iPhone 15 Pro first to use new incredibly dense Micron memory chips

AppleInsider

Apple is using a new denser form of memory for the first time in its iPhones, with a teardown discovering the use of Micron's new ultra-dense D1b LPDDR5 DRAM chips in the iPhone 15 Pro.

iPhone 15 Pro

As well as advances in features, the march of technology also results in smaller components over time. For the iPhone 15 Pro models, which already have a slightly smaller footprint than the previous year, it seems the memory inside the smartphones is also shrinking in size.

The teardown by TechInsights of an iPhone 15 Pro uncovered a Micron D1b LPDDR5 16GB DRAM chip, using the Y52P die. The use of the D1b DRAM technology results in a denser chip.

Denser memory chip technologies, much like processors, allows for more to be packed into a smaller space, meaning that chips can be made with the same capabilities as older generations in a shrunken-down form factor. It can also allow for more elaborate chip designs to be created within a similar footprint.

Micron's D1b memory found in the iPhone 15 Pro [TechInsights]

For companies like Apple, a denser chip means they can put more memory into a device like an iPhone without sacrificing mainboard space or internal capacity. It also means that space can be saved, which can be employed for other things like more battery capacity or other chips.

Micron's D1b DRAM technology departs from the Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography (EUVL) technique, used by competitors Samsung and SK Hynix and a core technology for going to sub-15-nanometer levels. Micron has successfully manufactured D1z, D1a, and D1b chips without EUVL, which the report deems "nothing short of impressive."

When Micron announced its D1b LPDDR5X was shipping samples to smartphone manufacturers in November 2022, it claimed speeds of up to 8.5Gbps were possible. For a 16Gb-per-die capacity, the node also provided a 35% bit density improvement and a 15% power efficiency improvement over its previous node.

Read on AppleInsider

mayfly

Don't need faster chips, denser memory chips, better cameras or higher def screens. What's there now is more than good enough. What I need, and what most of us need, is better battery life.

twolf2919

mayfly said:

Don't need faster chips, denser memory chips, better cameras or higher def screens. What's there now is more than good enough. What I need, and what most of us need, is better battery life.

You don't speak for 'most of us'.  I'm perfectly happy with the battery life in my phone - even with heavy use it makes it through a whole day.  While I wouldn't commit the same mistake and claim that 'most of us' need better cameras, I certainly know quite a few people who'd want better zoom on theirs.  I do agree that performance *seems* plenty good enough for what most people use their phones for.  But I guess it's sort of like the range on electric cars: most people only go on a long trip where good range is important once or twice a year.  Yet range is exactly why most people haven't switched to EVs yet - they want that 300+mi range, just in case...maybe same with performance: you never know when you might need it, so you want it.

dope_ahmine

mayfly said:

Don't need faster chips, denser memory chips, better cameras or higher def screens. What's there now is more than good enough. What I need, and what most of us need, is better battery life.

@mayfly ;In case you meant batteries with larger charge capacity then the “15% power efficiency improvement” could be good. But if you really meant longer battery lifetimes then this is fairly unimportant.

Fidonet127

mayfly said:

Don't need faster chips, denser memory chips, better cameras or higher def screens. What's there now is more than good enough. What I need, and what most of us need, is better battery life.

These chips have a 15% power efficiency improvement, which could allow for longer battery life, however is balanced out by other processes. Better cameras are a big deal to many people. There is a demand by pros and prosumers for faster data rates for unloading the phones. This might be a reason for the difference of data rates between the regular and pro models. Not the only reason.

Xed

mayfly said:

Don't need faster chips, denser memory chips, better cameras or higher def screens. What's there now is more than good enough. What I need, and what most of us need, is better battery life.

🤦‍♂️

mayfly

twolf2919 said:

mayfly said:

Don't need faster chips, denser memory chips, better cameras or higher def screens. What's there now is more than good enough. What I need, and what most of us need, is better battery life.

You don't speak for 'most of us'.  I'm perfectly happy with the battery life in my phone - even with heavy use it makes it through a whole day.  While I wouldn't commit the same mistake and claim that 'most of us' need better cameras, I certainly know quite a few people who'd want better zoom on theirs.  I do agree that performance *seems* plenty good enough for what most people use their phones for.  But I guess it's sort of like the range on electric cars: most people only go on a long trip where good range is important once or twice a year.  Yet range is exactly why most people haven't switched to EVs yet - they want that 300+mi range, just in case...maybe same with performance: you never know when you might need it, so you want it.

Better battery technology is where the money should be spent. Both for phones and EV autos. You've just validated that, so I thank you!

Xed

mayfly said:

twolf2919 said:

mayfly said:

Don't need faster chips, denser memory chips, better cameras or higher def screens. What's there now is more than good enough. What I need, and what most of us need, is better battery life.

You don't speak for 'most of us'.  I'm perfectly happy with the battery life in my phone - even with heavy use it makes it through a whole day.  While I wouldn't commit the same mistake and claim that 'most of us' need better cameras, I certainly know quite a few people who'd want better zoom on theirs.  I do agree that performance *seems* plenty good enough for what most people use their phones for.  But I guess it's sort of like the range on electric cars: most people only go on a long trip where good range is important once or twice a year.  Yet range is exactly why most people haven't switched to EVs yet - they want that 300+mi range, just in case...maybe same with performance: you never know when you might need it, so you want it.

Better battery technology is where the money should be spent. Both for phones and EV autos. You've just validated that, so I thank you!

1) Efficiency is where money should be spent. Your myopic statement that Apple should focus only on better battery tech without any concern for making components use less power is mind boggling, to put it kindly.

2) It's also odd that you assume that because Apple has increased the power efficiency of a component (which Is much more the efforts of a 3rd-party vendor and the natural flow of technological advancement) that they are not working to, working with, and looking for ways to make better battery tech. I've seen you consistently make comments that make it seem as if you think that Apple's 164k employees are some sort of hive mind all working on one thing at a time, and that one thing happens to be what you're reading on AI at that very moment.

3) There's nothing to scoff at with this efficiency increase in 15 years.

• Original iPhone:  24 hours of audio playback and 7 hours of video playback
• iPhone 15 Pro Max: 95 hours of audio playback and 29 hours of video playback

https://www.macworld.com/article/678413/iphone-battery-capacities-compared-all-iphones-battery-life-in-mah-and-wh.html

danox

mayfly said:

Don't need faster chips, denser memory chips, better cameras or higher def screens. What's there now is more than good enough. What I need, and what most of us need, is better battery life.

Then you want to buy the Samsung S23, the battery 13% larger than the Apple 15 Pro, and yet the battery life is worse, it has less ability, across-the-board, OS, fit and finish, picture, video, third-party programs, etc etc…. but the battery is bigger and it has bad 10x zoom and even worse color accuracy.

StrangeDays

mayfly said:

Don't need faster chips, denser memory chips, better cameras or higher def screens. What's there now is more than good enough. What I need, and what most of us need, is better battery life.

Better chips like Apple silicon improve efficiency and deliver more compute per watt, netting longer battery usage. 

mayfly

StrangeDays said:

mayfly said:

Don't need faster chips, denser memory chips, better cameras or higher def screens. What's there now is more than good enough. What I need, and what most of us need, is better battery life.

Better chips like Apple silicon improve efficiency and deliver more compute per watt, netting longer battery usage. 

And better battery technology would improve on that result, wouldn't it? We're still using the same Anode, Cathode, Electrolyte battery tech that was invented in 1800 by Alessandro Volta. To date, only the materials have changed, incrementally allowing more energy from the same package, at the expense of creating more heat. There's no free lunch, but something better is needed when EVERY electronic device, tool and auto now run on batteries, or will in the near future.

Xed

mayfly said:

StrangeDays said:

mayfly said:

Don't need faster chips, denser memory chips, better cameras or higher def screens. What's there now is more than good enough. What I need, and what most of us need, is better battery life.

Better chips like Apple silicon improve efficiency and deliver more compute per watt, netting longer battery usage. 

And better battery technology would improve on that result, wouldn't it? We're still using the same Anode, Cathode, Electrolyte battery tech that was invented in 1800 by Alessandro Volta. To date, only the materials have changed, incrementally allowing more energy from the same package, at the expense of creating more heat. There's no free lunch, but something better is needed when EVERY electronic device, tool and auto now run on batteries, or will in the near future.

1) No, it's not the same battery tech from 1800. It is constantly improving in ways that Volta couldn't have possibly predicted. For you to claim otherwise is to assert that innovations don't really count if they're still using ion exchanges for energy creation, which is yet another fatuous argument on your part.

https://www.energymonitor.ai/transport/us-scientists-make-breakthrough-for-long-range-electric-vehicle-batteries/#?cf-view


2) Are you one of those people that will say "something better is needed" as if that's not obvious to innovation and then when something better is found by people doing real work you then claim it was your idea and that you should get credit for their efforts?

theotherphil

mayfly said:

Don't need faster chips, denser memory chips, better cameras or higher def screens. What's there now is more than good enough. What I need, and what most of us need, is better battery life.

When we set the upper limit of PC-DOS at 640K, we thought nobody would ever need that much memory.  — William Gates, chairman of Microsoft

mayfly

Xed said:

mayfly said:

StrangeDays said:

mayfly said:

Don't need faster chips, denser memory chips, better cameras or higher def screens. What's there now is more than good enough. What I need, and what most of us need, is better battery life.

Better chips like Apple silicon improve efficiency and deliver more compute per watt, netting longer battery usage. 

And better battery technology would improve on that result, wouldn't it? We're still using the same Anode, Cathode, Electrolyte battery tech that was invented in 1800 by Alessandro Volta. To date, only the materials have changed, incrementally allowing more energy from the same package, at the expense of creating more heat. There's no free lunch, but something better is needed when EVERY electronic device, tool and auto now run on batteries, or will in the near future.

1) No, it's not the same battery tech from 1800. It is constantly improving in ways that Volta couldn't have possibly predicted. For you to claim otherwise is to assert that innovations don't really count if they're still using ion exchanges for energy creation, which is yet another fatuous argument on your part.

https://www.energymonitor.ai/transport/us-scientists-make-breakthrough-for-long-range-electric-vehicle-batteries/#?cf-view


2) Are you one of those people that will say "something better is needed" as if that's not obvious to innovation and then when something better is found by people doing real work you then claim it was your idea and that you should get credit for their efforts?

Don't need links that just prove what I'm saying. I need someone to DESCRIBE the difference, because there is no difference in the fundamental technology that creates power from exothermic chemical reactions.

Xed

mayfly said:

Xed said:

mayfly said:

StrangeDays said:

mayfly said:

Don't need faster chips, denser memory chips, better cameras or higher def screens. What's there now is more than good enough. What I need, and what most of us need, is better battery life.

Better chips like Apple silicon improve efficiency and deliver more compute per watt, netting longer battery usage. 

And better battery technology would improve on that result, wouldn't it? We're still using the same Anode, Cathode, Electrolyte battery tech that was invented in 1800 by Alessandro Volta. To date, only the materials have changed, incrementally allowing more energy from the same package, at the expense of creating more heat. There's no free lunch, but something better is needed when EVERY electronic device, tool and auto now run on batteries, or will in the near future.

1) No, it's not the same battery tech from 1800. It is constantly improving in ways that Volta couldn't have possibly predicted. For you to claim otherwise is to assert that innovations don't really count if they're still using ion exchanges for energy creation, which is yet another fatuous argument on your part.

https://www.energymonitor.ai/transport/us-scientists-make-breakthrough-for-long-range-electric-vehicle-batteries/#?cf-view


2) Are you one of those people that will say "something better is needed" as if that's not obvious to innovation and then when something better is found by people doing real work you then claim it was your idea and that you should get credit for their efforts?

Don't need links that just prove what I'm saying. I need someone to DESCRIBE the difference, because there is no difference in the fundamental technology that creates power from exothermic chemical reactions.

Ah, so you don't have a basic foundation of physics.

mayfly

danox said:

mayfly said:

Don't need faster chips, denser memory chips, better cameras or higher def screens. What's there now is more than good enough. What I need, and what most of us need, is better battery life.

Then you want to buy the Samsung S23, the battery 13% larger than the Apple 15 Pro, and yet the battery life is worse, it has less ability, across-the-board, OS, fit and finish, picture, video, third-party programs, etc etc…. but the battery is bigger and it has bad 10x zoom and even worse color accuracy.

I'd rather go without a smartphone than buy ANY Android phone. Or anything but iOS. Of course, I worked 11 years for Apple, and made good money, and made even more by investing in shares through Apple's discount ESOP with every paycheck.

Honkers

mayfly said:

Xed said:

mayfly said:

StrangeDays said:

mayfly said:

Don't need faster chips, denser memory chips, better cameras or higher def screens. What's there now is more than good enough. What I need, and what most of us need, is better battery life.

Better chips like Apple silicon improve efficiency and deliver more compute per watt, netting longer battery usage. 

And better battery technology would improve on that result, wouldn't it? We're still using the same Anode, Cathode, Electrolyte battery tech that was invented in 1800 by Alessandro Volta. To date, only the materials have changed, incrementally allowing more energy from the same package, at the expense of creating more heat. There's no free lunch, but something better is needed when EVERY electronic device, tool and auto now run on batteries, or will in the near future.

1) No, it's not the same battery tech from 1800. It is constantly improving in ways that Volta couldn't have possibly predicted. For you to claim otherwise is to assert that innovations don't really count if they're still using ion exchanges for energy creation, which is yet another fatuous argument on your part.

https://www.energymonitor.ai/transport/us-scientists-make-breakthrough-for-long-range-electric-vehicle-batteries/#?cf-view


2) Are you one of those people that will say "something better is needed" as if that's not obvious to innovation and then when something better is found by people doing real work you then claim it was your idea and that you should get credit for their efforts?

Don't need links that just prove what I'm saying. I need someone to DESCRIBE the difference, because there is no difference in the fundamental technology that creates power from exothermic chemical reactions.

This is so reductive and meaningless, you may as well say that Apple should be investing in iPhones that don't need electricity at all, because surely a trillion dollar company can do such a thing. 

Xed

Honkers said:

mayfly said:

Xed said:

mayfly said:

StrangeDays said:

mayfly said:

Don't need faster chips, denser memory chips, better cameras or higher def screens. What's there now is more than good enough. What I need, and what most of us need, is better battery life.

Better chips like Apple silicon improve efficiency and deliver more compute per watt, netting longer battery usage. 

And better battery technology would improve on that result, wouldn't it? We're still using the same Anode, Cathode, Electrolyte battery tech that was invented in 1800 by Alessandro Volta. To date, only the materials have changed, incrementally allowing more energy from the same package, at the expense of creating more heat. There's no free lunch, but something better is needed when EVERY electronic device, tool and auto now run on batteries, or will in the near future.

1) No, it's not the same battery tech from 1800. It is constantly improving in ways that Volta couldn't have possibly predicted. For you to claim otherwise is to assert that innovations don't really count if they're still using ion exchanges for energy creation, which is yet another fatuous argument on your part.

https://www.energymonitor.ai/transport/us-scientists-make-breakthrough-for-long-range-electric-vehicle-batteries/#?cf-view


2) Are you one of those people that will say "something better is needed" as if that's not obvious to innovation and then when something better is found by people doing real work you then claim it was your idea and that you should get credit for their efforts?

Don't need links that just prove what I'm saying. I need someone to DESCRIBE the difference, because there is no difference in the fundamental technology that creates power from exothermic chemical reactions.

This is so reductive and meaningless, you may as well say that Apple should be investing in iPhones that don't need electricity at all, because surely a trillion dollar company can do such a thing. 

And titanium was discovered in 1791. No innovation!
And glass was invented 4000 years ago. No innovation!

🙄

mayfly

Honkers said:

mayfly said:

Xed said:

mayfly said:

StrangeDays said:

mayfly said:

Don't need faster chips, denser memory chips, better cameras or higher def screens. What's there now is more than good enough. What I need, and what most of us need, is better battery life.

Better chips like Apple silicon improve efficiency and deliver more compute per watt, netting longer battery usage. 

And better battery technology would improve on that result, wouldn't it? We're still using the same Anode, Cathode, Electrolyte battery tech that was invented in 1800 by Alessandro Volta. To date, only the materials have changed, incrementally allowing more energy from the same package, at the expense of creating more heat. There's no free lunch, but something better is needed when EVERY electronic device, tool and auto now run on batteries, or will in the near future.

1) No, it's not the same battery tech from 1800. It is constantly improving in ways that Volta couldn't have possibly predicted. For you to claim otherwise is to assert that innovations don't really count if they're still using ion exchanges for energy creation, which is yet another fatuous argument on your part.

https://www.energymonitor.ai/transport/us-scientists-make-breakthrough-for-long-range-electric-vehicle-batteries/#?cf-view


2) Are you one of those people that will say "something better is needed" as if that's not obvious to innovation and then when something better is found by people doing real work you then claim it was your idea and that you should get credit for their efforts?

Don't need links that just prove what I'm saying. I need someone to DESCRIBE the difference, because there is no difference in the fundamental technology that creates power from exothermic chemical reactions.

This is so reductive and meaningless, you may as well say that Apple should be investing in iPhones that don't need electricity at all, because surely a trillion dollar company can do such a thing. 

Youse guys doubting Thomases remind me of the skeptics at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory in the 1950's, who thought solid propulsion rocket fuel was an impossible myth. Until it wasn't. That's where battery tech is headed, and where big players like Apple, Samsung, or Sony, and automakers like the Big Three should be working feverishly to improve manufacturing processes to bring down costs. Then youse guys will be able to buy products with safer, cooler, and more efficient power generation. But so far, it's just a pipe dream. Until it isn't.