Damn, my first Computer was an i36SX (no Co-Processor) @ 25MHz. 12 MB Ram, 80 MB HDD. single speed CD-Rom connected to the Soundblaster via ATA. G4, G5,...
Times change.
Times change.
Why would companies be largely uninterested in 3nm?
Sadly I wasn't jokingI thought you were being funny. Apple has a large percentage of TSMC’s 3nm output because no one else wants/needs 3nm. There was a story earlier that, if Apple didn’t want 3nm, TSMC likely wouldn’t even make any 3nm processors because the market as a whole just aren’t interested.
For example, if TSMC wants to produce 1 million chips (because the cost of those would be a nice boost to their earnings) and the total output desired by the entire rest of the technology world is 100,000 chips, then if Apple steps up and says they want 900,000, then TSMC is going to sell to Apple to meet their sales targets!
Why would companies be largely uninterested in 3nm?
-It’s TSMC’s first 3nm processors… companies may want some test chips, but don’t want to depend on new, untested tech for a current product line.
-Their current customers don’t need the benefits of 3nm processors.
-They don’t want to pay the premium for 3nm processors (because their customers are cost constrained).
…etc
Intel took a virtual monopoly and blew it. What are we to do? Its free enterprise. We cant have a double standard on capitalism and a free market. Should we give Intel government funded welfare and subsidies and hope they don’t continue to blow it or do we let the marketplace decide?No one else worried that like 90% of world computer chips are made in one company and out of all places in a Chinese threatened territory ?
What makes you think that would be the default amount of RAM for the SOC?An Apple product with a reasonable amount of RAM being the default? Nope, this cannot be.
False. It's a choice. You get, according to TSMC, 30-35% better power or 15-20% better performance. Or lower boosts for both simultaneously.Apple's upcoming iPhone 15 Pro models are expected to feature the A17 Bionic processor, Apple's first iPhone chip based on TSMC's first-generation 3nm process, also known as N3B. The 3nm technology is said to deliver a 35% power efficiency improvement and 15% faster performance compared to 4nm, which was used to make the A16 Bionic chip for the iPhone 14 Pro and Pro Max.
This information is way out of date. It's extremely unlikely they'll be using a 10-core chip(let) as a building block, when the M2 Pro/Max already uses 12 cores. It would be shocking if it were less than 12 cores, and unsurprising if it were 14 or 16.According to The Information, future Apple silicon chips built on the 3nm process will feature up to four dies, which would support up to 40 compute cores.
False. The M2 is an 8-core CPU. The M2 Pro has either 10 or 12 cores, and the Max has 12.The M2 chip has a 10-core CPU and the M2 Pro and Max have 12-core CPUs, so 3nm could significantly boost multi-core performance. At minimum, 3nm should provide the biggest performance and efficiency leap to Apple's chips since 2020.
Nothing will migrate to N3E. Future devices may well use N3E, especially the A18. But there's nothing like a "migration". N3E is not IP-compatible with N3B. Everything must be reimplemented.TSMC is also working on an enhanced 3nm process called N3E. Apple devices will eventually migrate to the N3E generation, which is expected to enter commercial production in the second half of 2023, but actual shipments will not ramp up until 2024, according to DigiTimes.
Damn, my first Computer was an i36SX (no Co-Processor) @ 25MHz. 12 MB Ram, 80 MB HDD. single speed CD-Rom connected to the Soundblaster via ATA. G4, G5,...
Times change.
What makes the move to 3nm so different that companies don’t want to transition straight away when they have done so with previous transitions?I thought you were being funny. Apple has a large percentage of TSMC’s 3nm output because no one else wants/needs 3nm. There was a story earlier that, if Apple didn’t want 3nm, TSMC likely wouldn’t even make any 3nm processors because the market as a whole just aren’t interested.
For example, if TSMC wants to produce 1 million chips (because the cost of those would be a nice boost to their earnings) and the total output desired by the entire rest of the technology world is 100,000 chips, then if Apple steps up and says they want 900,000, then TSMC is going to sell to Apple to meet their sales targets!
Why would companies be largely uninterested in 3nm?
-It’s TSMC’s first 3nm processors… companies may want some test chips, but don’t want to depend on new, untested tech for a current product line.
-Their current customers don’t need the benefits of 3nm processors.
-They don’t want to pay the premium for 3nm processors (because their customers are cost constrained).
…etc
Oh those 80s... I didn't think anyone would win against me so easily. 👏Pffft! Mine was the great and mighty Commodore 64, making me computing king of my 'hood for a few months.
View attachment 2202381
Check this out:
Mac was beginning as Lisa
- 8-bit 1.023 Mhz CPU
- An unbelievable 64 Kilobytes of RAM. Yes 64K!!!
- Incredible 320 x 200 resolution with a gigantic pallete of 16 colors
- The Mighty SID 6581 sound chip which could make beep and boom sounds better than ANYTHING at the time
- No hard drive at all- who needed a hard drive?
- No CD-ROM at all- there was no such thing as CDs yet
Apple was years from Mac
PC was barely around, and no Windows for many years yet
Amiga was still incubating
Everybody wanted one.
And then the incredible 170Kb floppy drive came along so we could store an insane amount of data. 170 Kilobytes. OMG!
Ironically, now I'm dreaming for Apple to basically make one of these- Apple thin & light- but basically the "whole computer" in a keyboard "case"- pretty much the bottom half of a MacBook... to then be able to use with a virtualized any-sized screen or screens in the rumored Googles.
Imagine an Apple version of C64 plus an any-sized monitor in the laptop bag... to be used much like we use laptops today... EXCEPT we finally have a MB17" or a MB 18" or a MB20" or a MB24" or MB30" or MB50" or iMac 27" or 30" or 32", etc all in that laptop bag, ready to be used wherever we would pull out the cramped screen of an actual laptop.
Not true at all. M1/2 have 128-bit memory buses. Pros are 256b wide, Maxes are 512, and Ultras 1024. And yet, the M2 can be configured with 24GB. That's because the individual RAM packages are 12GB.RAM amounts only being available in powers 2 was due to dual-channel RAM, where you needed two DIMMs of the same amount to maximize speed. Eg., it was faster to have 2x 32GB, instead of 1x 64GB. Apple silicon uses a different RAM system that is relatively agnostic to RAM amounts.
They make decisions on what foundry to use up front, when they’re planning the chip. If they didn’t use TSMC it’s because they didn’t contract with TSMC up front. That has nothing to do with Apple, but I’m sure there are those that would like to punish Apple for their ability to plan and make decisions of which foundry will produce chips up front. OR, punish Apple for their ability pay enough to TSMC such that TSMC can build new capacity in order to fulfill their orders both now and in the future. TSMC, is just a company looking to make a buck, so if a company has the bucks, TSMC will find a way to take their money.The issue is that due to constraints, snapdragon888 and 8 gen 2 sucked , because they couldn't use tsmc nodes and had to rely on Samsung fabrics ...which sucked. For 2 years...you know the story don't you. Terrible performance, heating , throttling like crazy . All that because they couldn't get tsmc nodes , and apple had all of 'em
No, they don’t.And SOC manufacturers do, too, namely Qualcomm, Mediatek, (Huawei's kirin too...but not sure about this one due to Huawei US ban...although tsmc have moved so idk)
3nm isn't a processor ,merely nodes
What makes the move to 3nm so different that companies don’t want to transition straight away when they have done so with previous transitions?
The issue is not with interest, it’s the high cost associated with this transition. Samsung have already transisitioned to 3nm partially and with Apple soon to follow others won’t be able to risk stagnating even with a contracting smartphone/computer market.
The 3nm technology is said to deliver a 35% power efficiency improvement and 15% faster performance compared to 4nm, which was used to make the A16 Bionic chip for the iPhone 14 Pro and Pro Max.
They weren’t cancelled because they didn’t want 3nm like you claimed. They were cancelled because verification and design issues. That plus production not being at full capacity paired with Apple taking up most of that capacity and weakness in the market has meant they had no choice but to delay in when they rollout, with many saying early 2024. They’re looking to implement WHEN capacity allows and have resolved design issues.I don’t know, ask those companies that canceled orders last year why they’re not interested in 3nm node processors?![]()
Major TSMC Customers Cancel 3nm Chip Orders while the company Settles on 1nm Plant Location
It's being reported this morning in Taiwan that TSMC was affected by the temporary cancellation of orders by 3nm customerswww.patentlyapple.com
While there might be some cases where that's true, mostly nobody wants the N3B process because it's expensive! Design cost is higher, and unlike previous next-gen nodes, cost per transistor isn't meaningfully less (and might be more). Apple is willing to pay the price, and others aren't. Everyone other than Apple is waiting for N3E, which costs less per transistor despite being slightly/somewhat less dense due to simplified process (and, relatedly, better expected yield).They weren’t cancelled because they didn’t want 3nm like you claimed. They were cancelled because verification and design issues. That plus production not being at full capacity paired with Apple taking up most of that capacity and weakness in the market has meant they had no choice but to delay in when they rollout, with many saying early 2024. They’re looking to implement WHEN capacity allows and have resolved design issues.
According to The Information, future Apple silicon chips built on the 3nm process will feature up to four dies, which would support up to 40 compute cores.
This information is way out of date. It's extremely unlikely they'll be using a 10-core chip(let) as a building block, when the M2 Pro/Max already uses 12 cores. It would be shocking if it were less than 12 cores, and unsurprising if it were 14 or 16.
So, they canceled them because, at the quality TSMC was making, they didn’t meet those companies goals? So… they… don’t… want… what… TSMC… produces… at… 3… nm?They weren’t cancelled because they didn’t want 3nm like you claimed. They were cancelled because verification and design issues. That plus production not being at full capacity paired with Apple taking up most of that capacity and weakness in the market has meant they had no choice but to delay in when they rollout, with many saying early 2024. They’re looking to implement WHEN capacity allows and have resolved design issues.
They want them but capcity isn’t able to provide.So, they canceled them because, at the quality TSMC was making, they didn’t meet those companies goals? So… they… don’t… want… what… TSMC… produces… at… 3… nm?