Thirty percent means they're lying. The capacity is going to another customer. Hard to credit, but could it be ... Sam-kaching-sung? Alternative interpretation: Apple thinks they will sell far more than 75 metric buttloads of the new iPhone Fall 2015, and wants enough processors to fill them up.
Physics happens: what was the yield rate on Sapphire blocks? Push the envelope on a design of a physical product and there are challenges just from the material and what is being asked of it.
Perhaps the story is true. Apple would not put all of its eggs into one basket so to speak. They probably had a contingency to use TSMC all along.
The bigger issue is why Global Foundries yields are so low since they are using the same manufacturing process as Samsung. Even if their yields are 30%, Apple could still purchase the working processors. However, GF may not be able to provide enough of them for Apple's requirements with that kind of yield. More likely would seem that GF couldn't supply additional CPUs should a new phone or tablet see much greater demand than originally forecast. Samsung doesn't have the capacity to provide extra production given the higher than expected demand for the S6. TSMC is the only other company who could.
So Apple makes a "last minute" decision to go with TSMC. A contingency they had already prepared for. Perhaps the larger die size slated for the iPad as it could better accommodate such than the iPhone which would have much tighter tolerances.
Samsung and Global Foundries have a strategic business relationship that includes maintenance of a common process, shared IP, shared process methodology and shared business. Their recent bid for Apple business included proposals for business split between 3 foundries in Korea, Austin Texas and GF's New York plant.
That is true but it doesn't mean that Sansung owns Global Foundries.
It is not that likely Apple would produce a version of the A9 in multiple process nodes because they have different performance characteristics.
That is an old argument that doesn't hold water in my mind. For one Apple is obviously not going after high performance with their processors racing along at rather sedate clock rates. Security NS even if there where notable issues with performance, Apple has multiple devices that will need these chips so performance can be slotted into the device that is a good fit.
Instead what Apple has done is to split orders for different versions, e.g., A9/A9X between suppliers with different processes and to alternate overlapping generations between suppliers (how TSMC got the biz). The article I linked shows that exactly.
It is more a question of what they might do in the future.
Some people on this thread apparently unfamiliar with IC fabrication (or with a little bit of knowledge and big imaginations) you can slit orders between a 16nm and 14nm process and get the same results. Amusing idea, but not very realistic.
You can however get a processor that functions exactly the same with the primary variables being thermal and ultimate clock rate. In effect you get the same result when it comes to functionality.
AppleInsider is, can I say, partisan?
Partisan? Maybe but lately the reporting has been so bad you have to wonder if the writers even consider what they write.
I do not believe this you can not have an SOC architecture on two completely different Fab lithograph.
Sure you can. The fact that Aple has these two companies competing for production kinda proves it.
It will make the hardware design too complicated as well as the software to deal with it. This is why all companies award processor solutions to one supplier at a time.
It is certainly a more expensive approach but Apple is one of the few companies these days that can afford it.
Notice where this is coming from, analysis who is trying to pump TSMC. if the industry believe TSMC is losing the business their stock will drop.
Well I would hope that no one gets to wrapped up in what the analysis say, however I surprised at the disbelief expressed here. For one Apple does I fact design it's A series with the ability to be built on more than one process. I don't see how they could rationally make a decision about whom to go to production with otherwise.
It's either Apple uses 14nm or 16nm. It can't be both. So it's either Samsung and TSMC will manufacture 16nm chips OR Samsung will be the only manufacturer for Apple's new A9 chips with its 14nm technology.
Comments
Not sure what that means.
which part? if you are referring to the use of the word audible, on a Mac, control-click --> Look Up "..."
The dictionary is your friend, use it. Knowledge is king.
Obviously some people on this board think that Samsung's 14FF process is smaller than TSMC's 16FF+ process.
How funny....
Thirty percent means they're lying. The capacity is going to another customer. Hard to credit, but could it be ... Sam-kaching-sung? Alternative interpretation: Apple thinks they will sell far more than 75 metric buttloads of the new iPhone Fall 2015, and wants enough processors to fill them up.
Physics happens: what was the yield rate on Sapphire blocks? Push the envelope on a design of a physical product and there are challenges just from the material and what is being asked of it.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/04/16/why-this-apple-inc-rumor-seems-suspect.aspx?source=eptcnnlnk0000002+
The bigger issue is why Global Foundries yields are so low since they are using the same manufacturing process as Samsung. Even if their yields are 30%, Apple could still purchase the working processors. However, GF may not be able to provide enough of them for Apple's requirements with that kind of yield. More likely would seem that GF couldn't supply additional CPUs should a new phone or tablet see much greater demand than originally forecast. Samsung doesn't have the capacity to provide extra production given the higher than expected demand for the S6. TSMC is the only other company who could.
So Apple makes a "last minute" decision to go with TSMC. A contingency they had already prepared for. Perhaps the larger die size slated for the iPad as it could better accommodate such than the iPhone which would have much tighter tolerances.
Partisan? Maybe but lately the reporting has been so bad you have to wonder if the writers even consider what they write.
Well I would hope that no one gets to wrapped up in what the analysis say, however I surprised at the disbelief expressed here. For one Apple does I fact design it's A series with the ability to be built on more than one process. I don't see how they could rationally make a decision about whom to go to production with otherwise.
Or that there is a massive performance difference.
This article is 100% false IMO.
It's either Apple uses 14nm or 16nm. It can't be both. So it's either Samsung and TSMC will manufacture 16nm chips OR Samsung will be the only manufacturer for Apple's new A9 chips with its 14nm technology.