x86 compatibility for Windows tablets is a big deal. Windows on ARM is pointless.
Core is going to be Ultrabooks and up. Silvermont will get marketed as Atom, Celeron and Pentium for lower end products.
Whether they get smartphone design wins is still up in the air. I'm not certain that Intel cares that much even now. They sure as hell care that ARM doesn't encroach on laptops and servers and would like to win in tablets.
But if they really cared about being real players in smartphone SoC market they could have been making ARM SoCs this whole time. I'm thinking the margins simply haven't been all that enticing except for maybe the top tier SoCs used in flagship phones.
I think Windows compatibility is the biggest deal for having a x86 on a tablet and I'm sure Microsoft is lobbying really hard to push this solution, I think this is also why there is near zero interest on having an Intel SoC in a smartphone.
Sure, Apple didn't get a free pass just because people like me are "overreacting based on anecdotal impression". Wow, Apple is willing to repair their defective product for free because people like me are "overreacting based on anecdotal impression". It's a real wonder of how you view things. Go tell Anandtech and iPad Air users that their article is just based on some anecdotal impression just because you don't have the same issue.
Paying hundreds of dollars more for the same hardware quality that you get from other laptops. If a product that sucks you extra hundreds of dollars for nothing shouldn't be called junk, then I'm not sure what should be qualified as junk. What difference does it make if I saved that hundreds of dollars to buy a used laptop that doesn't work? I guess hundreds of dollars don't really worth much to you.
Yeah, plastic Macbook had Mac OS X, so did Macbook Pro, only if somebody told me that it was worth the price. And I bet that somebody wouldn't be people like you who tell plastic Macbook owners that the crack is just an anecdotal impression.
So how many of these other "same hardware quality" laptops are still around six years later?
You are obviously still using the MacBook or why else would you be whining so much about it.
Meanwhile, Intel's x86-64 Bay Trail (22nm Silvermont + Ivy Bridge GPU) is already on the market. In 2014 Intel is planning their tick-tock with Cherry Trail (14nm Airmont + Broadwell GPU) and Willow Trail (14nm Goldmont + Skylake GPU). Intel will also be launching a successor to their current LTE chip with LTE-Advanced in 2014.
So Intel is on a slow decline, and are dead in mobile.
So how many of these other "same hardware quality" laptops are still around six years later?
That depends on the condition of the laptop you are talking about...
My wife's six year old laptop (the brand is MSI if you've ever heard of it) is still running fine functionally, especially if you don't consider the esthetic issues, which prove to be trivial for some.
That depends on the condition of the laptop you are talking about...
My wife's six year old laptop (the brand is MSI if you've ever heard of it) is still running fine functionally, especially if you don't consider the esthetic issues, which prove to be trivial for some.
So an aesthetic issue, like say, a crack in a case?
I wouldn't call it "innovate". It's certainly the next step. Apple just took the lead and came out with the 64bit faster than others. Good work.
64-bit in and of itself isn't the innovation, but rather why it was done (massive performance improvements without increased power consumption) and how it was done (Apple controls the ecosystem and the entire platform so recompiling to 64-bit is often no more than flipping a switch). If that doesn't qualify as innovation then I don't know what is. On the other hand the word "innovation" is used so much these days it's almost lost all meaning. For example a bigger screen is not something I would call innovation.
64-bit in and of itself isn't the innovation, but rather why it was done (massive performance improvements without increased power consumption) and how it was done (Apple controls the ecosystem and the entire platform so recompiling to 64-bit is often no more than flipping a switch). If that doesn't qualify as innovation then I don't know what is. On the other hand the word "innovation" is used so much these days it's almost lost all meaning. For example a bigger screen is not something I would call innovation.
A bigger screen originally intended to hide a bigger battery for power hungry systems is closer to the truth.
My wife's six year old laptop (the brand is MSI if you've ever heard of it) is still running fine functionally, especially if you don't consider the esthetic issues, which prove to be trivial for some.
Yeah, they were great.
Seven and a half pounds of Intel Centrino + Vista goodness. I like the giant vent holes on the side.
I think Windows compatibility is the biggest deal for having a x86 on a tablet an I'm sure Microsoft is lobbying really hard to push this solution, I think this is also why there is near zero interest on having an Intel SoC in a smartphone.
Is this really true? Windows compatibility is likely huge for things like enterprise desktops (where specific applications have been design to help the business run), but in the tablet space, we're talking consumer usage and office automation usage , right? In that space, those usages are becoming more and more web-based and office automation is becoming more and more commoditized.
Microsoft's problems in tablets aren't really x86 SoC or legacy app related. I still think overall Surface hardware wasn't that great (a year late and bulky), the live tile UI wasn't that great (too cold and foreign for Windows users), and MS didn't really commit to making what they have great.
Intel's problem is that they just aren't that interested. They don't view $20 ARM SoCs as life threatening or mobiles as threatening their business yet.
They didn't have access to the A7 architecture, and none of it will be copied. At least for 2014 where most of the 64-bit CPUs will be Cortex-A53 on 28 nm, or -A57 if they have a 20 nm node ready in 2H 14. Most of the CPU designs will end up in the same place: 4-issue, OOE, lots of caches, dual and quad core, and on-die power regulator for active idle. A Haswell type architecture is just about where they are all heading.
They sure did have access to it. See below...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
But how? I'm still cloudy on how they would know a chip is 32 or 64-bit. We're not talking about a node change which is something that needs to be performed at the fabrication level and is completely up to Samsung but an instruction set of a chip. What about Chipwork's images say "This is 64-bit"? Samsung would know that Apple included 4MB of RAM on the chip and other physical features but I don't see how Samsung would know it's 64-bit just by looking at it.
if they really did know all about this chip itt really makes that part of Samsung uncharacteristically tightlipped and ethical when they could have leaked the news and let Samsung make an announcement when Apple starts ramping up production before the iPhone 5S was announced.
You have to understand how processors are designed. Engineers use software to lay out the processor. The end result is sort of like a blueprint, if you will (or like an AutoCAD drawing, only much, much more complex and detailed). Samsung would use this blueprint to manufacture the processor. It wouldn't be too hard to look at the registers (which are just memory) and determine from the number and layout of transistors how many they are and how wide they are.
Chipworks wouldn't be able to tell if a processor is 64bit since they are looking at a finished device. Samsung actually has the blueprint for the device. Samsung would also need access to the instruction set so they could perform testing of the chips themselves (unless Apple does this, which I doubt).
However, it would be very difficult for Samsung to duplicate the A7 and customize it/improve it (for example, making a quad core) since they don't have access to the original files used to make the "blueprint". Remember the output from whatever software Apple uses is intended to fab plants. It's not the same as the front end the engineers are looking at when they actually design the processor.
This is when I laugh at people who claim Samsung is primarily responsible for the A7 - they're not. The sheer amount of work Apple engineers would invest to design the A7 would completely dwarf the amount of work Samsung would do to actually start fabbing the A7.
So Apple doesn't have to worry about Samsung copying their processors, unless they made a literal 100% copy and called it something else. And that's something that would be easy to prove in court (and a very stupid move for Samsung to do). Who would trust them for anything if they took their "copying" to such an extreme?
It wouldn't be too hard to look at the registers (which are just memory) and determine from the number and layout of transistors how many they are and how wide they are.
What about the registers and width (of pointers) say it must be 64-bit? I know from both Chipworks and AnandTech that Apple's A5X in the iPad 3 used a very wide memory interface and it was only 32-bit and, I think, 512MB RAM. According to Mike Ash the number of registers did double but can't Apple also do that without going to 64-bit? Note that in ARM64 Mike Ash notes these are still half what you see in other modern processors.
"There are two parts of the CPU that "X-bit" usually refers to: the width of the integer registers, and the width of pointers. Thankfully, in most modern CPUs, these widths are the same. "64-bit" then typically means that the CPU has 64-bit integer registers and 64-bit pointers."
"ARM64 doubles the number of integer registers over 32-bit ARM. 32-bit ARM provides 16 integer registers, of which one is a dedicated program counter, two more are given over to a stack pointer and link register, and the other 13 are available for general use. With ARM64, there are 32 integer registers, with a dedicated zero register, link register, and frame pointer register. One further register is reserved for the platform, leaving 28 general purpose integer registers."
The floating-point registers in AR-64 are 128-bit and there are only 32 of them which tells me it's possible Scotty, I mean Samsung, didn't know.
"ARM64 also increases the number of floating-point registers available. The floating point registers on 32-bit ARM are a bit odd, so it's tough to compare. It has 32 32-bit floating point registers which can also be viewed as 16 overlapped 64-bit registers, and there are 16 additional independent 64-bit registers. The 32 total 64-bit registers registers can also be viewed as 16 overlapped 128-bit registers. ARM64 simplifies this to 32 128-bit registers, which can also be used for smaller data types, and there's no overlapping."
By no means am I saying you're incorrect but I haven't yet been convinced that what Samsung was given to fab for Apple clearly shows they were going to release a 64-bit CPU.
So Apple doesn't have to worry about Samsung copying their processors, unless they made a literal 100% copy and called it something else. And that's something that would be easy to prove in court (and a very stupid move for Samsung to do). Who would trust them for anything if they took their "copying" to such an extreme?
But what about Samsung stealing their thunder by announcing a 64-bit ARM chip before Apple did? Of all the things Samsung has done that would seem so minimal.
"From rough to refinement, we found MSI from nothing. Our logo's evolution witnesses the advances we have made, and we will keep improving ourselves all the way. With you customers’ support, can push us moving forward to the next stage!"
You have to understand how processors are designed. Engineers use software to lay out the processor. The end result is sort of like a blueprint, if you will (or like an AutoCAD drawing, only much, much more complex and detailed). Samsung would use this blueprint to manufacture the processor. It wouldn't be too hard to look at the registers (which are just memory) and determine from the number and layout of transistors how many they are and how wide they are.
And when Apple hands over the masks for laying out the transistors and metal layers on the wafer, what is the Samsung fab engineer seeing? They aren't seeing a blueprint. It's doubtful to me that Apple is handing over the circuit design or "blueprint" for the SoC. They are handing over circuit masks to etch the transistors. Apple and Samsung work to make sure the masks are designed correctly for the process involved, but I doubt that Samsung Semi knows at any point time what those masks are building.
Samsung would have to steal a wafer and put it under a microscope. Basically the same thing Chipworks did. This is not some day at the park type of activity. It would be act of espionage. Not worth the cost for what you can figure out based on images of the product.
Most people so far, you don't need 64 bit, it's a gimmick, next year, why did it take android so long.
Yes.
X-Gene, a micro-server 64-bit ARM part, was announced to be available on Oct 30, 2013. Using that date, Apple likely shipped 10m A7 SoCs before Applied Micro even took their first order. It's quite likely Apple will have shipped 50m A7 SoCs by end of 2013. Who knows how many Applied Micro will have shipped by Dec 31. Their product page still says "pre-order".
As for smartphone SoCs, the linked article is likely right, at the earliest, the industry thought it was going to be 2H 14 for the first ARM 64-bit SoCs and 2015 is really the year when 64-bit ARM ships in significant numbers in the smartphone space. Apple shipping a 64-bit part in Sep of 2013 was a surprise to everyone, including ARM Holdings themselves.
However, Intel does have 64-bit Baytrail (for tablet, netbook, and cheak PC markets) available today and Merrifield will be coming for smartphones in 1H 2014. Unfortunately, Windows 8 Baytrail systems will be 32 bit systems since the 64-bit connected standby implementation is running late. Won't see 64-bit x86 Windows tablets until 1Q 14 at the earliest. I have no idea where WP8 is at w/respect to 64 bit support.
As for Android, who knows. They have to navigate a gigantic 32-bit, 64-bit driver minefield and the middleware layers (dalvik VM, NDK, APIs) have to be converted. Intel apparently has done quite a bit of work for x86-64 Android, but I don't know how far along that effort is. Who knows, maybe a Merrifield phone will be the first 64-bit Android device. For 64-bit Cortex-A53 and -A57 ARM SoCs, probably 2H 14 at the earliest.
It's important to put it in perspective though. Like quad-core or 4k or 20+ megapixels or f/2.0 or 802.11ac/ad or QHD (2560x1440) or LTE-advanced, it's only one vector by which a company competes, with all of them basically overserving customers. Apple may have big aspirations for its 64-bit ARM platform, so it does represent some very interesting possibilities for 2014 hardware if they are able to either get 20 nm parts out or use 10-20 W TDP parts.
All this talk about Samsung looking at Apple's blueprints and processors...
Samsung also makes their OWN processors... Samsung has their OWN engineers.
Doesn't anyone at Samsung know how to move to 64-bit? Does Samsung really have to look at someone else?
Yes. All Exynos SoCs to date use CPU designs from ARMH and GPU designs from ARMH or ImgTec. Samsung does indeed have great SoC designers, but a custom design will be a whole new level for them. They appear to have plans to do a custom ARM CPU, but it would be 2015 before you see that. For 2014, if they can fit a Cortex-A57 into a smartphone TDP, they'll likely do that. Otherwise they stretch a Krait (Snapdragon 805) or a Cortex-A15. Their Exynos 5250, 5410, 5420 adventure with Cortex-A15 and big.LITTLE hasn't been the smoothest roll out, so hopefully, they learned and will do better in 2014.
Apple and Qualcomm currently get the benefit of the doubt because they have already shipped 2 custom CPU cores. There's even speculation that a custom GPU is next for Apple. Nvidia? Not a lot of wins there.
Edit: Forgot to say that MediaTek is a big player too. They could surprise.
Edit 2: Forgot that AMD is also looking to produce a 64-bit ARM SoC. Probably 2014. Who knows with them.
To those who keep using the term Samsung as in one company , please read carefully about their company structure. They are a enormous company. We are not even talking about division. Each one of them have their own operation chef and they are highly competitive against each other. To those who only knows about their crap mobile phone and wanna be products. They also build ships, air defence system , sell insurance, banking and even own kimchi plantation (indirectly) but that just a tiny bit of Samsung holding business interest. After the law sue start between Apple and Samsung mobile division. Their chef of foundry business fly to US personally to smooth thing over (it was wildly report in supply chain news) so yes they know and no not everyone knows. And I can bet any money Apple put a huge penalty cause if trade secret been leak in bold Helvetica font right on the front page of the contract ... 64 bit interger even in won will be the worth of a few Samsung
Comments
x86 compatibility for Windows tablets is a big deal. Windows on ARM is pointless.
Core is going to be Ultrabooks and up. Silvermont will get marketed as Atom, Celeron and Pentium for lower end products.
Whether they get smartphone design wins is still up in the air. I'm not certain that Intel cares that much even now. They sure as hell care that ARM doesn't encroach on laptops and servers and would like to win in tablets.
But if they really cared about being real players in smartphone SoC market they could have been making ARM SoCs this whole time. I'm thinking the margins simply haven't been all that enticing except for maybe the top tier SoCs used in flagship phones.
I think Windows compatibility is the biggest deal for having a x86 on a tablet and I'm sure Microsoft is lobbying really hard to push this solution, I think this is also why there is near zero interest on having an Intel SoC in a smartphone.
Sure, Apple didn't get a free pass just because people like me are "overreacting based on anecdotal impression". Wow, Apple is willing to repair their defective product for free because people like me are "overreacting based on anecdotal impression". It's a real wonder of how you view things. Go tell Anandtech and iPad Air users that their article is just based on some anecdotal impression just because you don't have the same issue.
Paying hundreds of dollars more for the same hardware quality that you get from other laptops. If a product that sucks you extra hundreds of dollars for nothing shouldn't be called junk, then I'm not sure what should be qualified as junk. What difference does it make if I saved that hundreds of dollars to buy a used laptop that doesn't work? I guess hundreds of dollars don't really worth much to you.
Yeah, plastic Macbook had Mac OS X, so did Macbook Pro, only if somebody told me that it was worth the price. And I bet that somebody wouldn't be people like you who tell plastic Macbook owners that the crack is just an anecdotal impression.
So how many of these other "same hardware quality" laptops are still around six years later?
You are obviously still using the MacBook or why else would you be whining so much about it.
Meanwhile, Intel's x86-64 Bay Trail (22nm Silvermont + Ivy Bridge GPU) is already on the market. In 2014 Intel is planning their tick-tock with Cherry Trail (14nm Airmont + Broadwell GPU) and Willow Trail (14nm Goldmont + Skylake GPU). Intel will also be launching a successor to their current LTE chip with LTE-Advanced in 2014.
So Intel is on a slow decline, and are dead in mobile.
So Intel is on a slow decline, and are dead in mobile.
You'll have to try a lot harder than that.
So how many of these other "same hardware quality" laptops are still around six years later?
That depends on the condition of the laptop you are talking about...
My wife's six year old laptop (the brand is MSI if you've ever heard of it) is still running fine functionally, especially if you don't consider the esthetic issues, which prove to be trivial for some.
That depends on the condition of the laptop you are talking about...
My wife's six year old laptop (the brand is MSI if you've ever heard of it) is still running fine functionally, especially if you don't consider the esthetic issues, which prove to be trivial for some.
So an aesthetic issue, like say, a crack in a case?
I wouldn't call it "innovate". It's certainly the next step. Apple just took the lead and came out with the 64bit faster than others. Good work.
64-bit in and of itself isn't the innovation, but rather why it was done (massive performance improvements without increased power consumption) and how it was done (Apple controls the ecosystem and the entire platform so recompiling to 64-bit is often no more than flipping a switch). If that doesn't qualify as innovation then I don't know what is. On the other hand the word "innovation" is used so much these days it's almost lost all meaning. For example a bigger screen is not something I would call innovation.
64-bit in and of itself isn't the innovation, but rather why it was done (massive performance improvements without increased power consumption) and how it was done (Apple controls the ecosystem and the entire platform so recompiling to 64-bit is often no more than flipping a switch). If that doesn't qualify as innovation then I don't know what is. On the other hand the word "innovation" is used so much these days it's almost lost all meaning. For example a bigger screen is not something I would call innovation.
A bigger screen originally intended to hide a bigger battery for power hungry systems is closer to the truth.
Practicality not innovation.
My wife's six year old laptop (the brand is MSI if you've ever heard of it) is still running fine functionally, especially if you don't consider the esthetic issues, which prove to be trivial for some.
Yeah, they were great.
Seven and a half pounds of Intel Centrino + Vista goodness. I like the giant vent holes on the side.
So much better than a MacBook.
I think Windows compatibility is the biggest deal for having a x86 on a tablet an I'm sure Microsoft is lobbying really hard to push this solution, I think this is also why there is near zero interest on having an Intel SoC in a smartphone.
Is this really true? Windows compatibility is likely huge for things like enterprise desktops (where specific applications have been design to help the business run), but in the tablet space, we're talking consumer usage and office automation usage , right? In that space, those usages are becoming more and more web-based and office automation is becoming more and more commoditized.
Microsoft's problems in tablets aren't really x86 SoC or legacy app related. I still think overall Surface hardware wasn't that great (a year late and bulky), the live tile UI wasn't that great (too cold and foreign for Windows users), and MS didn't really commit to making what they have great.
Intel's problem is that they just aren't that interested. They don't view $20 ARM SoCs as life threatening or mobiles as threatening their business yet.
They didn't have access to the A7 architecture, and none of it will be copied. At least for 2014 where most of the 64-bit CPUs will be Cortex-A53 on 28 nm, or -A57 if they have a 20 nm node ready in 2H 14. Most of the CPU designs will end up in the same place: 4-issue, OOE, lots of caches, dual and quad core, and on-die power regulator for active idle. A Haswell type architecture is just about where they are all heading.
They sure did have access to it. See below...
But how? I'm still cloudy on how they would know a chip is 32 or 64-bit. We're not talking about a node change which is something that needs to be performed at the fabrication level and is completely up to Samsung but an instruction set of a chip. What about Chipwork's images say "This is 64-bit"? Samsung would know that Apple included 4MB of RAM on the chip and other physical features but I don't see how Samsung would know it's 64-bit just by looking at it.
if they really did know all about this chip itt really makes that part of Samsung uncharacteristically tightlipped and ethical when they could have leaked the news and let Samsung make an announcement when Apple starts ramping up production before the iPhone 5S was announced.
You have to understand how processors are designed. Engineers use software to lay out the processor. The end result is sort of like a blueprint, if you will (or like an AutoCAD drawing, only much, much more complex and detailed). Samsung would use this blueprint to manufacture the processor. It wouldn't be too hard to look at the registers (which are just memory) and determine from the number and layout of transistors how many they are and how wide they are.
Chipworks wouldn't be able to tell if a processor is 64bit since they are looking at a finished device. Samsung actually has the blueprint for the device. Samsung would also need access to the instruction set so they could perform testing of the chips themselves (unless Apple does this, which I doubt).
However, it would be very difficult for Samsung to duplicate the A7 and customize it/improve it (for example, making a quad core) since they don't have access to the original files used to make the "blueprint". Remember the output from whatever software Apple uses is intended to fab plants. It's not the same as the front end the engineers are looking at when they actually design the processor.
This is when I laugh at people who claim Samsung is primarily responsible for the A7 - they're not. The sheer amount of work Apple engineers would invest to design the A7 would completely dwarf the amount of work Samsung would do to actually start fabbing the A7.
So Apple doesn't have to worry about Samsung copying their processors, unless they made a literal 100% copy and called it something else. And that's something that would be easy to prove in court (and a very stupid move for Samsung to do). Who would trust them for anything if they took their "copying" to such an extreme?
Yeah, they were great.
Seven and a half pounds of Intel Centrino + Vista goodness. I like the giant vent holes on the side.
So much better than a MacBook.
Their latest ultrabook looks nice
http://www.msimobile.com/level3_productpage.aspx?cid=116&id=387
What about the registers and width (of pointers) say it must be 64-bit? I know from both Chipworks and AnandTech that Apple's A5X in the iPad 3 used a very wide memory interface and it was only 32-bit and, I think, 512MB RAM. According to Mike Ash the number of registers did double but can't Apple also do that without going to 64-bit? Note that in ARM64 Mike Ash notes these are still half what you see in other modern processors.
"ARM64 doubles the number of integer registers over 32-bit ARM. 32-bit ARM provides 16 integer registers, of which one is a dedicated program counter, two more are given over to a stack pointer and link register, and the other 13 are available for general use. With ARM64, there are 32 integer registers, with a dedicated zero register, link register, and frame pointer register. One further register is reserved for the platform, leaving 28 general purpose integer registers."
The floating-point registers in AR-64 are 128-bit and there are only 32 of them which tells me it's possible Scotty, I mean Samsung, didn't know.
By no means am I saying you're incorrect but I haven't yet been convinced that what Samsung was given to fab for Apple clearly shows they were going to release a 64-bit CPU.
But what about Samsung stealing their thunder by announcing a 64-bit ARM chip before Apple did? Of all the things Samsung has done that would seem so minimal.
Their latest ultrabook looks nice
http://www.msimobile.com/level3_productpage.aspx?cid=116&id=387
umm...suuure.
Or, you could get a MacBook Air, with the same processor and memory, and save a hundred bucks.
But then, you would miss out on the excitement of MSI:
Most people so far, you don't need 64 bit, it's a gimmick, next year, why did it take android so long.
They sure did have access to it. See below...
You have to understand how processors are designed. Engineers use software to lay out the processor. The end result is sort of like a blueprint, if you will (or like an AutoCAD drawing, only much, much more complex and detailed). Samsung would use this blueprint to manufacture the processor. It wouldn't be too hard to look at the registers (which are just memory) and determine from the number and layout of transistors how many they are and how wide they are.
And when Apple hands over the masks for laying out the transistors and metal layers on the wafer, what is the Samsung fab engineer seeing? They aren't seeing a blueprint. It's doubtful to me that Apple is handing over the circuit design or "blueprint" for the SoC. They are handing over circuit masks to etch the transistors. Apple and Samsung work to make sure the masks are designed correctly for the process involved, but I doubt that Samsung Semi knows at any point time what those masks are building.
Samsung would have to steal a wafer and put it under a microscope. Basically the same thing Chipworks did. This is not some day at the park type of activity. It would be act of espionage. Not worth the cost for what you can figure out based on images of the product.
Samsung also makes their OWN processors... Samsung has their OWN engineers.
Doesn't anyone at Samsung know how to move to 64-bit? Does Samsung [I]really[/I] have to look at someone else?
Is this the first arm 64 bit chip to hit market?
Most people so far, you don't need 64 bit, it's a gimmick, next year, why did it take android so long.
Yes.
X-Gene, a micro-server 64-bit ARM part, was announced to be available on Oct 30, 2013. Using that date, Apple likely shipped 10m A7 SoCs before Applied Micro even took their first order. It's quite likely Apple will have shipped 50m A7 SoCs by end of 2013. Who knows how many Applied Micro will have shipped by Dec 31. Their product page still says "pre-order".
As for smartphone SoCs, the linked article is likely right, at the earliest, the industry thought it was going to be 2H 14 for the first ARM 64-bit SoCs and 2015 is really the year when 64-bit ARM ships in significant numbers in the smartphone space. Apple shipping a 64-bit part in Sep of 2013 was a surprise to everyone, including ARM Holdings themselves.
However, Intel does have 64-bit Baytrail (for tablet, netbook, and cheak PC markets) available today and Merrifield will be coming for smartphones in 1H 2014. Unfortunately, Windows 8 Baytrail systems will be 32 bit systems since the 64-bit connected standby implementation is running late. Won't see 64-bit x86 Windows tablets until 1Q 14 at the earliest. I have no idea where WP8 is at w/respect to 64 bit support.
As for Android, who knows. They have to navigate a gigantic 32-bit, 64-bit driver minefield and the middleware layers (dalvik VM, NDK, APIs) have to be converted. Intel apparently has done quite a bit of work for x86-64 Android, but I don't know how far along that effort is. Who knows, maybe a Merrifield phone will be the first 64-bit Android device. For 64-bit Cortex-A53 and -A57 ARM SoCs, probably 2H 14 at the earliest.
It's important to put it in perspective though. Like quad-core or 4k or 20+ megapixels or f/2.0 or 802.11ac/ad or QHD (2560x1440) or LTE-advanced, it's only one vector by which a company competes, with all of them basically overserving customers. Apple may have big aspirations for its 64-bit ARM platform, so it does represent some very interesting possibilities for 2014 hardware if they are able to either get 20 nm parts out or use 10-20 W TDP parts.
All this talk about Samsung looking at Apple's blueprints and processors...
Samsung also makes their OWN processors... Samsung has their OWN engineers.
Doesn't anyone at Samsung know how to move to 64-bit? Does Samsung really have to look at someone else?
Yes. All Exynos SoCs to date use CPU designs from ARMH and GPU designs from ARMH or ImgTec. Samsung does indeed have great SoC designers, but a custom design will be a whole new level for them. They appear to have plans to do a custom ARM CPU, but it would be 2015 before you see that. For 2014, if they can fit a Cortex-A57 into a smartphone TDP, they'll likely do that. Otherwise they stretch a Krait (Snapdragon 805) or a Cortex-A15. Their Exynos 5250, 5410, 5420 adventure with Cortex-A15 and big.LITTLE hasn't been the smoothest roll out, so hopefully, they learned and will do better in 2014.
Apple and Qualcomm currently get the benefit of the doubt because they have already shipped 2 custom CPU cores. There's even speculation that a custom GPU is next for Apple. Nvidia? Not a lot of wins there.
Edit: Forgot to say that MediaTek is a big player too. They could surprise.
Edit 2: Forgot that AMD is also looking to produce a 64-bit ARM SoC. Probably 2014. Who knows with them.