iPhone 17 Pro will get TSMC's first 2nm chips

AppleInsiderAppleInsider
Posted:
in General Discussion edited December 2023

TSMC is competing against Intel and Samsung to bring out crucial 2-nanometer chips for their clients, with TSMC on track to provide Apple the technology for the iPhone 17 Pro in 2025.

TSMC



The race to shrink chip architectures even smaller continues to be big business for chip the major chip foundries. In a profile of the $500 billion industry, Apple chip partner TSMC is said to be working steadily to bring out chips using the tech in the coming years.

According to two sources with knowledge of discussions speaking to the Financial Times, TSMC has shown the process test results for its "N2" prototypes to major customers. These customers include Apple and Nvidia.

Rival Samsung has apparently attempted to tempt major customers like Nvidia by offering cut-price 2-nanometer prototypes. However, it seems that TSMC may still fare better in some eyes.

"Samsung sees 2-nanometer as a game-changer," said Dalton Investments analyst James Lim. "But people are still doubtful it can execute the migration better than TSMC."

In part, it's because TSMC is already working at the 3-nanometer level. A number of Apple products, including the A17 Pro in the iPhone 15 Pro line. Meanwhile, Samsung is struggling with a low yield rate for 3-nanometer chips at just 60 percent.

TSMC has previously said it was working on mass producing 2-nanometer chips by 2025, with Apple typically the main customer to debut chips using the process.

Executives told the report the N2 technology development was "progressing well and on track for volume production in 2025, and will be the most advanced semiconductor technology in the industry in both density and energy efficiency when it is introduced."

Mass production in 2025 would, if conducted early enough, allow Apple to use the technology for that year's chip release, presumably called the A19. In theory, it would then be made available in the iPhone 17 Pro range for that year, unless Apple changes its chip release strategy.

Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 15
    badmonkbadmonk Posts: 1,295member
    It seems that the TSMC pecking order for the cutting edge is-

    1. Apple, now soaking up most (or all) of the 3nm production per multiple sources.

    2. Nvidia, 4nm (per the FT).  Good for their AI machinations.

    3.  Everyone else.

    The 2nm should be a boon for computing efficiency and heat dissipation needed for AR/VR and Apple’s aspirations for consumer products.
    byronlwatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 15
    ducarmurducarmur Posts: 1member
    Just brain storming here.

    anyone, please share their thoughts of this.

    1. Why doesn't apple buy TMSC?

    2. Regulator reason?

    #.Is there an issue of cash on hand?

    4. Apple wants to control everything.....it is their nature...

    5. What am I missing?

    6 Consider Apple could have owned ARM!

    7. What are the issues here???
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 15
    leehericksleehericks Posts: 41member
    Intel is definitely not in the competition. 😂
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 15
    davendaven Posts: 696member
    ducarmur said:
    Just brain storming here.

    anyone, please share their thoughts of this.

    1. Why doesn't apple buy TMSC?

    2. Regulator reason?

    #.Is there an issue of cash on hand?

    4. Apple wants to control everything.....it is their nature...

    5. What am I missing?

    6 Consider Apple could have owned ARM!

    7. What are the issues here???
    That would be nice but I don’t think TSMC wants to be bought out.
    watto_cobratht
  • Reply 5 of 15
    iOS_Guy80iOS_Guy80 Posts: 814member
    What happens after 1-nm? 0-nm?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 15
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,308member
    I wonder how Samsung is doing in the alternate universe in which they did not lose apple as a foundry customer. My guess: much better than in this universe. Was it really worth losing apple’s foundry business just to sell a few more iPhone knock off smartphones, Sammy?

    Same for Intel. Imagine if Intel had agreed to fab the SOC for iPhone. 
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 15
    beowulfschmidtbeowulfschmidt Posts: 2,141member
    daven said:
    ducarmur said:
    Just brain storming here.

    anyone, please share their thoughts of this.

    1. Why doesn't apple buy TMSC?

    2. Regulator reason?

    #.Is there an issue of cash on hand?

    4. Apple wants to control everything.....it is their nature...

    5. What am I missing?

    6 Consider Apple could have owned ARM!

    7. What are the issues here???
    That would be nice but I don’t think TSMC wants to be bought out.
    Not only that but I'm sure that the governments of both Taiwan and China would object.  Strenuously.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 15
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,308member

    ducarmur said:
    Just brain storming here.

    anyone, please share their thoughts of this.

    1. Why doesn't apple buy TMSC?

    2. Regulator reason?

    #.Is there an issue of cash on hand?

    4. Apple wants to control everything.....it is their nature...

    5. What am I missing?

    6 Consider Apple could have owned ARM!

    7. What are the issues here???
    Why buy the cow when you get the milk on favorable terms? Also, the cow lives next door to a pack of wolves who keep threatening to attack. 

    My question: why doesn’t intel do whatever it takes to get some foundry business from apple?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 15
    muthuk_vanalingammuthuk_vanalingam Posts: 1,334member
    blastdoor said:
    I wonder how Samsung is doing in the alternate universe in which they did not lose apple as a foundry customer. My guess: much better than in this universe. Was it really worth losing apple’s foundry business just to sell a few more iPhone knock off smartphones, Sammy?

    Same for Intel. Imagine if Intel had agreed to fab the SOC for iPhone. 
    Are you implying that Samsung being in smartphones business is the primary reason for Apple choosing TSMC as the foundry for their SoCs? But that is not an issue for Apple choosing to get other components (display being the major one) from the same Samsung anyways. And that Samsung would have made more money by abandoning their entire smartphone portfolio just to please Apple for the foundry side of their business???

    I usually enjoy reading your posts, but this must be the most insane post I have ever read from you. What were you smoking when you made that post?
    williamlondon
  • Reply 10 of 15
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,308member
    muthuk_vanalingam said:
    blastdoor said:
    I wonder how Samsung is doing in the alternate universe in which they did not lose apple as a foundry customer. My guess: much better than in this universe. Was it really worth losing apple’s foundry business just to sell a few more iPhone knock off smartphones, Sammy?

    Same for Intel. Imagine if Intel had agreed to fab the SOC for iPhone. 
    Are you implying that Samsung being in smartphones business is the primary reason for Apple choosing TSMC as the foundry for their SoCs? But that is not an issue for Apple choosing to get other components (display being the major one) from the same Samsung anyways. And that Samsung would have made more money by abandoning their entire smartphone portfolio just to please Apple for the foundry side of their business???

    I usually enjoy reading your posts, but this must be the most insane post I have ever read from you. What were you smoking when you made that post?
    I should clarify…. 

    Samsung didn’t just sell smartphones, they flagrantly copied Apple designs (both hardware and UI). They were also pretty aggressive in anti-apple ads. All this when apple was using Samsung as their exclusive foundry partner. At that time, Samsung and TSMC were very similar in terms of process, so Apple had the option to switch to TSMC and did so. Ironically, Samsung’s smartphones today do not copy apple so flagrantly. If Samsung had not been so aggressively offensive to apple back then, I think apple might have stayed with them. 

    Apple would have loved to dump Samsung as their display provider, too, but they couldn’t because nobody else is as good as Samsung at making those displays. It’s kind of like Qualcomm with cellular modems — Apple would love to dump them, but can’t because there are no credible alternatives.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 15
    danoxdanox Posts: 2,874member
    ducarmur said:
    Just brain storming here.

    anyone, please share their thoughts of this.

    1. Why doesn't apple buy TMSC?

    2. Regulator reason?

    #.Is there an issue of cash on hand?

    4. Apple wants to control everything.....it is their nature...

    5. What am I missing?

    6 Consider Apple could have owned ARM!

    7. What are the issues here???
    Because the East Asians Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, do not sell the Crown Jewel companies and neither do the Germans. Think for a minute. Only the English speaking countries sell out everything if they can, they will even sell land on a grand scale to non citizens too. America, Canada, UK, Australia, and New Zealand are up for sell, but the reverse isn't true in those other countries..... 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 15
    danoxdanox Posts: 2,874member
    blastdoor said:
    blastdoor said:
    I wonder how Samsung is doing in the alternate universe in which they did not lose apple as a foundry customer. My guess: much better than in this universe. Was it really worth losing apple’s foundry business just to sell a few more iPhone knock off smartphones, Sammy?

    Same for Intel. Imagine if Intel had agreed to fab the SOC for iPhone. 
    Are you implying that Samsung being in smartphones business is the primary reason for Apple choosing TSMC as the foundry for their SoCs? But that is not an issue for Apple choosing to get other components (display being the major one) from the same Samsung anyways. And that Samsung would have made more money by abandoning their entire smartphone portfolio just to please Apple for the foundry side of their business???

    I usually enjoy reading your posts, but this must be the most insane post I have ever read from you. What were you smoking when you made that post?
    I should clarify…. 

    Samsung didn’t just sell smartphones, they flagrantly copied Apple designs (both hardware and UI). They were also pretty aggressive in anti-apple ads. All this when apple was using Samsung as their exclusive foundry partner. At that time, Samsung and TSMC were very similar in terms of process, so Apple had the option to switch to TSMC and did so. Ironically, Samsung’s smartphones today do not copy apple so flagrantly. If Samsung had not been so aggressively offensive to apple back then, I think apple might have stayed with them. 

    Apple would have loved to dump Samsung as their display provider, too, but they couldn’t because nobody else is as good as Samsung at making those displays. It’s kind of like Qualcomm with cellular modems — Apple would love to dump them, but can’t because there are no credible alternatives.

    The Chinese and Google are using other modems (note: Google gets a free pass on that sub par performance), Apple just has higher standards and more money than them, and Apple is still working on it (modems) so what if it takes 13 years like replacing Intel chips, if will be entirely worth it in the end because Apple will be able to build what they want.

    One thing must be said once Apple kicked Samsung out their ability to fast/follow copy Apple is over, Samsung is having problems with their in house software OS and SOC'S and the same can be said of Google, the OS software/hardware integration is still years behind Apple. I was surprise at how far back the Tensor/Samsung SOC'S are in relation to Apples current chips.
    edited December 2023 watto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 15
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,326moderator
    iOS_Guy80 said:
    What happens after 1-nm? 0-nm?
    There's a limit due to the size of the atoms. Silicon is around 0.5nm:

    https://www.princeton.edu/~maelabs/mae324/glos324/silicon.htm

    Current chips are 3nm (2023-2025), next is 2nm (2026-2028), then there's probably two updates left: 1.4nm (2029-2031), 1nm (2032-2034).

    Enough for another decade of improvements. If they manage 20% improvement each year, that will result in 6x performance improvement over 3nm. M3 Max is around 16TFLOPs so close to 100TFLOPs in a laptop eventually and entry Macbook Airs will be faster than M3 Max.

    People are already settling into lower-end hardware because it does everything they need so people will just buy computers and use then until they need a new one. The manufacturing will become like appliances.
    ForumPostwatto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 15
    lloyddeanlloyddean Posts: 13member
    iOS_Guy80 said:
    What happens after 1-nm? 0-nm?
    Borg'let Cubes

     <https://spectrum.ieee.org/cfet-intel-samsung-tsmc>
  • Reply 15 of 15
    thttht Posts: 5,452member
    Don’t get your hopes up for the iPhone 17 Pro to have an TSMC 2nm chip. 

    I think Apple will have 3 generations of iPhone, and iPads and Macs, use TSMC 3nm fabs. 

    So, probably iPhone 18 Pro in 2026. 
Sign In or Register to comment.