global Foundries is still mostly a fab for AMD, producing CPU's for them.
TSMC produces the GPU's for both ATI and Nvidia.
I'm not thrilled with them as a manufacturer, as they always have problem with their new processes. Both ATI and Nvidia have been forced to tone down their highest end designs, and to put back the introduction of a number of new products, sometimes form months, because TSMC was having problems. The latest ATI chips were supposed to be on a new process from TSMC, except that they couldn't get yields up high enough. ATI was forced to rework their chips to function on the older process. Nvidia has seen the same problems.
I would also get nervous at the prospect of them producing 150 to 200 million chips a year for Apple, as they will need by the end of this year. I have no problems in expecting that Intel would be able to do it, and on a process that's at least one generation ahead. We've seen how that's worked for them as compared to AMD. Even in a few cases with poorer designs, performance was noticeably better, and as Intel's designs moved ahead, AMD fell into the wayside again.
Intel has a factory in China, and other parts of the world. Most of their fabs are here in the USA.
I'm not denying that at all. Intel has a fab in China and other countries in the world, but most of its fabs are in the USA. I don't doubt that.
All I'm saying is that don't think that Intel keeps its fabs in the USA out of some altruistic concern for American jobs. Intel wants to protect its IP, and it's easier to keep an eye on fabs if they're in the US.
Intel is a node ahead for sure and the time between process nodes is stretching out. I say it would be a good move for Apple and Intel if the deal is right.
I'm not denying that at all. Intel has a fab in China and other countries in the world, but most of its fabs are in the USA. I don't doubt that.
All I'm saying is that don't think that Intel keeps its fabs in the USA out of some altruistic concern for American jobs. Intel wants to protect its IP, and it's easier to keep an eye on fabs if they're in the US.
But if they have a fab in China, and I believe they're building another one there, how does having fabs here protect their IP? We would have to have some idea of what it is they produce in these different fabs. And a number are in countries where foreign IP has little protection.
Global Foundries is still mostly a fab for AMD, producing CPU's for them.
TSMC produces the GPU's for both ATI and Nvidia.
I'm not thrilled with them as a manufacturer, as they always have problem with their new processes. Both ATI and Nvidia have been forced to tone down their highest end designs, and to put back the introduction of a number of new products, sometimes form months, because TSMC was having problems. The latest ATI chips were supposed to be on a new process from TSMC, except that they couldn't get yields up high enough. ATI was forced to rework their chips to function on the older process. Nvidia has seen the same problems.
I would also get nervous at the prospect of them producing 150 to 200 million chips a year for Apple, as they will need by the end of this year. I have no problems in expecting that Intel would be able to do it, and on a process that's at least one generation ahead. We've seen how that's worked for them as compared to AMD. Even in a few cases with poorer designs, performance was noticeably better, and as Intel's designs moved ahead, AMD fell into the wayside again.
Intel consistently has problems with their fabs. You're not reading much about it due to the overall total fab capacity they have to use to compensate until they fix their issues. No fab provider is devoid of issues.
The issue isn't fab capacity, as Apple can build several fabs if it wants to see it through. The issue is actually ARM and Apple isn't abandoning that advantage for all the tea in China.
Not actually true.
The base ARM designs are indeed open to anyone, Apple has made a lot of modifications however and the SoC they design with the same underlying ARM architecture regularly outperforms the competition in leaps and bounds. So while Hummingbird chips are based on the same architecture, the A5 runs rings around it at equivalent Megahertz.
You have a reliable source for that? Everything I've read indicates the A4 in the iPhone is very similar to the Hummingbird core in Samsungs products. The cortex-A9 cores in the A5 may change this trend, but i don't believe the nextgen dualcore cortex-A9-like Samsung chips are out yet...
But if they have a fab in China, and I believe they're building another one there, how does having fabs here protect their IP? We would have to have some idea of what it is they produce in these different fabs. And a number are in countries where foreign IP has little protection.
Processors using older technologies are produced in fabs outside the country, such as China, since that IP is not very important. Processors based on newer technologies are fabricated in US fabs. For example, apparently, the Core 2 Duo processors are manufactured in China or other countries where it is cheaper to produce them.
Intel consistently has problems with their fabs. You're not reading much about it due to the overall total fab capacity they have to use to compensate until they fix their issues. No fab provider is devoid of issues.
The issue isn't fab capacity, as Apple can build several fabs if it wants to see it through. The issue is actually ARM and Apple isn't abandoning that advantage for all the tea in China.
Intel's fabs are recognized as the best in the industry. This isn't a secret. Every company has problems. But they have fewer. They're also instituting a new technology using "3D" transistors in their 22nm process bode. Not only are they a year ahead in moving to 22nm, at least, but they're a year to three years ahead in this technology as well, which has great benefits.I read industry publications. EE Times is one of the vest for this as well as other industry related subjects. I've quoted them often here, and recommended that people read it.
I don't know why you mentioned that Apple won't abandon ARM. I never said they would. But, if the Atom gets the boost it might from this new tech, Apple might see a use for it as well.
You have a reliable source for that? Everything I've read indicates the A4 in the iPhone is very similar to the Hummingbird core in Samsungs products. The cortex-A9 cores in the A5 may change this trend, but i don't believe the nextgen dualcore cortex-A9-like Samsung chips are out yet...
The mods Apple made in the A4 were actually made by Intricisity, before Apple bought them. The changes relate to efficiency, which is what Intricisity was known for.
http://www.eetimes.com/design/signal...s-A4-processor
But that was the first "Apple"design. The A5 is acknowledged to be far more modified from the basic ARM design. For example, the die is much larger than any other ARM die. That's an indicator that the chip has extra units inside. As the design is proprietary, no o e actually knows exactly what's in there, but there are some good guesses. It's acknowledged that the A5 is much more an Apple design.
http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-n...y?pageNumber=0
No doubt, newer chips will be coming out by others. But from all the reviews, the iPad2 is so far ahead in performance, that at best, these newer chips, when they do come out late this year, might just come up to the performance of the A5. a couple of articles have stated, that just going by the die size, which is a standard way of getting an idea of chip costs, the A5 cost Apple about $25, whereas the Tegra 2 (the standard chip for current high end Android and RIM tablets), costs about $15—a significant difference at that price level. Other manufacturers may not be willing to spend that much for their chips, and it's also possible that Apple's cost is mitigated by the sheer number they buy, meaning that at the much lower purchasing levels other manufacturers are making, it would cost even more. That would make the price of the Tegra lower at Apple's purchasing levels. That means that the cost and performance differential would be even greater than they seem. Other chip manufacturers may not be able to duplicate the performance this year. And of course, next year, and another new chip from Apple.
It's hard to imagine the advantage Apple could get by going with intel's 22nm process. Especially with Intel's newly announced new technology appearing on 22nm, Apple could get so far ahead of every other ARM user that it would be impossible to overcome, possible for years, possibly forever. A bold statement, but when you get that far ahead, it becomes very difficult for others to catch up because of the chip design experience.
Processors using older technologies are produced in fabs outside the country, such as China, since that IP is not very important. Processors based on newer technologies are fabricated in US fabs. For example, apparently, the Core 2 Duo processors are manufactured in China or other countries where it is cheaper to produce them.
I doubt if the new plant being built there will be used to produce older tech. intel moves new tech to newer plants, while modding the newest of the older plants as upgrades for the new technology. Intel has already had some of their tech stolen by the Chinese, as have other US technology companies. If they really want it, they will get it, even from US based plants.
The only protection that can be gotten these days is the promise by governments that they will regard foreign tech as owned by the companies who developed them. With the Chinese, there are no such realistic promises.