2022 iPhones and Macs May Feature 3nm Chips

[JoeInMilwaukee]

Good article but it seems to be from April 2020 not 2021. The date is not very important except that there apparently hasn't been any progress on changing the marketing to use this scheme

You're right, my bad on the year. I've edited my original post. Thanks!

Adapting new "standards" such as this takes a long time. I don't know how much progress has been made, but I haven't seen any follow-up articles in IEEE Spectrum (although if it was published online-only I would have missed it--I generally only read the print edition!).

 

[citysnaps]

You should probably know that:

“The term "3 nanometer" has no relation to any actual physical feature (such as gate length, metal pitch or gate pitch) of the transistors. It is a commercial or marketing term used by the chip fabrication industry to refer to a new, improved generation of silicon semiconductor chips in terms of increased transistor density, increased speed and reduced power consumption.”

3 nm process - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes...everybody on MR knows that.

 

[justperry]

The future is looking bright globally.

Why are we skipping the year of 2021? Can we post more reports on what is expected this Fall?

When is the new MacBook Pro 16" being dropped to the public?

I guess you missed the news, fire in lots of places, flooding, heatwaves and so on, the future isn't looking that bright right now.


As for the 3 nm node, I'm pretty sure it will be for Macs first, they aren't ready (next year September) for the number of chips iPhones demand.

 

[The Game 161]

Like 1-2 years early if true

 

[firewood]

So what was the last semiconductor technology node where the micron or nanometer labels used by fabs actually accurately described a major physical transistor or wire dimension?

90 nm ?

 

[rmoliv]

Waiting for picometers.

 

[sunny5]

So M2 gets 3nm or?

 

[JoeInMilwaukee]

Waiting for picometers.

One problem with going to smaller "base" units is that marketing departments will be unhappy. If one company is using 2 nanometer technology and another is using 100 picometer technology, the latter is smaller, but 2 "looks better" than 100.

 

[coolman124]

Mac's are already thin enough though.

personally for me the m1 imac is just too thick for me it really just takes up too much space

 

[ikramerica]

So long as this enables apple to make thinner computers, particularly desktops, I'll be happy.

Maybe they can make the mini so thin it needs dongles to be able to fit any peripheral cables. One can only dream…

 

[ikramerica]

unless if they have a very good air cooling design in the 2021 macbook pro, i have a feeling that the m1x chip is gonna run very hot. the m1 chip might've gotten away with the cooling, but you can't make a cpu 75% faster and a gpu 2-4x faster without huge drawbacks in temperature.

So how did Apple make the M1 so much faster than mid-tier Intel chips and also cooler?

 

[anthorumor]

I’m waiting for 0nm.

That will be called the iPhone Air

 

[macintoshmac]

That will be called the iPhone Air

The thinnest and lightest iPhone ever. Fabrication so thin, it ain't there. Meet the new iPhone Air.

 

[PBRsg]

For Intel, Moore's law already ended. For Apple, it is still going great. But not sure how far do we keep on going.

Technically speaking, this is due to TSMC continuing to shrink the fabrication size, and they can in turn do that because of the EUV technology provided by AMSL, a Netherlands company.

 

[Substance90]

You should probably know that:

“The term "3 nanometer" has no relation to any actual physical feature (such as gate length, metal pitch or gate pitch) of the transistors. It is a commercial or marketing term used by the chip fabrication industry to refer to a new, improved generation of silicon semiconductor chips in terms of increased transistor density, increased speed and reduced power consumption.”

3 nm process - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

From your own link:

increase transistor density by about 33 percent compared to its previous 5nm FinFET chips

5 nm * (1 - 0.33) = 3.35 nm

 

[mymacrumorsname]

The future is looking bright globally.

you probaby have missed the non-tech news then.

 

[Denzo]

My 2017 15" is dieing. The Macbook Pro is so slow and laggy it's embarrassing

How is your 4 year old laptop dying? My macs have always listed me ages?

 

[hatchettjack]

It would be pointless to upgrade this year! Next years models will be beasts!

 

[TallManNY]

If you look very closely at Apple's updates for the iPhone, they give you just enough to compel you to upgrade from the prior year's model but not so much that you hold off from upgrading for years.

For instance:

• iPhone X - Ground breaking design, no home button. But just one size, smallish battery. Definitely wanted to replace the older model.
• iPhone Xs Max - Similar design as the X, but the larger Max phone with a bigger battery made sense to upgrade.
• iPhone 11 Pro Max - 4 GB RAM, but supposedly better cameras than the Xs.
• iPhone 12 Pro Max - New flat design compared to the rounded body of the predecessors. Also finally got 6 GB RAM yay, but no 120 Hz display. More RAM served as an incentive to upgrade.
• iPhone 13 Pro Max: at least 6 GB RAM maybe more, and rumored 120 Hz screen, but 5 nm chip, possibly 4nm, but no 3nm and still a notch, albeit smaller, and possibly a bigger battery. An incentive to upgrade given the 120 Hz display (if true).
• iPhone 14: 3 nm, and possibly the notch is going away for a hole punch design similar to the Samsung s21. New design + 3nm chip will be a strong incentive to upgrade.

Of course no one is forcing users to upgrade on a yearly basis, but Apple's update schedule seems (to my eye at least) to be staggered in such a way to incentivize enthusiasts to remain in a perpetual state of yearly updates (and giving Apple $$$). And to sweeten the pot, Apple allows you to trade in the old Phone, defraying the otherwise high cost of perpetual yearly upgrades.

You are looking for a pattern and applying a reason that is a bit of a stretch. Here is a much more reasonable reason for the pattern you are seeing. Technology gets better each year because of R&D and manufacturing improvements. Apple is cautious about what it puts into a device each year that it expects to make and sell 100 million or so. The result is (A) things get better and (B) things get better slowly.

Apple allows trade ins because they make money off of it. You can sell your old iPhone for more than Apple will offer as a trade in. The convenience that Apple gives you to do trade in with them is paid for by getting a below market value on your trade in.

 

[TallManNY]

So how did Apple make the M1 so much faster than mid-tier Intel chips and also cooler?

Innately better technology base using ARM. And then using the R&D and iteration process involved in 100s of millions smartphones (which all use ARM). The constraints of smartphones (limited space and limited battery) drove necessary innovation in ARM technology in a way that desktops (largely going to PC users and a huge percentage just being corporate purchases) did not have.

 

[falkon-engine]

You are looking for a pattern and applying a reason that is a bit of a stretch. Here is a much more reasonable reason for the pattern you are seeing. Technology gets better each year because of R&D and manufacturing improvements. Apple is cautious about what it puts into a device each year that it expects to make and sell 100 million or so. The result is (A) things get better and (B) things get better slowly.

Apple allows trade ins because they make money off of it. You can sell your old iPhone for more than Apple will offer as a trade in. The convenience that Apple gives you to do trade in with them is paid for by getting a below market value on your trade in.

Reasonable minds can agree to disagree. The technology has been there for larger batteries, 120 Hz displays (why does the iPad Pro have a 120 Hz display but the iPhone does not?), always on displays, under-display fingerprint sensors, hole-punch front-facing cameras, more RAM, and so on. It's been there for YEARS. Samsung S21 is a good example of what I'm talking about.

You admitted that technological advancements on Apple iPhone devices (besides the A-series chip) happen at a rather slow pace, so we can certainly agree on that. Where we disagree is the motivation behind the rather slow pace. You claim that Apple is cautious since it sells 100 million devices, therefore it moves more slowly. I posit that improvements on iPhone happen at just a fast and slow enough pace (i.e., Goldilocks zone) to maximize the incentive for users to upgrade yearly. It's in Apple's best interest for users to upgrade year after year... Think about it. If Apple released 120 Hz displays and 8 GB of RAM on the iPhone 12, what would be the point of getting the 13? Samsung and others have been using 120 Hz displays for a while now. All that being said I know many users don't upgrade every year and that's why Apple is getting into generating revenue by offering services such as iCloud, Arcade, Apple Card, etc.

Nonetheless, you can't tell me that Apple isn't trying the best it can to incent users to upgrade as often as possible. Whether or not it's working is a separate argument...

 

[firewood]

5 nm * (1 - 0.33) = 3.35 nm

Which is just as meaningless if the "5 nm" term does not describe any physically significant dimension used in the IC or mask fabrication. I'm guessing that for anything below 90 nm, the node description no longer matches the actual layout measurements.

 

[TallManNY]

Reasonable minds can agree to disagree. The technology has been there for larger batteries, 120 Hz displays (why does the iPad Pro have a 120 Hz display but the iPhone does not?), always on displays, under-display fingerprint sensors, hole-punch front-facing cameras, more RAM, and so on. It's been there for YEARS. Samsung S21 is a good example of what I'm talking about.

You admitted that technological advancements on Apple iPhone devices (besides the A-series chip) happen at a rather slow pace, so we can certainly agree on that. Where we disagree is the motivation behind the rather slow pace. You claim that Apple is cautious since it sells 100 million devices, therefore it moves more slowly. I posit that improvements on iPhone happen at just a fast and slow enough pace (i.e., Goldilocks zone) to maximize the incentive for users to upgrade yearly. It's in Apple's best interest for users to upgrade year after year... Think about it. If Apple released 120 Hz displays and 8 GB of RAM on the iPhone 12, what would be the point of getting the 13? Samsung and others have been using 120 Hz displays for a while now. All that being said I know many users don't upgrade every year and that's why Apple is getting into generating revenue by offering services such as iCloud, Arcade, Apple Card, etc.

Nonetheless, you can't tell me that Apple isn't trying the best it can to incent users to upgrade as often as possible. Whether or not it's working is a separate argument...

What you are suggesting is that Apple holds back on adding a new feature in a phone mainly so it can save that feature to be added in the following year. I don't think that is the case at all.

First, it is too risky. It would be a large risk to intentionally ship a worse phone and run the risk of large number of folks switching to Android phone because the iPhone (in your world) has been intentionally made worse. That shift can be sticky. Once someone goes Android, while they often switch back, they don't always and it might not be for several phone generations. Folks switch from iPhone to Android is Apple's biggest company risk since iPhone drives over half of their revenue. Further, by intentionally having the phone worse, Apple will encourage less upgrades in that year. Your thinking is that Apple gives up some upgrades in the current year, so that it can get more upgrades in the next year. Risky play.

Second, it hurts Apple's brand to have less competitive and less high end stuff. Apple sells phones at basically the highest price point in the industry. Part of why you buy Apple is that you trust it to have made smart tech choices for you. You are suggesting that Apple is intentionally sabotaging its devices. And not only that, but sabotaging its most important device (and the most valuable device in the world) and then intentionally selling the device to its customers (while not every iPhone user is an Apple customer for other stuff, almost every Apple customer is an iPhone user). So you are suggesting a tricky strategy where Apple handcuffs itself with respect to basically all of its customers.

The examples you've thrown out about displays and RAM are examples where Apple would have to sacrifice either battery life or size. This is a common mistake that folks make. They don't realize that size and lower weight is a huge design driver for Apple. Samsung and other manufactures will ship much larger and heavier phones with much larger batteries to run the cutting edge stuff. First, those devices will sell in numbers that are fraction of what Apple ships for the iPhone. Second, they target a much more niche market of tech enthusiasts than what Apple targets (Apple's target is ALL middle and upper class adults in the world). It is much easier to use my explanation for why stuff comes out (it isn't ready for 100 million devices) then you to use your explanation (careful predictions of what will get enough folks to buy an upgrade, but not lose customers to competitors or use up too much tech that you might need for next year's upgrades).

 

[Budgiemac]

My 2017 15" is dieing. The Macbook Pro is so slow and laggy it's embarrassing

You can make it fast again. 2017 was around the corner

 

[mongobongo]

From your own link:



5 nm * (1 - 0.33) = 3.35 nm

The same thing can be said about the 5 nm process however, it is itself only a marketing term so even if transistor density increases by 33%, we're still not at 3 nm physical size.

5 nm process - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org