TSMC Reportedly Ahead of Schedule With New 16nm Technology for Apple's A9 Chip

Discussion in 'iOS Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, Aug 25, 2014.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    According to Taiwan's Economic Daily News [Google Translate, via Digitimes], Apple's reported current A-series chip partner Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) is ahead of schedule with its next-generation 16nm process for chip production. The Chinese-language report claims TSMC will begin 16nm volume production in Q1 2015, a full quarter earlier than its originally projected Q2 2015 start. This advancement may pave the way for TSMC to supply Apple with the future A9 processor that would be used in the late 2015 iPhone.

    [​IMG]
    TSMC is reportedly installing this 16mm capability in its manufacturing plants with the potential for a monthly output of 50,000 wafers. This capability positions TSMC favorably against Samsung as the two companies vie to supply Apple with processors for both its current and future iPhone and iPad models.

    Reports from last year suggested Samsung, GlobalFoundries and TSMC would share production of Apple's A9 processor in 2015. Samsung is expected to handle the lion's share of the production, providing up to 40% of Apple's processor supply, although TSMC may be looking to alter that balance with its accelerated work. GlobalFoundries, TSMC and possibly even Intel may be used to complement Samsung's production to provide the remaining chip inventory necessary to meet Apple's demand.

    Article Link: TSMC Reportedly Ahead of Schedule With New 16nm Technology for Apple's A9 Chip
     
  2. macrumors 68040

    ValSalva

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2009
    Location:
    Burpelson AFB
  3. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2013
    #3
    Yeah right. I wish we could just get the iPhone 6 before these rumors with better specs are announced.
     
  4. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    #4
    So what kind of specs can we expect might come with the A9?
     
  5. macrumors 6502

    Dilster3k

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2014
    Location:
    Frankfurt, Germany
    #5
    I'm sorry, but the concept of two suppliers making the same chip scares me.
    No way in earth will they be perfectly identical to the nanometer.
     
  6. macrumors 65816

    Locoboof

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Location:
    Bay Area,Cali
    #6
    We haven't even gotten the A8 and there priducing the next one? Lol..... Hey,better early than late.
     
  7. macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #7
    Sharing production load would be odd since 16nm is a half node and Samsung/GloFo are doing 14nm. There would be a performance delta that may or may not be significant when it comes to power consumption.
     
  8. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    #8
    They could make two functionally identical A9s on two different processes and use the 14nm for iPhones where power consumption and heat are more sensitive and 16nm for iPads where there's more headroom for power and heat. Performance can be adjusted by clock speed. Or 14nm for iPhones and iPads, 16nm (maybe even different design) for AppleTV or iwatch. This would keep TSMC profitable and investing in next gen tech at mass scale so more choices for future. Also maybe save some money on 16nm parts instead of all on 14nm.
     
  9. macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #9
    Downselecting by device is one potential solution. I wouldn't assume 16nm is any cheaper, though. I feel like if they were splitting across 16nm and 14nm, it's because they're so early in the production cycle that no one vendor can provide enough volume. That's kind of a scary thought.
     
  10. macrumors 601

    macduke

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Location:
    Central U.S.
    #10
    iPhone 6s. iPhone Success!

    Wonder if they'll ever change this numbering scheme. I have a feeling maybe next month...:D
     
  11. macrumors 603

    troop231

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    #11
    At this rate, 1nm will be here before too long. Crazy what that day will bring us! :eek:
     
  12. macrumors regular

    Futurix

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2011
    Location:
    London
  13. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2014
    Location:
    Porto, Portugal
    #13
    Name

    Isn't it time to simply go:

    iPhone (4")
    iPhone Air (4.7")
    iPhone Pro (5.5")

    And drop the rest? Do the same for tablets and that's it.

    iPad (7.9")
    iPad Air (9.7")
    iPad Pro (12 " or whatever).

    Also Macs:

    Macbook (12")
    Macbook Air (14")
    Macbook Pro (15.6")

    iMac (21")
    iMac Air (24")
    iMac Pro (27")

    Mac Pro.

    Sounds nice.
     
  14. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    #14
    Smaller chips? :D
     
  15. macrumors 6502

    SgtPepper12

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2011
    Location:
    Germany
    #15
    Not really. First of all it takes approximately 16 years for the feature size to lower by a factor of 10. That means to go from 16nm to 1nm takes another 19 years. But that's just the way it's been for the last 40 years. It's very likely that chip manufacturers will hit a more fundamental limit than ever at around 5 nm. Then people need so be a little more creative. Which is even more exciting, if you ask me.
     
  16. macrumors 68040

    the8thark

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2011
    #16
    **** no.
    We don't need any stinking phablets from Apple. Or stupidly large iPads.
    Also the 24 inch iMac is a thing of the past. Back in the days when 17, 20 and 24 inch iMacs were a thing.
     
  17. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2014
    Location:
    Porto, Portugal
    #17
    Says who?

    The market certainly wants them. Each time I read a comment like that I wonder what is wrong with humanity.

    I don't want a stupid pathetic small screen either, but I'm not stupid so I understand that millions might want it.
     
  18. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    #18


    • But the Mac Mini D:
     
  19. HobeSoundDarryl, Aug 25, 2014
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2014

    macrumors 601

    HobeSoundDarryl

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Location:
    Hobe Sound, FL (20 miles north of Palm Beach)
    #19
    Faster, smaller, more energy efficient resulting most obviously in a slightly thinner case with "about the same battery life".

    I'm pretty sure there is a physics limit to this shrinking that cannot be overcome. I seem to recall that it's around 12-14nm but maybe down towards something like 9nm. I think I recall something about the limit cannot be broken because electrons would "bleed" across to other nearby circuits. In other words, the orderly functionality inside these chips would become disorderly.

    Someone with much more knowledge of this, please chime in.

    Update: I did find this: http://www.zdnet.com/ibm-to-invest-3-billion-in-next-gen-7nm-and-beyond-chips-7000031406/ suggesting 7nm is being attempted with a big dollar investment.
     
  20. macrumors 68040

    ValSalva

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2009
    Location:
    Burpelson AFB
    #20
    Kind of agree. The 5.5" iPhone 6 is huge. I hope it isn't the flagship iPhone with the better camera, better image stabilization, and better display. That would be like punishing people who use normal sized phones. If the 5.5" and 4.7" iPhone have feature parity, outside of display pixel density, then I'll be happy. If not I may keep my iPhone 5 for a while.
     
  21. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2014
    #21
    **** no.
    We don't need any of what you (currently like or want)
     
  22. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    #22
    I agree that we need size choice and even more strongly agree that features should not be tied to screen size. I want the 4.7" version because I want a much bigger screen than I have with my 4s, but not too big. Has nothing to do with paying for the best model. The feature that is most important to me beyond the screen size is the camera as it is now all I use for photo's and video. Definitely hope they don't tie the two together.
     
  23. macrumors 68040

    ValSalva

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2009
    Location:
    Burpelson AFB
    #23
    Exactly how I feel. The 5.5" inch model would be way too big for me but I'm all for having the choice. I just don't want the 5.5" one to have a significantly better camera and storage choices than the 4.7" one I tentatively plan to get. Or put another way, I want the best camera Apple has to offer, regardless of phone size.
     
  24. macrumors 601

    HobeSoundDarryl

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Location:
    Hobe Sound, FL (20 miles north of Palm Beach)
    #24
    To you. The Android crowd is accustomed to 5" to 6" screens and have seen a lot of phones with 6" and bigger screens. To them, 5.5" may seem small and 4.7" may seem "too small". Perhaps Apple is after the market beyond those they've made accustomed to 4" as the current "perfect" screen size? So they woo the bigger-screen Android crowd with the 5.5" and woo "us" to 4.7"… though some of "us"- like me- will ONLY go with 5.5".
     
  25. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2012
    #25
    Or, not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Tick-Tock There are some fundamental limits of physics we hit ~5nm when using full atoms to create transistors. We need some new (sub-atomic) paradigms to keep Moore's Law going ...
     

Share This Page