Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Reportedly Tapping TSMC for 20-nm Quad-Core Chips with Late 2013 Production

mkimid

mkimid

macrumors member
Sep 22, 2011
45
19
USA
for iPad 5th generation ?

maybe, 2GHz with 4 core PVR6 GPU... it is for the iPad 5th Generation in 2014 Mar...
 
basesloaded190

basesloaded190

macrumors 68030
Oct 16, 2007
2,693
5
Wisconsin
jav6454 said:
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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
L

lazard

macrumors 68000
Jul 23, 2012
1,608
818
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.
 
theBB

theBB

macrumors 68020
Jan 3, 2006
2,453
3
fertilized-egg said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
K

krravi

macrumors 65816
Nov 30, 2010
1,173
0
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.
 
theBB

theBB

macrumors 68020
Jan 3, 2006
2,453
3
jav6454 said:
Reference tag =! Price tag. That is all.
Click to expand...
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.

----------
krravi said:
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.
Click to expand...
Don't worry, Windows now works on ARM chips. :)
 
Rocketman

Rocketman

macrumors 603
Dec 2, 2001
6,191
1,186
Claremont, The intellectual capitol of the world.
basesloaded190 said:
TSM only has a market cap of $78B
Click to expand...
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
 
Last edited:
nick_elt

nick_elt

macrumors 68000
Oct 28, 2011
1,578
0
lazard said:
because they don't have enough cash to.
Click to expand...

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
 
F

fertilized-egg

macrumors 68020
Dec 18, 2009
2,109
57
theBB said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

theBB said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
kahkityoong

kahkityoong

macrumors 6502
Jan 31, 2011
449
661
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.

jav6454 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You should learn the difference between 'could' and 'should' JAV.
 
S

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,779
41,982
USA
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.
 
M

mjtomlin

Guest
Jan 19, 2002
384
0
krravi said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
M

magbarn

macrumors 68030
Oct 25, 2008
2,956
2,253
theBB said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
J

JHankwitz

macrumors 68000
Oct 31, 2005
1,911
58
Wisconsin
Tiger8 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think you'll see Lightening on the iPad3 before month end.
 
Menel

Menel

Suspended
Aug 4, 2011
6,351
1,356
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!
 
M

mjtomlin

Guest
Jan 19, 2002
384
0
samcraig said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
K

krravi

macrumors 65816
Nov 30, 2010
1,173
0
mjtomlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Where would they license it from? Intel? And would intel be willing to do that?
 
R

Riemann Zeta

macrumors 6502a
Feb 12, 2008
661
0
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.
Click to expand...
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:
T

tuyylihk

macrumors member
Aug 7, 2012
54
2
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.
 
G

ggrossi

macrumors newbie
Feb 20, 2012
12
0
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom