The only problem with that is that you're assuming that ARM will stand still.
You're also assuming that Apple wants to do more business with Intel than they already do. I can see it now - Intel spending $300 M to subsidize iPhone clones from HTC, Motorola, and Samsung. It would take a HUGE performance advantage for that to be worthwhile for Apple.
How did I assume that.
Medfield can go toe to toe with current chips
Clovertrail will go toe to toe on a15 cpu which will be release around the same time.
Once Intel gets the ball rolling it will be hard to stop them.
Clovertrail will go toe to toe on a15 cpu which will be release around the same time.
Once Intel gets the ball rolling it will be hard to stop them.
So after many years, they've managed to catch up in CPU performance and power consumption, although they still trail badly in GPU performance.
At the next generation, they will remain roughly comparable on CPU performance.
So how do you conclude that Intel is suddenly going to be in the lead?
Furthermore, why should Apple spend all the time and money to switch to a CPU that is, by your own admission, only comparable to what they already have - and risk Intel subsidizing their competitors' clones again?
Intel will never make ARM cpu.
Intel's current medfield soc beats most CPU but are using PVR old pvr gpu
Intel's dual core clovertrail sadly will still use PVR
Intel's 3rd gen soc for phones will use their own gpu and will meet or beat pvr fastest gpu.
So apple moving to Intel for phones is a smart idea. Better cpus better process.
Intel dont make ARM CPU, but they do make ARM SoC, and for themselves, SSD Controller / Network Controller etc.
Intel has considered, and is stilling considering to Fabs SoC for Apple. Why? Because you either get catched up by Samsung, pass them the deal, or help Apple with it.
To answer why Sammy is doing way better with 32nm, is simply because they have WAY more fabs running at 2xnm already for NAND and RAM. These expertise and results will make them much more prepared for manufacturing complex CPU when these Fabs are ready.
And no, Intel 3rd Gen SoC with Ivy Bridge Gfx wont beat PVR's gen 6 Rogue. Not by far. And you are counting on Intel making progress in their Drivers development which is pretty much hopeless. ( They are improving though )....
But yes, at the current state and pace, it looks like it will only be Intel who can win in the long run. Fabs Cost and building SoC is just not sustainable in the future.
So after many years, they've managed to catch up in CPU performance and power consumption, although they still trail badly in GPU performance.
At the next generation, they will remain roughly comparable on CPU performance.
So how do you conclude that Intel is suddenly going to be in the lead?
Furthermore, why should Apple spend all the time and money to switch to a CPU that is, by your own admission, only comparable to what they already have - and risk Intel subsidizing their competitors' clones again?
They are currently comparable current generation as their are no A15 out.
Previous edition havent been release because they werent comparable (green ridge). It took years for Intel to create something can compete.
Intel designs and makes their soc.
GPU is from the same people who make the ones for apple. PVR.
Intel will not use their own gpu until they are comparable or faster then PVR
Cloverfield is a dual core medfield on a better process.
There's a reason why Apple jump shipped to Intel. Intel makes the best SOC. Look at the performance difference between intel and amd in cpu. Even in gpu Intel is more efficient per area than AMD.
The A5X are the same cpus android uses. Biggest difference is gpu.
Intel dont make ARM CPU, but they do make ARM SoC, and for themselves, SSD Controller / Network Controller etc.
Intel has considered, and is stilling considering to Fabs SoC for Apple. Why? Because you either get catched up by Samsung, pass them the deal, or help Apple with it.
To answer why Sammy is doing way better with 32nm, is simply because they have WAY more fabs running at 2xnm already for NAND and RAM. These expertise and results will make them much more prepared for manufacturing complex CPU when these Fabs are ready.
And no, Intel 3rd Gen SoC with Ivy Bridge Gfx wont beat PVR's gen 6 Rogue. Not by far. And you are counting on Intel making progress in their Drivers development which is pretty much hopeless. ( They are improving though )....
But yes, at the current state and pace, it looks like it will only be Intel who can win in the long run. Fabs Cost and building SoC is just not sustainable in the future.
TSMC and Global foundries have yield issues with their latest process. None of them even come close to the yields intel gets and why Intel has a 60% margin (better than apples)
We will see how SOC ivy bridge Gfx will compete with gen 6 Rogue or any other gpu of its type.
Apple has cash to make fabs of their own yet they still contract their fab and manufacturing process
They are currently comparable current generation as their are no A15 out.
Previous edition havent been release because they werent comparable (green ridge). It took years for Intel to create something can compete.
Intel designs and makes their soc.
GPU is from the same people who make the ones for apple. PVR.
Intel will not use their own gpu until they are comparable or faster then PVR
Cloverfield is a dual core medfield on a better process.
There's a reason why Apple jump shipped to Intel. Intel makes the best SOC. Look at the performance difference between intel and amd in cpu. Even in gpu Intel is more efficient per area than AMD.
The A5X are the same cpus android uses. Biggest difference is gpu.
Still waiting for you to explain why Apple should do the work to switch to a comparable CPU and require all of their developers to rework their apps. And then deal with the very real possibility that Intel will subsidize HTC and Motorola and Samsung to make iPhone clones. You haven't given a single reason why that makes sense for Apple. "Intel is catching up and might actually reach parity some day" isn't justification.
Still waiting for you to explain why Apple should do the work to switch to a comparable CPU and require all of their developers to rework their apps. And then deal with the very real possibility that Intel will subsidize HTC and Motorola and Samsung to make iPhone clones. You haven't given a single reason why that makes sense for Apple. "Intel is catching up and might actually reach parity some day" isn't justification.
Why are you waiting. I have answered it before.
Fab Process (4 years ahead everyone)
Processor Speed. Intel isnt catching up. It has caught up. Beats most phone processors out there
Whats your evidence "Intel will subsidize HTC and Motorola and Samsung to make iPhone clones"
Fab process is irrelevant. In fact, it argues against your point. Intel is only able to reach near parity by using a far more advanced process. If ARM manufacturers catch up with Intel's process, their chips will be better. Until then, Intel is, at best, equivalent.
Processor speed is irrelevant. No one cares about clock speed. What matters is performance. Intel is slightly better on CPU but much worse on GPU, so there's no clear advantage. You keep claiming that Intel will get better, but so will ARM.
Intel subsidized Apple's competitors to the tune of $300 M to make MacBook Air clones. Apple would be foolish to not consider that Intel might do the same thing with the iPhone if they were supplying Apple's chips.
So there's nothing there that provides any compelling reason for Apple to change. AT BEST, Intel may have caught up. Even if they have a very slight performance advantage, that wouldn't be enough to make Apple switch.
Fab process is irrelevant. In fact, it argues against your point. Intel is only able to reach near parity by using a far more advanced process. If ARM manufacturers catch up with Intel's process, their chips will be better. Until then, Intel is, at best, equivalent.
Processor speed is irrelevant. No one cares about clock speed. What matters is performance. Intel is slightly better on CPU but much worse on GPU, so there's no clear advantage. You keep claiming that Intel will get better, but so will ARM.
Intel subsidized Apple's competitors to the tune of $300 M to make MacBook Air clones. Apple would be foolish to not consider that Intel might do the same thing with the iPhone if they were supplying Apple's chips.
So there's nothing there that provides any compelling reason for Apple to change. AT BEST, Intel may have caught up. Even if they have a very slight performance advantage, that wouldn't be enough to make Apple switch.
Medfield is on 32 nm not 22nm. Having better fabs process means no delay when moving forward to next gen fabs. This is important when comparing to TSMC and global foundries who have yield issues and cant keep up with demand. Supply is the reason why apple is still in bed with Samsung.
Processor speed = performance. More speed = better performance.
GPU is currently not by Intel. You keep saying gpu is bad, and I will continue to keep telling you PVR designs the GPU. Same people who design iphones GPU.
So you translate one behavior to extrapolate another as your evidence of Intel helping iphone competitors. So looking at how Apple jumped to intel cpu for their desktop, apple will do the same for phones.
Code sharing would be another benefit with using and x86 cpu on both phone and desktop
TSMC and Global foundries have yield issues with their latest process. None of them even come close to the yields intel gets and why Intel has a 60% margin (better than apples)
We will see how SOC ivy bridge Gfx will compete with gen 6 Rogue or any other gpu of its type.
Apple has cash to make fabs of their own yet they still contract their fab and manufacturing process
When Apple is considering where to get their chips from, I would think they consider two factors: 1) chip capabilities (CPU, GPU, I/O, power/performance, etc.) and 2) the semiconductor's ability to produce the chips in high volume. I seriously doubt that Apple would be the leading customer for TSMC at 20nm. TSMC hasn't been able to produce anything in high volume at 28nm, so why on Earth would Apple think TSMC could do it at 20nm? They wouldn't take the risk that TSMC drops the ball again. Look at all of the Nvidia-TSMC drama and how Nvidia is airing their TSMC garbage in public. Apple doesn't want to be in their shoes.
I think that's why they are sticking with an older process technology for their A-series SoCs. It's proven (even if it is older) and they likely get it for cheaper. Apple is such a high-volume customer that they won't go to a new process until it's 100% reliable.
That's why I think they will stick with Intel on their Mac line. Nobody else has a proven track record to produce in high volume like Intel does at leading process technology.
Just_me, where do you get this nonsense? AMDs GPUs run rings around Intels offerings. As to whom makes a better SoC AMD has been getting an awful lot of design ins for it SoC because it offers a very very good balance when it comes to performance.
They are currently comparable current generation as their are no A15 out.
Previous edition havent been release because they werent comparable (green ridge). It took years for Intel to create something can compete.
Intel designs and makes their soc.
GPU is from the same people who make the ones for apple. PVR.
Intel will not use their own gpu until they are comparable or faster then PVR
Don't you mean Imagination?
Cloverfield is a dual core medfield on a better process.
There's a reason why Apple jump shipped to Intel. Intel makes the best SOC. Look at the performance difference between intel and amd in cpu. Even in gpu Intel is more efficient per area than AMD.
The A5X are the same cpus android uses. Biggest difference is gpu.
No surprise there it is after all an ARM CPU. In any event you havent offered one sound reason to support Intel in a tablet or cell phone.
When Apple is considering where to get their chips from, I would think they consider two factors: 1) chip capabilities (CPU, GPU, I/O, power/performance, etc.) and 2) the semiconductor's ability to produce the chips in high volume. I seriously doubt that Apple would be the leading customer for TSMC at 20nm. TSMC hasn't been able to produce anything in high volume at 28nm, so why on Earth would Apple think TSMC could do it at 20nm? They wouldn't take the risk that TSMC drops the ball again. Look at all of the Nvidia-TSMC drama and how Nvidia is airing their TSMC garbage in public. Apple doesn't want to be in their shoes.
I think that's why they are sticking with an older process technology for their A-series SoCs. It's proven (even if it is older) and they likely get it for cheaper. Apple is such a high-volume customer that they won't go to a new process until it's 100% reliable.
That's why I think they will stick with Intel on their Mac line. Nobody else has a proven track record to produce in high volume like Intel does at leading process technology.
You are arguing my point that Apple should or will switch to Intel for phones cpu. We are on the same side
Just_me, where do you get this nonsense? AMDs GPUs run rings around Intels offerings. As to whom makes a better SoC AMD has been getting an awful lot of design ins for it SoC because it offers a very very good balance when it comes to performance.
No surprise there it is after all an ARM CPU. In any event you havent offered one sound reason to support Intel in a tablet or cell phone.
AMD llano does run faster than Intels iGX. Even runs faster than the just release IVB. But if you look at the percentage AMD dedicates on the die for GPU you will see that the SNB has a better GPU performance per percentage on the cpu die. With IVB thaentert efficiency increases. Intel also makes more power efficient device. A few years ago AMD had then crown but now Intel has it. AMD has stated they will not enter the phone market anytime soon.
Biggest reason to support Intel in the mobile market is to one day have 1 device that you can use for cell phone and a desktop replacement on one device. Ubuntu is releasing a version of their OS on android that will launch when you connect an HDMI cord to the phone. Pair that a bluetooth keyboard and mouse you can replace a desktop computer for most people. You may not even need to connect a hdmi in the future when utilizing Intel's widi.
So if android can run ubuntu I would like Apple see iOS be able to run a full desktop OSX and remove the need for most people who use computers to run office products and surf the web.
That's ridiculous. How in the world does Apple benefit from Intel subsidizing Apple's competitors with $300 M?
Apple had an incredible lead over the competition and they were capturing a huge percentage of that class of computer sales. Intel didn't do much to increase the size of that market. Rather, they reduced Apple's share. Now, if Intel had used the $300 M to cut prices across the board for those processors, you might be right. Or if Intel had put that $300 M into improving the process technology, you would have a point. But directly subsidizing Apple's competitors doesn't do a thing for Apple.
I wasn't referring to the subsidy, which came after anyway. Apple's business with whatever other customers were buying those chips may not have been enough to justify heavier R&D. How do you figure they reduced Apple's share? Not many people buy a Mac if they intend to primarily run Windows.
AMD llano does run faster than Intels iGX. Even runs faster than the just release IVB. But if you look at the percentage AMD dedicates on the die for GPU you will see that the SNB has a better GPU performance per percentage on the cpu die. With IVB thaentert efficiency increases. Intel also makes more power efficient device. A few years ago AMD had then crown but now Intel has it. AMD has stated they will not enter the phone market anytime soon.
Again your metrics are nonsense. But if you want to convince me post the Math that shows Intel getting better GPU performance per WATT.
Biggest reason to support Intel in the mobile market is to one day have 1 device that you can use for cell phone and a desktop replacement on one device.
That might be feasible for some users in the distant future, but current desktops and laptops are so far from having the performance I want that I honestly think I will be dead and gone before there is a cell phone that can effectively replace my Mac.
Mind you I just got through with a session on my MBP where I had to resist the temptation to chuck it through a Window. So while it is nice to dream reality is another issue. In fact I'm fairly certain that Silicon technology will not get us there, if that is the case who cares about legacy hardware designs.
Ubuntu is releasing a version of their OS on android that will launch when you connect an HDMI cord to the phone. Pair that a bluetooth keyboard and mouse you can replace a desktop computer for most people. You may not even need to connect a hdmi in the future when utilizing Intel's widi.
You can already do this on Apple hardware. That is connect up a Bluetooth keyboard and use the device as a computer replacement. A computer replacement for your simpler needs.
So if android can run ubuntu I would like Apple see iOS be able to run a full desktop OSX and remove the need for most people who use computers to run office products and surf the web.
You are grossly out of touch here!! Have you even used an iPad? MacOS isn't needed to run office type apps or to surf the web.
In any event I think you have a thin understanding of technology, ATOM is an embarrassment for Intel. It implements far to much legacy technology for devices that don't need it. More so these devices are actually at a disadvantage because excess power usage.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
The only problem with that is that you're assuming that ARM will stand still.
You're also assuming that Apple wants to do more business with Intel than they already do. I can see it now - Intel spending $300 M to subsidize iPhone clones from HTC, Motorola, and Samsung. It would take a HUGE performance advantage for that to be worthwhile for Apple.
How did I assume that.
Medfield can go toe to toe with current chips
Clovertrail will go toe to toe on a15 cpu which will be release around the same time.
Once Intel gets the ball rolling it will be hard to stop them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me
How did I assume that.
Medfield can go toe to toe with current chips
Clovertrail will go toe to toe on a15 cpu which will be release around the same time.
Once Intel gets the ball rolling it will be hard to stop them.
So after many years, they've managed to catch up in CPU performance and power consumption, although they still trail badly in GPU performance.
At the next generation, they will remain roughly comparable on CPU performance.
So how do you conclude that Intel is suddenly going to be in the lead?
Furthermore, why should Apple spend all the time and money to switch to a CPU that is, by your own admission, only comparable to what they already have - and risk Intel subsidizing their competitors' clones again?
Intel dont make ARM CPU, but they do make ARM SoC, and for themselves, SSD Controller / Network Controller etc.
Intel has considered, and is stilling considering to Fabs SoC for Apple. Why? Because you either get catched up by Samsung, pass them the deal, or help Apple with it.
To answer why Sammy is doing way better with 32nm, is simply because they have WAY more fabs running at 2xnm already for NAND and RAM. These expertise and results will make them much more prepared for manufacturing complex CPU when these Fabs are ready.
And no, Intel 3rd Gen SoC with Ivy Bridge Gfx wont beat PVR's gen 6 Rogue. Not by far. And you are counting on Intel making progress in their Drivers development which is pretty much hopeless. ( They are improving though )....
But yes, at the current state and pace, it looks like it will only be Intel who can win in the long run. Fabs Cost and building SoC is just not sustainable in the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
So after many years, they've managed to catch up in CPU performance and power consumption, although they still trail badly in GPU performance.
At the next generation, they will remain roughly comparable on CPU performance.
So how do you conclude that Intel is suddenly going to be in the lead?
Furthermore, why should Apple spend all the time and money to switch to a CPU that is, by your own admission, only comparable to what they already have - and risk Intel subsidizing their competitors' clones again?
They are currently comparable current generation as their are no A15 out.
Previous edition havent been release because they werent comparable (green ridge). It took years for Intel to create something can compete.
Intel designs and makes their soc.
GPU is from the same people who make the ones for apple. PVR.
Intel will not use their own gpu until they are comparable or faster then PVR
Cloverfield is a dual core medfield on a better process.
There's a reason why Apple jump shipped to Intel. Intel makes the best SOC. Look at the performance difference between intel and amd in cpu. Even in gpu Intel is more efficient per area than AMD.
The A5X are the same cpus android uses. Biggest difference is gpu.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksec
Intel dont make ARM CPU, but they do make ARM SoC, and for themselves, SSD Controller / Network Controller etc.
Intel has considered, and is stilling considering to Fabs SoC for Apple. Why? Because you either get catched up by Samsung, pass them the deal, or help Apple with it.
To answer why Sammy is doing way better with 32nm, is simply because they have WAY more fabs running at 2xnm already for NAND and RAM. These expertise and results will make them much more prepared for manufacturing complex CPU when these Fabs are ready.
And no, Intel 3rd Gen SoC with Ivy Bridge Gfx wont beat PVR's gen 6 Rogue. Not by far. And you are counting on Intel making progress in their Drivers development which is pretty much hopeless. ( They are improving though )....
But yes, at the current state and pace, it looks like it will only be Intel who can win in the long run. Fabs Cost and building SoC is just not sustainable in the future.
TSMC and Global foundries have yield issues with their latest process. None of them even come close to the yields intel gets and why Intel has a 60% margin (better than apples)
We will see how SOC ivy bridge Gfx will compete with gen 6 Rogue or any other gpu of its type.
Apple has cash to make fabs of their own yet they still contract their fab and manufacturing process
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me
They are currently comparable current generation as their are no A15 out.
Previous edition havent been release because they werent comparable (green ridge). It took years for Intel to create something can compete.
Intel designs and makes their soc.
GPU is from the same people who make the ones for apple. PVR.
Intel will not use their own gpu until they are comparable or faster then PVR
Cloverfield is a dual core medfield on a better process.
There's a reason why Apple jump shipped to Intel. Intel makes the best SOC. Look at the performance difference between intel and amd in cpu. Even in gpu Intel is more efficient per area than AMD.
The A5X are the same cpus android uses. Biggest difference is gpu.
Still waiting for you to explain why Apple should do the work to switch to a comparable CPU and require all of their developers to rework their apps. And then deal with the very real possibility that Intel will subsidize HTC and Motorola and Samsung to make iPhone clones. You haven't given a single reason why that makes sense for Apple. "Intel is catching up and might actually reach parity some day" isn't justification.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Still waiting for you to explain why Apple should do the work to switch to a comparable CPU and require all of their developers to rework their apps. And then deal with the very real possibility that Intel will subsidize HTC and Motorola and Samsung to make iPhone clones. You haven't given a single reason why that makes sense for Apple. "Intel is catching up and might actually reach parity some day" isn't justification.
Why are you waiting. I have answered it before.
Fab Process (4 years ahead everyone)
Processor Speed. Intel isnt catching up. It has caught up. Beats most phone processors out there
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5770/lava-xolo-x900-review-the-first-intel-medfield-phone/4
Whats your evidence "Intel will subsidize HTC and Motorola and Samsung to make iPhone clones"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me
Why are you waiting. I have answered it before.
Fab Process (4 years ahead everyone)
Processor Speed. Intel isnt catching up. It has caught up. Beats most phone processors out there
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5770/lava-xolo-x900-review-the-first-intel-medfield-phone/4
Whats your evidence "Intel will subsidize HTC and Motorola and Samsung to make iPhone clones"
Fab process is irrelevant. In fact, it argues against your point. Intel is only able to reach near parity by using a far more advanced process. If ARM manufacturers catch up with Intel's process, their chips will be better. Until then, Intel is, at best, equivalent.
Processor speed is irrelevant. No one cares about clock speed. What matters is performance. Intel is slightly better on CPU but much worse on GPU, so there's no clear advantage. You keep claiming that Intel will get better, but so will ARM.
Intel subsidized Apple's competitors to the tune of $300 M to make MacBook Air clones. Apple would be foolish to not consider that Intel might do the same thing with the iPhone if they were supplying Apple's chips.
So there's nothing there that provides any compelling reason for Apple to change. AT BEST, Intel may have caught up. Even if they have a very slight performance advantage, that wouldn't be enough to make Apple switch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Fab process is irrelevant. In fact, it argues against your point. Intel is only able to reach near parity by using a far more advanced process. If ARM manufacturers catch up with Intel's process, their chips will be better. Until then, Intel is, at best, equivalent.
Processor speed is irrelevant. No one cares about clock speed. What matters is performance. Intel is slightly better on CPU but much worse on GPU, so there's no clear advantage. You keep claiming that Intel will get better, but so will ARM.
Intel subsidized Apple's competitors to the tune of $300 M to make MacBook Air clones. Apple would be foolish to not consider that Intel might do the same thing with the iPhone if they were supplying Apple's chips.
So there's nothing there that provides any compelling reason for Apple to change. AT BEST, Intel may have caught up. Even if they have a very slight performance advantage, that wouldn't be enough to make Apple switch.
Medfield is on 32 nm not 22nm. Having better fabs process means no delay when moving forward to next gen fabs. This is important when comparing to TSMC and global foundries who have yield issues and cant keep up with demand. Supply is the reason why apple is still in bed with Samsung.
Processor speed = performance. More speed = better performance.
GPU is currently not by Intel. You keep saying gpu is bad, and I will continue to keep telling you PVR designs the GPU. Same people who design iphones GPU.
So you translate one behavior to extrapolate another as your evidence of Intel helping iphone competitors. So looking at how Apple jumped to intel cpu for their desktop, apple will do the same for phones.
Code sharing would be another benefit with using and x86 cpu on both phone and desktop
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me
TSMC and Global foundries have yield issues with their latest process. None of them even come close to the yields intel gets and why Intel has a 60% margin (better than apples)
We will see how SOC ivy bridge Gfx will compete with gen 6 Rogue or any other gpu of its type.
Apple has cash to make fabs of their own yet they still contract their fab and manufacturing process
When Apple is considering where to get their chips from, I would think they consider two factors: 1) chip capabilities (CPU, GPU, I/O, power/performance, etc.) and 2) the semiconductor's ability to produce the chips in high volume. I seriously doubt that Apple would be the leading customer for TSMC at 20nm. TSMC hasn't been able to produce anything in high volume at 28nm, so why on Earth would Apple think TSMC could do it at 20nm? They wouldn't take the risk that TSMC drops the ball again. Look at all of the Nvidia-TSMC drama and how Nvidia is airing their TSMC garbage in public. Apple doesn't want to be in their shoes.
I think that's why they are sticking with an older process technology for their A-series SoCs. It's proven (even if it is older) and they likely get it for cheaper. Apple is such a high-volume customer that they won't go to a new process until it's 100% reliable.
That's why I think they will stick with Intel on their Mac line. Nobody else has a proven track record to produce in high volume like Intel does at leading process technology.
Don't you mean Imagination? No surprise there it is after all an ARM CPU. In any event you havent offered one sound reason to support Intel in a tablet or cell phone.
The building Lord really invincible, thought very have routines.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
You may also like:[url=http://www.rs4play.com/]Rs Gold[/url]|[url=http://www.rs4play.com/gold/]Cheap runescape gold[/url]
Quote:
Originally Posted by junctionscu
When Apple is considering where to get their chips from, I would think they consider two factors: 1) chip capabilities (CPU, GPU, I/O, power/performance, etc.) and 2) the semiconductor's ability to produce the chips in high volume. I seriously doubt that Apple would be the leading customer for TSMC at 20nm. TSMC hasn't been able to produce anything in high volume at 28nm, so why on Earth would Apple think TSMC could do it at 20nm? They wouldn't take the risk that TSMC drops the ball again. Look at all of the Nvidia-TSMC drama and how Nvidia is airing their TSMC garbage in public. Apple doesn't want to be in their shoes.
I think that's why they are sticking with an older process technology for their A-series SoCs. It's proven (even if it is older) and they likely get it for cheaper. Apple is such a high-volume customer that they won't go to a new process until it's 100% reliable.
That's why I think they will stick with Intel on their Mac line. Nobody else has a proven track record to produce in high volume like Intel does at leading process technology.
You are arguing my point that Apple should or will switch to Intel for phones cpu. We are on the same side
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Just_me, where do you get this nonsense? AMDs GPUs run rings around Intels offerings. As to whom makes a better SoC AMD has been getting an awful lot of design ins for it SoC because it offers a very very good balance when it comes to performance.
No surprise there it is after all an ARM CPU. In any event you havent offered one sound reason to support Intel in a tablet or cell phone.
AMD llano does run faster than Intels iGX. Even runs faster than the just release IVB. But if you look at the percentage AMD dedicates on the die for GPU you will see that the SNB has a better GPU performance per percentage on the cpu die. With IVB thaentert efficiency increases. Intel also makes more power efficient device. A few years ago AMD had then crown but now Intel has it. AMD has stated they will not enter the phone market anytime soon.
Biggest reason to support Intel in the mobile market is to one day have 1 device that you can use for cell phone and a desktop replacement on one device. Ubuntu is releasing a version of their OS on android that will launch when you connect an HDMI cord to the phone. Pair that a bluetooth keyboard and mouse you can replace a desktop computer for most people. You may not even need to connect a hdmi in the future when utilizing Intel's widi.
So if android can run ubuntu I would like Apple see iOS be able to run a full desktop OSX and remove the need for most people who use computers to run office products and surf the web.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That's ridiculous. How in the world does Apple benefit from Intel subsidizing Apple's competitors with $300 M?
Apple had an incredible lead over the competition and they were capturing a huge percentage of that class of computer sales. Intel didn't do much to increase the size of that market. Rather, they reduced Apple's share. Now, if Intel had used the $300 M to cut prices across the board for those processors, you might be right. Or if Intel had put that $300 M into improving the process technology, you would have a point. But directly subsidizing Apple's competitors doesn't do a thing for Apple.
I wasn't referring to the subsidy, which came after anyway. Apple's business with whatever other customers were buying those chips may not have been enough to justify heavier R&D. How do you figure they reduced Apple's share? Not many people buy a Mac if they intend to primarily run Windows.
Mind you I just got through with a session on my MBP where I had to resist the temptation to chuck it through a Window. So while it is nice to dream reality is another issue. In fact I'm fairly certain that Silicon technology will not get us there, if that is the case who cares about legacy hardware designs. You can already do this on Apple hardware. That is connect up a Bluetooth keyboard and use the device as a computer replacement. A computer replacement for your simpler needs.
You are grossly out of touch here!! Have you even used an iPad? MacOS isn't needed to run office type apps or to surf the web.
In any event I think you have a thin understanding of technology, ATOM is an embarrassment for Intel. It implements far to much legacy technology for devices that don't need it. More so these devices are actually at a disadvantage because excess power usage.