surely any new Apple SOC will be based on a Samsung design. I do not really see this happening as is. Apple are more likely to use a Mediatek or Qualcomm design with TSMC or Intel doing the silicon run.
Huh? Why would Apple go backwards? Up until the A5 the A-Series chips have been based on designs by a partnership with Intrinsity (Apple) and Samsung. The A6 SoC is a completely custom Apple design... The CPU core isn't even an ARM reference design, just based off the ARM ISA.
A4; Intrinsity, Apple and Samsung
A5; Apple and Samsung
A6; Apple
Maybe you didn't hear that Apple bought two CPU design firms: P.A. Semi and Intrinsity? P.A. Semi designed completely custom Power Architecture CPUs and Intrinsity customized ARM cores. Both companies worked to make CPUs more power efficient. From these Apple has designed their own ARM core base on ARM's armv7 ISA called Swift.
Unless this deal was zealed and done two years ago, otherwise the chance of next SoC coming from Intel is pretty slim. And in terms of Low Power SoC design intel just isn't up there against TSMC.
Irrelevant. It is very unlikely that Apple would use an Intel design when they have their own. All they need is fab space. I don't know how long it takes to get an existing design transferred to a new fab, but that's the time frame - not SoC design.
There would undoubtedly be some minor designs to the existing design to make it work better with Intel tech. Intel would own those design changes (unless their agreement said something different), but would not gain access to Apple's SoC design.
Huh? Why would Apple go backwards? Up until the A5 the A-Series chips have been based on designs by a partnership with Intrinsity (Apple) and Samsung. The A6 SoC is a completely custom Apple design... The CPU core isn't even an ARM reference design, just based off the ARM ISA.
A4; Intrinsity, Apple and Samsung
A5; Apple and Samsung
A6; Apple
Maybe you didn't hear that Apple bought two CPU design firms: P.A. Semi and Intrinsity? P.A. Semi designed completely custom Power Architecture CPUs and Intrinsity customized ARM cores. Both companies worked to make CPUs more power efficient. From these Apple has designed their own ARM core base on ARM's armv7 ISA called Swift.
That's what people keep missing. Intel would not gain access to Apple's IP (unless Apple chose to give it to them). Intel would be acting as a fab for Apple's designs. They might need to do some modifications to make the existing design work in Intel's fabs, but the basic design would be unchanged - and remain Apple's property.
Unless this deal was zealed and done two years ago, otherwise the chance of next SoC coming from Intel is pretty slim. And in terms of Low Power SoC design intel just isn't up there against TSMC.
The rumors suggest that may be Intel is start talking to Apple again. Empty Fab Space is expensive. And Ultrabook, Netbook never caught on, PC market has been shrinking for a long time and it is actually shrinking faster then they could imagine. If it wasn't for DataCenter and HPC's huge profit margin i did expect Intel have agreed to the deal already.
And If Atom never really worked out, ( It is actually quite good on 32nm LP ) Then Intel could at least fill up their Fab Space with a Customer that is never going to compete with them. ( Apple )
And Apple always needs a 'We can always take our business to Intel...' plausible negotiation ploy.
As for Intel 'stealing' IP and putting into the x86 line... 1) most of the An series IP that is magical/secret sauce, is so optimally tied to iOS and/or the rest of the HW in an iPhad, it wouldn't assist Intel in any other ARM or x86 line specifically... HOWEVER, 2) if Apple could nudge the x86 line to be more power efficient, more GPU optimized for OSX, that would be a good thing for one of the largest Laptop and high margin desktop computing makers... wouldn't it?
An Intel... with expanding Fab capacity due to lack of market growth, a need for high margin sales, and a need to continue funding it's die shrinkage (remember, it's on a path to 22nm this year... an enticing path for a next gen A7X SoC).
I see this as enough win win to stamp the rumor 'PLAUSIBLE'
As things currently stand Apple needs Intel more than Intel needs Apple. Except for those under utilized fabs. Apple does not need Intel's newest process. They would be happier on the highest yield and lowest cost fabs. Intel dropping out of making their own motherboards means they have less use for the older fab processes that were used to make motherboard chips. The move to system on a chip is already killing that business. So what will Intel do with its older fabs that have already been depreciated? I can certainly see Intel making an Arm processor for Apple on the 22nm node in high volume while making it's own chips on the 14 nm node. Apple is Intel's biggest customer for consumer chips. Improving that relationship may be the way forward for Intel. Intel is cash dependent. They are spending 18 billion dollars this year on research and development. Without new markets like cell phones they will be stranded with the most expensive factories in the world and no markets.
Why would Apple go backwards? Up until the A5 the A-Series chips have been based on designs by a partnership with Intrinsity (Apple) and Samsung.
This post misses the point. The chips fabricated by Intel would still be to Apple designs. Intel is a generation ahead of other chip fabricators.
What Apple gains out of this is access to Intel's 22nm technology instead of 32nm which is where Samsung is at on the existing A series chips. When they made the shift from 32nm to 22nm Intel estimated the benefits to be 50% less power consumption and up to 37% better performance.
This post misses the point. The chips fabricated by Intel would still be to Apple designs. Intel is a generation ahead of other chip fabricators.
What Apple gains out of this is access to Intel's 22nm technology instead of 32nm which is where Samsung is at on the existing A series chips. When they made the shift from 32nm to 22nm Intel estimated the benefits to be 50% less power consumption and up to 37% better performance.
Not a bad result from changing chip fabricator
Exactly. The advantages would be huge. One of the nice features about microprocessors is that moving to a newer technology often decreases the size of the chip - so the improvement in energy efficiency and performance can sometimes be essentially free (more chips per wafer).
ARM on an MacBook would be an unmitigated disaster unless Moore's law quadruples. Not to mention the complete rewrite required for all software.
Like most everyone else and the article itself, this is about Intel fabbing ARM SoCs (Apple's A5, A6, A7, etc) for use in iPhones, iPads, etc. Nothing to do with Macintoshes, laptops or desktops.
But many a company can design an ARM chip competitive with Intel's chips if given the same TDP targets. An ARM chip with a 15 W TDP will be competitive to ULV Intel x86 chips if given all the same development resources. But, there's really no point and no gain in doing that as x86 is just fine and basically the highest performance CPUs in the market at TDP from 10 to 100 Watts.
Apple certainly wants quad-core Core i7 performance in a 5 W package. This way they can make a 10 mm thick (at it's thickest point) iMac without any fans, light, and cool to the touch, while outperforming today's iMacs. If Intel can't get x86 down to 5 W and outperform today's quad-core i7s, say in 2014, then I can see Apple wanting to try it themselves.
Apple probably "needs" Intel as much as Intel "needs" Apple. As in not really but there are a lot of advantages if they cut a deal.
Apple needs a reliable supplier not named Samsung. There are none better than Intel.
Intel needs a significant design win for Atom. There are none better than Apple.
Intel doesn't want to fab ARMs but may near term to get a 14nm Atom design win on the iPad or iPhone.
Apple doesn't want Atom but a couple years at 14nm while Samsung trails a process node or two behind means smaller, more powerful CPU/GPUs that have much more battery life.
The Medfields are middle of the pack competitors against ARM SoCs. The 22nm Merrifields should do better.
Keep in mind Intel was once had an arm license . Their xscale processors were arm.
This would be good for both companies. apple would hopefully get access to Intels latest processor shrink and Intel would get the profit from making all those apple arm processors.
ARM on an MacBook would be an unmitigated disaster unless Moore's law quadruples. Not to mention the complete rewrite required for all software.
I was thinking maybe apple can do what the windows 8 ultrabooks are doing. Make the MacBook screen an ipad and the keyboard the MacBook part. if you undock the ipad from the keyboard it becomes an ipad and when docked it becomes an osx MacBook.
I really hope Intel and Apple can reach some kind of agreement soon. Intel's foundry's are state of the art! They're already mass-producing 22nm parts while almost everybody else is still on 45nm, 32nm or 28nm at best. There's a lot of hype over TSMC's 20nm process coming out next year, but by then Intel will be on 14nm! Imagine the power efficiency of an ARM based SoC at 14nm! Ideal for something like a potential iWatch - as rumours are, the main obstacle to such a device are power consumption issues. This could help solve that. Or you could go the other way and increase process performance by upping the clock-speed and/or adding more cores for more performance at the same power consumption as current designs. This is a potentially great partnership! I hope it works out.
ARM on an MacBook would be an unmitigated disaster unless Moore's law quadruples. Not to mention the complete rewrite required for all software.
I was thinking maybe apple can do what the windows 8 ultrabooks are doing. Make the MacBook screen an ipad and the keyboard the MacBook part. if you undock the ipad from the keyboard it becomes an ipad and when docked it becomes an osx MacBook.
Here's an interesting article about the WinRT Tablet:
It also states that Windows 8 RT is the complete Windows 8 OS ported to ARM -- but MS intentionally precludes recompiling legacy Windows apps for ARM -- doesn't allow them in the app store (which is the sole source for WinRT apps).
If you have an iPad (invisible OS and no accessible File System) being switched between a OS X LapTop display and a standalone iOS computer -- you have quite a few considerations -- to name a few:
App Parity between OSes
OS API/Framework parity
Afore mentioned invisible OS and File System
Difference in UI/UX
Power/battery requirements.
Certainly, Xcode has the capability to compile for both platforms. The Simulator allows iOS apps to [mostly] run on OS X. But there is no app parity for things like iWork, iLife, Siri, Maps... And the API/Framework differences between iOS and OSX.
So, there is work that needs to be done by Apple before 3rd-party developers could do a reasonable job of implementing dual iOS/OSX apps.
That said, I think Apple could do this if they were so motivated.
I was thinking maybe apple can do what the windows 8 ultrabooks are doing. Make the MacBook screen an ipad and the keyboard the MacBook part. if you undock the ipad from the keyboard it becomes an ipad and when docked it becomes an osx MacBook.
This is what I'm hoping for as well. But to get there, Apple would probably need to design an SoC using ARM 64-bit, which won't happen till late this year, at the earliest, but most likely some time next year. Imagine using the 13" rMBP screen to make one units. Would be sweet.
I was thinking maybe apple can do what the windows 8 ultrabooks are doing. Make the MacBook screen an ipad and the keyboard the MacBook part. if you undock the ipad from the keyboard it becomes an ipad and when docked it becomes an osx MacBook.
[...]
That said, I think Apple could do this if they were so motivated.
I don't think Apple is motivated at all to make a hybrid device. They already have a lightweight notebook line. They want you to buy both devices.
I was thinking maybe apple can do what the windows 8 ultrabooks are doing. Make the MacBook screen an ipad and the keyboard the MacBook part. if you undock the ipad from the keyboard it becomes an ipad and when docked it becomes an osx MacBook.
[...]
That said, I think Apple could do this if they were so motivated.
I don't think Apple is motivated at all to make a hybrid device. They already have a lightweight notebook line. They want you to buy both devices.
Yeah, that's what they want today...
But things change:
MS or MS OEMs could be successful with their hybrid devices.
The latest x86 CPUs are more than powerful enough for most computer uses.
At some point, ARM CPUs (and iOS) will be good enough for all but the high-end power users
Apparently, Apple is cannibalizing MacBooks with iPads -- and that's OK! But if some other platform (Win, Android, Chrome, Linux) threatens to cannibalize...
The secret is to have the capability, and the timing of when to release it.
But...but...TSCM has more than enough capacity and expertise, no?
Seriously, I think this is just Part 1 of a two-part story. The second part will be when Apple switches to the post-Haswell line coming from Intell in late 2014, faster and more energy-efficient than ARM will be able to do for years.
Think different.
This is my feeling as well as the deal as presented really didn't make sense from Intel's standpoint.
My guess is that for this to happen, Intel is going to wasn't something like the next iPad on atom. With atoms power efficiency already on part with the latest ARM SoCs, and apple having tight control of the software on the iPad, this could actually be possible.
But...but...TSCM has more than enough capacity and expertise, no?
Seriously, I think this is just Part 1 of a two-part story. The second part will be when Apple switches to the post-Haswell line coming from Intell in late 2014, faster and more energy-efficient than ARM will be able to do for years.
Think different.
This is my feeling as well as the deal as presented really didn't make sense from Intel's standpoint.
My guess is that for this to happen, Intel is going to wasn't something like the next iPad on atom. With atoms power efficiency already on part with the latest ARM SoCs, and apple having tight control of the software on the iPad, this could actually be possible.
I could see Apple making an Atom (or other x86) model of the iPad -- but not the only model.
We are in the middle of a revolution -- from kb/mouse multiple overlapping windows -- to touch/voice single window (post pc).
It isn't clear, yet, how all this will turn out -- and it would be difficult for Apple to offer only an x86 iPad -- and not be able to run OSX apps on it.
One way to ask the question: Does a tablet need more than 1 window on the screen at the same time? If so, how many? Should they overlap? Should they be resizable? Should the apps in the background windows keep running?...
It has also been rumored that the company wants to distance itself from current A-series SoC manufacturerSamsung, with which it is ensnarled in a worldwide patent struggle.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by aBeliefSystem
surely any new Apple SOC will be based on a Samsung design. I do not really see this happening as is. Apple are more likely to use a Mediatek or Qualcomm design with TSMC or Intel doing the silicon run.
Huh? Why would Apple go backwards? Up until the A5 the A-Series chips have been based on designs by a partnership with Intrinsity (Apple) and Samsung. The A6 SoC is a completely custom Apple design... The CPU core isn't even an ARM reference design, just based off the ARM ISA.
A4; Intrinsity, Apple and Samsung
A5; Apple and Samsung
A6; Apple
Maybe you didn't hear that Apple bought two CPU design firms: P.A. Semi and Intrinsity? P.A. Semi designed completely custom Power Architecture CPUs and Intrinsity customized ARM cores. Both companies worked to make CPUs more power efficient. From these Apple has designed their own ARM core base on ARM's armv7 ISA called Swift.
Irrelevant. It is very unlikely that Apple would use an Intel design when they have their own. All they need is fab space. I don't know how long it takes to get an existing design transferred to a new fab, but that's the time frame - not SoC design.
There would undoubtedly be some minor designs to the existing design to make it work better with Intel tech. Intel would own those design changes (unless their agreement said something different), but would not gain access to Apple's SoC design.
That's what people keep missing. Intel would not gain access to Apple's IP (unless Apple chose to give it to them). Intel would be acting as a fab for Apple's designs. They might need to do some modifications to make the existing design work in Intel's fabs, but the basic design would be unchanged - and remain Apple's property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksec
Unless this deal was zealed and done two years ago, otherwise the chance of next SoC coming from Intel is pretty slim. And in terms of Low Power SoC design intel just isn't up there against TSMC.
The rumors suggest that may be Intel is start talking to Apple again. Empty Fab Space is expensive. And Ultrabook, Netbook never caught on, PC market has been shrinking for a long time and it is actually shrinking faster then they could imagine. If it wasn't for DataCenter and HPC's huge profit margin i did expect Intel have agreed to the deal already.
And If Atom never really worked out, ( It is actually quite good on 32nm LP ) Then Intel could at least fill up their Fab Space with a Customer that is never going to compete with them. ( Apple )
And Apple always needs a 'We can always take our business to Intel...' plausible negotiation ploy.
As for Intel 'stealing' IP and putting into the x86 line... 1) most of the An series IP that is magical/secret sauce, is so optimally tied to iOS and/or the rest of the HW in an iPhad, it wouldn't assist Intel in any other ARM or x86 line specifically... HOWEVER, 2) if Apple could nudge the x86 line to be more power efficient, more GPU optimized for OSX, that would be a good thing for one of the largest Laptop and high margin desktop computing makers... wouldn't it?
An Intel... with expanding Fab capacity due to lack of market growth, a need for high margin sales, and a need to continue funding it's die shrinkage (remember, it's on a path to 22nm this year... an enticing path for a next gen A7X SoC).
I see this as enough win win to stamp the rumor 'PLAUSIBLE'
Why would Apple go backwards? Up until the A5 the A-Series chips have been based on designs by a partnership with Intrinsity (Apple) and Samsung.
This post misses the point. The chips fabricated by Intel would still be to Apple designs. Intel is a generation ahead of other chip fabricators.
What Apple gains out of this is access to Intel's 22nm technology instead of 32nm which is where Samsung is at on the existing A series chips. When they made the shift from 32nm to 22nm Intel estimated the benefits to be 50% less power consumption and up to 37% better performance.
Not a bad result from changing chip fabricator
Exactly. The advantages would be huge. One of the nice features about microprocessors is that moving to a newer technology often decreases the size of the chip - so the improvement in energy efficiency and performance can sometimes be essentially free (more chips per wafer).
Agreed. I just can't see Apple switching to ARM for MacBook Air or Pro.
However, what I could see is an iPad professional. Essentially, an iPad with attached keyboard in clamshell configuration. Think 'netbook done right'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwlaw99
ARM on an MacBook would be an unmitigated disaster unless Moore's law quadruples. Not to mention the complete rewrite required for all software.
Like most everyone else and the article itself, this is about Intel fabbing ARM SoCs (Apple's A5, A6, A7, etc) for use in iPhones, iPads, etc. Nothing to do with Macintoshes, laptops or desktops.
But many a company can design an ARM chip competitive with Intel's chips if given the same TDP targets. An ARM chip with a 15 W TDP will be competitive to ULV Intel x86 chips if given all the same development resources. But, there's really no point and no gain in doing that as x86 is just fine and basically the highest performance CPUs in the market at TDP from 10 to 100 Watts.
Apple certainly wants quad-core Core i7 performance in a 5 W package. This way they can make a 10 mm thick (at it's thickest point) iMac without any fans, light, and cool to the touch, while outperforming today's iMacs. If Intel can't get x86 down to 5 W and outperform today's quad-core i7s, say in 2014, then I can see Apple wanting to try it themselves.
Apple probably "needs" Intel as much as Intel "needs" Apple. As in not really but there are a lot of advantages if they cut a deal.
Apple needs a reliable supplier not named Samsung. There are none better than Intel.
Intel needs a significant design win for Atom. There are none better than Apple.
Intel doesn't want to fab ARMs but may near term to get a 14nm Atom design win on the iPad or iPhone.
Apple doesn't want Atom but a couple years at 14nm while Samsung trails a process node or two behind means smaller, more powerful CPU/GPUs that have much more battery life.
The Medfields are middle of the pack competitors against ARM SoCs. The 22nm Merrifields should do better.
This would be good for both companies. apple would hopefully get access to Intels latest processor shrink and Intel would get the profit from making all those apple arm processors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwlaw99
ARM on an MacBook would be an unmitigated disaster unless Moore's law quadruples. Not to mention the complete rewrite required for all software.
I was thinking maybe apple can do what the windows 8 ultrabooks are doing. Make the MacBook screen an ipad and the keyboard the MacBook part. if you undock the ipad from the keyboard it becomes an ipad and when docked it becomes an osx MacBook.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majortom1981
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwlaw99
ARM on an MacBook would be an unmitigated disaster unless Moore's law quadruples. Not to mention the complete rewrite required for all software.
I was thinking maybe apple can do what the windows 8 ultrabooks are doing. Make the MacBook screen an ipad and the keyboard the MacBook part. if you undock the ipad from the keyboard it becomes an ipad and when docked it becomes an osx MacBook.
Here's an interesting article about the WinRT Tablet:
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/03/windows-rt-is-a-lemon-heres-how-microsoft-could-make-lemonade/
It mentions something like what you suggest.
It also states that Windows 8 RT is the complete Windows 8 OS ported to ARM -- but MS intentionally precludes recompiling legacy Windows apps for ARM -- doesn't allow them in the app store (which is the sole source for WinRT apps).
If you have an iPad (invisible OS and no accessible File System) being switched between a OS X LapTop display and a standalone iOS computer -- you have quite a few considerations -- to name a few:
App Parity between OSes
OS API/Framework parity
Afore mentioned invisible OS and File System
Difference in UI/UX
Power/battery requirements.
Certainly, Xcode has the capability to compile for both platforms. The Simulator allows iOS apps to [mostly] run on OS X. But there is no app parity for things like iWork, iLife, Siri, Maps... And the API/Framework differences between iOS and OSX.
So, there is work that needs to be done by Apple before 3rd-party developers could do a reasonable job of implementing dual iOS/OSX apps.
That said, I think Apple could do this if they were so motivated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majortom1981
I was thinking maybe apple can do what the windows 8 ultrabooks are doing. Make the MacBook screen an ipad and the keyboard the MacBook part. if you undock the ipad from the keyboard it becomes an ipad and when docked it becomes an osx MacBook.
This is what I'm hoping for as well. But to get there, Apple would probably need to design an SoC using ARM 64-bit, which won't happen till late this year, at the earliest, but most likely some time next year. Imagine using the 13" rMBP screen to make one units. Would be sweet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Quote:
Originally Posted by majortom1981
I was thinking maybe apple can do what the windows 8 ultrabooks are doing. Make the MacBook screen an ipad and the keyboard the MacBook part. if you undock the ipad from the keyboard it becomes an ipad and when docked it becomes an osx MacBook.
[...]
That said, I think Apple could do this if they were so motivated.
I don't think Apple is motivated at all to make a hybrid device. They already have a lightweight notebook line. They want you to buy both devices.
Originally Posted by mstone
I don't think Apple is motivated at all to make a hybrid device. They already have a lightweight notebook line. They want you to buy both devices.
Until such time as the iPad becomes a replacement for both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Quote:
Originally Posted by majortom1981
I was thinking maybe apple can do what the windows 8 ultrabooks are doing. Make the MacBook screen an ipad and the keyboard the MacBook part. if you undock the ipad from the keyboard it becomes an ipad and when docked it becomes an osx MacBook.
[...]
That said, I think Apple could do this if they were so motivated.
I don't think Apple is motivated at all to make a hybrid device. They already have a lightweight notebook line. They want you to buy both devices.
Yeah, that's what they want today...
But things change:
MS or MS OEMs could be successful with their hybrid devices.
The latest x86 CPUs are more than powerful enough for most computer uses.
At some point, ARM CPUs (and iOS) will be good enough for all but the high-end power users
Apparently, Apple is cannibalizing MacBooks with iPads -- and that's OK! But if some other platform (Win, Android, Chrome, Linux) threatens to cannibalize...
The secret is to have the capability, and the timing of when to release it.
This is my feeling as well as the deal as presented really didn't make sense from Intel's standpoint.
My guess is that for this to happen, Intel is going to wasn't something like the next iPad on atom. With atoms power efficiency already on part with the latest ARM SoCs, and apple having tight control of the software on the iPad, this could actually be possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
But...but...TSCM has more than enough capacity and expertise, no?
Seriously, I think this is just Part 1 of a two-part story. The second part will be when Apple switches to the post-Haswell line coming from Intell in late 2014, faster and more energy-efficient than ARM will be able to do for years.
Think different.
This is my feeling as well as the deal as presented really didn't make sense from Intel's standpoint.
My guess is that for this to happen, Intel is going to wasn't something like the next iPad on atom. With atoms power efficiency already on part with the latest ARM SoCs, and apple having tight control of the software on the iPad, this could actually be possible.
I could see Apple making an Atom (or other x86) model of the iPad -- but not the only model.
We are in the middle of a revolution -- from kb/mouse multiple overlapping windows -- to touch/voice single window (post pc).
It isn't clear, yet, how all this will turn out -- and it would be difficult for Apple to offer only an x86 iPad -- and not be able to run OSX apps on it.
One way to ask the question: Does a tablet need more than 1 window on the screen at the same time? If so, how many? Should they overlap? Should they be resizable? Should the apps in the background windows keep running?...
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
It has also been rumored that the company wants to distance itself from current A-series SoC manufacturerSamsung, with which it is ensnarled in a worldwide patent struggle.
Ya think?