512MB? and 8GB? my $4000 Quadra 840AV had 128MB and a 2GB HD WOW, my my, 1993-2015 22 years later. I mean this is 4 times that machine! On my wrist for 1/8th the cost! SAY SOMETHING! :P
Plus a lot of those different chips are fabbed in very different processes. If you try to make DRAM in an MPU/CPU process you end up with memory that has poor density and wastes the several layers of interconnect that an MPU process has. If you try to make a processor in a DRAM process you end up with a slow, bloated processor because DRAM is optimized differently and has fewer layers of metal.
while true there are trade offs to be made and here I'm thinking Apple will go after physical size in the next rev. If I remember correctly this is still a 22 mm technology device, just going to 14 nm would provide Apple with enough real estate to incorporate much of the computing tech outside of the main CPU.
Also, while putting everything on one chip offers some nice space and power savings, it also can be more expensive because chip yield decreases with larger chips.
as processes shrink there is a point at which the chip doesn't become smaller due to the need to wire bond. So integrating as much as possible becomes the norm because you need X amount of area, perimeter really, to wire bond with today's design methodologies.
3D integration with Silicon vias offers a nice tradeoff by allowing you to fab different parts in optimized fab processes and then connect them together with high bandwidth, but it offers its own set of difficulties (cost, heat dissipation, etc...).
yep it is interesting that this article indicates that the DRAM chip is wire bonded to the processor.
I think we will see increasing integration, but it will take time and will raise its own set of problems / tradeoffs.
There is plenty of opportunity here with this design so I'm expecting higher integration in one to two years if Apple watch is successful. This mainly due to several external chips being nothing more than micro controllers that can be easily brought onto the SoC.
Obviously there is lots of analog stuff that won't be brought on die. Some of that though could be folded into multi chip modules where wafers get stacked to help reduce foot print. Apple would need to buy wafers, possibly with customer layouts to go this route.
Samsung can't do elegant like Apple can. The can only do Bizarro versions. Even their new S6 has numerous misaligned holes and ports. They aren't craftsmen like Apple.
You meant this:
That's why Samsung can copy but can never do it right. God damn, the design is like 3 years-old sketch: there's no principle of symmetry at all.
You will see almost the exact same sort of circuitry. Some even more complex because it has a camera. The differences are the parts you don't see like the internal design of the processor and, of course, the software and OS running on it, which is the major differentiation. Also the fit and finish and materials are always the thing that stands out with Apple products.
Obviously there is lots of analog stuff that won't be brought on die. Some of that though could be folded into multi chip modules where wafers get stacked to help reduce foot print.
The foot print is not the problem. It is the thickness that is a bit too much, but I think that is mostly a factor of the required battery size.
That is probably not possible because of all the third party vendors. All of those chips are full of IP that would need to be licensed and some of the manufacturers would probably not be willing to license it. I agree it would be nice because the watch could potentially be thinner but I just don't see it happening anytime soon.
Plus a lot of those different chips are fabbed in very different processes. If you try to make DRAM in an MPU/CPU process you end up with memory that has poor density and wastes the several layers of interconnect that an MPU process has. If you try to make a processor in a DRAM process you end up with a slow, bloated processor because DRAM is optimized differently and has fewer layers of metal.
Also, while putting everything on one chip offers some nice space and power savings, it also can be more expensive because chip yield decreases with larger chips.
3D integration with Silicon vias offers a nice tradeoff by allowing you to fab different parts in optimized fab processes and then connect them together with high bandwidth, but it offers its own set of difficulties (cost, heat dissipation, etc...).
I think we will see increasing integration, but it will take time and will raise its own set of problems / tradeoffs.
Diff subject kinda, but do you (or anyone else) know why the Elpida SRAM referred to in bits, i.e. 4Gb and the Sandisk/Toshiba Flash DRAM in bytes, i.e. 8 GB. Is there some context where SRAM memory might be accessed in nibbles or some other strange word size that would make using bytes ungainly as opposed to bits?
So who makes the APL 0778 CPU? And if it is truly on a 22 nm process, going to 14 nm should theoretically squeeze some extra battery life from the wearable computer. Perhaps Apple will simply shrink the thickness of the battery and keep the operating time similar.
Apple is launching the wearable computer in a very major fashion and to great market demand. The workmanship is incredible. No doubt this is going to inspire companies like Samsung to copy the device. But will they be able to. The S1 is an incredible piece of engineering and won't be easily duplicated.
The little miniaturised computer in the Apple Watch is very impressive. They should try to think of something other products to use this in (not just the watch).
I'm far more curious about the CPU on this then the other items
All of the items are interesting to a degree. I can see a situation where Apple uses the design principals behind the S1 to sell an ultra low-end phone for third world countries.
From what I can see the S1 seems to be the board of the current AppleTV shrunk down and covered in resin. That may seem simple, but considering the device fits on your wrist, and seems fairly water resistant and easily meets the battery life they specified I think this is pretty remarkable.
More then iOS 9 and Mac OS X 10.11 I want to see what all is in Watch OS, and what I can only assume will be rebranded TV OS. All of these OS's share a lot of common code. It's funny to me Microsoft saying "One Windows On All Devices" when the same principal has been happening on Apple devices since 2007. You can go back in WWDC's of the past and see the amount of code overlap for core features between Mac OS X and IOS. Last time they stopped talking about it, it was at 80% I believe.
Apple has a tremendous head start on SOC, SOP, and shared code across devices then everyone else. From a Platform perspective I'm incredibly curious what will happen at WWDC.
I expect Apple will be touting many other devices as some form of "reflection" of your iPhone. Carplay is a dashboard centered "reflection" of your iPhone. AppleTV has been a passive "reflection" of your Apple account. Apple Watch is clearly a "reflection" of your iPhone. HomeKit seems to me to be an SDK specific opportunity to let that type of "reflection" come to other devices.
Comments
There is plenty of opportunity here with this design so I'm expecting higher integration in one to two years if Apple watch is successful. This mainly due to several external chips being nothing more than micro controllers that can be easily brought onto the SoC.
Obviously there is lots of analog stuff that won't be brought on die. Some of that though could be folded into multi chip modules where wafers get stacked to help reduce foot print. Apple would need to buy wafers, possibly with customer layouts to go this route.
Samsung can't do elegant like Apple can. The can only do Bizarro versions. Even their new S6 has numerous misaligned holes and ports. They aren't craftsmen like Apple.
You meant this:
That's why Samsung can copy but can never do it right. God damn, the design is like 3 years-old sketch: there's no principle of symmetry at all.
Samsung could only dream of designing stuff this elegant.
If you check out https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Samsung+Gear+2+Teardown/23990
You will see almost the exact same sort of circuitry. Some even more complex because it has a camera. The differences are the parts you don't see like the internal design of the processor and, of course, the software and OS running on it, which is the major differentiation. Also the fit and finish and materials are always the thing that stands out with Apple products.
Obviously there is lots of analog stuff that won't be brought on die. Some of that though could be folded into multi chip modules where wafers get stacked to help reduce foot print.
The foot print is not the problem. It is the thickness that is a bit too much, but I think that is mostly a factor of the required battery size.
That is probably not possible because of all the third party vendors. All of those chips are full of IP that would need to be licensed and some of the manufacturers would probably not be willing to license it. I agree it would be nice because the watch could potentially be thinner but I just don't see it happening anytime soon.
Plus a lot of those different chips are fabbed in very different processes. If you try to make DRAM in an MPU/CPU process you end up with memory that has poor density and wastes the several layers of interconnect that an MPU process has. If you try to make a processor in a DRAM process you end up with a slow, bloated processor because DRAM is optimized differently and has fewer layers of metal.
Also, while putting everything on one chip offers some nice space and power savings, it also can be more expensive because chip yield decreases with larger chips.
3D integration with Silicon vias offers a nice tradeoff by allowing you to fab different parts in optimized fab processes and then connect them together with high bandwidth, but it offers its own set of difficulties (cost, heat dissipation, etc...).
I think we will see increasing integration, but it will take time and will raise its own set of problems / tradeoffs.
Diff subject kinda, but do you (or anyone else) know why the Elpida SRAM referred to in bits, i.e. 4Gb and the Sandisk/Toshiba Flash DRAM in bytes, i.e. 8 GB. Is there some context where SRAM memory might be accessed in nibbles or some other strange word size that would make using bytes ungainly as opposed to bits?
Apple is launching the wearable computer in a very major fashion and to great market demand. The workmanship is incredible. No doubt this is going to inspire companies like Samsung to copy the device. But will they be able to. The S1 is an incredible piece of engineering and won't be easily duplicated.
The little miniaturised computer in the Apple Watch is very impressive. They should try to think of something other products to use this in (not just the watch).
If you check out https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Samsung+Gear+2+Teardown/23990
You will see almost the exact same sort of circuitry.
Really? Are you sure? By what measure? I'd posit that # of chips / square inch is at least 200% higher in the apple watch.
I'm far more curious about the CPU on this then the other items
All of the items are interesting to a degree. I can see a situation where Apple uses the design principals behind the S1 to sell an ultra low-end phone for third world countries.
From what I can see the S1 seems to be the board of the current AppleTV shrunk down and covered in resin. That may seem simple, but considering the device fits on your wrist, and seems fairly water resistant and easily meets the battery life they specified I think this is pretty remarkable.
More then iOS 9 and Mac OS X 10.11 I want to see what all is in Watch OS, and what I can only assume will be rebranded TV OS. All of these OS's share a lot of common code. It's funny to me Microsoft saying "One Windows On All Devices" when the same principal has been happening on Apple devices since 2007. You can go back in WWDC's of the past and see the amount of code overlap for core features between Mac OS X and IOS. Last time they stopped talking about it, it was at 80% I believe.
Apple has a tremendous head start on SOC, SOP, and shared code across devices then everyone else. From a Platform perspective I'm incredibly curious what will happen at WWDC.
I expect Apple will be touting many other devices as some form of "reflection" of your iPhone. Carplay is a dashboard centered "reflection" of your iPhone. AppleTV has been a passive "reflection" of your Apple account. Apple Watch is clearly a "reflection" of your iPhone. HomeKit seems to me to be an SDK specific opportunity to let that type of "reflection" come to other devices.