PDA

View Full Version : Apple iPhone Components? No Intel Chip.




MacRumors
Jan 11, 2007, 02:54 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Despite Apple's introduction of the iPhone, few hardware details of the device were revealed. One analyst produced (http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196802483) a list of likely vendors for the parts that go into the iPhone. The list is as follows:

Samsung Electronics (applications/video processor), Marvell (802.11), Infineon Technologies (baseband), Broadcom Corp. (touch screen controller), and Cambridge Silicon Radio (Bluetooth)

Of interest, the CPU of the iPhone was never explicitly mentioned by Apple, but Intel has flatly denied (http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2007-01-10T175232Z_01_N10288928_RTRIDST_0_INTEL-APPLE-CHIP-URGENT.XML&rpc=66&type=qcna) that it is producing the processor for the iPhone. Buzz around the Macworld floor has suggested that a Samsung ARM processor is at the heart of the device.



Benjamin
Jan 11, 2007, 02:57 AM
sound right, we won't know exactly for sure.. but ah if you have experiance with solid understanding of embedded hardware platforms (ARM processors, SDIO, UARTs, etc), move to apple?

http://jobs.apple.com/index.ajs?BID=1&method=mExternal.showJob&RID=4063&CurrentPage=1

GodBless
Jan 11, 2007, 02:58 AM
This Reuter's article title (http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=technologyNews&storyID=2007-01-10T232700Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_India-283052-1.xml) bluntly states that the Apple TV has an Intel chip however the iPhone does not. That's big news? Intel isn't the only chip company on the planet.

EricNau
Jan 11, 2007, 02:59 AM
I'm not surprised - Intel's specialty isn't exactly cell phone processors.

jmsait19
Jan 11, 2007, 03:05 AM
I'm not surprised - Intel's specialty isn't exactly cell phone processors.

that was my thought... does intel make a chip that would even work with that type of form factor??

is this even a big deal? is intel gonna be all whiney because apple didn't use their non-existant chip?

let's hear more about what is in the device... this samsung arm deal... is that pretty powerful? my experience with phones today is that they are all underpowered severely for the features they have... hopefully this is not the case here...

emotion
Jan 11, 2007, 03:07 AM
I'm not surprised - Intel's specialty isn't exactly cell phone processors.

Xscale?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_XScale

It's strange they'd go to a competitor of Intel's in this market for the processor. Must be a cost issue.

DMann
Jan 11, 2007, 03:09 AM
that was my thought... does intel make a chip that would even work with that type of form factor??

is this even a big deal? is intel gonna be all whiney because apple didn't use their non-existant chip?

let's hear more about what is in the device... this samsung arm deal... is that pretty powerful? my experience with phones today is that they are all underpowered severely for the features they have... hopefully this is not the case here...

Samsung has been developing processors for high-end performance
on mobile phones for years. I imagine they would offer the greatest
performance of all chip companies. Imagine and iPhone advertised
with 'liquid cooling.':eek:

AlanAudio
Jan 11, 2007, 03:11 AM
This Reuter's article title (http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=technologyNews&storyID=2007-01-10T232700Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_India-283052-1.xml) bluntly states that the Apple TV has an Intel chip....

This isn't the first time that Reuters have been seen to be publishing untrue stories and passing them off as real news.

It's not even the first time they've done that about Apple either.

If Reuters say Intel and somebody else says not, I'll go with the somebody else until I hear it from Apple.

Willis
Jan 11, 2007, 03:13 AM
I cant believe people try and make a big deal out of something so small.

bah, Apple dont have to use Intel chips in everything they make. End of the day, Apple wants a low powered machine with sufficient battery life. Although thats unknown until its out on the market.

mccoma
Jan 11, 2007, 03:24 AM
Xscale?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_XScale

It's strange they'd go to a competitor of Intel's in this market for the processor. Must be a cost issue.

They sold the chip to Marvell

emotion
Jan 11, 2007, 03:24 AM
Here's why not Xscale (I'm shocked some of you aren't aware of Xscale btw.)

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060627-7142.html

They sold the chip to Marvell

Haha yeah, just found that out.

erikh
Jan 11, 2007, 03:27 AM
While we all wait for the news on the hardware inside the iPhone (and for the iPhone itself), I can't help to think about what this means for us developers. We have just successfully ported (or, in the case of Adobe and Microsoft developers, will soon port) our applications from PowerPC to Intel, with only minor problems for the most part.

Now we're looking at a new platform that Apple says will be running OS X (albeit stripped down, obviously), so it should be possible to port existing Cocoa apps to the iPhone, but if no further info on the hardware, the OS (kernel and window system), and other available APIs is emerging soon, I think it will take a lot longer before 3rd party developers care to try porting their apps to the iPhone, than it did to start the intel transition.

And, talking of chips and silicon that might be inside the iPhone; I for one would love to see that rumored ARM CPU matched with another (proper) ARM processor; the Mali GPU (http://www.arm.com/products/esd/multimediagraphics_malioverview.html) that ARM got into its portfolio when it acquired Falanx Microsystems last year. That would account for some pretty nice 3D graphics as well on the iPhone.

iW00t
Jan 11, 2007, 03:31 AM
Xscale?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_XScale

It's strange they'd go to a competitor of Intel's in this market for the processor. Must be a cost issue.

Intel no longer produces these chips. The division has been sold to Marvell.

appleguy
Jan 11, 2007, 03:39 AM
Com isnt it clear to you guys..
its a G5 Processor:D

emotion
Jan 11, 2007, 04:00 AM
So having read the arstechnica article i quote above:

"I think Core is likely to wind up in a future must-have mobile gadgetóthe 2008 or 2009 equivalent of an iPod or a Blackberry. "

Would this solve the OSX porting problem?

Interesting.

dernhelm
Jan 11, 2007, 05:40 AM
So they ported OS/X to ARM processors as well? Very, very interesting.

robbieduncan
Jan 11, 2007, 05:44 AM
So they ported OS/X to ARM processors as well? Very, very interesting.

OSX is very portable. Sure there will have been kernel work but large sections of the OS should just be a cross-compile away. Note that they never claimed this was Mac OSX, just OSX. There appears to be no Finder, no Carbon...

dagger01
Jan 11, 2007, 06:19 AM
I swear the Apple iPhone page (either the Overview or Tech Spec page) said "Intel Processor" Tuesday night when I looked at it, and sure enough now it doesn't. It never said which one, but I know it "did" say Intel processor. Oh well, I guess we'll find out in June.

123
Jan 11, 2007, 07:24 AM
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/83492

Warbrain
Jan 11, 2007, 07:48 AM
Funny, the Apple reps on the floor apparently said it has an Intel chip...

mrplow
Jan 11, 2007, 07:59 AM
I'm fairly certain that Jobs said himself during the keynote that it's an intel processor.. maybe he meant intel compatible, which is quite vague.

SimonTheSoundMa
Jan 11, 2007, 08:00 AM
I wouldn't be surprised. Apple helped Acorn Computers develop ARM chips in the past. A huge order of 946 series processors has been bought by the company making the iPhone. Incidentally, same processor used in Nintedo DS. I doubt a 10 year old processor will be behind it all though.

Umbongo
Jan 11, 2007, 08:13 AM
I swear the Apple iPhone page (either the Overview or Tech Spec page) said "Intel Processor" Tuesday night when I looked at it, and sure enough now it doesn't. It never said which one, but I know it "did" say Intel processor. Oh well, I guess we'll find out in June.

The appleTV has an Intel processor, iPhone page never mentioned such a thing.

twoodcc
Jan 11, 2007, 08:47 AM
I'm not surprised - Intel's specialty isn't exactly cell phone processors.

i'm a little surprized. but i guess it isn't too big of a deal

peharri
Jan 11, 2007, 09:15 AM
I cant believe people try and make a big deal out of something so small.
It's not that anyone's complaining, it's just it adds more to the puzzle of what, exactly, the system runs as an OS.

Yes, it runs "OS X". But it's not "Mac OS X". And various PDAs run "Windows", but not "Windows XP". There's no evidence anyone's noticed that the current Darwin builds are cross compilable for anything but PowerPC and Intel.

Maybe this is why Apple closed XNU? Seems improbable, given they opened it again, and I'm having a hard time believing XNU is the right kernel for this anyway.

Or perhaps Leopard doesn't use XNU. Now there's speculation!

BTW the ARM chip in the DS, which according to one of the posts above is a candidate for the Apple-branded Telephonic Device (with apologies to Cisco in case of any unintentional trademark violations) does not have an MMU.

It's very, very, very, hard to see how something can run Mac OS X, even a stripped down version (but one with the CoreAnimation framework nonetheless) without an MMU. That would take some amazing refactoring.

The more we know, the less we know...

Claymore
Jan 11, 2007, 09:53 AM
Iím wondering what CPU the AppleTV uses

Bill Gates
Jan 11, 2007, 10:27 AM
Even if Apple had used an Intel chip, more likely than not it wouldn't have been x86, so they would have had to port OS X either way.

ChrisA
Jan 11, 2007, 10:47 AM
that was my thought... does intel make a chip that would even work with that type of form factor??.

Intel makes several that could have been used
http://developer.intel.com/design/pca/applicationsprocessors/index.htm

But lots of companies make ARM processors. It's becone a kind of standard

ChrisA
Jan 11, 2007, 11:15 AM
It's very, very, very, hard to see how something can run Mac OS X, even a stripped down version (but one with the CoreAnimation framework nonetheless) without an MMU. That would take some amazing refactoring.


You are right about the amazing refactoring but we have one example of this being done: uClinux http://www.uclinux.org/ Linux is enough like Mac OSX that it makes a good proof that it could be done.

Also I seem to remember using a UNIX that ran in some early PCs. Possibly the 286 or 8086? Remember "Xenix" it ran on 16-bit PCs. I remember at the time being very impressed that they could get UNIX to run on such low end hardware. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenix

peharri
Jan 11, 2007, 12:19 PM
You are right about the amazing refactoring but we have one example of this being done: uClinux http://www.uclinux.org/ Linux is enough like Mac OSX that it makes a good proof that it could be done.


Kind of. It's still very much a subset. You will not get GNOME or KDE, let alone GNUstep (the nearest thing to Mac OS X's GUI) running on uClinux any time soon.


Also I seem to remember using a UNIX that ran in some early PCs. Possibly the 286 or 8086? Remember "Xenix" it ran on 16-bit PCs. I remember at the time being very impressed that they could get UNIX to run on such low end hardware. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenix

Well, Unix itself was built on 16-bit PDP-11s (and earlier machines), so getting it to run on the 8086 wasn't actually that radical. The 8086 divided up to one megabyte of memory into 64k pages, making it an excellent little chip to run versions of Unix that were respectable in the early eighties.

But that was before the GUI, and while it's not impossible to build a GUI in such a small amount of memory...

...well, it's not easy either.

If I were designing an OS for a device like this, and had no MMU, I'd probably go a different way entirely, using an architecture not unlike AmigaOS, only with managed code VMs (think Java) to protect "processes" from one another. But you certainly would have trouble porting the upper layers of OS X to it. So that's presumably not what Apple has done. I'm really interested in this aspect of the Apple Telephonic Device.

deadkenny
Jan 11, 2007, 01:18 PM
It seems that the Touchscreens are produced by the german company Balda. This article on the very reliable heise news site claims it:

http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/83582

Balda used to produce chassis and cabinets for Siemens Benq Mobile phones. Siemens Benq recently proclaimed insolvency.

Another interesting rumour is that a former Apple Computer Inc. Manager (most likely Gil Amilio) is bidding on the bankrupt company details can be read here:

http://www.heise.de/newsticker/result.xhtml?url=/newsticker/meldung/83494&words=Apple%20Benq%20BenQ

rt_brained
Jan 11, 2007, 02:06 PM
Buzz around the Macworld floor has suggested that a Samsung ARM processor is at the heart of the device.

I was hoping for a MacRumors ARN processor.

EnricoFermi
Jan 11, 2007, 05:58 PM
Even if Apple had used an Intel chip, more likely than not it wouldn't have been x86, so they would have had to port OS X either way.

Has anyone thought about Via or Transmeta chips for this? They are both x86 compatible. I guess AMD Geode is as well, but I wouldn't think that would do the job.

Transmeta just released a chip used in a similar device running Windows XP here (http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/pcs/samsungs-folding-umpc-flexible-as-a-yoga-instructor-221948.php) and it was for a phone too. Samsung was showing it off at CES this year.

They also demonstrated a PC using one of these chips that required less than a watt to operate at 700Mhz. Standby time is very good and this would solve the porting problem. It runs cool and would easily handle the load. Is it too powerful for just a phone?

ClimbingTheLog
Jan 12, 2007, 12:42 PM
Here's why not Xscale (I'm shocked some of you aren't aware of Xscale btw.)

The new kids here never owned a Newton...

Funny, the Apple reps on the floor apparently said it has an Intel chip...

There are few pieces of technology these days that don't have *some* Intel chip in them - they make lots of stuff besides CPU's.

Iím wondering what CPU the AppleTV uses

Viiv, most likely.

I was hoping for a MacRumors ARN processor.

Is that one that makes the LoopRumors processor look stupid on national TV?

well-hello
Jan 13, 2007, 10:20 AM
Posted this on another thread, but I think this might be the correct Forum.

Could the processor be the new chip Samsung putting in its SPH-P9000 device due the same time as iphone

SPH-P9000 running Win-XP. Also, video on youtube.com indicated 8 hours of battery life (search for SPH-P9000 in youtube).

SPH-P9000 is powered by a new 1 GHz low power Transmeta chip. Their code morphing translation layer is designed for x86 translation but can be modified for OS X platform.

Any thoughts?

info on OS X

http://www.macworld.co.uk/ipod-itune...pe=allchandate

well-hello
Jan 13, 2007, 10:27 AM
posted similar info. :)

StealthRider
Jan 13, 2007, 11:08 AM
Viiv, most likely.

Viiv isn't a processor - it's the entertainment counterpart of the Centrino branding effort.

It's probably a lower-end Core Solo.

emotion
Jan 13, 2007, 11:14 AM
SPH-P9000 is powered by a new 1 GHz low power Transmeta chip. Their code morphing translation layer is designed for x86 translation but can be modified for OS X platform.

Any thoughts?

Interesting. A possibility.

I think Intel might be headed for this with some variation of the core (when it gets down to 45nm, and hence the sale to Marvell) until then this is not beyond the realms of possibility I suppose.

Lanbrown
Jan 13, 2007, 03:12 PM
I'm not surprised - Intel's specialty isn't exactly cell phone processors.

Well, Intel did inherit (from a settlement) StongARM based processors from DEC. Intel used this to get rid of their existing processors (i960, etc) and they created the Xscale processors from it. You will find these in various electronics, like the Treo, BlackBerry phones and various WM devices. Intel has sold this business to Marvell, but the intent is that Intel is going to bring x86 processors down to the handheld device market.

that was my thought... does intel make a chip that would even work with that type of form factor??

is this even a big deal? is intel gonna be all whiney because apple didn't use their non-existant chip?

let's hear more about what is in the device... this samsung arm deal... is that pretty powerful? my experience with phones today is that they are all underpowered severely for the features they have... hopefully this is not the case here...

The ARM chips dominate this market. They are very efficient and they are getting more and more sophisticated. Ti had ARM based processors as well. You can find these in many Nokia phones.

Xscale?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_XScale

It's strange they'd go to a competitor of Intel's in this market for the processor. Must be a cost issue.

Intel did sell their ARM based processor line to Marvell. Intel wants to sell x86 based processors in that market.

Samsung has been developing processors for high-end performance
on mobile phones for years. I imagine they would offer the greatest
performance of all chip companies. Imagine and iPhone advertised
with 'liquid cooling.':eek:

So has Ti with their OMAP line. Out of the two, Ti is further ahead.


And, talking of chips and silicon that might be inside the iPhone; I for one would love to see that rumored ARM CPU matched with another (proper) ARM processor; the Mali GPU (http://www.arm.com/products/esd/multimediagraphics_malioverview.html) that ARM got into its portfolio when it acquired Falanx Microsystems last year. That would account for some pretty nice 3D graphics as well on the iPhone.

Take at the OMAP 3 platform from Ti. It has more than just a GPU; it is a multicore processor.

I'm fairly certain that Jobs said himself during the keynote that it's an intel processor.. maybe he meant intel compatible, which is quite vague.

ARM is not Intel compatible.

Even if Apple had used an Intel chip, more likely than not it wouldn't have been x86, so they would have had to port OS X either way.

Intel sold it to Marvell to do just that. They want to be an x86 processor company.

Intel makes several that could have been used
http://developer.intel.com/design/pca/applicationsprocessors/index.htm

But lots of companies make ARM processors. It's becone a kind of standard

Anyone can license ARM. Someone else does a lot of the work and the fabricators can use what they want. It all depends on the license they bought.

Interesting. A possibility.

I think Intel might be headed for this with some variation of the core (when it gets down to 45nm, and hence the sale to Marvell) until then this is not beyond the realms of possibility I suppose.

We have a winner here. That is why Intel sold it to Marvell. Intel saves money by focusing on one processor line (x86) for most of their revenue. They can implement various power saving techniques and later implement them in other processors as well; like mobile chips.