What exactly was wrong with Samsung chips again?
Because I'm pretty sure everyone was saying how powerful their A6 chip was.
Because I'm pretty sure everyone was saying how powerful their A6 chip was.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
More Claims of Samsung Being Cut Out of Apple's A7 Chip Development
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There was nothing wrong. Apple and Samsung may be fierce competitors but Apple has something like ~45% margin on iphones and Samsung has something like ~30% margin on their smartphones. Guess who's making more money even if one company is paying another company billions of dollars for parts like CPU, displays, SSD, and RAMs?
On my rMBP, MBA, and iPhone, I rather have Samsung RAM, SSD, and display over those from LG, Toshiba, SanDisk, AUO, etc. The Sammy displays have higher contrasts and is easier on the eyes. Their RAM and SSD are often faster and viewed as more reliable over that from other component builders.
Finally, if Apple wants to charge a higher premium for their high end products, they better supply higher quality components from Samsung instead of cheaper parts suppliers. Samsung may lie and cheat as a competitors to Apple in the smart phone market, but I'd rather have the high quality semiconductor and display components that Samsung builds in their parts business over "cheaper" Chinese and Japanese parts companies.
That's BS. What does Exynos have to do with Apple? Does Apple use Exynos? Who designs Apple's A6 chip? The fact is that Samsung doesn't design their own architecture and Apple has the license to make its own ARM chip from any supplier as long as they can make enough of them to Apple's specs.
In fact, Samsung themselves use a lot of TSMC chips on their phones designed by Qualcomm instead of Exynos.
There's certainly a risk involved in moving a supplier with such a large quantity. However from the strategic point of view it's also understandable why a company doesn't want to order an important part from a competitor.
You don't need numbers, fact is when a manufacturer looses their biggest client it would certainly have an effect to the manufacturer in a big way and loosing that client to a competitor is another big blow.
Samsung's business practices make their clients wary, making them to reconsider their partnership with Samsung, Nokia is one of them.
Last edited:
The question is, can TSMC produce wafers with as low rejection rates as Samsung at 20nm? That is a BIG question. Maybe or maybe not. Certainly not now, but perhaps they can in 6-12 months.
What is interesting is that Samsung may become the fab supplier for NVIDIA. Now NVIDIA designs SoCs with the best GPU performance in the market.
What is interesting is that Samsung may become the fab supplier for NVIDIA. Now NVIDIA designs SoCs with the best GPU performance in the market.
Thinking of short term I would have to agree with you but in a long term point of view it is actually of best interest for consumers that Apple is doing this now. Becoming too dependent on single a supplier is never good specially if the supplier's business practice is that of Samsung. Knowing how strict Apple is on their demand for high quality lets hope they make a good supplier out of TSMC and make the partnership work. Competition is always good for the consumer and it is about time for someone to step up and compete with the quality of Samsung as a supplier, not only for Apple but for the whole industry. I commend Apple for taking the risk.
I don't know where to start with this post,you do know that Samsung has and always is 1 whole generation ahead of everyone else right?You do know that Samsung sticks to true arm designs right?
now who copied Samsung with there purebred exynos 5 that blows the living crap out of everything right now and is nothing more than a purebred arm design right from the makers of arm arch.
nvidea,qualcomm,TI all use bastard designs and don't stick to pure reference designs like Samsung does,dont you think its odd that the note 2 that is using a exynos 4 arm 9 soc that is almost 3 years old now is keeping up with apples a6 today?
just so you know the galaxy s4 is the first cell phone on this planet to use arms next gen arm 15 cores,they did not copy that from apple,they are using arms pure reference cores and using there OWN fabs to build them and guess what?its 40-60% faster clock for clock then anything out there,or do you somehow think apple can make a better cpu then the people that invented the arm cpus?
snapdragon and apple use hybrid designs and don't use the full potential of arms arch,the a6 is a mix of arm 9 and arm 15 but is no where near the performance of a pure bred arm 15 core.
so please stop posting bs about Samsung stealing apples designs,they don't need to as they have always made reference arm socs that were always ahead of everyone else.
there is nothing this year from any maker that can touch the exynos 5 in pure processing power and the snapdragon 800 wont even catch up as its still a hybrid design.
Last edited:
Samsung and arm teamed up to build the big little arm 15 design,I don't know where you think a fab can just make a chip work and perform in its power envelop without designing the fab and soc to work together from the get go.
go watch Samsung ces on youtube with the ceo of arm talking together on stage how they worked together on big little with Samsung
fast forward to around the 8 min mark and see how Samsung and arm worked together on exynos 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xg4IxnA54_4
arm 15 has been tapped out for well over a year and Samsung had a chip built back in late 2011,now if its so easy like you say it is why don't anyone else use arm 15 big little cores yet?why is snapgragon and a6 not using a full arm 15 design when the blueprints are there for them?
ohh wait,you cant just throw **** on the wall and hope somehow you build a cpu from that.No other fab,not even intel has a skill and fab to be able to build big little and if they did you could of bet your imac they would already of had the soc out.
intel has 14nm tapped out but that doesn't mean they have a fab that can build chips in good yields yet my friend and its a lot easier to say you have something on paper then it is to have the chips being made and up and running without pulling crazy wattage and having leakage issues on the node.
just look at intels 32nm vs AMDs(tsmc) intels literally blows the doors off it and if intel wanted to they could build an amd chip and it would run cooler and use less power and that is the hard task of getting big little out and about,its easy on paper to have a monster cpu but actually fabbing it is the hardest part.
Last edited:
I believe it is more of a general point of view not just the specific part that makes Samsung's clients worried. When you develop a product I believe these companies tend to involve the supplier on the project and not just on a specific part. It is about Samsung's conflict of interest that worries their clients and even Samsung acknowledges the problem, assuring them (their clients) of Samsung's strict internal firewall which many questions.
If they were good enough they would have got all of these contracts to start with.
Samsung got them because they offer the best quality for the cheap ass price Apple are willing too pay.
A statement that says nothing. They're not diversifying, they're changing one for another. If you had the slightest clue about what chip design and fabrication entailed you'd be shocked at the risks they're taking.
----------
I clearly know more about fabrication than you. The design process is a separate issue to the fabrication process in this case (although they obviously interact). You seem to ignore the incremental nature of the development and the vast differences you encounter when changing from one foundry to another. Apple is throwing out years of experience and work to start from scratch.
----------
And you don't even understand the issue. The issue is FABRICATION not the ARM IP. Get a clue.
----------
Nope, entirely childish. Those sort of (legals) conflicts are par for the course in the tech industry, and it continues on, because they know it's good business to be guided by the technology, not the politics, and because they're adults. Apple has been influenced by Jobs who has never acted like an adult (read any of his biographies).
Samsung would obviously not cause a problem for Apple because it knows it bad for business. The idea that Samsung is "out to get Apple" is entirely childish.
I predict future delays in Apple products because of this decision.
----------
I think you give yourself away by not pointing out exactly where I'm wrong and why. You're just an Apple fanboy, congratulations.
I was hoping the childish behavior would end with Steve...
If Samsung was a good part supplier, use them.
If Apple took care of their own house by continuing to be creative and innovate, they wouldn't have to worry about Samsung. Honestly I don't know why they'd worry about Samsung in the first place. Their phones run Android. Android is garbage that looks and feels like a middle school kid coded it during 5th period.
I feel like so many of Apple's "problems" have arisen because they have tried to appeal to the masses. They didn't earn that stockpile of cash by following, but by leading.
Get back to the basics and quit with the ******* games.
/end rant.
Being creative and innovative is useless if your direct competition gets months or even years of advanced notice on what you are working on and will just copy you rather than make an opposing product. Seeing iterations of the design as it reaches fruition. Then they can be their with a similar competing product with little cost or effort.
If they don't know what you are working on. They get caught with their pants down. Then they have to rush a product to market which will be utter garbage. Otherwise they have to take one or more years to make a good competing product. Giving Apple time to take control of a market rather than fighting from the beginning.
At least with the old MS and Apple battle. Each party was interested by competing with differing products. Rather than one parroting the other.
Of course they have do design a chip from the get go for the fab. Which is probably one of the reasons why it's taking forever for Apple to move away from Samsung, and why Samsung themselves is using more Qualcomm chips for the initial batch of Galaxy S4 instead of their own Exynos chips.
Tapped out doesn't mean it's ready for mass production on the scale of Apple. Also where did I say it's easy? Moving a fab is always difficult and time-consuming. However that doesn't mean TSMC cannot make ARM chips.
Again, even Samsung is using more Qualcomm chips than Exynos for Galaxy S4 for the first batch because there aren't enough Exynos yet.
Because arm15 wasn't ready in time? That turned out to be a good decision for both Apple and Qualcomm.
So now you're moving the discussion from whether TSMC can fab the Apple A7 to whether they can build big little? That word wasn't even in my post!
And I've already mentioned that moving a supplier is always difficult.
Since when TSMC made AMD's CPUs?
I'm not sure what your point is exactly.. Are you trying to say moving a supplier, a fab in this case, is difficult? Because I've already stated that as well. Or are you trying to say Samsung is the only company who can make Apple's ARM chips and TSMC cannot?
Point taken. Cynical but sadly, you could be right.
Still contracts are supposed to be fairly negotiated. Not one side weapons to dominate and exploit your business partners.
Notice how Samsung started raising the price of components? That must have been another incentive to move to another supplier. They could only do that if the contract did not consider that contingency. Hopefully
isn't paying an early termination fee.
Since when TSMC made AMD's CPUs?
At least since 2008
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/cpu-phenom-amd,5370.html
Samsung parts have outperformed other parts used by Apple in the same machines(SSD, screens, etc), yet Apple is dumping them?? Yea, that make a lot of sense. This is a bunch of macho posturing by Apple which will end up giving the consumer an inferior product.
Did that really come into fruition? As far as I know the Intel-competing PC processors made on the 32nm process have always been produced at GlobalFoundries, not TSMC although there have been ramblings of AMD looking to move to TSMC as well. The really low end (Zacate, etc) ones were produced over at TSMC but I don't think that was the topic of discussion here.
Out for chips In for OLED and AMOLED Displays
Apple took too much time to find a Samsung replacement for the chips. They should be out for a long time, even if they are good. They are a direct competitor and Apple was too dependant on them, making Apple weaker.
Apple is still be bind to Samsung on OLED and AMOLED displays shortly, as on mainstream there is nobody doing this as mass production.
So if Apple uses Samsung chips and Samsung displays, this can backfire Apple really bad, as Samsung can use it on a bad publicity campaign. They can say, outside Apple inside Samsung, and you can go along with this.
Apple needs to diverse their supply chain and always have a Plan B and a Plan C.
Glad that Apple did this move.
Just waiting for a proper Apple TV with Siri on Super AMOLED Displays 3D running 10.9 OS X
Apple took too much time to find a Samsung replacement for the chips. They should be out for a long time, even if they are good. They are a direct competitor and Apple was too dependant on them, making Apple weaker.
Apple is still be bind to Samsung on OLED and AMOLED displays shortly, as on mainstream there is nobody doing this as mass production.
So if Apple uses Samsung chips and Samsung displays, this can backfire Apple really bad, as Samsung can use it on a bad publicity campaign. They can say, outside Apple inside Samsung, and you can go along with this.
Apple needs to diverse their supply chain and always have a Plan B and a Plan C.
Glad that Apple did this move.
Just waiting for a proper Apple TV with Siri on Super AMOLED Displays 3D running 10.9 OS X
Incorrect.
TSMC involves a lot more work from the customer side. They are a pure foundry. Apple did not have that capability to deal with that low level production.
With TSMC, you buy wafers. You're responsible for everything else, from design through testing. You're responsible for working around the process rampup and testing for yield, packaging, etc.
With Samsung, you buy chips, and they're responsible for selling you working chips.
I'm glad Apple finally decided to pay for their own design process.
What's your point? It's still business competition. No matter how much underhanded crap Samsung pulled, to them it was business competition in trying to get the edge and come out on top. I'm not saying right/wrong, this isn't what this is about. I'm simply stating what it is...
We as consumers are only marginally aware of what business practice organizations use to get ahead or stomp out their competition.
I'd wager that there are companies that do much worse that Apple v. Samsung and no one knows about it. (Again not saying right/wrong).
And if you think that everything Apple does is by-the-book and "angelic" when it comes to business practices, you're delusional. Every organization, no matter how big or small, will always attempt to cur corners in some fashion to get its nose ahead of its competition.
That's just how the world is. And I'm pretty sure you know and realize that. You're sticking up for Apple - I can't blame you - but I'm sure their hands aren't all that clean either.
Just because you aren't paying $500+ for your phone doesn't mean that it cost less then that.
If you aren't paying the full retail value for it then the carrier is an happily passing it along to you hidden in your monthly service fee.