Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Oct 12, 2012, 11:04 AM   #26
mkimid
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
for iPad 5th generation ?

maybe, 2GHz with 4 core PVR6 GPU... it is for the iPad 5th Generation in 2014 Mar...
mkimid is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2012, 11:07 AM   #27
basesloaded190
macrumors 68030
 
basesloaded190's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Send a message via AIM to basesloaded190
Quote:
Originally Posted by jav6454 View Post
Still no. What would Apple do in the chip business? Intel is already wary of Apple as is, doubt they'll play nice knowing Apple will be their competitor.

Apple needs only a chip supplier, not a chip making business. Although I loathe at time TMSC due to their 40nm snafu with nVidia and AMD (ATI at time).
Well now you are getting into external hypothetical reactions from another company. Looking at purely the numbers they could, but again i'm not saying they would or should.
__________________
2011 MacBook Pro 15 HR Anti-Glare, Etymotic ER-4p, iPhone 4 32GB
Twitter
basesloaded190 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2012, 11:07 AM   #28
lazard
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
TSMC's market cap is $78.38. Assuming Apple can acquire TSMC for the historical average acquisition premium for companies in the same industry (43%), it would cost Apple roughly $112.08B.
lazard is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2012, 11:10 AM   #29
theBB
macrumors 68020
 
theBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by fertilized-egg View Post
Something doesn't quite sound right though. If anything Apple will try to add more suppliers not reducing them. Relying on a single company that's well known to have its share of production problems just doesn't sound like Tim Cook-era Apple.
Relying on a sole supplier for any part is risky, but 20nm fabs of TSMC and Samsung most likely will not be compatible. That would require essentially developing that chip twice to get that extra security, including making firmware tweaks for each one. It may still be worth it, but it is a very expensive security blanket nonetheless.

Besides, you can hear production problems at TSMC, because they've got a lot of customers, big and small, all of which can talk to the media. TSMC production problems can be convenient a scapegoat (or the real reason) for why a company misses its earnings estimates and shipment volumes, so it gets talked about in official and unofficial revelations. Samsung is not as large in foundry business (and its biggest customer loves secrecy), so they may be able to keep their problems quiet.
theBB is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2012, 11:13 AM   #30
komodrone
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
oh yeahhh Apple, tap TSMC's ass.
komodrone is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2012, 11:14 AM   #31
Traisoon
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Wow. I better start saving some money.
Traisoon is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2012, 11:16 AM   #32
krravi
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Once Apple got into the chip design business I always had the fear that they might jettison Intel as their supplier and go with their own designs.

It might be so long for Samsung for now, but so long for bootcamp and Windows, if they start using their chips all across their hardware.
krravi is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2012, 11:18 AM   #33
theBB
macrumors 68020
 
theBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by jav6454 View Post
Reference tag =! Price tag. That is all.
The whole discussion started when somebody said Apple's $117 cash reserve was hardly enough. It covers the market cap and a 50% premium, so it has enough money, not to mention the possibility of using shares and cash for an acquisition. Clearly, Apple's reason for not buying TSMC has nothing to do with its financial resources.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by krravi View Post
It might be so long for Samsung for now, but so long for bootcamp and Windows, if they start using their chips all across their hardware.
Don't worry, Windows now works on ARM chips.
theBB is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2012, 11:22 AM   #34
Rocketman
macrumors 603
 
Rocketman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Claremont, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by basesloaded190 View Post
TSM only has a market cap of $78B
Technically Apple would not need to buy it to control it. They could do an off-balance-sheet transaction and form a private equity pool to purchase TSMC and have perhaps a 10% equity stake itself. Even if it went private for $100B that would only be $10B out of Apple and the remainder in private equity. Plenty of folks would invest in a supplier with Apple as the primary or semi-exclusive customer, servicing other suppliers of interest to Apple like Qualcomm.

For another $12B they could take Qualcomm private at $120B.

Apple, contact me. It gives new meaning to "halo effect".

Rocketman
__________________
Think Different-ly!
All 357 R or D House jobs bills over 4 years died in the D Senate, ordered by the D President. Buy a model rocket here: http://v-serv.com/usr/instaship-visual.htm Thanks.

Last edited by Rocketman; Oct 12, 2012 at 11:38 AM.
Rocketman is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2012, 11:23 AM   #35
nick_elt
macrumors 68000
 
nick_elt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazard View Post
because they don't have enough cash to.
They would but it would use up all of their "fort knox" which is not something that apple does nor would it be worthwile

Edit. I see its been discussed above
nick_elt is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2012, 11:28 AM   #36
fertilized-egg
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by theBB View Post
20nm fabs of TSMC and Samsung most likely will not be compatible. That would require essentially developing that chip twice to get that extra security, including making firmware tweaks for each one. It may still be worth it, but it is a very expensive security blanket nonetheless.
Very true but for Apple it just might be worth it. Also Qualcomm has signed deals with UMC and Samsung for extra production in addition to the TSMC volume. If it's possible for Qualcomm I don't see why Apple wouldn't try it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theBB View Post
Besides, you can hear production problems at TSMC, because they've got a lot of customers, big and small, all of which can talk to the media
It's mainly because ATI/AMD and nVidia have had so much trouble when they go with the latest process with TSMC over the years. However as you said perhaps it's just because of TSMC's sheer size and we're being unfair to the company.
fertilized-egg is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2012, 11:31 AM   #37
kahkityoong
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Originally Posted by basesloaded190
I realize that, I appraise companies for a living and know that there is so much more than just stock to consider when a purchase is made. I'm not saying Apple should do this, but I'm saying that they could.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jav6454 View Post
Still no. What would Apple do in the chip business? Intel is already wary of Apple as is, doubt they'll play nice knowing Apple will be their competitor.

Apple needs only a chip supplier, not a chip making business. Although I loathe at time TMSC due to their 40nm snafu with nVidia and AMD (ATI at time).

----------



Reference tag =! Price tag. That is all.
You should learn the difference between 'could' and 'should' JAV.
__________________
2014 rMBP 15" 2.8/16GB/1TB
Magic Hour Travelscapes
https://500px.com/kahkityoong
kahkityoong is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2012, 11:36 AM   #38
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Apple made a bid for exclusivity with TSMC. So did Qualcomm. TSMC said no to both.

Which is smart. Clearly their tech is in demand. They don't need to be exclusive.
samcraig is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2012, 12:00 PM   #39
mjtomlin
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by krravi View Post
It might be so long for Samsung for now, but so long for bootcamp and Windows, if they start using their chips all across their hardware.
Uh, why is that?

Apple could license the x86-64 ISA and just design their own micro-architecture. This would make their custom cores binary/code compatible with Intel and AMD.

This is exactly what they did with the cores used in the A6; they're custom designed but built against the ARMv7 ISA. Meaning the micro-architecture is completely their own design, but they are compatible with other ARM cores.
mjtomlin is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2012, 12:04 PM   #40
SPUY767
macrumors 68000
 
SPUY767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by gto55 View Post
Why doesn't apple buy TSMC ?
Because last I checked TSMC is worth about 2.2 Trllion?
__________________
Yo' mama's so STUPID, she went to Bangkok to get a TIE Fighter.
SPUY767 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2012, 12:05 PM   #41
magbarn
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by theBB View Post
Relying on a sole supplier for any part is risky, but 20nm fabs of TSMC and Samsung most likely will not be compatible. That would require essentially developing that chip twice to get that extra security, including making firmware tweaks for each one. It may still be worth it, but it is a very expensive security blanket nonetheless.

Besides, you can hear production problems at TSMC, because they've got a lot of customers, big and small, all of which can talk to the media. TSMC production problems can be convenient a scapegoat (or the real reason) for why a company misses its earnings estimates and shipment volumes, so it gets talked about in official and unofficial revelations. Samsung is not as large in foundry business (and its biggest customer loves secrecy), so they may be able to keep their problems quiet.
When both AMD/Nvidia have had extensive yield issues with multiple nodes over the last several years with TSMC, I don't have much faith in them meeting production deadlines. Then again the A7 should be a much simpler chip than the next generation GPU's.
__________________
13" 2013 rMBP i5/8/1TB, 15" 2012 rMBP 2.6/8/512, 2012 Mini i7 2.3/16/512 SSD/2TB HDD, 2012 Mini i5 2.5/bone stock
magbarn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2012, 12:05 PM   #42
JayJayAbels
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2012
Hey Apple?

Buy Google out, wipe your hands and laugh manically on the way to the bank.
JayJayAbels is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2012, 12:08 PM   #43
JHankwitz
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Send a message via AIM to JHankwitz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiger8 View Post
To me this should put an end to the speculation on wether a revised iPad 3 is going to be released this year: Probably not. I think we will see a revised iPad 3, in March of 2013, with this new 20nm chip, along with the iPad 4th. I don't think they will use Lightning connector, just like they didn't revise the iPhone 4S's connector.
I think you'll see Lightening on the iPad3 before month end.
JHankwitz is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2012, 12:09 PM   #44
Menel
macrumors 601
 
Menel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Atlanta
I don't see the need for quad core. Sure get some benefits for video encoding. But the current dual cores are handling that just fine for 1080P video.

More optimized, faster dual core seems perfectly acceptable for performance and just drive the battery life up up up!
__________________
iPhone 6 iPad Air Mac mini (2011)
Menel is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2012, 12:09 PM   #45
mjtomlin
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
Apple made a bid for exclusivity with TSMC. So did Qualcomm. TSMC said no to both.

Which is smart. Clearly their tech is in demand. They don't need to be exclusive.
The exclusivity comes from demand especially when it comes to new processes. Only so many can be made until all the kinks are worked out. So I think each company was trying to get their foot in the door first.

What I see happening, is Apple investing a lot of money and resources in helping TSMC build out new factories to make sure they can produce the numbers Apple needs.
mjtomlin is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2012, 12:09 PM   #46
krravi
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post
Uh, why is that?

Apple could license the x86-64 ISA and just design their own micro-architecture. This would make their custom cores binary/code compatible with Intel and AMD.

This is exactly what they did with the cores used in the A6; they're custom designed but built against the ARMv7 ISA. Meaning the micro-architecture is completely their own design, but they are compatible with other ARM cores.
Where would they license it from? Intel? And would intel be willing to do that?
krravi is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2012, 12:12 PM   #47
iglobe
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
more news here

TSMC 3D IC solution
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/10/11/490...ver-3d-ic.html

more news:http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...hicle-tape-out

even more:http://www.eetimes.com/design/eda-de...sign-says-TSMC

Last edited by iglobe; Oct 12, 2012 at 12:33 PM.
iglobe is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2012, 12:12 PM   #48
Riemann Zeta
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Once Apple got into the chip design business I always had the fear that they might jettison Intel as their supplier and go with their own designs.
This is certainly my worry. Apple has a history of getting way too cocky for their own good--giving the entire industry the finger and making everything proprietary once they taste success. Without the switch to x86, we wouldn't even be having this conversation about Apple; it was the best decision the company ever made. If they switch all their products to a secret, blackbox custom ARM-derivative architecture, it's back to the PPC days of limited software, slower speeds and zero multiboot options. ARM may be good for power consumption on small devices, but x86 is mandatory for a real computery computer.

The only way for Apple to have their own homemade x86 microarchitecture would be to flat out buy AMD.

Last edited by Riemann Zeta; Oct 12, 2012 at 12:19 PM.
Riemann Zeta is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2012, 12:14 PM   #49
tuyylihk
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Good news.
Finally apple can get rid of Shamesung.

But I am also worried about TSMC....
Beginning from 45nm, TSMC got so much trouble in production, mainly with low yield.
(Yes I heard many news of these thingss becuase I am a PC DIYer)
Also TSMC got too many customers.
I am afraid if they really have enough production power for Apple chips at that time.
__________________
iPod Tocuh Gen4 8GB; iPhone 5s 32GB gold; iPad Air 32GB grey
tuyylihk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2012, 12:19 PM   #50
ggrossi
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Viterbo (Italy)
[...]Hsu estimated Apple to design quad-core processors into iPad, iTV and even Macbook.[...]


Macbook? So Apple is leaving Intel? Or the whole article makes no sense at all?
__________________
Editor at Guida iPhone&Guida iPad
ggrossi is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Samsung Manufacturing Issues Reportedly Overblown, May Split A8 Production with TSMC MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 68 Mar 11, 2014 03:01 AM
Samsung and TSMC to Share Production of Apple's 14-nm A9 Chips in 2015 MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 55 Dec 21, 2013 01:45 PM
iPhone 6:TSMC Will Reportedly Be The Prime Manufacturer Of Apple A8 Processors gto55 iPhone 9 Sep 30, 2013 08:35 AM
TSMC Reportedly Lands Three-Year Deal for Apple's A8 Chip and Beyond MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 68 Jul 10, 2013 11:44 AM
Apple and Intel Have Reportedly Discussed Deal for Production of Future iPhone and iPad Chips MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 128 Mar 20, 2013 08:12 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:48 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC