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

A Closer Look at Apple's A7 Chip from the iPhone 5s

MWPULSE said:
You haven't read the article, or other articles and information about this then I take it?

Apple have licensed from ARM the ability to use their designs. (the company who are arguably the biggest, best and longest standing SOC company on the planet-they were making SoC systems for the newton pad and others from what I remember)

Apple have then customed that design with some of their own ingenuity-the RAM (secure storage module) for the TouchID, and the camera image processing (burst mode, on the fly panorama contrast/white balance adjust)
Click to expand...

Yes, I think many need to read what you write.

It seems some appear to think Apple invented this chip from scratch.
Not Licensed and tweaked the long long running ARM companies products.

I am sure there are many who think Apple design the screens also and memory chips. sigh.
 
iSayuSay said:
There's no such thing as "fast enough" or "big enough". There will always be a faster, bigger, and more bad@$$ stuff.

I thought my 4S was fast enough but it's not anymore until I see the 5. I thought 1080p was good enough for another 10 years, turned out 4K is the new "enough" for the future.

It's all about optimization, iOS 5 felt perfect on iPhone 4S, up until iOS 7 cripples it down. Wait until iOS 10 and you'll feel how "not enough" an iPhone 5S really is :p
Click to expand...

I had an iPhone 5, and going to the 5s really didn't make me think the 5 was slow. Again, this is the first generation this has happened.
 
kdarling said:
Smart-capable OS? Windows Mobile, Symbian, RIM, etc had all been around for years. Perhaps you meant one with a "touch-centric" UI.
Click to expand...
No I mean an OS that is capable to be a thriving platform for third party apps. A real smartphone not a so-called smartphone, as defined by Steve Jobs during his keynote as phones, who are a little smarter than feature phones, but a lot harder to use.

A so-called smartphone really is a feature phone plus. Much like the iPhone was a feature phone plus during its first year. But the than called iPhone OS platform was strong enough to grow quick into a real smart-capable OS in just one year. Windows Mobile, Symbian, RIM were not good or not fast enough to become smart-capable. Android took the place of fast follower.

The name smartphone exists longer than the thing smartphone. Just like early so-called tablets were mere laptops with touch screens. And computer initially was the job description for the woman who operated the machines later to be known as computers. And a bug was the dead body of a real animal that died in these machines causing malfunctions.

The first ever real smartphone was the iPhone with the AppStore opened on July 10, 2008.
 
Piggie said:
Yes, I think many need to read what you write.

It seems some appear to think Apple invented this chip from scratch.
Not Licensed and tweaked the long long running ARM companies products.
Click to expand...
You don't understand the difference between ISA and microarchitecture, yet you fully agree with something apparently you have no clue about...:rolleyes:
Piggie said:
I am sure there are many who think Apple design the screens also and memory chips. sigh.
Click to expand...
They do hold key patents on capacitive touchscreen. Sigh.
 
Piggie said:
Yes, I think many need to read what you write.

It seems some appear to think Apple invented this chip from scratch.
Not Licensed and tweaked the long long running ARM companies products.

I am sure there are many who think Apple design the screens also and memory chips. sigh.
Click to expand...

Sigh. While the Swift core has many similarities with the standard ARM, it's just not licensed tweaked. The A4/Hummingbird core was a "tweaked" ARM chip and the A5 core was standard ARM but the A6 and the A7 represent Apple's own implementation of the ARM instruction.

What's frustrating is that you've asked for clarifications but you dismiss the information given unless it fits your preconceived notion. Then when someone says something that fits your bias, that Apple doesn't make anything but just tweaks existing products, you take that conclusion and go on rants about others' ignorance.

If this makes you feel better, Apple isn't the only company making their own cores. Qualcomm does exactly the same thing. So you can just take it that Apple isn't doing anything unique, they are just copying Qualcomm's strategy. Also Apple buys all graphics parts and other IPs on the chip from others so yes, they do buy a lot of technology from others as well.
 
schnazzer said:
Designed by Apple, manufactured by Samsung
Click to expand...

Aren't you leaving someone out??? To say that Apple's SOCs are "designed by Apple" is akin to saying that the GT-350 was "designed by Carol Shelby".... While he may have designed the GT-350 and GT-500, he started with a Ford Mustang "car in white" which gave him the 1st 75% of the car.....

Apple is doing the exact same thing with the ARM Chips...
 
Last edited:
Bibbler said:
Aren't you leaving someone out??? To say that Apple's SOCs are "designed by Apple" is akin to saying that the GT-350 was "designed by Carol Shelby".... While he may have designed the GT-350 and GT-500, he started with a Ford Mustang "car in white" which gave him the 1st 75% of the car.....

Apple is doing the exact same thing with the ARM Chips...
Click to expand...

A Qualcomm Snapdragon, is not using ARM's designs, they remain binary compatible with ARM because of the simple fact that they use the same instruction set, which they have been granted the right to use because of the license.

Think of it as the CPU's language and feature set in terms of registers and so on. Someone else implementing the same interface means the CPUs are compatible. AMD is using the x86 instruction set, they do not use intel designed cores, same thing.

Apart from all this, we can know that this is an Apple design based on the fact that there are no ARM64 cores in existence and probably wont be for another year or so.
 
subsonix said:
A Qualcomm Snapdragon, is not using ARM's designs, they remain binary compatible with ARM because of the simple fact that they use the same instruction set, which they have been granted the right to use because of the license.

Think of it as the CPU's language and feature set in terms of registers and so on. Someone else implementing the same interface means the CPUs are compatible. AMD is using the x86 instruction set, they do not use intel designed cores, same thing.

Apart from all this, we can know that this is an Apple design based on the fact that there are no ARM64 cores in existence and probably wont be for another year or so.
Click to expand...

And you believe that a processor's instruction set is "simple" and not a critical element of CPU design?
 
Bibbler said:
And you believe that a processor's instruction set is "simple" and not a critical element of CPU design?
Click to expand...

What has that got to do with anything? But FYI it's an interface and feature set, you can make one with a pen and paper that is complete without any working chip. And in comparison with actually implementing that ISA in a fully functioning CPU, yes it's simple.
 
viacavour said:
It's business.

Without Apple, Samsung won't even come this far. At the moment, their own CPU design has lost to other ARM competition. Contracts from Apple is money. Lot's of money is good for Samsung.
Click to expand...
Actually you have it backwards.
Samsung was a huge multinational company before Apple was a company. Their Smartphone business represents only one of their very successful divisions.

viacavour said:
The problem is Samsung grew greedy and want to own the entire chain themselves. It's a rather typical backstabbing gangster story in Asian movies.
Click to expand...
Backwards again.
If not for Apples greed they'd put their money where their mouth is and build their own chips as well as all the other components they buy from Samsung... which make it possible for the iPhone to exist.

However that said the quote about "backstabbing gangster" movies reflects that Apple is your hero. And that's OK, Apple prospers from convincing otherwise intelligent people that Apple rules the universe.
 
I bet somewhere deep inside The Loop in Cupertino, there is a prototype running an ARM native version of OS X using this processor or the one ahead of it with a full Mac UI. Can easily see this move into the next generation entry level Mac. The name "Mac Micro" has a nice ring to it.
 
Imagine a 4K monitor, keyboard and mouse all being driven from a 64-bit iPhone over AirPlay. Edit your presentation at your desk while your phone is simply charging. No traditional computer anywhere. Stop AirPlay and just continue working right on your device. No need to sync data files between devices because you only have one device.

CFreymarc said:
I bet somewhere deep inside The Loop in Cupertino, there is a prototype running an ARM native version of OS X using this processor or the one ahead of it with a full Mac UI. Can easily see this move into the next generation entry level Mac. The name "Mac Micro" has a nice ring to it.
Click to expand...
 
Spacial said:
Actually you have it backwards.
Samsung was a huge multinational company before Apple was a company. Their Smartphone business represents only one of their very successful divisions.


Backwards again.
If not for Apples greed they'd put their money where their mouth is and build their own chips as well as all the other components they buy from Samsung... which make it possible for the iPhone to exist.

However that said the quote about "backstabbing gangster" movies reflects that Apple is your hero. And that's OK, Apple prospers from convincing otherwise intelligent people that Apple rules the universe.
Click to expand...

I didn't have it backwards ! Check Samsung's numbers. Thanks to Apple, their electronics division already overshadow their old businesses. :)

This is why their stock price fell when investors heard that the cellphone market has matured and being commoditized. If it's just a small part of their business, the investors won't get so jittery.


As for greedy, Apple has already planned for CPU design long ago, they can't just start overnight. Samsung is the one who tried to backstab Apple after working with them for years.

And you obviously don't watch Asian gangster movies. They don't always have a hero. Sometimes, it's just mindless actions.

Samsung also tried to sabotage HTC and other Android vendors' reputation by astroturfing. But they were caught red-handed and fined.



----------
Spacial said:
So fast & powerful some people are vomiting. That's revolutionary.
Click to expand...

Parallax effect don't need power. That's why it can be done by just a small M7 core too. The A7 performance can be used for more heavy lifting at the same time.

----------
Bibbler said:
Aren't you leaving someone out??? To say that Apple's SOCs are "designed by Apple" is akin to saying that the GT-350 was "designed by Carol Shelby".... While he may have designed the GT-350 and GT-500, he started with a Ford Mustang "car in white" which gave him the 1st 75% of the car.....

Apple is doing the exact same thing with the ARM Chips...
Click to expand...

Yes and no. The M7 is customized from NXP's part, but the A7 core is self designed. The secure enclave may be based on Trustzone, but is proprietary to Apple as well. No one else had production ready 64-bit parts that fit iPhone's needs. They were meant for desktop.

In any case, Samsung just fab the chip and nothing more. It's a high tech process, but Samsung didn't design the chip. They worked on their own octa-core, 32 bit chip instead.
 
Last edited:
Spacial said:
Actually you have it backwards.
Samsung was a huge multinational company before Apple was a company. Their Smartphone business represents only one of their very successful divisions.
Click to expand...

Neither is quite true. Samsung as a conglomerate was big back in 1976 but was nothing like what it is currently because Samsung Electronics was still in its infancy back then.

Also it's a myth that Samsung doesn't rely on smartphones for its profits. Selling mobile products is the the single most profitable business for Samsung by far. Samsung Electronics has been responsible for over 80% of operation profit of the whole Samsung Group in the past few years, and their smartphone business is responsible for the majority of that profit. There have been a number of reports even the Samsung management are worried about their over reliance on the smartphone profit.

Spacial said:
If not for Apples greed they'd put their money where their mouth is and build their own chips as well as all the other components they buy from Samsung... which make it possible for the iPhone to exist
Click to expand...

Samsung doesn't even design or make chips for the majority of Galaxy S4, they just buy the off-the-shelf (so to speak) Qualcomm chips which are manufactured by TSMC. I never see any Samsung user, fan or media crediting TSMC and Qualcomm for Samsung's success. Yet if it's Apple, their success is all about Samsung the supplier. I don't get that logic. nVidia, AMD, Qualcomm, all rely on TSMC for making their chips yet we don't associate the success of them with TSMC except a few geeks. Why is that?

Also this thread gets more confusing since some are trying to give credits to ARM in this thread whereas others are trying to give credits to Samsung. It's almost as if everyone wants to move the credit somewhere else as long as it's not Apple. This feels eerily like reading the old "iPhones are made by Foxconn, not Apple!" threads all over again.
 
Last edited:
Northgrove said:
I bought my iPhone 5 and thought it had more processing power than I would need for at least the year to come, and I still think it has more than it "needs" to. And then they release the 5s which is 2x as fast... I'm almost like "Wait you don't need to push ahead this fast?"
Click to expand...
Yes they do :apple:

----------
Bibbler said:
Aren't you leaving someone out??? To say that Apple's SOCs are "designed by Apple" is akin to saying that the GT-350 was "designed by Carol Shelby".... While he may have designed the GT-350 and GT-500, he started with a Ford Mustang "car in white" which gave him the 1st 75% of the car.....

Apple is doing the exact same thing with the ARM Chips...
Click to expand...
And the 25% is what makes the Shelby in a class of its own. You unwittingly gave props to Apple :cool:
 
iGrip said:
You are correct, but you may not appreciate how difficult it is to manufacture high end chips. Without Sammy's expertise, all the Apple designs in the world could not get built fast enough and cheaply enough and reliably enough. Things are changing, but as of now, Samsung is an indispensable partner.
Click to expand...

Agreed! Wonder what's in the pipeline a few years down the line with that rumored TSMC deal?
https://www.macrumors.com/2013/06/2...hree-year-deal-for-apples-a8-chip-and-beyond/
 
Bibbler said:
And you believe that a processor's instruction set is "simple" and not a critical element of CPU design?
Click to expand...

Although a design constraint, an Instruction set is not a critical element. IBM pioneered using vastly different design elements to design instruction set compatible computers, and Intel and AMD follow in their footsteps. So do the multiple ARM architecture licensees, which include Qualcomm and likely Apple.

How one might choose completely different microarchitectures, for different cost/performance trade offs, given the ISA, is a typical exam question in university courses on the subject.
 
fertilized-egg said:
It's almost as if everyone wants to move the credit somewhere else as long as it's not Apple.
Click to expand...
I enjoy giving credit to Apple when it's true. In fact they'd get more recognition if not for their propensity to employ their well honed skills at taking others ideas as well as implementing their highly perfected slight of hand game. If Apple would let go of their addiction to power control & manipulation, they'd be seen for the brilliant company they are. But old habits die hard. The prior CEO had a paranoid side that benefitted no one. Worse it became part of Apples culture.

Apple would be so much more well respected within the industry if they had the courage to be genuine. Outside in the retail sector it doesn't matter. The masterful work of manipulating the press & customers alike assure years of profits off the sheer strength of the Apple logo.
 
Is it really so hard to believe that the dozens of Chip-designers that Apple hired, PA Semi and Intrinsity could design a cpu cure that implements Armv8?
 
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
Back