Sounds great and all. But with all those buzzwords, and yet the fact remains that Samsung doesn't even have enough faith in their own chips to use them in their own, flagship devices. Why is that? I'll defer to anandtech's opinion on this, who after an indepth analysis, concluded that there's nothing out there that comes close to comparing to the A7.
Yeah but they make great flat screen TV's. What's your point, Samsung Semiconductor is not controlled/staffed by their Mobile engineers, they're effectively 2 completely separate units.
Firstly the highly efficient ARMv8-A instruction set is designed by ARM not apple.
And secondly...
Samsung's 28nm low power High-K Metal Gate Process is built on two years of development and successful high-volume production of the 32nm LP HKMG process and is designed for a remarkably simple migration path. The 28nm process is a gate-first High-K Metal Gate process which enables it to deliver significant performance while maintaining low power, making it ideal for mobile applications. A variant of the process, 28nm LPH HKMG, offers even greater power savings or performance boost beyond 2GHz. 28LP process is ideal for mobile applications where the low standby power is crucial, the high performance 28LPH process is a solution for more performance oriented applications that require extremely high performance incorporated with high energy efficiency. It boasts more than 20% speed over 28LP at the same standby power.
In no way does that make ARM or Samsung own Apple's A7. While the A7 couldn't exist with ARM existing, which Apple no longer is a apart of, Apple could make the A7 on a larger node than what Samsung offers. It wouldn't be as power efficient or as smaller but that doesn't mean Samsung owns the A7 because they have the best large scale 28nm process for ARM chips, the same way that without Foxconn Apple couldn't produce nearly as many iPads but in no way does that make the iPad a Foxconn product.
In no way does that make ARM or Samsung own Apple's A7. While the A7 couldn't exist with ARM existing, which Apple no longer is a apart of, Apple could make the A7 on a larger node than what Samsung offers. It wouldn't be as power efficient or as smaller but that doesn't mean Samsung owns the A7 because they have the best large scale 28nm process for ARM chips, the same way that without Foxconn Apple couldn't produce nearly as many iPads but in no way does that make the iPad a Foxconn product.
Nobody said anything about "owning" where are you pulling that from? My response was to the comment...
"Samsung has nothing to do with the design, power, efficiency of the a7"
Nobody said anything about "owning" where are you pulling that from? My response was to the comment...
"Samsung has nothing to do with the design, power, efficiency of the a7"
which is completely incorrect.
No, it's not incorrect. Samsung has zero to do with the efficiency of Apple's design. They do have to do with the efficiency of their 28nm process but that lithography is separate from the design of the chip. You can easily look at the Apple A4 in the iPad 2 to see it comes in both 45nm and 32nm varieties but in both cases it's still the A4 and it's still Apple's chip design.
No, it's not incorrect. Samsung has zero to do with the efficiency of Apple's design. They do have to do with the efficiency of their 28nm process but that lithography is separate from the design of the chip. You can easily look at the Apple A4 in the iPad 2 to see it comes in both 45nm and 32nm varieties but in both cases it's still the A4 and it's still Apple's chip design.
Again you're pulling stuff out of your ass, The original quote was, here we go again
"Samsung has nothing to do with the design, power, efficiency of the a7"
No samsung has nothing to do with design of A7 but it has a lot to do with the power/efficiency. Wake up!
Again you're pulling stuff out of your ass, The original quote was, here we go again "Samsung has nothing to do with the design, power, efficiency of the a7"
No samsung has nothing to do with design of A7 but it has a lot to do with the power/efficiency. Wake up!
Look, you're rampant anti-Apple rhetoric is clouding even basic logic that even trolls should understand. The A7 is a chip design that is independent of the node in which it's built atop. This is way, as previously shown, the A4 is both a 45nm and 32nm variant. This means that the A7 could just as well be made at 32nm or 22nm or 14nm etc. Power efficiency and size would change but that has to do with the lithography, not the design of the chip.
You're still claiming that the A7 design in and of itself is somehow 1) not possible without Samsung's 28nm node, and that the A7 would not be possible if built using Intel or TMSC's foundries. Both of those are completely false because you're premise is false. It's like you saying that a sports car's engineers can't be credited with the performance they achieved solely within the car because they can't properly test it without being on roads of a certain type. The roads are a completely different feat of engineering independent of the sports car just as the A7 is a completely different set of engineering independent on the node in which it was built.
Try being objective and fair for once. You may like it.
Look, you're rampant anti-Apple rhetoric is clouding even basic logic that even trolls should understand. The A7 is a chip design that is independent of the node in which it's built atop. This is way, as previously shown, the A4 is both a 45nm and 32nm variant. This means that the A7 could just as well be made at 32nm or 22nm or 14nm etc. Power efficiency and size would change but that has to do with the lithography, not the design of the chip.
You're still claiming that the A7 design in and of itself is somehow 1) not possible without Samsung's 28nm node, and that the A7 would not be possible if built using Intel or TMSC's foundries. Both of those are completely false because you're premise is false. It's like you saying that a sports car's engineers can't be credited with the performance they achieved solely within the car because they can't properly test it without being on roads of a certain type. The roads are a completely different feat of engineering independent of the sports car just as the A7 is a completely different set of engineering independent on the node in which it was built.
Try being objective and fair for once. You may like it.
Again you are pulling crap from nowhere. The original quote, (and here i go again)
"Samsung has nothing to do with the design, power, efficiency of the a7"
lists 3 factors that the OP says samsung had nothing to do with.
1. Design
2. Power
3. Efficiency
I'm not arguing point 1 which you seem hung up on. I'm arguing that the power and efficiency of the A7 is due in a large part to Samsungs 28nm HKMG process and in addition also largely due to ARMs redesign of the arm v8 instruction set.
Again you are pulling crap from nowhere. The original quote, (and here i go again) "Samsung has nothing to do with the design, power, efficiency of the a7"
lists 3 factors that the OP says samsung had nothing to do with.
1. Design
2. Power
3. Efficiency
I'm not arguing point 1 which you seem hung up on. I'm arguing that the power and efficiency of the A7 is due in a large part to Samsungs 28nm HKMG process and in addition also largely due to ARMs redesign of the arm v8 instruction set.
Please wake up!
For fuçk's sake open your eyes and turn your brain on. The A7 has NOTHING TO DO with 28nm or Highgate or anything else. That's the process in which it's made. The A7 is Apple's design which itself includes it's own power efficiency. Samsung, TMSC, and Intel's processes include their own power efficiencies which is why you can take the A7, just like the A4, and use a different process for different results. The A7 would less power efficient OVERALL with 32nm just as it would be more power efficient OVERALL with 22nm but this not because the A7 is a different design it's because the process WHICH IS INDEPENDENT FROM THE A7 is different.
Stop lumping the foundry in which the chip design. They as different as an automotive engineer is from a race track.
For fuçk's sake open your eyes and turn your brain on. The A7 has NOTHING TO DO with 28nm or Highgate or anything else. That's the process in which it's made. The A7 is Apple's design which itself includes it's own power efficiency. Samsung, TMSC, and Intel's processes include their own power efficiencies which is why you can take the A7, just like the A4, and use a different process for different results. The A7 would less power efficient OVERALL with 32nm just as it would be more power efficient OVERALL with 22nm but this not because the A7 is a different design it's because the process WHICH IS INDEPENDENT FROM THE A7 is different.
Stop lumping the foundry in which the chip design. They as different as an automotive engineer is from a race track.
One last time I'll try to explain what should be obvious to anyone on a tech forum. If you want to claim anything about the 28nm being used you'd have to refer specifically to the model number of the A7 chip since that would include the process and foundry upon which it was built. In this case it's the APL0698 SoC.
Not once did you mention the specific HW being used. You only mentioned the A7 which refers to the design which is INDEPENDENT of the process or foundry being used. Again, this means that the A7 can be used by elsewhere, like TMSC at 22nm later on if they ever get their act together, just as we saw the A4 at 45nm and 32nm BOTH WITH DIFFERENT MODEL NUMBERS in the iPad 2,3 and iPad 2,4.
I used to think you were a troll but now I just think your an idiot.
One last time I'll try to explain what should be obvious to anyone on a tech forum. If you want to claim anything about the 28nm being used you'd have to refer specifically to the model number of the A7 chip since that would include the process and foundry upon which it was built. In this case it's the APL0698 SoC.
Not once did you mention the specific HW being used. You only mentioned the A7 which refers to the design which is INDEPENDENT of the process or foundry being used. Again, this means that the A7 can be used by elsewhere, like TMSC at 22nm later on if they ever get their act together, just as we saw the A4 at 45nm and 32nm BOTH WITH DIFFERENT MODEL NUMBERS in the iPad 2,3 and iPad 2,4.
You crack me up, one idiotic post after another.
I bet you talk yourself to sleep at night...
Look, you lost the argument because you didn't think through what you were writing, but don't make it worse for yourself by trying to attack me. Although I do admit making the first mistake by responding to a known troll.
Look, you lost the argument because you didn't think through what you were writing, but don't make it worse for yourself by trying to attack me. Although I did make the mistake of responding to a known troll so I ultimately made the first mistake here.
There never was an argument, just your pointless ramblings. Please don't make the same mistake again.
There never was an argument, just your pointless ramblings. Please don't make the same mistake again.
Sure there was. You said stupid crap, incorrect shit and I called you out on it by correcting you. Your inability to admit you were wrong has no barring on the facts, only your juvenile desire to want to wallow in ignorance.
Sure there was. You said stupid crap, incorrect shit and I called you out on it by correcting you. Your inability to admit you were wrong has no barring on the facts, only your juvenile desire to want to wallow in ignorance.
Comments
Sounds great and all. But with all those buzzwords, and yet the fact remains that Samsung doesn't even have enough faith in their own chips to use them in their own, flagship devices. Why is that? I'll defer to anandtech's opinion on this, who after an indepth analysis, concluded that there's nothing out there that comes close to comparing to the A7.
Yeah but they make great flat screen TV's. What's your point, Samsung Semiconductor is not controlled/staffed by their Mobile engineers, they're effectively 2 completely separate units.
In no way does that make ARM or Samsung own Apple's A7. While the A7 couldn't exist with ARM existing, which Apple no longer is a apart of, Apple could make the A7 on a larger node than what Samsung offers. It wouldn't be as power efficient or as smaller but that doesn't mean Samsung owns the A7 because they have the best large scale 28nm process for ARM chips, the same way that without Foxconn Apple couldn't produce nearly as many iPads but in no way does that make the iPad a Foxconn product.
In no way does that make ARM or Samsung own Apple's A7. While the A7 couldn't exist with ARM existing, which Apple no longer is a apart of, Apple could make the A7 on a larger node than what Samsung offers. It wouldn't be as power efficient or as smaller but that doesn't mean Samsung owns the A7 because they have the best large scale 28nm process for ARM chips, the same way that without Foxconn Apple couldn't produce nearly as many iPads but in no way does that make the iPad a Foxconn product.
Nobody said anything about "owning" where are you pulling that from? My response was to the comment...
"Samsung has nothing to do with the design, power, efficiency of the a7"
which is completely incorrect.
No, it's not incorrect. Samsung has zero to do with the efficiency of Apple's design. They do have to do with the efficiency of their 28nm process but that lithography is separate from the design of the chip. You can easily look at the Apple A4 in the iPad 2 to see it comes in both 45nm and 32nm varieties but in both cases it's still the A4 and it's still Apple's chip design.
No, it's not incorrect. Samsung has zero to do with the efficiency of Apple's design. They do have to do with the efficiency of their 28nm process but that lithography is separate from the design of the chip. You can easily look at the Apple A4 in the iPad 2 to see it comes in both 45nm and 32nm varieties but in both cases it's still the A4 and it's still Apple's chip design.
Again you're pulling stuff out of your ass, The original quote was, here we go again
"Samsung has nothing to do with the design, power, efficiency of the a7"
No samsung has nothing to do with design of A7 but it has a lot to do with the power/efficiency. Wake up!
Look, you're rampant anti-Apple rhetoric is clouding even basic logic that even trolls should understand. The A7 is a chip design that is independent of the node in which it's built atop. This is way, as previously shown, the A4 is both a 45nm and 32nm variant. This means that the A7 could just as well be made at 32nm or 22nm or 14nm etc. Power efficiency and size would change but that has to do with the lithography, not the design of the chip.
You're still claiming that the A7 design in and of itself is somehow 1) not possible without Samsung's 28nm node, and that the A7 would not be possible if built using Intel or TMSC's foundries. Both of those are completely false because you're premise is false. It's like you saying that a sports car's engineers can't be credited with the performance they achieved solely within the car because they can't properly test it without being on roads of a certain type. The roads are a completely different feat of engineering independent of the sports car just as the A7 is a completely different set of engineering independent on the node in which it was built.
Try being objective and fair for once. You may like it.
Look, you're rampant anti-Apple rhetoric is clouding even basic logic that even trolls should understand. The A7 is a chip design that is independent of the node in which it's built atop. This is way, as previously shown, the A4 is both a 45nm and 32nm variant. This means that the A7 could just as well be made at 32nm or 22nm or 14nm etc. Power efficiency and size would change but that has to do with the lithography, not the design of the chip.
You're still claiming that the A7 design in and of itself is somehow 1) not possible without Samsung's 28nm node, and that the A7 would not be possible if built using Intel or TMSC's foundries. Both of those are completely false because you're premise is false. It's like you saying that a sports car's engineers can't be credited with the performance they achieved solely within the car because they can't properly test it without being on roads of a certain type. The roads are a completely different feat of engineering independent of the sports car just as the A7 is a completely different set of engineering independent on the node in which it was built.
Try being objective and fair for once. You may like it.
Again you are pulling crap from nowhere. The original quote, (and here i go again)
"Samsung has nothing to do with the design, power, efficiency of the a7"
lists 3 factors that the OP says samsung had nothing to do with.
1. Design
2. Power
3. Efficiency
I'm not arguing point 1 which you seem hung up on. I'm arguing that the power and efficiency of the A7 is due in a large part to Samsungs 28nm HKMG process and in addition also largely due to ARMs redesign of the arm v8 instruction set.
For fuçk's sake open your eyes and turn your brain on. The A7 has NOTHING TO DO with 28nm or Highgate or anything else. That's the process in which it's made. The A7 is Apple's design which itself includes it's own power efficiency. Samsung, TMSC, and Intel's processes include their own power efficiencies which is why you can take the A7, just like the A4, and use a different process for different results. The A7 would less power efficient OVERALL with 32nm just as it would be more power efficient OVERALL with 22nm but this not because the A7 is a different design it's because the process WHICH IS INDEPENDENT FROM THE A7 is different.
Stop lumping the foundry in which the chip design. They as different as an automotive engineer is from a race track.
For fuçk's sake open your eyes and turn your brain on. The A7 has NOTHING TO DO with 28nm or Highgate or anything else. That's the process in which it's made. The A7 is Apple's design which itself includes it's own power efficiency. Samsung, TMSC, and Intel's processes include their own power efficiencies which is why you can take the A7, just like the A4, and use a different process for different results. The A7 would less power efficient OVERALL with 32nm just as it would be more power efficient OVERALL with 22nm but this not because the A7 is a different design it's because the process WHICH IS INDEPENDENT FROM THE A7 is different.
Stop lumping the foundry in which the chip design. They as different as an automotive engineer is from a race track.
Wow you really are out in the weeds.....
One last time I'll try to explain what should be obvious to anyone on a tech forum. If you want to claim anything about the 28nm being used you'd have to refer specifically to the model number of the A7 chip since that would include the process and foundry upon which it was built. In this case it's the APL0698 SoC.
Not once did you mention the specific HW being used. You only mentioned the A7 which refers to the design which is INDEPENDENT of the process or foundry being used. Again, this means that the A7 can be used by elsewhere, like TMSC at 22nm later on if they ever get their act together, just as we saw the A4 at 45nm and 32nm BOTH WITH DIFFERENT MODEL NUMBERS in the iPad 2,3 and iPad 2,4.
You crack me up, one idiotic post after another.
I bet you talk yourself to sleep at night...
There never was an argument, just your pointless ramblings. Please don't make the same mistake again.
Sure there was. You said stupid crap, incorrect shit and I called you out on it by correcting you. Your inability to admit you were wrong has no barring on the facts, only your juvenile desire to want to wallow in ignorance.
Lame, go cry in the corner.