Is exynos really that bad? I know people were disappointed that it wasn't a true octa-core processor (basically 2 quad-core processors glued together), but it sounds good in theory. Lower power consumption when the slower processor "is good enough" and switches to the faster processor when the user would value speed over battery life.
ochyming wrote: »
Funny, a supposedly rumor/fanboy site doing better tech journalism than the mainstream newsCorporation.
Look at the mess The BBC and CNN are drown in.
tooltalk wrote: »
Samsung is doomed. LOL!
Another thing that allowed Apple to surprise everyone with 64-bit is OS X. It shares a core codebase with iOS, so they were able to test all their 64-bit code in the wild for years with no-one suspecting anything.
janbanan wrote: »
Take note, tech "journalists". This is how you do tech journalism! The info is out there (google is your friend) once you are able to see behind the bullshit. It seems Daniel is one of the few people out there with the intellectual capacity and the guts to add the pieces of the puzzle, draw the logical conclusions and spell it out for the rest of us. Another brilliant analysis and piece of investigative journalism - bravo! I'm surprised nobody else commented on the poorly worded panicked statement from Samsung re 64-bit processors and rather jumped on the "phones don't need to address more than 4 GB memory" bandwagon (possibly a result of some quick-thinking Samsung PR people in the first place).
Apple has done it again - a 32 to 64-bit transition literally overnight - seemingly effortless for developers and consumers alike. Forcing the whole industry forward when the rest were trotting down a blind alley at their own pace - this is true innovation!
crowley wrote: »
lstream wrote: »
Isn't there an alternative explanation? That Samsung could not reveal that they knew about the 64 bit processor in advance? They likely promise Apple a firewall between components manufacturing and the rest of the business. So if they indeed knew, they had three choices:
1. Mention 64 bit before Apple announced. That announcement coming out of the blue with no context would make no sense. It would put a big red flag in front of Apple and tell the rest of its customers that the firewall is a sham. There is a difference between suspecting a sham, and knowing it. The only reason to say anything pre-5S launch would be to tell the world it knew what processor was coming in the 5S. Bad idea with no upside.
2. As played. Make their 64 bit lame announcement once the A7 was revealed. Sure it makes them look flat footed, but alternative 1 would do the same, with the added downside of adding to their unethical image. So now they are not content to copy and ship. They must pre-announce their intent to copy as part of their road map strategy.
3. Shut up until they can ship. This one doesn't seem to be in the vocabulary of the grand copier.
So regarding this one data point, is it not just as plausible that they knew about the A7 because they were building it, but were forced to keep quiet? After all, this is not the most sophisticated company in the world when it comes to the media.
Please appleinsider - stick to what you're good at and don't try to write technical articles as your knowledge level is embarrassingly low.
From a process standpoint, the A7 is clearly using TSMC's 28nm process and packing 1 billion transistors onto a100mm2 die is not impressive *from a process standpoint*. It clearly is an impressive chip overall and it's new functionality is great. However comparing it to pure-CPUs frankly demonstrates ignorance, as integrated GPUs blow up transistor counts and have higher density than CPUs.
At 28nm, assuming the A7 is approx 500 million transistors GPU and 500 million transistors non-gpu, the GPU portion would be about 40mm^2 and it would occupy about 40% of the total die. The non-gpu portion would be around 60mm^2 (50% more area per transistor, which sounds about right.) When apple moves to a 100mm^2 die on 20nm, it will have 1.4billion transistors or more.
Frankly Intel is the only company with a clear process advantage as TSMC's upcoming 22nm process will still be behind Intel's now somewhat outdated 22nm node as they lack FinFETs and Intel is releasing products at 14nm.
If you want great technical reviews - go to anandtech - right now they're one of the few places you can go to and really trust their reviews and editorials.
Last note - I'm not sold on the big.LITTLE arch (as clearly Qualcomm is not). However with Samsung and other OEMs releasing devices that now have HMP, it'll be interesting purely from a technical exercise if it really does improve the race to idle as well as non-intensive power usage. Whether the overall BOM increase of $7.75 of the Exynos-powered S4 vs the Qualcomm-powered S4 makes a material difference it up for question (once you remove the extra battery and box contents of the international S4).
galbi wrote: »
64 Bit with only 1-2GB of RAM?
That is like blowing a 10 gallon air compressor through a straw!
Apple what the heck do you think you are doing?
That is nothing more than marketing ploy to get people reinterested in the smartphone as we are already seeing saturation in the market place.
"Anyone who thinks they know any of this better than Apple is either wrong or wasting their lives if they are not already generating billions of dollars in value with their grand expertise. Anyone who thinks they know any of this better than Apple is either wrong or wasting their lives if they are not already generating billions of dollars in value with their grand expertise."
This bears repeating. Over and over.
Basically the ultimate rebuke to every single troll nonsense comment made here since the 10th.