I know that's what it looks like, but that's just because i turned down the brightness in post-processing, just so it was more apparent to you all. What you see on the bezel is a dramatization of shadows. What you see on the top edge of the screen is the dramatization of defective backlighting. I've sent these images to Apple and they've passed them on to the engineers and they all agree that it is an issue, and that I should return both the original iPhone and the replacement iPhone and place a new order for the next batch of shipments, so that this issue will hopefully be resolved by then. My coworker's iPhone 6 plus from last year shows no sign of this and when you compare the two, it is pretty obvious. We pay too much money for these phones for them not to be perfect and if i see the issue now, how much worse might it be 3 or 6 months from now. Maybe not at all, or maybe the screen will have those infamous white vertical lines running all the way down.
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.
A9 Chip Manufacturing Split 60/40 Between TSMC and Samsung, Not Segmented by Device Size
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I know that's what it looks like, but that's just because i turned down the brightness in post-processing, just so it was more apparent to you all. What you see on the bezel is a dramatization of shadows. What you see on the top edge of the screen is the dramatization of defective backlighting. I've sent these images to Apple and they've passed them on to the engineers and they all agree that it is an issue, and that I should return both the original iPhone and the replacement iPhone and place a new order for the next batch of shipments, so that this issue will hopefully be resolved by then. My coworker's iPhone 6 plus from last year shows no sign of this and when you compare the two, it is pretty obvious. We pay too much money for these phones for them not to be perfect and if i see the issue now, how much worse might it be 3 or 6 months from now. Maybe not at all, or maybe the screen will have those infamous white vertical lines running all the way down.
you should definitely throw your phone away
for all those running geekbench?....are you doing these tests from a cold boot after the phone has been off for say an hour?....or are you running them during the normal use of the phone?....could some of the slight differences in clock speeds and scores be attributed to thermal throttling and memory usage?....I think only true way to normalize is to run the test from a cold boot after phone has been off for at least an hour
I feel sick to my stomach knowing I paid the same amount of money for an inferior iPhone. Yes, I know it's only 1% difference, but think of it this way: What if you did work for me and I just randomly decided to pay you 1% less, after all, it's only 1%! Would you agree to that?
Didn't think so.
Didn't think so.
there's not going to be any "raw" microarchitectural performance difference between the two devices - the source code for each SoC is almost certainly going to be the same, but the actual gates will be a little different as the source would have been synthesized twice, once for each target library. but at the microarchitectural level things should be exactly identical - meaning instructions per clock, cache performance, etc.
power-wise things could be different and so apple may slew the clock rates a little differently based on the chip. the total power dissipation could be different as well, requiring thermal throttling earlier vs. the other chip. that could lead to actual performance differences between iphones based on one A9 vs. the other, but they should be pretty small.
power-wise things could be different and so apple may slew the clock rates a little differently based on the chip. the total power dissipation could be different as well, requiring thermal throttling earlier vs. the other chip. that could lead to actual performance differences between iphones based on one A9 vs. the other, but they should be pretty small.
Well, I guess I had the opposite effect in posting the Samsung results.
How would you feel if I asked you then if you had a team of 10 people that were all paid the same but reports showed that one person was 1% below the others. I'd actually argue that's a statistical anomaly. Even my own results vary more than the 1% between the supposed TSMC vs Samsung differences.
BTW, that cherry picked result is a freak, I've run geekbench about 10 more times and can't get that number again.
Global Foundries:http://www.kitguru.net/components/a...cts-using-second-gen-14nm-process-technology/
GlobalFoundries: We started to tape-out chips using second-gen 14nm process technology
September 26th, 2015 at 2:54 am - Author Anton Shilov
GlobalFoundries on Friday confirmed that the first products to be made using the company’s advanced 14nm LPP [low-power plus] manufacturing technology had been taped out. The contract maker of chips did not reveal any details, but indicated that prototype chips had demonstrated “excellent” performance and yields. One of the customers, who will use the 14LPP is Advanced Micro Devices.
The 14LPP fabrication process developed by Samsung Foundry and licensed by GlobalFoundries shares a lot of elements with the 14nm LPE [low-power early] manufacturing technology, which has been used to produce various integrated circuits (ICs) for many months now. The 14LPP is expected to enable chip designers to create more complex system-on-chips that run at up to 10 per cent higher clock-rate and feature lower power consumption. The two process technologies share common design rules, but use different standard-cell libraries, compilers, etc.
“The performance-enhanced version of the technology (14LPP) is set for qualification in the second half of 2015, with the volume ramp beginning in early 2016,” said Jason Gorss, senior manager of corporate and technology communications at GlobalFoundries.
According to Mr. Gorss, the company started to tape-out products, which will be manufactured using the 14LPP a while ago. Tape-out is the final stage of the design cycle of an integrated circuit, the point at which the artwork of the IC is sent to a maker of photomasks. Once the set of photolithographic masks is completed and verified, it is directed to the contract manufacturer of the chip, which produces the first samples of the IC. If GlobalFoundries started a tape-out process, it means that samples of certain products are either in production or have been produced.
“Prototyping on test vehicles has demonstrated excellent logic and SRAM yields and performance at near 100% of target,” explained the official for GlobalFoundries.
GlobalFoundries remains on-track to begin high-volume manufacturing of commercial chips using 14nm LPP technology in 2016. The company is expected to produce a number of high-performance designs using the process. Just like in case of the 14LPE, customers of GlobalFoundries and Samsung Foundry will be able to use fabs of both producers in order to increase manufacturing volume of their chips.
![]()
Earlier this year Advanced Micro Devices confirmed that it had taped-out its first two products to be made using FinFET manufacturing technologies. According to unofficial information, AMD will use GlobalFoundries’ 14LPP fabrication process to produce its code-named “Summit Ridge” central processing unit with up to eight “Zen” cores, which will be marketed under “FX” and “Opteron” brands late next year. AMD is expected to use Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co.’s 16nm FinFET+ (CLN16FF+) for production of its the code-named “Greenland” graphics processing unit based on the next iteration of the GCN [graphics core next] architecture.
---------------------------
TSMC will eventually lose out to Samsung/Global Foundries duality at 14nm LPE/LPP.
GlobalFoundries: We started to tape-out chips using second-gen 14nm process technology
September 26th, 2015 at 2:54 am - Author Anton Shilov
GlobalFoundries on Friday confirmed that the first products to be made using the company’s advanced 14nm LPP [low-power plus] manufacturing technology had been taped out. The contract maker of chips did not reveal any details, but indicated that prototype chips had demonstrated “excellent” performance and yields. One of the customers, who will use the 14LPP is Advanced Micro Devices.
The 14LPP fabrication process developed by Samsung Foundry and licensed by GlobalFoundries shares a lot of elements with the 14nm LPE [low-power early] manufacturing technology, which has been used to produce various integrated circuits (ICs) for many months now. The 14LPP is expected to enable chip designers to create more complex system-on-chips that run at up to 10 per cent higher clock-rate and feature lower power consumption. The two process technologies share common design rules, but use different standard-cell libraries, compilers, etc.
“The performance-enhanced version of the technology (14LPP) is set for qualification in the second half of 2015, with the volume ramp beginning in early 2016,” said Jason Gorss, senior manager of corporate and technology communications at GlobalFoundries.
According to Mr. Gorss, the company started to tape-out products, which will be manufactured using the 14LPP a while ago. Tape-out is the final stage of the design cycle of an integrated circuit, the point at which the artwork of the IC is sent to a maker of photomasks. Once the set of photolithographic masks is completed and verified, it is directed to the contract manufacturer of the chip, which produces the first samples of the IC. If GlobalFoundries started a tape-out process, it means that samples of certain products are either in production or have been produced.
“Prototyping on test vehicles has demonstrated excellent logic and SRAM yields and performance at near 100% of target,” explained the official for GlobalFoundries.
GlobalFoundries remains on-track to begin high-volume manufacturing of commercial chips using 14nm LPP technology in 2016. The company is expected to produce a number of high-performance designs using the process. Just like in case of the 14LPE, customers of GlobalFoundries and Samsung Foundry will be able to use fabs of both producers in order to increase manufacturing volume of their chips.
Earlier this year Advanced Micro Devices confirmed that it had taped-out its first two products to be made using FinFET manufacturing technologies. According to unofficial information, AMD will use GlobalFoundries’ 14LPP fabrication process to produce its code-named “Summit Ridge” central processing unit with up to eight “Zen” cores, which will be marketed under “FX” and “Opteron” brands late next year. AMD is expected to use Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co.’s 16nm FinFET+ (CLN16FF+) for production of its the code-named “Greenland” graphics processing unit based on the next iteration of the GCN [graphics core next] architecture.
---------------------------
TSMC will eventually lose out to Samsung/Global Foundries duality at 14nm LPE/LPP.
I agree, it seems that the performance is the same
It's hard to quantify human productivity to a computer processor. There's just too much variance for that example to make much sense. The sub-optimal employee could be having a bad day, sick, or whatever else. Processors, however, are physical objects that do what they do, your processor isn't going to be slower one day because it woke up too late to get coffee. This is going to be a huge deal, I wouldn't be surprised if this results in some kind of class action.
There's no way anyone would be able to tell the difference.
I think you forgot your /s tag. If not then I have no words.
Yet people will run some stupid test get slightly different numbers and think they have an inferior phone. As I said in another thread....people need to use their device and quit looking for problems that aren't there!
Global Foundries:http://www.kitguru.net/components/a...cts-using-second-gen-14nm-process-technology/
GlobalFoundries: We started to tape-out chips using second-gen 14nm process technology
September 26th, 2015 at 2:54 am - Author Anton Shilov
GlobalFoundries on Friday confirmed that the first products to be made using the company’s advanced 14nm LPP [low-power plus] manufacturing technology had been taped out. The contract maker of chips did not reveal any details, but indicated that prototype chips had demonstrated “excellent” performance and yields. One of the customers, who will use the 14LPP is Advanced Micro Devices.
The 14LPP fabrication process developed by Samsung Foundry and licensed by GlobalFoundries shares a lot of elements with the 14nm LPE [low-power early] manufacturing technology, which has been used to produce various integrated circuits (ICs) for many months now. The 14LPP is expected to enable chip designers to create more complex system-on-chips that run at up to 10 per cent higher clock-rate and feature lower power consumption. The two process technologies share common design rules, but use different standard-cell libraries, compilers, etc.
“The performance-enhanced version of the technology (14LPP) is set for qualification in the second half of 2015, with the volume ramp beginning in early 2016,” said Jason Gorss, senior manager of corporate and technology communications at GlobalFoundries.
View attachment 587761
According to Mr. Gorss, the company started to tape-out products, which will be manufactured using the 14LPP a while ago. Tape-out is the final stage of the design cycle of an integrated circuit, the point at which the artwork of the IC is sent to a maker of photomasks. Once the set of photolithographic masks is completed and verified, it is directed to the contract manufacturer of the chip, which produces the first samples of the IC. If GlobalFoundries started a tape-out process, it means that samples of certain products are either in production or have been produced.
“Prototyping on test vehicles has demonstrated excellent logic and SRAM yields and performance at near 100% of target,” explained the official for GlobalFoundries.
GlobalFoundries remains on-track to begin high-volume manufacturing of commercial chips using 14nm LPP technology in 2016. The company is expected to produce a number of high-performance designs using the process. Just like in case of the 14LPE, customers of GlobalFoundries and Samsung Foundry will be able to use fabs of both producers in order to increase manufacturing volume of their chips.
Earlier this year Advanced Micro Devices confirmed that it had taped-out its first two products to be made using FinFET manufacturing technologies. According to unofficial information, AMD will use GlobalFoundries’ 14LPP fabrication process to produce its code-named “Summit Ridge” central processing unit with up to eight “Zen” cores, which will be marketed under “FX” and “Opteron” brands late next year. AMD is expected to use Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co.’s 16nm FinFET+ (CLN16FF+) for production of its the code-named “Greenland” graphics processing unit based on the next iteration of the GCN [graphics core next] architecture.
---------------------------
TSMC will eventually lose out to Samsung/Global Foundries duality at 14nm LPE/LPP.
GloFo put this out there to help deter the TSMC rumors....
This reminds me of the MacBook Airs with the SSD lottery inside. In that case the performance difference was large. I was happy when I found out I had the Samsung rather than the Toshiba. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a small but measurable performance/battery life difference in this case too. 14nm vs. 16nm is not nothing. For those who don't care at all, that's very nice for you. I would care a bit.
Absolutely. You can get differences between runs that so far cover the variances I've seen in the reported scores.
FYI, I don't need to run the unsafe app to guess what I have in my AT&T iPhone 6s SG 64GB. With a geek bench score of 2546/4462 I can take a guess. My phone has been getting awesome battery life and runs great.
What makes you think all of the A9s don't give great performance and battery life?
TL;DR - it would be better to say "Based on the sample of 1,086 devices so far, about 78% have the TSMC chip, while 22% have the Samsung chip."
A little feedback on "math journalism": This is undoubtedly a quibble, which the reader may choose to ignore (or even mock, since this is the Internet), but it's not as trivial as, say, an argument about the use of apostrophes. It's about helping people understand what is and isn't knowable from data.
There is little point in quoting four-digit ("four significant figure", to be precise) percentages for a poll like this, and in fact it's misleading in a minor way. When you quote four figures, the implication is that you know something meaningful about all four - that is, that you have some reason to believe that 78.27 is more correct than 78.26 or 78.28 - that 0.01% differences are meaningful. With only just over a thousand phones sampled, changing a single phone in the sample would produce a change in the percentage of ten times that size. Details: with the numbers quoted, it's clear that there were 850 TSMC 6s devices in the sample of 1086: 850/1086 = 0.7827... Change one of those to a Samsung chip, and you get 851/1086 = 0.7836 -- 0.1% larger.
But even that is a huge underestimate of the the uncertainty in what we know. If you want to know the details, you can look up "binomial distribution uncertainty calculator" with Google. But leaving out the math here, if you assume the true fraction of the millions of 6s devices out there with TSMC chips is around 78%, a sample of 1086 devices will show random fluctuations - just the luck of the draw in which ones you looked at - of around 1.3%.
That means we don't even really know that the number is 78% and not 77% or 79%.
This is something that a journalist can and should try to develop a little intuition about, even without knowing the math. In a poll of about a thousand, you can learn about fractions with two digits of precision, no more. To get just one more digit of precision -- that is, to be able to say "78.3%" with any confidence -- you need to poll about 100,000 things/people. (Caveat: these rules of thumb are only correct if the total number of phones/people/whatever out there is much larger than the number in your sample.)
If the author of the article wrote "about 78%" but still pasted in the screenshot from Mr. Wang's web page, it would both be an accurate quote of the raw result and a more accurate summary for the readers of what it means.
Evidence that this isn't just a pointless quibble? Look at the numbers on Mr. Wang's site now: "79.38%" of iPhone 6s devices are reported as having the TSMC chip. No surprise to see a change like that.
P.S. for the terminally geeky: the 6s+ numbers have changed by a lot more. In the original post the TSMC fraction was quoted as "43.19%"; now it's showing as "48.89%". A change that large - larger than the simple binomial uncertainty of about 1.3% - suggests that the sampling being done by the app is rather far from random. My best guess is that the distribution of devices by time zone isn't uniform - people from different countries have been using the app at different times, and that's producing shifts in the result.
Guys , how can we be sure this "tool/utility " is a real one and really measure / detect the CPU type?! What about if it is just a generator of one of both types nothing to do with our hardware .... And it is interesting, why no other similar tools ?