It's funny you said it's less like for Macs to move to ARM. Well I think the people at Microsoft think ARM is the future since they're trying to run Windows 8 (and I would assume future releases) on ARM based machines. Apple is probably experimenting with the same.
It's a matter of time before we see ARM based systems that can run Pro Softwares and create media and professional content.
It's a matter of time before we see ARM based systems that can run Pro Softwares and create media and professional content.
They are already powerful enough (a laptop/desktop system would scale up the power) but the software compatibility will be trickier.
Apple has a bit of a predicament here because the future of computer chips is an SoC. They already know how to build their own but if they help Intel, they're just going to sell it everyone.
It's ok for Apple to help Intel on the desktop because Apple's prices mean they won't get a huge marketshare anyway and it means they retain compatibility with all the existing software.
However, Intel is moving into mobile anyway so any improvements they make on the desktop side will filter into the mobile products where they will compete with Apple.
On the mobile side, the price of the chips, the production volume, production schedule, quality control, chip features, power consumption, IO controllers, GPU performance and so on are very important - so important that it would be difficult to hand over to Intel. If it means Apple has to sell iPhones and iPads at $50 higher price, that could seriously affect their products.
On the Mac side, switching to ARM would create a problem for software developers and if Apple couldn't make a chip that was significantly faster or cheaper then there would be little point. If they can make chips that are $200 cheaper that are 1.5-2x as fast, there's a point, especially on the high-end. They might be able to put 12-core CPUs in machines that cost $2,000.
Obviously ARM on both means binary compatible software but touch on the desktop has a lot of things to overcome. It has to multi-task in the sense of having apps side by side. Something as simple as a calculator has to show at the same time as a spreadsheet. This means you have to allow the UI to split - they can do this in columns using swipe from left or right to add a new blank column and then tap the space to select an app to load into it and move the divider to close. But there's only one software keyboard to manage multiple contexts and touch apps generally aren't built to scale and desktop apps are designed around a multi-window system.
Tim Cook has said they won't converge the two sides, which is a sensible choice for the foreseeable future. Given that fact, there doesn't seem to be any reason to switch the mobile side to Intel unless they can do a better job than Apple and not increase the price of Apple's devices. I doubt that's the case. Switching Macs to ARM would cause problems with Bootcamp and given that Apple developed the solution, they obviously saw a need for it. Emulation would be ok for most things but VMWare can refuse to load graphical apps at any time so it's not reliable enough.
I think the safest bet for Apple is to stick with ARM for mobile and Intel for the desktop but it would be nice to see them plug an ARM chip into the desktops/laptops somewhere if it wasn't too expensive to use as a co-processor and for low power modes. It could even have clocking ability to check how iOS apps run on slower CPUs.
I don't see Apple moving to ARM ever for the Macs. The progress in i86 world is still strong and frankly Atom don't hold a candle to equivalent AMD chips. Here is a recent press release: http://www.amd.com/us/press-releases/Pages/amd_unveils_new_apus.aspx for new AMD hardware. AMD will be shipping true SoC i86 processors this year. Intel is behind the eight ball with comparable low power processors so maybe this will finally light a fire at Intel.
Taking honor bets. Loser agrees pays charity of winner's choice, no verification...just do it or not on your own honor. This is just for fun and bragging rights.
I'm going to say the odds are only 10-1 against Intel iPad design win by end of 2016 but if I like your charity I'll do 1-1.
I don't think Apple is going to change designs unless their current path falls significantly behind for more than one cycle. They're an extremely large company, and their current R&D has worked out pretty well. I don't see them changing directions unless they foresee hitting a wall.
I don't think Apple is going to change designs unless their current path falls significantly behind for more than one cycle.
That's really it, there would need to be a problem that requires a solution. I don't see any problem with the ARM setup. Switching to x86 would just mean developers have to recompile and resubmit 700,000+ apps.
Although there's some desktop compatibility with the x86 architecture, it doesn't mean the Adobe CS Suite can suddenly run on it. iOS doesn't have a Java runtime and desktop apps have to have a new UI for touch.
There would need to be clear benefits to x86 for mobile and I don't think there are.
It's funny you said it's less like for Macs to move to ARM. Well I think the people at Microsoft think ARM is the future since they're trying to run Windows 8 (and I would assume future releases) on ARM based machines. Apple is probably experimenting with the same.
It's a matter of time before we see ARM based systems that can run Pro Softwares and create media and professional content.
I think Surface RT is a bust and that's not a very bold opinion. By this time next year it'll be Surface Pro all the way.
Yes, that's a 35W TDP part but I have no clue why Phoronix choose an old Core i3 over benchmarking the 22nm Core i7-3667U w/HD4000 with a 17W TDP.
Quote:
Apple has a bit of a predicament here because the future of computer chips is an SoC. They already know how to build their own but if they help Intel, they're just going to sell it everyone.
It's ok for Apple to help Intel on the desktop because Apple's prices mean they won't get a huge marketshare anyway and it means they retain compatibility with all the existing software.
However, Intel is moving into mobile anyway so any improvements they make on the desktop side will filter into the mobile products where they will compete with Apple.
On the mobile side, the price of the chips, the production volume, production schedule, quality control, chip features, power consumption, IO controllers, GPU performance and so on are very important - so important that it would be difficult to hand over to Intel. If it means Apple has to sell iPhones and iPads at $50 higher price, that could seriously affect their products.
Intel has stated they don't intend on losing a design win over costs. At least not the first one. And ARM is going to get more expensive (and more power hungry) as it gets bigger.
As far as IP transfer there's going to be leakage anyway. Hence the move from Samsung. Helping TSMC will help also help all other TSMC customers.
The advantage of Intel over TSMC IS production volume, production schedule and quality control. Just like Intel's advantage over Freescale/Moto/IBM.
Custom IP is covered under patent agreements. Custom design covered under contract provisions.
Quote:
I think the safest bet for Apple is to stick with ARM for mobile and Intel for the desktop but it would be nice to see them plug an ARM chip into the desktops/laptops somewhere if it wasn't too expensive to use as a co-processor and for low power modes. It could even have clocking ability to check how iOS apps run on slower CPUs.
Funny you should mention the word bet...thus far no one seems firm enough in their convictions to make one.
I don't think Apple is going to change designs unless their current path falls significantly behind for more than one cycle. They're an extremely large company, and their current R&D has worked out pretty well. I don't see them changing directions unless they foresee hitting a wall.
You mean like in 2005?
The wall is they don't want to do business with Samsung and TSMC/GF/UMC/etc have problems getting to 16nm/14nm FinFET in volume production while Intel has already has 3 fabs doing 14nm in volume for a year and knocking on the doors of 10nm with 450mm wafers only a couple more year out.
That's really it, there would need to be a problem that requires a solution. I don't see any problem with the ARM setup. Switching to x86 would just mean developers have to recompile and resubmit 700,000+ apps.
Although there's some desktop compatibility with the x86 architecture, it doesn't mean the Adobe CS Suite can suddenly run on it. iOS doesn't have a Java runtime and desktop apps have to have a new UI for touch.
There would need to be clear benefits to x86 for mobile and I don't think there are.
The Cortex A15 is more power efficient than the A9 for the same work but at load it's a lot more power hungry at the top end. When both the CPU and GPU are ramped the Exynos 5 Dual peak TDP is closer to 8W.
Want to bet the A50 won't continue this trend of higher peak TDP? Apps, especially games, are more than willing to use all the CPU and GPU power available.
As Anand points out, Intel showed Haswell running the Unigen Heaven benchmark at IDF pulling less than 8W.
By 14nm the clear benefit of Intel vs ARM could be performance per watt at the 4W+ TDP range AND a more reliable source of processors in the volumes that Apple wants.
If Intel gets to 450mm wafers before the other big boys then cost could also be an Intel advantage. If that's true then Intel will beat TSMC on price, performance per watt and reliability as a supplier. Trifecta.
There's a few "if's" in there which is why this is a bet rather than a proclamation of a sure thing.
Yes, that's a 35W TDP part but I have no clue why Phoronix choose an old Core i3 over benchmarking the 22nm Core i7-3667U w/HD4000 with a 17W TDP.
Because it's still a crazy comparison. Laptops have fans to cool them down, the Chromebook is passively cooled so the power draw is adjusted to keep it going.
The same company that is now an entire year behind with their Xeon architecture, didn't have USB 3 support for 4 years, that aims to match the graphics capabilities of their rivals' products from the previous year and falls short.
When both the CPU and GPU are ramped the Exynos 5 Dual peak TDP is closer to 8W.
"Intel actually tipped me off to this test to find out what happens if we try and force both the CPU and GPU to run at max performance at the same time"
The device still aims for a 4W power draw. Intel's laptop chips are quite happy to sit at 17W as Intel demonstrated with the Ultrabook chips and 8W was for the GPU test. You have to compare them in the same target platform:
If TSMC can't deliver what Apple needs, they could turn to Intel but they don't need to use Atom. They can get Intel to manufacturer their own chip designs.
Want to bet the A50 won't continue this trend of higher peak TDP?
What trend? They have to put roughly the same battery packs in so they just can't sustain higher wattage without affecting battery life as well as heat dissipation.
The same company that is now an entire year behind with their Xeon architecture, didn't have USB 3 support for 4 years, that aims to match the graphics capabilities of their rivals' products from the previous year and falls short.
"Intel actually tipped me off to this test to find out what happens if we try and force both the CPU and GPU to run at max performance at the same time"
The device still aims for a 4W power draw. Intel's laptop chips are quite happy to sit at 17W as Intel demonstrated with the Ultrabook chips and 8W was for the GPU test. You have to compare them in the same target platform:
If TSMC can't deliver what Apple needs, they could turn to Intel but they don't need to use Atom. They can get Intel to manufacturer their own chip designs.
What trend? They have to put roughly the same battery packs in so they just can't sustain higher wattage without affecting battery life as well as heat dissipation.
Yes it was a good demo but again you are talking about 8W sustained with cooling on 22nm, not 4W sustained passively cooled on 28nm.
Intel still has to play catch-up here. When they are in front, then it will be worth Apple considering it otherwise they'd just end up behind Samsung.
So I'm guessing you like the odds?
Of course Intel is playing catch up on power consumption. Hence the 2016 date rather than a 2013 date. To me it looks a little like 2003 with Intel looking like it has a great future roadmap even though AMD has been kicking the crap out of them.
Of course Intel is playing catch up on power consumption. Hence the 2016 date rather than a 2013 date. To me it looks a little like 2003 with Intel looking like it has a great future roadmap even though AMD has been kicking the crap out of them.
I don't remember AMD having over 95% marketshare.
Apple was originally going to use Intel processors in the iPhone but Tony Fadell convinced them not to. By 2016, Intel might have something more compelling but they might not.
You have to also take into consideration graphics performance. Intel's Medfield scored 41fps in Egypt offscreen:
The wall is they don't want to do business with Samsung and TSMC/GF/UMC/etc have problems getting to 16nm/14nm FinFET in volume production while Intel has already has 3 fabs doing 14nm in volume for a year and knocking on the doors of 10nm with 450mm wafers only a couple more year out.
This comes down to whether they foresee such things as a problem. Intel's shipping dates slipped on ivy bridge. Sandy faced an initial recall due to problems with their SATA implementation. Its reverberations set their EP release even further back. They are very good. It doesn't make them infallible. In 2005 the problems were ongoing. The notebooks were stuck with G4s. It seemed like everyone I knew with a G5 had at least one major hardware problem. They had trouble at both ends of the spectrum. Are there signs that will happen repeat itself here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
That's really it, there would need to be a problem that requires a solution. I don't see any problem with the ARM setup. Switching to x86 would just mean developers have to recompile and resubmit 700,000+ apps.
Although there's some desktop compatibility with the x86 architecture, it doesn't mean the Adobe CS Suite can suddenly run on it. iOS doesn't have a Java runtime and desktop apps have to have a new UI for touch.
There would need to be clear benefits to x86 for mobile and I don't think there are.
iOS lacks many things. I wouldn't mind a real file system as I require organization. Admittedly I haven't investigated if this functionality can be duplicated via apps. As of right now these markets are a bit different. Companies don't offer the same functionality on their iOS apps, but they typically charge much less. I think a huge amount of potential exists there. I'm also tempted to buy an ipad + stylus just for sketching.
In that regard, it is more like the comparison with AMD. With Intel chips, Apple won't have the control to make their graphics performance that high.
The Medfield has a SGX 540 at 400MHz which is slow.
I would expect that Apple would insist on being able to spec the GPU in any agreements...especially given Intel is currently using PowerVR SGX in their own designs at the moment.
An Apple design win puts Intel on top and Intel knows this. This combined with the volume means that Apple has a lot of leverage in negotiations.
Again, there's a lot of negativity toward this prediction and it is warranted but thus far no one seem willing to accept a bet that nobody but them will know if they honor for a charity.
This discussion is interesting but I think people mis the most important point here. System on Chips are effectively the printed circuit boards of the past. As such it allows for customized engineering to fit specific needs of the products being built. Apple can't go with Intel until Intel has addressed their inability to do custom chips. Intel is seemingly unwilling to do so.
In a nut shell it isn't the CPU nor the GPU that apple is tied too, but rather the ability to lash up all the required functionality they need on one die. Frankly that is why ARM is so hot in this market right now, itis the ability to build tailored devices that is so attractive to manufactures like Apple. It really doesn't matter if Intel is one process node ahead because they don't support the infrastructure for the likes of Apple to take advantage of it.
Beyond that I can see Intel coming on hard times if they don't address the continued success of ARM, low power devices and innovation. Even AMD has seen the writing on the wall as they Agressively try to incorporate their IP with ARM and have offered up custom and fully baked i86 SoC chips.
Comments
It's funny you said it's less like for Macs to move to ARM. Well I think the people at Microsoft think ARM is the future since they're trying to run Windows 8 (and I would assume future releases) on ARM based machines. Apple is probably experimenting with the same.
It's a matter of time before we see ARM based systems that can run Pro Softwares and create media and professional content.
They are already powerful enough (a laptop/desktop system would scale up the power) but the software compatibility will be trickier.
Apple has a bit of a predicament here because the future of computer chips is an SoC. They already know how to build their own but if they help Intel, they're just going to sell it everyone.
It's ok for Apple to help Intel on the desktop because Apple's prices mean they won't get a huge marketshare anyway and it means they retain compatibility with all the existing software.
However, Intel is moving into mobile anyway so any improvements they make on the desktop side will filter into the mobile products where they will compete with Apple.
On the mobile side, the price of the chips, the production volume, production schedule, quality control, chip features, power consumption, IO controllers, GPU performance and so on are very important - so important that it would be difficult to hand over to Intel. If it means Apple has to sell iPhones and iPads at $50 higher price, that could seriously affect their products.
On the Mac side, switching to ARM would create a problem for software developers and if Apple couldn't make a chip that was significantly faster or cheaper then there would be little point. If they can make chips that are $200 cheaper that are 1.5-2x as fast, there's a point, especially on the high-end. They might be able to put 12-core CPUs in machines that cost $2,000.
Obviously ARM on both means binary compatible software but touch on the desktop has a lot of things to overcome. It has to multi-task in the sense of having apps side by side. Something as simple as a calculator has to show at the same time as a spreadsheet. This means you have to allow the UI to split - they can do this in columns using swipe from left or right to add a new blank column and then tap the space to select an app to load into it and move the divider to close. But there's only one software keyboard to manage multiple contexts and touch apps generally aren't built to scale and desktop apps are designed around a multi-window system.
Tim Cook has said they won't converge the two sides, which is a sensible choice for the foreseeable future. Given that fact, there doesn't seem to be any reason to switch the mobile side to Intel unless they can do a better job than Apple and not increase the price of Apple's devices. I doubt that's the case. Switching Macs to ARM would cause problems with Bootcamp and given that Apple developed the solution, they obviously saw a need for it. Emulation would be ok for most things but VMWare can refuse to load graphical apps at any time so it's not reliable enough.
I think the safest bet for Apple is to stick with ARM for mobile and Intel for the desktop but it would be nice to see them plug an ARM chip into the desktops/laptops somewhere if it wasn't too expensive to use as a co-processor and for low power modes. It could even have clocking ability to check how iOS apps run on slower CPUs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Taking honor bets. Loser agrees pays charity of winner's choice, no verification...just do it or not on your own honor. This is just for fun and bragging rights.
My charity choice is Dean Kaman's First http://www.usfirst.org/
I'm going to say the odds are only 10-1 against Intel iPad design win by end of 2016 but if I like your charity I'll do 1-1.
I don't think Apple is going to change designs unless their current path falls significantly behind for more than one cycle. They're an extremely large company, and their current R&D has worked out pretty well. I don't see them changing directions unless they foresee hitting a wall.
That's really it, there would need to be a problem that requires a solution. I don't see any problem with the ARM setup. Switching to x86 would just mean developers have to recompile and resubmit 700,000+ apps.
Although there's some desktop compatibility with the x86 architecture, it doesn't mean the Adobe CS Suite can suddenly run on it. iOS doesn't have a Java runtime and desktop apps have to have a new UI for touch.
There would need to be clear benefits to x86 for mobile and I don't think there are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbook
It's funny you said it's less like for Macs to move to ARM. Well I think the people at Microsoft think ARM is the future since they're trying to run Windows 8 (and I would assume future releases) on ARM based machines. Apple is probably experimenting with the same.
It's a matter of time before we see ARM based systems that can run Pro Softwares and create media and professional content.
I think Surface RT is a bust and that's not a very bold opinion. By this time next year it'll be Surface Pro all the way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
They are already powerful enough (a laptop/desktop system would scale up the power) but the software compatibility will be trickier.
The A15 is powerful for an arm but an old Core i3 crushes the A15 in every benchmark by the proverbial country mile.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=samsung_exynos5_dual&num=4
Yes, that's a 35W TDP part but I have no clue why Phoronix choose an old Core i3 over benchmarking the 22nm Core i7-3667U w/HD4000 with a 17W TDP.
Quote:
Apple has a bit of a predicament here because the future of computer chips is an SoC. They already know how to build their own but if they help Intel, they're just going to sell it everyone.
It's ok for Apple to help Intel on the desktop because Apple's prices mean they won't get a huge marketshare anyway and it means they retain compatibility with all the existing software.
However, Intel is moving into mobile anyway so any improvements they make on the desktop side will filter into the mobile products where they will compete with Apple.
On the mobile side, the price of the chips, the production volume, production schedule, quality control, chip features, power consumption, IO controllers, GPU performance and so on are very important - so important that it would be difficult to hand over to Intel. If it means Apple has to sell iPhones and iPads at $50 higher price, that could seriously affect their products.
Intel has stated they don't intend on losing a design win over costs. At least not the first one. And ARM is going to get more expensive (and more power hungry) as it gets bigger.
As far as IP transfer there's going to be leakage anyway. Hence the move from Samsung. Helping TSMC will help also help all other TSMC customers.
The advantage of Intel over TSMC IS production volume, production schedule and quality control. Just like Intel's advantage over Freescale/Moto/IBM.
Custom IP is covered under patent agreements. Custom design covered under contract provisions.
Quote:
I think the safest bet for Apple is to stick with ARM for mobile and Intel for the desktop but it would be nice to see them plug an ARM chip into the desktops/laptops somewhere if it wasn't too expensive to use as a co-processor and for low power modes. It could even have clocking ability to check how iOS apps run on slower CPUs.
Funny you should mention the word bet...thus far no one seems firm enough in their convictions to make one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
I don't think Apple is going to change designs unless their current path falls significantly behind for more than one cycle. They're an extremely large company, and their current R&D has worked out pretty well. I don't see them changing directions unless they foresee hitting a wall.
You mean like in 2005?
The wall is they don't want to do business with Samsung and TSMC/GF/UMC/etc have problems getting to 16nm/14nm FinFET in volume production while Intel has already has 3 fabs doing 14nm in volume for a year and knocking on the doors of 10nm with 450mm wafers only a couple more year out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
That's really it, there would need to be a problem that requires a solution. I don't see any problem with the ARM setup. Switching to x86 would just mean developers have to recompile and resubmit 700,000+ apps.
Although there's some desktop compatibility with the x86 architecture, it doesn't mean the Adobe CS Suite can suddenly run on it. iOS doesn't have a Java runtime and desktop apps have to have a new UI for touch.
There would need to be clear benefits to x86 for mobile and I don't think there are.
The Cortex A15 is more power efficient than the A9 for the same work but at load it's a lot more power hungry at the top end. When both the CPU and GPU are ramped the Exynos 5 Dual peak TDP is closer to 8W.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6536/arm-vs-x86-the-real-showdown/14
Want to bet the A50 won't continue this trend of higher peak TDP? Apps, especially games, are more than willing to use all the CPU and GPU power available.
As Anand points out, Intel showed Haswell running the Unigen Heaven benchmark at IDF pulling less than 8W.
By 14nm the clear benefit of Intel vs ARM could be performance per watt at the 4W+ TDP range AND a more reliable source of processors in the volumes that Apple wants.
If Intel gets to 450mm wafers before the other big boys then cost could also be an Intel advantage. If that's true then Intel will beat TSMC on price, performance per watt and reliability as a supplier. Trifecta.
There's a few "if's" in there which is why this is a bet rather than a proclamation of a sure thing.
Because it's still a crazy comparison. Laptops have fans to cool them down, the Chromebook is passively cooled so the power draw is adjusted to keep it going.
As what gets bigger?
This is the same company that delayed the rollout of Ivy Bridge:
http://www.theverge.com/2012/2/27/2827175/ivy-bridge-delay-confirmed-intel-executive-manufacturing-process
The same company that messed up their chipsets:
http://newsroom.intel.com/community/intel_newsroom/blog/2011/01/31/intel-identifies-chipset-design-error-implementing-solution
The same company that is now an entire year behind with their Xeon architecture, didn't have USB 3 support for 4 years, that aims to match the graphics capabilities of their rivals' products from the previous year and falls short.
"Intel actually tipped me off to this test to find out what happens if we try and force both the CPU and GPU to run at max performance at the same time"
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6536/arm-vs-x86-the-real-showdown/13
The device still aims for a 4W power draw. Intel's laptop chips are quite happy to sit at 17W as Intel demonstrated with the Ultrabook chips and 8W was for the GPU test. You have to compare them in the same target platform:
http://www.androidauthority.com/exynos-5-dual-benchmarks-125134/
Intel will be able to improve with 22nm Medfield but their rivals will improve too:
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/142926-intel-unveils-22nm-soc-transistors-while-tsmc-and-globalfoundries-plan-risky-process-jumps
http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4398727/TSMC-taps-ARM-V8-in-road-to-16-nm-FinFET
If TSMC can't deliver what Apple needs, they could turn to Intel but they don't need to use Atom. They can get Intel to manufacturer their own chip designs.
What trend? They have to put roughly the same battery packs in so they just can't sustain higher wattage without affecting battery life as well as heat dissipation.
Yes it was a good demo but again you are talking about 8W sustained with cooling on 22nm, not 4W sustained passively cooled on 28nm.
Intel still has to play catch-up here. When they are in front, then it will be worth Apple considering it otherwise they'd just end up behind Samsung.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
As what gets bigger?
core die size
Quote:
This is the same company that delayed the rollout of Ivy Bridge:
http://www.theverge.com/2012/2/27/2827175/ivy-bridge-delay-confirmed-intel-executive-manufacturing-process
The same company that messed up their chipsets:
http://newsroom.intel.com/community/intel_newsroom/blog/2011/01/31/intel-identifies-chipset-design-error-implementing-solution
The same company that is now an entire year behind with their Xeon architecture, didn't have USB 3 support for 4 years, that aims to match the graphics capabilities of their rivals' products from the previous year and falls short.
"Intel actually tipped me off to this test to find out what happens if we try and force both the CPU and GPU to run at max performance at the same time"
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6536/arm-vs-x86-the-real-showdown/13
The device still aims for a 4W power draw. Intel's laptop chips are quite happy to sit at 17W as Intel demonstrated with the Ultrabook chips and 8W was for the GPU test. You have to compare them in the same target platform:
http://www.androidauthority.com/exynos-5-dual-benchmarks-125134/
Intel will be able to improve with 22nm Medfield but their rivals will improve too:
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/142926-intel-unveils-22nm-soc-transistors-while-tsmc-and-globalfoundries-plan-risky-process-jumps
http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4398727/TSMC-taps-ARM-V8-in-road-to-16-nm-FinFET
If TSMC can't deliver what Apple needs, they could turn to Intel but they don't need to use Atom. They can get Intel to manufacturer their own chip designs.
What trend? They have to put roughly the same battery packs in so they just can't sustain higher wattage without affecting battery life as well as heat dissipation.
Yes it was a good demo but again you are talking about 8W sustained with cooling on 22nm, not 4W sustained passively cooled on 28nm.
Intel still has to play catch-up here. When they are in front, then it will be worth Apple considering it otherwise they'd just end up behind Samsung.
So I'm guessing you like the odds?
Of course Intel is playing catch up on power consumption. Hence the 2016 date rather than a 2013 date. To me it looks a little like 2003 with Intel looking like it has a great future roadmap even though AMD has been kicking the crap out of them.
The A6X (123mm2) is smaller than the A5X (163mm2).
http://www.chipworks.com/blog/recentteardowns/2012/03/16/the-new-ipad-a-closer-look-inside/
http://www.macrumors.com/2012/11/02/teardown-of-fourth-generation-ipad-reveals-lg-display-a6x-chip-lightning-connector/
The A5 was 122m2 and the A6 was 97mm2.
http://www.chipworks.com/blog/recentteardowns/2012/09/21/apple-iphone-5-the-a6-application-processor/
It seems to go up and down depending on what stage they are at with the design. I don't see the TDP going up much.
I don't remember AMD having over 95% marketshare.
Apple was originally going to use Intel processors in the iPhone but Tony Fadell convinced them not to. By 2016, Intel might have something more compelling but they might not.
You have to also take into consideration graphics performance. Intel's Medfield scored 41fps in Egypt offscreen:
http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/18/motorolas-razr-i-benchmarks-intel-2ghz-medfield/
The iPhone 5 scored 147fps:
http://www.macworld.com/article/2010360/lab-tests-iphone-5-leaves-old-iphones-in-the-dust.html
In that regard, it is more like the comparison with AMD. With Intel chips, Apple won't have the control to make their graphics performance that high.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
You mean like in 2005?
The wall is they don't want to do business with Samsung and TSMC/GF/UMC/etc have problems getting to 16nm/14nm FinFET in volume production while Intel has already has 3 fabs doing 14nm in volume for a year and knocking on the doors of 10nm with 450mm wafers only a couple more year out.
This comes down to whether they foresee such things as a problem. Intel's shipping dates slipped on ivy bridge. Sandy faced an initial recall due to problems with their SATA implementation. Its reverberations set their EP release even further back. They are very good. It doesn't make them infallible. In 2005 the problems were ongoing. The notebooks were stuck with G4s. It seemed like everyone I knew with a G5 had at least one major hardware problem. They had trouble at both ends of the spectrum. Are there signs that will happen repeat itself here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
That's really it, there would need to be a problem that requires a solution. I don't see any problem with the ARM setup. Switching to x86 would just mean developers have to recompile and resubmit 700,000+ apps.
Although there's some desktop compatibility with the x86 architecture, it doesn't mean the Adobe CS Suite can suddenly run on it. iOS doesn't have a Java runtime and desktop apps have to have a new UI for touch.
There would need to be clear benefits to x86 for mobile and I don't think there are.
iOS lacks many things. I wouldn't mind a real file system as I require organization. Admittedly I haven't investigated if this functionality can be duplicated via apps. As of right now these markets are a bit different. Companies don't offer the same functionality on their iOS apps, but they typically charge much less. I think a huge amount of potential exists there. I'm also tempted to buy an ipad + stylus just for sketching.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
The A5 was 122m2 and the A6 was 97mm2.
Ah right, I must have transposed those sizes in my memory. My bad.
Quote:
You have to also take into consideration graphics performance. Intel's Medfield scored 41fps in Egypt offscreen:
http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/18/motorolas-razr-i-benchmarks-intel-2ghz-medfield/
The iPhone 5 scored 147fps:
http://www.macworld.com/article/2010360/lab-tests-iphone-5-leaves-old-iphones-in-the-dust.html
In that regard, it is more like the comparison with AMD. With Intel chips, Apple won't have the control to make their graphics performance that high.
The Medfield has a SGX 540 at 400MHz which is slow.
I would expect that Apple would insist on being able to spec the GPU in any agreements...especially given Intel is currently using PowerVR SGX in their own designs at the moment.
An Apple design win puts Intel on top and Intel knows this. This combined with the volume means that Apple has a lot of leverage in negotiations.
Again, there's a lot of negativity toward this prediction and it is warranted but thus far no one seem willing to accept a bet that nobody but them will know if they honor for a charity.
In a nut shell it isn't the CPU nor the GPU that apple is tied too, but rather the ability to lash up all the required functionality they need on one die. Frankly that is why ARM is so hot in this market right now, itis the ability to build tailored devices that is so attractive to manufactures like Apple. It really doesn't matter if Intel is one process node ahead because they don't support the infrastructure for the likes of Apple to take advantage of it.
Beyond that I can see Intel coming on hard times if they don't address the continued success of ARM, low power devices and innovation. Even AMD has seen the writing on the wall as they Agressively try to incorporate their IP with ARM and have offered up custom and fully baked i86 SoC chips.
That said, my current tablet (Surface Book) is a Core i7 and it's pretty nifty.