All this processor copy fodder of Apple, who doesn't license from ARM and self designs, is good forum fun but largely a circle****. Samsung signed on to the 64bit A57 design in October of last year(http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/10/arm-goes-64-bit-with-new-cortex-a53-and-cortex-a57-designs/), they've yet to use it though instead going the A53 route idiotically. Considering their processors don't even support LTE (ha!) and they use Qualcomm chips in most of their devices in most markets to support that does it even matter?
Uh, So much half truths here. Samsung has (till now) designed SoCs, and as far as I know hasn't created their own CPU cores (although it's possible that they've modified reference ARM designs).
As far as the Qualcomm chips go, you make it seem like apple's A7 chip supports LTE. This is clearly not true. From the ifixit tear down of the 5S:
Turning our attention to the backside of the logic board:
Apple A7 APL0698 SoC (based on thisMacRumors post, the markings F8164A1PD indicate the RAM is likely 1GB)
Apple does not have a team of engineers that design LTE/radio chipsets. As the technology needs to be implemented by both carriers and phone manufacturers, it makes little sense for apple to design these in house. Most other manufacturers have followed the same route.
Apple will source more than one foundry as supplies ramp up. Each one will have its own stamp on it.
yeah, I'm sure apple's RTL and layout engineers have made multiple separate versions of their A7 to support multiple foundrys. I mean, having multiple sources is worth paying tens of millions in engineering efforts not to mention the countless millions on creating new masks (likely multiple), mastering a new process technology etc.... It's possible Apple would do this to help the transition to TSMC in the future, but I doubt they'd add this much overhead with no end game in sight. Apple cares way too much about their profit margins to take such an action out of "spite" toward a competitor.
yeah, I'm sure apple's RTL and layout engineers have made multiple separate versions of their A7 to support multiple foundrys. I mean, having multiple sources is worth paying tens of millions in engineering efforts not to mention the countless millions on creating new masks (likely multiple), mastering a new process technology etc.... It's possible Apple would do this to help the transition to TSMC in the future, but I doubt they'd add this much overhead with no end game in sight. Apple cares way too much about their profit margins to take such an action out of "spite" toward a competitor.
Phil
For Apple iPhone volumes, a ~$15M investment in redundant physical design efforts, mask sets, and SoC production testing and qualification is money well spent to obtain pricing leverage and supply flexibility. I repeat, both A7 and the A6 in the new 5c are dual source. Companies like Chipworks and TechInsights will eventually prove this:
Samsung realized it cannot copy the A7 since Android is still stuck in 32-bit and will not convert to 64-bit for 1-2 years - if ever. Thus Samsung is stuck with its slower 4-core 32-bit CPUs.
...
32-bit is not slower. It's just not able to address as much memory space as 64-bit. Yes, A7 is faster then A6. But it's not from being 64-bit. It's mostly from an improved chip architecture design.
That is horrible news... I dont trust that lowlife company!
If Apple signed a deal with TSMC to mfg chips, do you know that it takes a couple of years from the date they sign the deal until the fab is setup and rattling chips off an assembly line. Especially if they are going a new die size and a foundry that is built specifically for the particular line.
Switches in mfg of a custom component does NOT happen over night. And it might be possible that TSMC is making some of the chips, just not all of them, so they have at least two suppliers to use. Apple likes to have several suppliers of as many components as they can to ensure quality, consistency and be able to meet shipping schedules. Nothing worse than only having one supplier that can prevent products being shipped.
So what now Apple? You want to sit there and use Samsung for your processors, then want to go and bash them every chance you get? APPLE IS OWNED once again. So even when they make a new 64-bit Galaxy S4 in 2014, Samsung didn't copy Apple! Because it was Samsung who actually made the first 64-bit chip in mobile!
Samsung must be so embarrassed and ashamed that they have to make Apple's 64-bit A7 CPU.
Samsung realized it cannot copy the A7 since Android is still stuck in 32-bit and will not convert to 64-bit for 1-2 years - if ever. Thus Samsung is stuck with its slower 4-core 32-bit CPUs.
This is why they have to try to make fun of Apple as a way of coping with the bad news.
This makes no sense. If anything Apple was Samsung's guinea pig in producing a 64-bit solution in their fabs. The 64 bit design can be licensed from ARM there's no need to copy.
The A7 as far as anyone can tell at this point is a apple designed armV8 implementation coupled with licensed PowerVR graphics core.
So what now Apple? You want to sit there and use Samsung for your processors, then want to go and bash them every chance you get? APPLE IS OWNED once again. So even when they make a new 64-bit Galaxy S4 in 2014, Samsung didn't copy Apple! Because it was Samsung who actually made the first 64-bit chip in mobile!
When has Apple bashed Sammy? Calling Sammy extreme copiers is telling the truth.
If Apple signed a deal with TSMC to mfg chips, do you know that it takes a couple of years from the date they sign the deal until the fab is setup and rattling chips off an assembly line. Especially if they are going a new die size and a foundry that is built specifically for the particular line.
Switches in mfg of a custom component does NOT happen over night. And it might be possible that TSMC is making some of the chips, just not all of them, so they have at least two suppliers to use. Apple likes to have several suppliers of as many components as they can to ensure quality, consistency and be able to meet shipping schedules. Nothing worse than only having one supplier that can prevent products being shipped.
Taiwan Semiconductor isn't listed as a 2013 supplier to Apple. I doubt they're shipping anything for a current Apple product.
Maybe this is one thing that Samsung is very good at. They should be given credit for it. Maybe Cook has changed his mind about dumping Samsung. Tim Cook seems like a much cooler mind than S. J. who was a little bit of a hot head.
Oops...It looks like Samsung once again will answer the "Premium" and expensive iPhone with the launch of the S5 possibly with 64 bit processors with more RAM (3 gigs). And next year iPhone 6 will have even more innovations and after that we'll see maybe more innovations from S6...it will never end. I think instead of taking part in this silly war, choosing a BB Z,HTC One or Nokia Lumia will feel like the real meaning of "premium" and "exclusive" while Apple and Samsung keep eating each other.
Samsung does a great job of manufacturing! They're a great company! Apple needs them right now.
Samsung's problem is that they can manufacture beyond Android's abilities. And Google can't simply increase Android's sophistication, due to extreme market fragmentation. Android has to work on legacy phones, and any new version of Android won't be upgraded by a majority of Android users worldwide.
This is a problem for Samsung. Their solution is going to be making their own cutting edge OS copying iOS7. Samsung will come out with their own version of iOS7, innovating no doubt in many ways.
Google will come out with its own OS as well. Chrome will run on tablets, phones, watches, googles, etc.
And Amazon will continue to refine its forked Android until it comes Android's own proprietary system.
We're not going to repeat Windows 98 here. Every company wants badly to be Apple. Why? Easy! Apple is making all the money in the sector lol!
As stated in the article about Intel's Silvermont (or Bay-Trail) platform, Android is already capable of expanding to 64-bit because it is just another branch of the Linux operating system family. ArsTechnica recently pointed out that Google and Samsung have become the biggest code contributors to the Linux platform over the last few years. The two companies combined contributed over 4,300 line of code to the Linux kernel recently (for example ARM only contributed a bit over 600). The only thing holding Android back from 64 bit apps is 64 bit hardware to run it on. Intel brings this to the table right away and it was announced BEFORE the A7 chip at Apple's big event. ARM isn't the only architecture that Android is capable of running on and running pretty well... Android already runs on previously existing Intel and AMD x64 capable chipsets and platforms that currently run 64-bit Windows and Mac OS. The notion that Android will have to play catch-up in some way to be 64-bit capable is just silly.
Apple has put a 64-bit ARM chip in this generation of iPhone. The A7 is a faster chip than what ran the previous generation. It is also still shackled to the same 1GB of RAM that last year's iPhone 5 had. That is reality. Unfortunately, this generation of the iPhone will never see the full fruits of the benefits that 64-bit architecture brings to the table...
Comments
Samsung must be so embarrassed and ashamed that they have to make Apple's 64-bit A7 CPU.
Samsung is likely very happy to have won this business and that Apple is taking the lead on 64-bit ARM. See: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/159530/after-its-disastrous-exynos-5-octa-samsung-may-have-lost-apples-a7-contract-to-tsmc/200#post_2397808
Samsung doesn't design processors. They directly license the Cortex IP design from ARM itself and fab them. (
http://www.arm.com/products/processors/licensees.php)
All this processor copy fodder of Apple, who doesn't license from ARM and self designs, is good forum fun but largely a circle****. Samsung signed on to the 64bit A57 design in October of last year(http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/10/arm-goes-64-bit-with-new-cortex-a53-and-cortex-a57-designs/), they've yet to use it though instead going the A53 route idiotically. Considering their processors don't even support LTE (ha!) and they use Qualcomm chips in most of their devices in most markets to support that does it even matter?
Uh, So much half truths here. Samsung has (till now) designed SoCs, and as far as I know hasn't created their own CPU cores (although it's possible that they've modified reference ARM designs).
As far as the Qualcomm chips go, you make it seem like apple's A7 chip supports LTE. This is clearly not true. From the ifixit tear down of the 5S:
Turning our attention to the backside of the logic board:
Apple A7 APL0698 SoC (based on thisMacRumors post, the markings F8164A1PD indicate the RAM is likely 1GB)
Qualcomm MDM9615M LTE Modem
Qualcomm WTR1605LLTE/HSPA+/CDMA2K/TDSCDMA/EDGE/GPS transceiver.
Apple does not have a team of engineers that design LTE/radio chipsets. As the technology needs to be implemented by both carriers and phone manufacturers, it makes little sense for apple to design these in house. Most other manufacturers have followed the same route.
phil
Apple will source more than one foundry as supplies ramp up. Each one will have its own stamp on it.
yeah, I'm sure apple's RTL and layout engineers have made multiple separate versions of their A7 to support multiple foundrys. I mean, having multiple sources is worth paying tens of millions in engineering efforts not to mention the countless millions on creating new masks (likely multiple), mastering a new process technology etc.... It's possible Apple would do this to help the transition to TSMC in the future, but I doubt they'd add this much overhead with no end game in sight. Apple cares way too much about their profit margins to take such an action out of "spite" toward a competitor.
Phil
Boy, talking about Apple never learns. Or it has to do this under a contract?
yeah, I'm sure apple's RTL and layout engineers have made multiple separate versions of their A7 to support multiple foundrys. I mean, having multiple sources is worth paying tens of millions in engineering efforts not to mention the countless millions on creating new masks (likely multiple), mastering a new process technology etc.... It's possible Apple would do this to help the transition to TSMC in the future, but I doubt they'd add this much overhead with no end game in sight. Apple cares way too much about their profit margins to take such an action out of "spite" toward a competitor.
Phil
For Apple iPhone volumes, a ~$15M investment in redundant physical design efforts, mask sets, and SoC production testing and qualification is money well spent to obtain pricing leverage and supply flexibility. I repeat, both A7 and the A6 in the new 5c are dual source. Companies like Chipworks and TechInsights will eventually prove this:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/159530/after-its-disastrous-exynos-5-octa-samsung-may-have-lost-apples-a7-contract-to-tsmc/200#post_2397808
...
Samsung realized it cannot copy the A7 since Android is still stuck in 32-bit and will not convert to 64-bit for 1-2 years - if ever. Thus Samsung is stuck with its slower 4-core 32-bit CPUs.
...
32-bit is not slower. It's just not able to address as much memory space as 64-bit. Yes, A7 is faster then A6. But it's not from being 64-bit. It's mostly from an improved chip architecture design.
That is horrible news... I dont trust that lowlife company!
If Apple signed a deal with TSMC to mfg chips, do you know that it takes a couple of years from the date they sign the deal until the fab is setup and rattling chips off an assembly line. Especially if they are going a new die size and a foundry that is built specifically for the particular line.
Switches in mfg of a custom component does NOT happen over night. And it might be possible that TSMC is making some of the chips, just not all of them, so they have at least two suppliers to use. Apple likes to have several suppliers of as many components as they can to ensure quality, consistency and be able to meet shipping schedules. Nothing worse than only having one supplier that can prevent products being shipped.
So what now Apple? You want to sit there and use Samsung for your processors, then want to go and bash them every chance you get? APPLE IS OWNED once again. So even when they make a new 64-bit Galaxy S4 in 2014, Samsung didn't copy Apple! Because it was Samsung who actually made the first 64-bit chip in mobile!
Samsung must be so embarrassed and ashamed that they have to make Apple's 64-bit A7 CPU.
Samsung realized it cannot copy the A7 since Android is still stuck in 32-bit and will not convert to 64-bit for 1-2 years - if ever. Thus Samsung is stuck with its slower 4-core 32-bit CPUs.
This is why they have to try to make fun of Apple as a way of coping with the bad news.
This makes no sense. If anything Apple was Samsung's guinea pig in producing a 64-bit solution in their fabs. The 64 bit design can be licensed from ARM there's no need to copy.
The A7 as far as anyone can tell at this point is a apple designed armV8 implementation coupled with licensed PowerVR graphics core.
When has Apple bashed Sammy? Calling Sammy extreme copiers is telling the truth.
Btw, have you seen Sammy's commercials?
Taiwan Semiconductor isn't listed as a 2013 supplier to Apple. I doubt they're shipping anything for a current Apple product.
Edit: Here's the current supplier list
http://images.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/pdf/Apple_Supplier_List_2013.pdf
Edit2: I thought someone had mentioned it here before but perhaps not. Apple tried to throw a $Billion+ at TSMC about a year ago to get exclusive chip builds, in hindsight likely 64-bit. So did Qualcomm. TSMC turned them both down.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-29/apple-qualcomm-spurned-in-bids-for-exclusive-tsmc-chip-supply.html
They should be given credit for it.
Maybe Cook has changed his mind about dumping Samsung.
Tim Cook seems like a much cooler mind than S. J. who was a little bit of a hot head.
Boy, talk about knowing zilch about what’s actually going on.
Who made the first real smartphone? Aaaaand who lost a 1.5 billion dollar lawsuit for stealing the design of the first real smartphone?
Thought so.
Well, it looks like Apple trusts that "lowlife" company which is able to manufacture the "state-of-art" processors as defined by Apple.
Samsung does a great job of manufacturing! They're a great company! Apple needs them right now.
Samsung's problem is that they can manufacture beyond Android's abilities. And Google can't simply increase Android's sophistication, due to extreme market fragmentation. Android has to work on legacy phones, and any new version of Android won't be upgraded by a majority of Android users worldwide.
This is a problem for Samsung. Their solution is going to be making their own cutting edge OS copying iOS7. Samsung will come out with their own version of iOS7, innovating no doubt in many ways.
Google will come out with its own OS as well. Chrome will run on tablets, phones, watches, googles, etc.
And Amazon will continue to refine its forked Android until it comes Android's own proprietary system.
We're not going to repeat Windows 98 here. Every company wants badly to be Apple. Why? Easy! Apple is making all the money in the sector lol!
Silicon manufactured by Samsung has resulted in some great Apple products. it's good for all parties, including the consumer.
The amount of misinformation and plain willful ignorance floating around in this thread is absolutely amazing to me.
http://liliputing.com/2013/09/android-ready-64-bit-processing.html
As stated in the article about Intel's Silvermont (or Bay-Trail) platform, Android is already capable of expanding to 64-bit because it is just another branch of the Linux operating system family. ArsTechnica recently pointed out that Google and Samsung have become the biggest code contributors to the Linux platform over the last few years. The two companies combined contributed over 4,300 line of code to the Linux kernel recently (for example ARM only contributed a bit over 600). The only thing holding Android back from 64 bit apps is 64 bit hardware to run it on. Intel brings this to the table right away and it was announced BEFORE the A7 chip at Apple's big event. ARM isn't the only architecture that Android is capable of running on and running pretty well... Android already runs on previously existing Intel and AMD x64 capable chipsets and platforms that currently run 64-bit Windows and Mac OS. The notion that Android will have to play catch-up in some way to be 64-bit capable is just silly.
Apple has put a 64-bit ARM chip in this generation of iPhone. The A7 is a faster chip than what ran the previous generation. It is also still shackled to the same 1GB of RAM that last year's iPhone 5 had. That is reality. Unfortunately, this generation of the iPhone will never see the full fruits of the benefits that 64-bit architecture brings to the table...