Saw DigiTimes in the first sentence. Nope. Didn't bother to read the rest of the article. It's no better than getting your rumors from the Taco Bell dog.
Samsung makes ALL of Apple's iOS SoC's. They are made in Samsung's sprawling plant in Texas. Apple helped pay for that plant and the equipment. In return, they get additional discounts. What is happening in there now, we can only guess. But the new 28nm chip used in the iPad 2 today, and the new aTv are made there as well.
There is no reliable reason to believe Apple is planning a move soon.
As for Digitimes... they used to have a 50% average, but the past year that's moved down to under 40%.
Still, that's about as good as anyone else. I would be surprised if Apple didn't have a 4 core chip running. Why would they wait until next year, and a new iPad to use it? That would just put them behind a large number of competitors, and when it comes to chips, they don't like that happening.
Also, Apple is proud of their SoC's. They always mention the number of cores in the CPU, the number of cores, and the version of the gpu, and the speed. They don't tell what the RAM is, or discuss details about the chip. Though last year they did mention that the have their own processing module for the camera built into the chip.
Samsung processors mustn't be much good, look at the lag in this quad core SIII international version:-
Apple only going to put a quad core processor into the next iPhone if theres a specific need for it, such as a new function etc. Why build up the cost for no reason.
People need to understand this, Apple and Samsung are in effect partners here. Further Samsung makes extensive use of Apples technology acquired through Apples purchase of Intrinsity.
Samsung makes ALL of Apple's iOS SoC's. They are made in Samsung's sprawling plant in Texas. Apple helped pay for that plant and the equipment. In return, they get additional discounts. What is happening in there now, we can only guess. But the new 28nm chip used in the iPad 2 today, and the new aTv are made there as well.
Since everybody but Intel is having issues transitioning to 22nm, I really don't see any reason for Apple to rush away from their relationship with Samsung. Let face it who would they run too. TSMC can barely put out for NVidia. Global Foundries has dramatically impacted AMDs ability to compete with Intel. Just about everybody else is far behind these three.
There is no reliable reason to believe Apple is planning a move soon.
As for Digitimes... they used to have a 50% average, but the past year that's moved down to under 40%.
Still, that's about as good as anyone else. I would be surprised if Apple didn't have a 4 core chip running. Why would they wait until next year, and a new iPad to use it? That would just put them behind a large number of competitors, and when it comes to chips, they don't like that happening.
Also, Apple is proud of their SoC's. They always mention the number of cores in the CPU, the number of cores, and the version of the gpu, and the speed. They don't tell what the RAM is, or discuss details about the chip. Though last year they did mention that the have their own processing module for the camera built into the chip.
They should be, Apple has state of the art performance. However Apple does need to update thread performance. If they stick with Cortex A9 a clock rate jump to 2 GHz would be nice as that would give JavaScript a nice boost. At least in the iPad, I'm not often wishing for faster performance in the iPhone, but iPad really could use it. We don't really want quad core if it results in a regression with respect to single thread performance.
I guess it would be possible to put a quad core (especially with a process shrink to 22nm) into an iPhone but I'm not so certain it is worthwhile. The iPad is just crying for more performance though. However 22 nm tech in an iPhone would be a huge win for Apple no matter how many cores. It just think 22nm is one shrink to far.
The exact nature of the IP in Apples processors has never been completely disclosed. Some of the core photos would lead one to believe that at the very least Apple and Samsung have worked closely on Apples processors.
As to the next chip an A15 core might work out well but for me I want to have far better thread performance to boost JavaScript and other apps held back by single thread performance. If Apple did that with an dual core A9 running at 2GHz with a fat cache I'd be happy to have that in the next iPad. As long as a year ago now places like Global Foundries where describing (22nm) very energy efficient A9's running at 2GHz so this isn't impossible. Obviously A15 based cores would be better but it does seem to be a bit early for that.
Saying the next iPhone will use a quad core CPU is like saying the sun will rise tomorrow or the sky is blue. It's practically a given. Since other phones already have them, Apple is all but guaranteed to have its own by the fall.
That everyone has done it is NOT a valid reason to call anything a given. Apple doesn't do as everyone else does just cause they do it. They will do it if it serves a purpose in their eyes (regardless of what ever purposes we might see). They aren't trying to make the iPhone or even iPad into full scale computers so that's out. So again the question is what vital purpose would Apple find for such a thing. will it improve battery life, will it make movies, especially streaming ones, play better, will it improve games, would quad core allow them to make screens that can be used outside etc.
That's how you figure out if something is a given when it comes to Apple. Not 'everyone else is doing it'
Saw DigiTimes in the first sentence. Nope. Didn't bother to read the rest of the article. It's no better than getting your rumors from the Taco Bell dog.
I disagree. The Taco Bell dog would probably be right about 50% of the time, like flipping a coin, and the accuracy of DigiTimes has been proven to be far, far lower than that.
As a matter of fact, the complete opposite of what DigiTimes claims, is most likely what will happen in most cases.
Also the A5X is already a quad core graphics processor with dual core arm cpu's so its really not a stretch that the A6 will be quad core on both cpus and graphics
Based on the A5X it is a stretch. That SoC is too large, too power hungry and too hot to be feasible for the iPhone. Now it doesn't need double the GPU cores or need to clocked as high as for the iPad (3) but that still doesn't account for the issues like the A5X still only being a dual-core CPU. Then you have issues with trying to cram G3 LTE chips into the next iPhone whilst trying to keep the battery life as good or better than the previous models. The iPad (3) was only able to do that by increasing the battery size by nearly half. That simply isn't an option for the next iPhone.
They also have an article detailing the updated iPad 2 that is a testbed for the 32nm chip. It's the same performance as the 45nm version which means the battery life is greatly improved.
[S][/S]I dunno, I would think Apple would be planning a path to ARM A15, which as far as I know is dual core. From a marketing perspective it is a bit hard to trumpet an A9 "quad core!+1!" as the big promotion for the Apple A6 processor and then step back to "only" a dual core A15 in the Apple A7.
I would have hoped the next iPhone has an A15 as the core of the Apple A6, or based on an early reference version thereof.
I dunno, I would think Apple would be planning a path to ARM A15, which as far as I know is dual core. From a marketing perspective it is a bit hard to trumpet an A9 "quad core!+1!" as the big promotion for the Apple A6 processor and then step back to "only" a dual core A15 in the Apple A7.
I would have hoped the next iPhone has an A15 as the core of the Apple A6, or based on an early reference version thereof.
That's what makes this next iPhone tough to figure out. So much is in flux and depends on feasible yields.
Samsung makes ALL of Apple's iOS SoC's. They are made in Samsung's sprawling plant in Texas. Apple helped pay for that plant and the equipment. In return, they get additional discounts. What is happening in there now, we can only guess. But the new 28nm chip used in the iPad 2 today, and the new aTv are made there as well.
There is no reliable reason to believe Apple is planning a move soon.
As for Digitimes... they used to have a 50% average, but the past year that's moved down to under 40%.
Still, that's about as good as anyone else. I would be surprised if Apple didn't have a 4 core chip running. Why would they wait until next year, and a new iPad to use it? That would just put them behind a large number of competitors, and when it comes to chips, they don't like that happening.
Also, Apple is proud of their SoC's. They always mention the number of cores in the CPU, the number of cores, and the version of the gpu, and the speed. They don't tell what the RAM is, or discuss details about the chip. Though last year they did mention that the have their own processing module for the camera built into the chip.
I am pretty sure it is 32nm used in iPad 2, not 28nm yet.
And where did the info state Apple helped pay for the plant and equipment?
Samsung makes ALL of Apple's iOS SoC's. They are made in Samsung's sprawling plant in Texas. Apple helped pay for that plant and the equipment. In return, they get additional discounts. What is happening in there now, we can only guess. But the new 28nm chip used in the iPad 2 today, and the new aTv are made there as well.
"We believe Apple is deeply involved in the manufacturing and supply chain process down to the factory floor," analyst Peter Misek said. "We believe Apple is creating deep partnerships with a handful of suppliers in industries where it feels there is a competitive advantage (e.g., secure supply, secure lower price, achieve a technological edge)."
"The firm believes Apple is leveraging its massive cash flow to fund suppliers' capex. Analysis suggests Apple is spending $3B+ in FY12 capex on these equipment purchases and $7B+ in FY13, but in return Apple is reducing its COGS by ~$1.4B (~84bp improvement to GM) in FY12 and ~$1.9B (~89-95bp improvement to GM) in FY13."
oh boy.. sounds like a typical Apple reality distortion batshit.. Where is your proof that Apple helped paid for the Texas plant? Samsung has $20+ billions in cash, though they often issue bonds to cover the cost of building / upgrading plants. So what part of Samsung's annual $10+ billion capital investment comes from Apple - or $40+ billion for 2012 alone? Apple's up-front capital investment in the past was largely to secure volume supply & discount.
Are you as stupid as you appear? Apple has paid billions, year after year, to pay for plants, machinery, and to train workers for companies who make parts for them, including Samsung.
Apple's advantage is that they customize their chips to work more smoothly with their OS and specific hardware. That's something that, so far at least, even Samsung doesn't do.
Apple only going to put a quad core processor into the next iPhone if theres a specific need for it, such as a new function etc. Why build up the cost for no reason.
It's a generational shift. If Apple is using a new process tech, then 4 cores will cost about the same as 2 cores did.
Are you as stupid as you appear? Apple has paid billions, year after year, to pay for plants, machinery, and to train workers for companies who make parts for them, including Samsung.
People need to understand this, Apple and Samsung are in effect partners here. Further Samsung makes extensive use of Apples technology acquired through Apples purchase of Intrinsity.
They should be, Apple has state of the art performance. However Apple does need to update thread performance. If they stick with Cortex A9 a clock rate jump to 2 GHz would be nice as that would give JavaScript a nice boost. At least in the iPad, I'm not often wishing for faster performance in the iPhone, but iPad really could use it. We don't really want quad core if it results in a regression with respect to single thread performance.
I guess it would be possible to put a quad core (especially with a process shrink to 22nm) into an iPhone but I'm not so certain it is worthwhile. The iPad is just crying for more performance though. However 22 nm tech in an iPhone would be a huge win for Apple no matter how many cores. It just think 22nm is one shrink to far.
I'm sure Apple would love 22nm. But no one else will be doing that for another year. It's why I'd like to see Apple and Intel get together on this. Intel has made it clear, publicly, that they want Apple for mobile. Of course, they keep saying that Apple will move to x86 for that, and I don't see it. But I can't believe that, if they wanted to, they couldn't persuade Intel to act as a foundry for them.
Reading the Microprocessorr Report, we can see that while chips like the Tegra's cost about $15, Apple's costs about $25. Just going by the much larger die size, the costs can be estimated. That means more profit. Apple is in a unique position when it comes to SoC's. They use so many, and all the same generation product uses the same chip. Older generations use older chips. 93 million phones, 40 million iPads, about 24 million Touches and 3 million aTvs last year. A total of 160 million chips, at an average price of about $20 (because older designs will see the price come down) gives a total of $3.20 billion in SoC's.
This year, Apple will need at least 50% more, maybe up to 100% more.
I dunno, I would think Apple would be planning a path to ARM A15, which as far as I know is dual core. From a marketing perspective it is a bit hard to trumpet an A9 "quad core!+1!" as the big promotion for the Apple A6 processor and then step back to "only" a dual core A15 in the Apple A7.
I would have hoped the next iPhone has an A15 as the core of the Apple A6, or based on an early reference version thereof.
There's no reason why we won't see a quad core Cortex 15. When going to newer process tech, more cores are easier. The C15 is more efficient than the C9. Apple, as we know, adds their own efficiency designs to that.
Comments
The bullshit is not the quad core the bullshit is to claim it's based on Samsung's Exynos 4 architecture.
And btw Apple has now 4 designes:
A4 (45nm / Cortex-A8)
A5 (45nm / Cortex-A9)
A5X (45nm / Cortex-A9)
A5 (32nm / Cortex-A9)
and none of them is based on any Samsung design.
Personally I think we will see a dual Cortex-A15 design in the next iPhone.
It's questionable though whether Apple was able to already incorporate a G6x00 (PowerVR Rogue).
We might see a SGX543MPn design just like the 32nm A5.
Saw DigiTimes in the first sentence. Nope. Didn't bother to read the rest of the article. It's no better than getting your rumors from the Taco Bell dog.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Samsung makes ALL of Apple's iOS SoC's. They are made in Samsung's sprawling plant in Texas. Apple helped pay for that plant and the equipment. In return, they get additional discounts. What is happening in there now, we can only guess. But the new 28nm chip used in the iPad 2 today, and the new aTv are made there as well.
There is no reliable reason to believe Apple is planning a move soon.
As for Digitimes... they used to have a 50% average, but the past year that's moved down to under 40%.
Still, that's about as good as anyone else. I would be surprised if Apple didn't have a 4 core chip running. Why would they wait until next year, and a new iPad to use it? That would just put them behind a large number of competitors, and when it comes to chips, they don't like that happening.
Also, Apple is proud of their SoC's. They always mention the number of cores in the CPU, the number of cores, and the version of the gpu, and the speed. They don't tell what the RAM is, or discuss details about the chip. Though last year they did mention that the have their own processing module for the camera built into the chip.
Samsung processors mustn't be much good, look at the lag in this quad core SIII international version:-
The HTC One X seems a lot smoother.
Apple only going to put a quad core processor into the next iPhone if theres a specific need for it, such as a new function etc. Why build up the cost for no reason.
Since everybody but Intel is having issues transitioning to 22nm, I really don't see any reason for Apple to rush away from their relationship with Samsung. Let face it who would they run too. TSMC can barely put out for NVidia. Global Foundries has dramatically impacted AMDs ability to compete with Intel. Just about everybody else is far behind these three.
They should be, Apple has state of the art performance. However Apple does need to update thread performance. If they stick with Cortex A9 a clock rate jump to 2 GHz would be nice as that would give JavaScript a nice boost. At least in the iPad, I'm not often wishing for faster performance in the iPhone, but iPad really could use it. We don't really want quad core if it results in a regression with respect to single thread performance.
I guess it would be possible to put a quad core (especially with a process shrink to 22nm) into an iPhone but I'm not so certain it is worthwhile. The iPad is just crying for more performance though. However 22 nm tech in an iPhone would be a huge win for Apple no matter how many cores. It just think 22nm is one shrink to far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by logandigges
WTF "sometimes-reliable"? More like "never-reliable".
actually Digitimes is 100% reliable. you can always rely on them to be full of poop
The exact nature of the IP in Apples processors has never been completely disclosed. Some of the core photos would lead one to believe that at the very least Apple and Samsung have worked closely on Apples processors.
As to the next chip an A15 core might work out well but for me I want to have far better thread performance to boost JavaScript and other apps held back by single thread performance. If Apple did that with an dual core A9 running at 2GHz with a fat cache I'd be happy to have that in the next iPad. As long as a year ago now places like Global Foundries where describing (22nm) very energy efficient A9's running at 2GHz so this isn't impossible. Obviously A15 based cores would be better but it does seem to be a bit early for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriamjh
Saying the next iPhone will use a quad core CPU is like saying the sun will rise tomorrow or the sky is blue. It's practically a given. Since other phones already have them, Apple is all but guaranteed to have its own by the fall.
That everyone has done it is NOT a valid reason to call anything a given. Apple doesn't do as everyone else does just cause they do it. They will do it if it serves a purpose in their eyes (regardless of what ever purposes we might see). They aren't trying to make the iPhone or even iPad into full scale computers so that's out. So again the question is what vital purpose would Apple find for such a thing. will it improve battery life, will it make movies, especially streaming ones, play better, will it improve games, would quad core allow them to make screens that can be used outside etc.
That's how you figure out if something is a given when it comes to Apple. Not 'everyone else is doing it'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Saw DigiTimes in the first sentence. Nope. Didn't bother to read the rest of the article. It's no better than getting your rumors from the Taco Bell dog.
I disagree. The Taco Bell dog would probably be right about 50% of the time, like flipping a coin, and the accuracy of DigiTimes has been proven to be far, far lower than that.
As a matter of fact, the complete opposite of what DigiTimes claims, is most likely what will happen in most cases.
Based on the A5X it is a stretch. That SoC is too large, too power hungry and too hot to be feasible for the iPhone. Now it doesn't need double the GPU cores or need to clocked as high as for the iPad (3) but that still doesn't account for the issues like the A5X still only being a dual-core CPU. Then you have issues with trying to cram G3 LTE chips into the next iPhone whilst trying to keep the battery life as good or better than the previous models. The iPad (3) was only able to do that by increasing the battery size by nearly half. That simply isn't an option for the next iPhone.
AnandTech details some of the sizes of the SoC.
They also have an article detailing the updated iPad 2 that is a testbed for the 32nm chip. It's the same performance as the 45nm version which means the battery life is greatly improved.
I would have hoped the next iPhone has an A15 as the core of the Apple A6, or based on an early reference version thereof.
That's what makes this next iPhone tough to figure out. So much is in flux and depends on feasible yields.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Samsung makes ALL of Apple's iOS SoC's. They are made in Samsung's sprawling plant in Texas. Apple helped pay for that plant and the equipment. In return, they get additional discounts. What is happening in there now, we can only guess. But the new 28nm chip used in the iPad 2 today, and the new aTv are made there as well.
There is no reliable reason to believe Apple is planning a move soon.
As for Digitimes... they used to have a 50% average, but the past year that's moved down to under 40%.
Still, that's about as good as anyone else. I would be surprised if Apple didn't have a 4 core chip running. Why would they wait until next year, and a new iPad to use it? That would just put them behind a large number of competitors, and when it comes to chips, they don't like that happening.
Also, Apple is proud of their SoC's. They always mention the number of cores in the CPU, the number of cores, and the version of the gpu, and the speed. They don't tell what the RAM is, or discuss details about the chip. Though last year they did mention that the have their own processing module for the camera built into the chip.
I am pretty sure it is 32nm used in iPad 2, not 28nm yet.
And where did the info state Apple helped pay for the plant and equipment?
"We believe Apple is deeply involved in the manufacturing and supply chain process down to the factory floor," analyst Peter Misek said. "We believe Apple is creating deep partnerships with a handful of suppliers in industries where it feels there is a competitive advantage (e.g., secure supply, secure lower price, achieve a technological edge)."
"The firm believes Apple is leveraging its massive cash flow to fund suppliers' capex. Analysis suggests Apple is spending $3B+ in FY12 capex on these equipment purchases and $7B+ in FY13, but in return Apple is reducing its COGS by ~$1.4B (~84bp improvement to GM) in FY12 and ~$1.9B (~89-95bp improvement to GM) in FY13."
Unattributed. Published 14 February 2012. Jefferies Lifts Q1/FY12 Estimates on Apple (AAPL); Can Maintain Higher Margins Longer. Street Insider. Retrieved 6 July 2012.
Are you as stupid as you appear? Apple has paid billions, year after year, to pay for plants, machinery, and to train workers for companies who make parts for them, including Samsung.
http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/02/14/apple-funding-large-portion-of-samsungs-texas-chip-making-plant-says-analyst/
Apple's advantage is that they customize their chips to work more smoothly with their OS and specific hardware. That's something that, so far at least, even Samsung doesn't do.
It's a generational shift. If Apple is using a new process tech, then 4 cores will cost about the same as 2 cores did.
Are you as stupid as you appear? Apple has paid billions, year after year, to pay for plants, machinery, and to train workers for companies who make parts for them, including Samsung.
http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/02/14/apple-funding-large-portion-of-samsungs-texas-chip-making-plant-says-analyst/
All rumors.I'm sure Apple would love 22nm. But no one else will be doing that for another year. It's why I'd like to see Apple and Intel get together on this. Intel has made it clear, publicly, that they want Apple for mobile. Of course, they keep saying that Apple will move to x86 for that, and I don't see it. But I can't believe that, if they wanted to, they couldn't persuade Intel to act as a foundry for them.
Reading the Microprocessorr Report, we can see that while chips like the Tegra's cost about $15, Apple's costs about $25. Just going by the much larger die size, the costs can be estimated. That means more profit. Apple is in a unique position when it comes to SoC's. They use so many, and all the same generation product uses the same chip. Older generations use older chips. 93 million phones, 40 million iPads, about 24 million Touches and 3 million aTvs last year. A total of 160 million chips, at an average price of about $20 (because older designs will see the price come down) gives a total of $3.20 billion in SoC's.
This year, Apple will need at least 50% more, maybe up to 100% more.
There's no reason why we won't see a quad core Cortex 15. When going to newer process tech, more cores are easier. The C15 is more efficient than the C9. Apple, as we know, adds their own efficiency designs to that.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/17/arm-announces-new-quad-core-cortex-a15-hard-macro-variant/