ARM Announces Major New Licensee, Is it Apple?

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

9to5mac points (http://9to5mac.com/pa_arm_apple_mobile) to a recent ARM announcement (http://www.eetimes.eu/209602057) that the company has secured a major architectural licensing deal with an "unnamed OEM" (original equipment manufacturer). This broad architectural license allows the manufacturers to develop their own implementations of the ARM processor and has been issued very few times over the years. The name of the licensee has not been officially announced.

During today's financial results conference (http://www.eetimes.eu/209900358), the CEO of ARM explains why a company might want this sort of license:"Some handset manufacturers want to have more control over the design of their handset, including the components within it, than others. And it's as simple as that. And the ARM business model offers one that level of control, if that's what one wants to do and one has the technical resources available to do it," said East.EETimes' Peter Clarke (http://www.eetimes.eu/uk/209900392?cid=RSSfeed_eetimesEU_uk) believes that Apple is the unnamed licensee. The iPhone reportedly contains as many as five ARM processor cores inside of it from multiple vendors. Apple's recent acquisition of P.A. Semi (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/06/10/p-a-semi-acquisition-for-ipod-and-iphone-chips/) brought its founder and CEO Dan Dobberpuhl into Apple. Dobberpuhl led the team that developed the StrongARM processor using a similar architectural license from ARM. Steve Jobs has also revealed (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/06/10/p-a-semi-acquisition-for-ipod-and-iphone-chips/) that they had specific plans for P.A. Semi's acquisition to develop system-on-chips for future iPods and iPhones.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/07/30/arm-announces-major-new-licensee-is-it-apple/)

[iMacmatician]

It'll be interesting to see how this affects future iPods, iPhones, and any other handheld devices.

Apple most likely thinks that Atom is too power consuming at this stage for it to be used in those devices.

[BigD58]

Hmm Interesting. I do hope this apple they are talking about. This would mean so many new things for them.:D

[macrockbuddy]

I hope Apple doesn't venture too far away from Intel. I like the Intel processors in their mac line up. I think if Apple announced that they were no longer using Intel processors it could hurt sales.

[Chaszmyr]

I hope Apple doesn't venture too far away from Intel. I like the Intel processors in their mac line up. I think if Apple announced that they were no longer using Intel processors it could hurt sales.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Apple's relationship with Intel. This is about iPhone chips, and the iPhone doesn't use any Intel technology. Apple putting their own silicon in iPhones is a very far cry from using it to replace Intel processors in computers.

[damnyooneek]

I hope Apple doesn't venture too far away from Intel. I like the Intel processors in their mac line up. I think if Apple announced that they were no longer using Intel processors it could hurt sales.

no this move will likely be for their handheld products.

[kornyboy]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5A347 Safari/525.20)

I hope Apple doesn't venture too far away from Intel. I like the Intel processors in their mac line up. I think if Apple announced that they were no longer using Intel processors it could hurt sales.

I agree, the intel processor has been a great addition to the mac. I guess we will have to wait and see. I do think that the Apple-Intel relationship is strong and I would see no reasons to sever ties with Intel.

[r.j.s]

I hope Apple doesn't venture too far away from Intel. I like the Intel processors in their mac line up. I think if Apple announced that they were no longer using Intel processors it could hurt sales.

ARM makes ultramobile processors, not laptop/desktop processors.

[arn]

Makes sense this is Apple. By doing this, Apple stands to gain a significant competitive advantage over other companies who can't just throw together an iphone-clone using the same parts available to everyone.

It's a fine line though. you lose some economies of scale etc... Apple needs to be able to actually produce better chips or ones that give them an advantage.

arn

[techage14]

Very interesting. I can't wait to see if this is true. It would open many doors as some one else said. I wonder what's going to happen next...

[iMacmatician]

This has absolutely nothing to do with Apple's relationship with Intel. This is about iPhone chips, and the iPhone doesn't use any Intel technology. Apple putting their own silicon in iPhones is a very far cry from using it to replace Intel processors in computers.And Apple already uses ARM chips.

Apple + ARM + PA Semi = custom chips for iPhone, iPod, etc.?

Apple + Intel + PA Semi? = custom chipsets for Macs?

[kjs862]

Sweet, lets hope the can make some nice toys together!

[nagromme]

Historical note: Apple was involved in the design of new ARM chips way back--for the Newton.

[dasmb]

Of course the "unnamed OEM" is Apple.

If it were ANY other company, they would have been writing press releases before the deal was even signed. Outside of Cupertino, that's how technology "works"...you shout loud about your relationships and functions and new ideas BEFORE you invest in production (and in cases before the prototype is even ready), to gauge the market response and properly scale your initial run.

At Apple, they instead fully develop a product, then announce it with a margin high enough to cover potentially unsold units.

It's a riskier venture that requires a lot more capital investment and strong market research. It's also why the products have such consumer appeal.

[Rocketman]

This has another "intended consequence" of great benefit for Apple-Intel. This strengthens a competitor to Intel thus lowering the governmental banter about monopoly and anti-trust.

Apple needs an Intel free of anti-trust claims, which are unique to USA until recently, and resulted in our own country's loss of our worldwide vertical monopoly in oil. That was a long term disaster.

The drag on Microsoft has been huge. They should have simply been forced to pay treble damages to all the competitors they stomped and move on.

That said, Apple will continue to make strategic agreements to assure their critical suppliers do not run afoul of the overburdensome government his BOD member worked so hard to install and enlarge, and will continue to do so in the future within the Democratic party.

Rocketman

[goinskiing]

Apple + ARM + PA Semi = custom chips for iPhone, iPod, etc.?

Apple + Intel + PA Semi? = custom chipsets for Macs?

I think that could very well be the case, especially after hearing that Apple may move away from the Intel chipsets (NOT CPUs). Should be interesting to see what the coming months will bring.

[krye]

It's funny to look back over the past 2 years and see all these acquisitions, who's working for who now, etc. Once you take a step back and look at it as a whole, it's like a well played game of chess. It's very well though out, patient, and strategic.

[AlphaAnt]

Man, I was about to give up reading MR for the day. I'm glad I hit refresh one last time. This news is huge.

I don't see what other OEM company has the position, desire, and ability to develop its own ARM processors, so in my mind there's only Apple. This is (in IMO) the first major follow-up to them buying PA Semi, and an extremely positive result of that move. Considering the time between the purchase and this announcement, it's taken about long enough for them to draft the license contract, have it completely worked through by engineers and lawyers, then signed off on by execs of both companies.

When this turns out to be Apple, I can't wait to find out how well their implementation performs in comparison to what they're currently using in the iPhone and other platforms.

[~Shard~]

Excellent news - as arn mentioned, this will give Apple a competitive advantage over rivals, as Apple will have more control over the chips in thier devices and be able to customize them to their needs, whereas other manufacturers will be stuck using the basic available offerings. It will allow Apple to exercise more creativity and innovation all while their competitiors will not be able to do a quick copy job.

[reallynotnick]

It's a fine line though. you lose some economies of scale etc... Apple needs to be able to actually produce better chips or ones that give them an advantage.


True but I don't think Apple has much of a problem when it comes to scale in the iPod/iPhone section ;) I hope this will somehow lead to even more powerful and revolutionary devices.

[pubb]

Apple couldn't care less if every Intel employee was being drawn and quartered so long as they got a better product than the competition at a better price.
Intel can have a monopoly, so long as they don't engage in unlawful means to effect that monopoly. If every other manufacturer decided on their own to get out of the chip business, Intel would have a monopoly and it would be perfectly legal.

Pubb


Apple needs an Intel free of anti-trust claims, which are unique to USA until recently, and resulted in our own country's loss of our worldwide vertical monopoly in oil. That was a long term disaster.

The drag on Microsoft has been huge. They should have simply been forced to pay treble damages to all the competitors they stomped and move on.

That said, Apple will continue to make strategic agreements to assure their critical suppliers do not run afoul of the overburdensome government his BOD member worked so hard to install and enlarge, and will continue to do so in the future within the Democratic party.

Rocketman

[rikers_mailbox]

More vertical integration. Apple is really holding on tightly to the iPhone/iPod Touch/Mobile OS X platform ... lots of tech investment and patent applications. The obvious expectation is long term growth and development in the platform.

[Rocketman]

Intel can have a monopoly, so long as they don't engage in unlawful means to effect that monopoly. If every other manufacturer decided on their own to get out of the chip business, Intel would have a monopoly and it would be perfectly legal.

Pubb

I hear you. Anti-trust efforts are more poitical than legal in initial motivation. The U.S. Justice department has ANNOUNCED they are looking into allegations Intel is running afoul of anti-trust laws. Gee, I wonder who dropped the dime? :)

It's the government, it doesn't have to make sense.

Rocketman

[Yvan256]

Apple + Intel + PA Semi? = custom chipsets for Macs?

I'm betting this is one path Apple will have to take to stop this new wave of "Mac clones". Standard intel CPU with a regular intel/etc chipset (to stay Windows compatible) + custom Apple (PA Semi) chipset that regular PC motherboards don't have (that could also help with parallel processing, etc).

[commander.data]

I'm not sure why there is always such concern when these types of announcements are made that Apple is moving away from Intel. As others have said ARM's target markets are generally quite different from Intel's. Admittedly with Atom, Intel hopes to move into some of ARM's space in Smartphones and such, but currently Atom is targetted at netbooks, nettops, and other devices that are larger.

[CalPoly10]

Well, I just purchased 2 Options contracts in ARMH (ARM Holdings). Hopefully they announce it is indeed Apple.

[MonksMac]

I'm betting this is one path Apple will have to take to stop this new wave of "Mac clones". Standard intel CPU with a regular intel/etc chipset (to stay Windows compatible) + custom Apple (PA Semi) chipset that regular PC motherboards don't have (that could also help with parallel processing, etc).
That was the same idea that I had. Apple might have PA Semi help them create unique chipsets that are only in Apple's computers. This would stop or at least slow down the cloners and Hackintosh people. On the other hand I could be completely wrong and it could be more advanced ARM processors for mobile devices.

[IJ Reilly]

Historical note: Apple was involved in the design of new ARM chips way back--for the Newton.

You beat me to it. Apple was also a major investor in ARM. I know they sold some of the stock, but I wonder if they've still got a major holding.

[Fabio_gsilva]

Although I believe that this is going to happen, It will take some time for PA semi (Apple) to create this kind of chipset or mobile chips to replace intel chipset in the Mac and other chips in iPod and Iphone...

I'm not an expert, but it would take time to make this new chips work with today's software too...

So, we will have to wait, I guess...

[AlphaAnt]

That was the same idea that I had. Apple might have PA Semi help them create unique chipsets that are only in Apple's computers. This would stop or at least slow down the cloners and Hackintosh people. On the other hand I could be completely wrong and it could be more advanced ARM processors for mobile devices.

I think Apple is pretty confident that the EULAs they have in place are enough to prevent companies like Psystar from producing those products. The home cloners aren't a big enough market to make it really matter. Especially at the cost of 1) acquisition of PA Semi, and 2) licensing the ARM architecture for $1 million (or more).

I'm fairly certain that this is gearing towards mobile platforms.

[techfreak85]

If they said this (from 9 to 5)
'describing it as a "leading handset OEM", adding "which is developing its roadmap for mobile computing devices." '

yep that sounds like apple... with iphone/touch/itablet
:eek:

[Vaphoron]

Hopefully this means cheaper and more powerful mobile offerings from Apple in the future.

[techfreak85]

do you think these arm chips will be in the new itouch coming out in a little over a month?
:D

[haunebu]

Historical note: Apple was involved in the design of new ARM chips way back--for the Newton.

This man speaks truth. In fact, here's a bit more history of the Apple/ARM relationship from Wikipedia:

In the late 1980s Apple Computer started working with Acorn on newer versions of the ARM core. The work was so important that Acorn spun off the design team in 1990 into a new company called Advanced RISC Machines Ltd.. For this reason, ARM is sometimes expanded as Advanced RISC Machine instead of Acorn RISC Machine. Advanced RISC Machines became ARM Ltd when its parent company, ARM Holdings plc, floated on the London Stock Exchange and NASDAQ in 1998.

This work would eventually turn into the ARM6. The first models were released in 1991, and Apple used the ARM6-based ARM 610 as the basis for their Apple Newton PDA. In 1994, Acorn used the ARM 610 as the main CPU in their Risc PC computers.

Apple is no stranger to the ARM architecture, and they're as good a candidate as any to license the architecture again for their own designs.

[Thomas2006]

While it makes sense for us to think that Apple is the OEM, Steve Ballmer said he wanted Microsoft to be more like Apple in the sense that they should control a product end-to-end. Think Microsoft Windows 7 UM(PC)

[twoodcc]

looking forward to future iphones and ipods

[Veri]

Apple is no stranger to the ARM architecture, and they're as good a candidate as any to license the architecture again for their own designs.
As far as Acorn/Apple cooperation, don't forget the oddly-fizzled Xemplar (http://www.theregister.co.uk.sixxs.org/1999/01/11/acorn_falls_off_education_tree/) team effort from the late '90s. The educational iMac5,2 I'm typing on right now is a vague descendant of that foray.

I have a working Risc PC 600 with its original ARM610, bought ca 1994. While x86/amd64 is something you thank the compiler gods for shielding you from, ARM assembler is readable and sensible (thank you Sophie Wilson!). Meanwhile, even underclocking my Samsung S3C2410X-based HP 50G calculator, an implementation of the ARM920T, I can outpace that desktop box, and am currently having great fun building a toy OS on it. My first ARM-based machine, the Acorn A3000 in 1989, had 512KB RAM; so does the calculator. As any fule kno, 512KB should be almost enough for anybody ;).

[fastbite]

Of course is Apple! SJ has tasted death (like many of us) but regardless he's in a mission to bring us the next generation of 'whatever' and 'whatever' will be better. Somebody has to kick some ass rather than follow and that is Apple's mission. No more, no less. My words may sound like rambling but what SJ wants is to kill the computer as we know it, and thanks God for that! So step by step we are getting there.
kill the mouse, kill the 'verbs' and kill all the rest. Until the sun shines again.
We are talking art, and art is rather abstract. But then again, it can be a bullet straight to your head.
I know who has the finger on the trigger.

[iMacmatician]

It'll most likely take Moorestown (2009/2010) or its 32 nm shrink for Atom to move to the smartphone space.

[quote=AlphaAnt;5939766]I think Apple is pretty confident that the EULAs they have in place are enough to prevent companies like Psystar from producing those products. The home cloners aren't a big enough market to make it really matter. Especially at the cost of 1) acquisition of PA Semi, and 2) licensing the ARM architecture for $1 million (or more).

I'm fairly certain that this is gearing towards mobile platforms.Probably for better power consumption and special features.

[Mykbibby]

To answer the question: yes :D

[MattInOz]

If they said this (from 9 to 5)
'describing it as a "leading handset OEM", adding "which is developing its roadmap for mobile computing devices." '

yep that sounds like apple... with iphone/touch/itablet
:eek:

It could be Nokia, Sony Erricson or Blackberry.
They all have the resources and with existing competition and now Apple nipping at their heals the motivation to make a quantum leap.

To bad they didn't say American OEM, then it would be a lock on Apple

[Virgil-TB2]

It could be Nokia, Sony Erricson or Blackberry.
They all have the resources and with existing competition and now Apple nipping at their heals the motivation to make a quantum leap.

To bad they didn't say American OEM, then it would be a lock on AppleNone of those companies design their own chips though do they? Or have chip design experience in house? Apple has and always has.

[HyperZboy]

I think Apple is pretty confident that the EULAs they have in place are enough to prevent companies like Psystar from producing those products.

Thanks, you made me laugh. Apple's EULA, like many other company's EULAs would be thrown out on its AZZ if ever tested in court. Apple is just legally suing Psystar out of business through exorbitant legal costs Psystar obviously can't afford and if that doesn't work, Apple will just buy the company. Apple's EULA will never be tested in court, trust me.

So I purchased this car part in a store and I'm legally not allowed to install it on my car because it's not a FORD ???

Please, stop making me laugh, Apple's EULA would go right down the toilet same way in any court. That's why Steve Jobs will not be stupid enough to test it, but he might be smart enough to make Macs, iPhones, & iPods just enough technically different to prevent more Psystars & iPhone wannabes, yet still have Macs 100% Windows compatible. :D

[maokh]

LOL!!! "very, very few times" ... I'm sure it's a big deal for arm, but everybody and their mom licenses ARM cores. ARM is practically just IP and has been for *years*. Size and power consumption matters, and everybody wants their own single chip solution -- and as small as possible

[gnasher729]

Thanks, you made me laugh. Apple's EULA, like many other company's EULAs would be thrown out on its AZZ if ever tested in court. Apple is just legally suing Psystar out of business through exorbitant legal costs Psystar obviously can't afford and if that doesn't work, Apple will just buy the company. Apple's EULA will never be tested in court, trust me.

So I purchased this car part in a store and I'm legally not allowed to install it on my car because it's not a FORD ???

Please, stop making me laugh, Apple's EULA would go right down the toilet same way in any court. That's why Steve Jobs will not be stupid enough to test it, but he might be smart enough to make Macs, iPhones, & iPods just enough technically different to prevent more Psystars & iPhone wannabes, yet still have Macs 100% Windows compatible. :D

So far EULAs stood up in US courts quite well. And Psystar is no "End User". Please use a bit of common sense: If money can be made by building and selling MacOS X compatible computers, and the only reason not to do so is the cost of a lawsuit which as you prodict Apple would lose, why isn't Dell selling MacOS X compatible computers? Is it because management at Dell is sleeping, or is it because Dell's lawyers know something that you don't know?

[CWallace]

I don't see what other OEM company has the position, desire, and ability to develop its own ARM processors, so in my mind there's only Apple.

How about Google and their Android platform?

[alphaod]

It's probably Apple, but it could be Microsoft too. :rolleyes:

Gee, I wonder who dropped the dime? :)

AMD…

How about Google and their Android platform?

Open source OS that should work on as many devices as possible; not likely they would develop a proprietary solution.

[localoid]

... Open source OS that should work on as many devices as possible; not likely they would develop a proprietary solution.

The Google Android project isn't exactly 100% open source. Parts of the SDK are presently proprietary and closed source although (maybe, sometime in the future) "most" of the components may be released by Google under the Apache license.

To quote Google (http://code.google.com/android/terms.html): "Once the SDK reaches a more finished form, Google intends to release most of the components under the Apache v2.0 open source license."

[Goliath]

It could be Nokia, Sony Erricson or Blackberry.
They all have the resources and with existing competition and now Apple nipping at their heals the motivation to make a quantum leap.

To bad they didn't say American OEM, then it would be a lock on Apple

Although Nokia, SE and RIM have the resources, they have to my knowledge no experience of chip design. Apple, however, has a wealth of experience and has successfully deployed their designs.

If it turns out not to be Apple, the only other OEM that springs to mind in this sector is Samsung, as they have the knowledge and experience of designing and fabrication, much like Apple.

The article points out that any manufacturer has the ability to custom design ARM chips, but very few licenses have been issued over the years. That in itself leads me to believe that it has to be Apple- nobody else has really shown the desire to custom make chips for their products.

Nokia, for instance, are far too large a company to be messing around with chip design when what's out there serves them well already. There's no competitive advantage for them and likely they would have difficulty fabricating enough chips for their needs if they did. Before anybody starts, below is a perfect illustration of exactly why Nokia would run into difficulty.

In 2006 Nokia, in its 10 worldwide factories, handled over 100 billion parts. To put that into perspective, daily around the globe their factories handled something like 275 million parts and churned out 900,000 mobiles at the end of the line. Every single day of the year to manufacture a staggering 328 million mobiles.

[retroneo]

You beat me to it. Apple was also a major investor in ARM. I know they sold some of the stock, but I wonder if they've still got a major holding.

I think they sold it all off when they were in financial trouble.

Acorn and Apple had amazing foresight in developing the ultra low power processor for the Newton. Its great to see the technology being used to its fullest now.

ARMs current cores for licensees include the 4 core Cortex A9 design. It uses 250mw and gives an incredible performance.

The power efficiency of A9 ARM is 8 to 16x at a given power consumption compared to the Atom. That is a massive difference.

Think Grand Central (also in Snow Leopard) coming to ARM and iPhone OS X 3.0

Multiple ARM cores will enable the Objective C 2.0 garbage collector to be used as it runs on a second thread.

The PowerVR graphics core from Imagination has a similar power efficiency lead over its rivals.

OpenCL (also in Snow Leopard) is coming to the PowerVR. Imagination is a member of the OpenCL group.

Think OpenCL coming to iPhone OS X 3.0

The kernels are now in sync between OS X and iPhone OS X. Xcode is used for developing both.

[winterspan]

If it turns out not to be Apple, the only other OEM that springs to mind in this sector is Samsung, as they have the knowledge and experience of designing and fabrication, much like Apple.

Samsung doesn't already have a license? or is it limited to manufacturing and not chip development? If that is the case, then who actually *designed* the ARM11 app processor in the iPhone?

QUOTE=CWallace;5942068]How about Google and their Android platform?[/QUOTE]
Google has the money, but no hardware engineering experience that I know of, and more importantly I fail to see any reason why they would want to meddle with that. Even if they are indeed working on their own Android-based "Gphone" device, it doesn't make a lot of sense to spend so much money and effort to design a custom ARM chip, when the current off-the-shelf implementations from TI, Qualcomm, Samsung, and others work great. They have always said they are not solely targeting the high-end of phone users with Android, but rather the whole market including low-cost, high-volume phones.

ARMs current cores for licensees include the 4 core Cortex A9 design. It uses 250mw and gives an incredible performance...
*snip* ...The PowerVR graphics core from Imagination has a similar power efficiency lead over its rivals.

Yea, the Cortex-A9 certainly looks like a beast! Out of order, up to four cores, and up to 1.0ghz! Even a single-core Cortex-A8 (in-order) at 600-800mhz would be great! With these new cores, I find it very hard to believe that Intel is going to be able to compete in the embedded space. Perhaps if they always stay ahead in manufacturing and have a 22nm Atom vs a 45nm ARM or something, but It's hard to believe. They don't even have the Atom as a system-on-a-chip yet! Since it's x86, the only benchmarks I ever see of Atom compare it to Pentium M and Core 2/Core 2 ULV. Where are the Atom vs ARM Cortext-A9 bechmarks???

Oh and speaking of PowerVR embedded graphics , The iPhone with it's 'MBX lite' is ALREADY old hat. When the iPhone 3G came out it (the graphics not the phone) was already obsolete! The new 'SGX' core chips can scale up to 100+ milion polygon/sec! Why aren't other competitors getting this new graphics chip? Its funny how everyone casts the iPhone as having spectacular graphics capabilites, when in fact the state-of-the-art technology wise is MUCH better, but apparently no one is using it yet in mobile devices.

But I tell you what, Whenever Sony or Nintentendo or Microsoft makes a new handheld game console, BOY IS IT GOING TO FLY! Imagine a 1.0Ghz Cortex A9 and
"PowerVR SGX540". It could run many relatively recent (2-3 years back) DirectX9 desktop games!

[goosnarrggh]

Samsung doesn't already have a license? or is it limited to manufacturing and not chip development? If that is the case, then who actually *designed* the ARM11 app processor in the iPhone?
Samsung (like most other ARM OEMs) received a license to use the ARM core. They were most likely given a VHDL (or equivalent) representation of the processor core which can be treated as a "black box" that they can embedded as component within their in-house design. This may be one of several standard variants of ARM7, ARM9, ARM11, or one of the Cortex cores.

They then take the standard interfaces exposed by the ARM core's black box (the instruction and data busses) and connect them to their own designs for memory, peripherals, etc.

Every OEM using the same core inherits all the same characteristics for things like instruction sets, timing etc. They differentiate themselves according to the functionality that is connected externally. For example, they may make a niche for themselves by using a more efficient data bus to minimize the impact of cache misses and keep a steady instruction throughput. Or they may offer a more diverse set of peripherals to minimize unnecessary external components. Or they may have a particularly powerful DMA subsystem to allow those peripherals exchange data amongst themselves with minimal hand-holding by the CPU core itself.

The StrongARM has been used as an example of being a product of an "architectural license" similar to the new partner that was just announced. If that is, indeed the case, then what we'd be likely to see would be a custom implementation of components within the ARM core itself. The result would be a whole new variant of the ARM architecture, allowing enhancements to features that would have otherwise been impossible if constrained to one of ARM's own "black box" implementations. This may include a different implementation for the data or instruction fetching and decoding pipeline. It may be a more efficient cache architecture. It may involve some additions or enhancements to the instruction set itself.