Yea thats intel in a nutshell. They made the atom even better than it first was (64 bit),but now 2-3 years later its "32-bit". Now theres mores law for you... or was it that everything is getting smaller and smaller every year?
First, Intel cut the chip back to 32-bit to make it more power-efficient. Obviously they may dial it back even more to have a chip that will compete with the ARM in mobile applications. On another front, they've also cut back the clock rate as well, it was all covered in a paper Intel published around the first of the month. Look it up!
Your sources are incorrect. Which could explain where this story started.
The document you're talking about was a UI review from the Samsung SW Verification Group, which is a group in Gumi, SK, where they also put together cell phones. They're responsible for making sure UI guidelines are followed.
The UI review group is NOT part of the Semiconductor Division as was mistakenly claimed by that ComputerWorld article. They are part of the Mobile Division. The computer chip division would have no reason to do a UI comparison.
Quote:
"They included an internal analysis by Samsung Semiconductor of the iPhone before it went on sale,"
If they did, the UI document you're referring to certainly isn't it. For one thing, it was done years after the iPhone came out.
Your sources are incorrect. Which could explain where this story started.
Uh huh. Who to believe? Virtually every published report in the technical literature ...... or someone who sounds more like a paid Samsung shill every day.
Furthermore, are you saying that there was only one report involved? How so you know that the one that you cited is the same one? And how do you know that the one you cited didn't originate from the semiconductor division (like every other article on the subject states)? And how do you know that the information wasn't related in some other way?
And, even if you were correct, how does it support your claim that Samsung wasn't blatantly copying Apple?
Uh huh. Who to believe? Virtually every published report in the technical literature ...... or someone who sounds more like a paid Samsung shill every day.
Good grief. You sound like Baghdad Bob, denying that American tanks were right behind the building where he was talking to reporters.
Look just above in post #100. The evidence is right there that the 132 page UI report from the article YOU cited, was done years after the iPhone came out. It didn't require secrets being handed between divisions. It just required going out and buying an iPhone, like anyone else in 2010.
Quote:
Furthermore, are you saying that there was only one report involved?
I clearly said that there could be other reports, but that this one obviously wasn't the report that someone here thought they had read about as being in the trial and showing that "the semiconductor division was feeding detailed analysis to the handset division"... a claim that clearly implies passing customer secrets between divisions before a new model comes out. (If it was afterwards, nobody would care.)
First, Intel cut the chip back to 32-bit to make it more power-efficient. Obviously they may dial it back even more to have a chip that will compete with the ARM in mobile applications. On another front, they've also cut back the clock rate as well, it was all covered in a paper Intel published around the first of the month. Look it up!
That is just intel propaganda, that suits their cause. Actually its still 64-bit and works well (BSD & linux) other than their graphics driver (intel d2700mud for example has PowerVR SGX545 which they integrated that doesnt have a decent 64-bit driver. intel pulled the 64-bit drivers of the dowload center and told everybody that the board is now 32-bit only instead of geting a fix?!?! To me this looks more like an attempt to try not to canibilize their small server market (=home servers etc, that have the cheapest processors and also energy efficient, think core i3)
And actually the clockrate for this board is 2,13GHz and that is quite decent otherwise compared to atom 330 boards 1,6GHz.
That is just intel propaganda, that suits their cause. Actually its still 64-bit and works well (BSD & linux) other than their graphics driver (intel d2700mud for example has PowerVR SGX545 which they integrated that doesnt have a decent 64-bit driver. intel pulled the 64-bit drivers of the dowload center and told everybody that the board is now 32-bit only instead of geting a fix?!?! To me this looks more like an attempt to try not to canibilize their small server market (=home servers etc, that have the cheapest processors and also energy efficient, think core i3)
And actually the clockrate for this board is 2,13GHz and that is quite decent otherwise compared to atom 330 boards 1,6GHz.
Or maybe it's just a realization that 64 bit doesn't add any value for a smartphone or netbook.
Or maybe it's just a realization that 64 bit doesn't add any value for a smartphone or netbook.
What the hell are you talking about? I´m talking about an desktop atom mobo made by intel. An upgrade to the previous revision of the same product line. I dont believe those fairytails your implying one bit. Its just lntels way to say, you have to pay 2x the price to get anything similar to that previous board. Its just a pitty they made it almost worthless for homeserver use. Its always nice to be able to use the whole memory you are going to add to the machine. Well theres always AMD fusion....Good by Intel.
BTW: Why would they waste good silicone on the chip if they really wanted to just make a 32-bit system. and isnt variation (variation=bigger market segment) just a better competitive edge for most manufacturers. But i guess intels in a business that they can chose whom they want to have as a customer. They dont need anymore...
Your comments continue to amaze with how stupid they really are.
Let's forget about the Samsung employee leaking data about Apple screen purchases to a hedge fund to give them advance information on how many iPads Apple was planning on making. Or that Samsung has talked about a "firewall" between Samsung Semi and Samsung Mobile to ease Apple's concerns about information transfer going on. Or that Samsung put a person in charge that had worked with Apple and had a good relationship with Apple, again to ease concerns. Or the fact that Apple is now designing completely custom processors (while Samsung just clones ARM designs) and since Samsung fabs these chips they get an inside look at what Apple has done to make their SoC's.
No, you're right. Apple doesn't have a single good reason to dump Samsung as a supplier for SoC's. /S/S/S/S/S/S/S for the people who don't seem to get it.
Corporate firewalls are a standard part of any large multinational that deals with multiple clients, and these clients will demand them.
And do you know just how complex a modern SoC is - you can't just look at the tape-out schematics and work out what is going on, and even if you did it would take a long time get the same into your own designs - chip design is a very long process. You're better off just doing your own market analysis and integrating what you think is needed up front, which I am sure is what Samsung are doing, and indeed that Samsung's SoCs it is releasing this year are projects started up to five years ago.
And sticking someone in charge who is familiar with Apple - seems like a sane idea in any business dealing with Apple if they can do it.
Apple is designing custom ARM cores, yes - that's what they paid all that money for the chip design companies they've bought. Samsung is more of an integrator (and Apple was until the A6) and is happy to use the technology that ARM provides, as it meets their needs. Remember that the Apple line of SoCs has a common family in the Samsung SoCs, that Samsung has been making for years and years - e.g., the S3C44B0 in 2000.
There is only one priority when it comes to moving, and that is the cost/profit ratio. The exact same can be said for the long term move from Google maps to IOS maps.
The use of a multitude is screen suppliers is also about cost and supply. You can also bet that the rumoured handout to Sharp helped guarantee an incredible cost/quality ration. Reading into those Samsung rumours, costs got cut by as much as 50%
This is all very well, but I'd like to know exactly when Apple is going to transition to TSMC's foundries - with the SoC's in the upcoming iPhone and iPad refreshes? I hope so...
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by habi
Yea thats intel in a nutshell. They made the atom even better than it first was (64 bit),but now 2-3 years later its "32-bit". Now theres mores law for you... or was it that everything is getting smaller and smaller every year?
First, Intel cut the chip back to 32-bit to make it more power-efficient. Obviously they may dial it back even more to have a chip that will compete with the ARM in mobile applications. On another front, they've also cut back the clock rate as well, it was all covered in a paper Intel published around the first of the month. Look it up!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Here's the information on the document.
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Samsung-132Page-Document-Shows-Detailed-Design-Comparison-to-iPhone-504855/
And here's the information that it was from Samsung's Semiconductor Division:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9230478/Closing_arguments_begin_in_Apple_vs_Samsung_patent_trial
(immature personal attacks snipped)
Your sources are incorrect. Which could explain where this story started.
The document you're talking about was a UI review from the Samsung SW Verification Group, which is a group in Gumi, SK, where they also put together cell phones. They're responsible for making sure UI guidelines are followed.
The UI review group is NOT part of the Semiconductor Division as was mistakenly claimed by that ComputerWorld article. They are part of the Mobile Division. The computer chip division would have no reason to do a UI comparison.
Quote:
"They included an internal analysis by Samsung Semiconductor of the iPhone before it went on sale,"
If they did, the UI document you're referring to certainly isn't it. For one thing, it was done years after the iPhone came out.
Uh huh. Who to believe? Virtually every published report in the technical literature ...... or someone who sounds more like a paid Samsung shill every day.
Furthermore, are you saying that there was only one report involved? How so you know that the one that you cited is the same one? And how do you know that the one you cited didn't originate from the semiconductor division (like every other article on the subject states)? And how do you know that the information wasn't related in some other way?
And, even if you were correct, how does it support your claim that Samsung wasn't blatantly copying Apple?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Uh huh. Who to believe? Virtually every published report in the technical literature ...... or someone who sounds more like a paid Samsung shill every day.
Good grief. You sound like Baghdad Bob, denying that American tanks were right behind the building where he was talking to reporters.
Look just above in post #100. The evidence is right there that the 132 page UI report from the article YOU cited, was done years after the iPhone came out. It didn't require secrets being handed between divisions. It just required going out and buying an iPhone, like anyone else in 2010.
Quote:
Furthermore, are you saying that there was only one report involved?
I clearly said that there could be other reports, but that this one obviously wasn't the report that someone here thought they had read about as being in the trial and showing that "the semiconductor division was feeding detailed analysis to the handset division"... a claim that clearly implies passing customer secrets between divisions before a new model comes out. (If it was afterwards, nobody would care.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky
First, Intel cut the chip back to 32-bit to make it more power-efficient. Obviously they may dial it back even more to have a chip that will compete with the ARM in mobile applications. On another front, they've also cut back the clock rate as well, it was all covered in a paper Intel published around the first of the month. Look it up!
That is just intel propaganda, that suits their cause. Actually its still 64-bit and works well (BSD & linux) other than their graphics driver (intel d2700mud for example has PowerVR SGX545 which they integrated that doesnt have a decent 64-bit driver. intel pulled the 64-bit drivers of the dowload center and told everybody that the board is now 32-bit only instead of geting a fix?!?! To me this looks more like an attempt to try not to canibilize their small server market (=home servers etc, that have the cheapest processors and also energy efficient, think core i3)
And actually the clockrate for this board is 2,13GHz and that is quite decent otherwise compared to atom 330 boards 1,6GHz.
Or maybe it's just a realization that 64 bit doesn't add any value for a smartphone or netbook.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Or maybe it's just a realization that 64 bit doesn't add any value for a smartphone or netbook.
What the hell are you talking about? I´m talking about an desktop atom mobo made by intel. An upgrade to the previous revision of the same product line. I dont believe those fairytails your implying one bit. Its just lntels way to say, you have to pay 2x the price to get anything similar to that previous board. Its just a pitty they made it almost worthless for homeserver use. Its always nice to be able to use the whole memory you are going to add to the machine. Well theres always AMD fusion....Good by Intel.
BTW: Why would they waste good silicone on the chip if they really wanted to just make a 32-bit system. and isnt variation (variation=bigger market segment) just a better competitive edge for most manufacturers. But i guess intels in a business that they can chose whom they want to have as a customer. They dont need anymore...
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Your comments continue to amaze with how stupid they really are.
Let's forget about the Samsung employee leaking data about Apple screen purchases to a hedge fund to give them advance information on how many iPads Apple was planning on making. Or that Samsung has talked about a "firewall" between Samsung Semi and Samsung Mobile to ease Apple's concerns about information transfer going on. Or that Samsung put a person in charge that had worked with Apple and had a good relationship with Apple, again to ease concerns. Or the fact that Apple is now designing completely custom processors (while Samsung just clones ARM designs) and since Samsung fabs these chips they get an inside look at what Apple has done to make their SoC's.
No, you're right. Apple doesn't have a single good reason to dump Samsung as a supplier for SoC's. /S/S/S/S/S/S/S for the people who don't seem to get it.
Corporate firewalls are a standard part of any large multinational that deals with multiple clients, and these clients will demand them.
And do you know just how complex a modern SoC is - you can't just look at the tape-out schematics and work out what is going on, and even if you did it would take a long time get the same into your own designs - chip design is a very long process. You're better off just doing your own market analysis and integrating what you think is needed up front, which I am sure is what Samsung are doing, and indeed that Samsung's SoCs it is releasing this year are projects started up to five years ago.
And sticking someone in charge who is familiar with Apple - seems like a sane idea in any business dealing with Apple if they can do it.
Apple is designing custom ARM cores, yes - that's what they paid all that money for the chip design companies they've bought. Samsung is more of an integrator (and Apple was until the A6) and is happy to use the technology that ARM provides, as it meets their needs. Remember that the Apple line of SoCs has a common family in the Samsung SoCs, that Samsung has been making for years and years - e.g., the S3C44B0 in 2000.
The exact same can be said for the long term move from Google maps to IOS maps.
The use of a multitude is screen suppliers is also about cost and supply.
You can also bet that the rumoured handout to Sharp helped guarantee an incredible cost/quality ration. Reading into those Samsung rumours, costs got cut by as much as 50%
I still figure they will transition to Intel.
Yet there are quite high risks for both Intel and TSMC dedicating themselves to Apple.
Just slightly below that, they might just go with Quallcom+TSMC.
No one knows what percentage of the Samsung Exynos like SOCs rely on Samsung knowledge.
As far as I know Quallcom's Krait uses near the exact same licensed ARM design so that path is a very fast option.
There are more than 2 licensees of that special but older Krait and Swift ARMv7 core with hardware div.