Because 10 cores was essentially a typographic error. It should have been 9. Thus Apple's claimed performance has NOT CHANGED.
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.
Apple Says iPad Air Performance Details Are Accurate Despite 9-Core GPU Mistake
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Because 10 cores was essentially a typographic error. It should have been 9. Thus Apple's claimed performance has NOT CHANGED.
100% as it should be. We should always side with consumer-rights policy. I'm also confident that in this specific circumstance, nobody, with sense or with reason to buy an iPad Air, was impacted by real-world damage and cares.
That is an accurate way of putting it. Had this happened on the Mac, where customers truly spec peep for infinitely more valid reasons of industry, Apple would be in all kinds of trouble with the customer base and including the press. Good thing they made this error on an iPad Air where nobody cares. I couldn't convince an iPad Air user to return their iPad because it has a 9c GPU. It's probably 3x faster than whatever iPad they upgraded from.
The fact so many here want to believe it was a lie and not a mistake seems to reflect a recent high profile court outcome...
Even when presented with clear evidence from multiple in-the-know people, 25% of the public still doesnt want to believe the judgement.
And when the defence was "it was a mistake" that's OK for a powerful person even though there were real impacts. But posters here don't believe a corrected mistake. It's all a conspiracy. Not a typo that was missed during proofing and corrected quickly.
The sooner AI takes over maybe the better. The world is too wacky these days.
Even when presented with clear evidence from multiple in-the-know people, 25% of the public still doesnt want to believe the judgement.
And when the defence was "it was a mistake" that's OK for a powerful person even though there were real impacts. But posters here don't believe a corrected mistake. It's all a conspiracy. Not a typo that was missed during proofing and corrected quickly.
The sooner AI takes over maybe the better. The world is too wacky these days.
Gaslighting is a method by which an abuser methodically (over a period of months or years) causes their victim to lose confidence in their own judgement, so as to make the victim more dependent on the abuser's judgement than their own. In other words, its a long-term method to create full trust in the abuser. Like a spider having caught their victim in a web—once full trust is locked-in, the abuser can begin their deeper intentions of abuse.
How does that have anything to do with a typo on a tech page?
Apple said it has 25% faster GPU to the last model—and when we check Geekbench scores—Apple delivers above that.
Nobody is going to notice less than 25% GPU performance because Apple delivered more than 25% GPU performance.
So where is the gaslighting?
That was not my question. My question was;
1. TSMC delivered a million chips with 9 core GPUs telling Apple that they were 10 core GPUs and
2. Later TSMC informs Apple that they made a mistake about the core count, that it was only 9 core GPU
Now would Apple say
1. That is fine, it was an honest mistake, thanks for letting me know. Keep the money that I paid to you for 10 core GPU even though you delivered me 9 core GPU
or
2. Give a warning to TSMC for making the mistake, ask TSMC to pay back the difference, then penalize TSMC for not delivering the correct chip, for delays, and for several other made-up clauses.
I am gravitating towards the second option.
Why do you keep repeating this incompatible analogy?
- Apple orders a chip and pays for X cores that gives Y performance
- TSMC delivers a chip that is X-1 cores and gives Y-10% performance
- Customer orders an iPad Air with X cores that gives Y performance
- Apple delivers an iPad Air with X-1 cores that gives Y performance
* In this case Y performance = 1.25x GPU increase
Last edited:
In what way? Apple customers are getting the performance asserted by Apple.
So, you are telling me that Apple will accept a 9 core GPU instead of a 10 core GPU? Then there is a bigger issue with Apple if Apple's quality control is so bad.
And why would they check the performance as that is not what TSMC is guaranteeing. The design is Apple's. TSMC only guarantee's that.
Some people don’t understand law. They think a company can be sued for a website typo when the performance metrics are accurate.
It doesn't work like that. Apple designs chips to their requirements.
TSMC, a silicon foundry, accepts an order from Apple for some number of wafers that are then sliced and packaged and knows nothing about "cores."
Last edited:
Right - TSMC cuts up the meat however their customer specifies. If the GPU only has 9 cores, it is because Apple made it so.
Not sure where that person got the idea that TSMC short changed Tim.
In real life—TSMC's N3B process was causing such bad yields that Apple forced TSMC to eat cost, and so TSMC hurried Apple to use the N3E instead—which has better yields—which is why Apple is so quickly switching everything to M4 chips. The Mac mini, Mac Studio, and Mac Pro never got an M3-generation update—they are skipping straight to M4. The iPad Pro never got an M3 chip, they instead went straight to M4, to everybody's surprise.
The point is customers got exactly what they paid for: they paid for 15% faster CPU, 25% faster GPU, 50% faster memory, and 100% more storage—and that is exactly what customers received and continue to enjoy.
Where as in the hypothetical, TSMC did not deliver performance numbers as promised.
First of all, that's literally not what I said. I said if Apple paid for a 10c GPU but got a 9c GPU, Apple would renegotiate price because they would have received Y-10% performance. Reading comprehension, come on.
Second of all, Apple absolutely pays less for 9 core GPUs—they are called binned chips—and Apple is using them in their M2 iPad Air—hence it has a 9c GPU instead of 10c—and using them in their M4 iPad Pro—hence the 256GB or 512GB storage models only have a 9c CPU instead of the unbinned 10c GPU in the 1 TB and 2 TB storage model.
Third of all, Apple absolutely pays for the expected performance that Apple expects from design and testing. If manufacturing somehow delivers less performance that Apple expected, you bet absolutely Apple would renegotiate price.
All of that to say your analogy still doesn't match. In your hypothetical, Apple pays for Y performance but gets Y-10% performance. Of course they should renegotiate for Price-10%. Where as customers are paying for an iPad Air with 15/25/50 performance increases and Apple delivered exactly that and more.
I need only the first two lines. If Apple pays less for 9 core GPUs, then why should the consumers pay more for it?
I realized after I posted that I didn't ELI5 enough for you so I ninja-edited my comment. Unfortunately you were too quick to read. Go back and read it.
In summary:- If Apple pays for Y performance but gets 1 less core, that means they received Y-10% performance. So Apple would bin that chip and pay less.
- Where as customers paid for Y performance—which is 15% faster CPU, 25% faster GPU, 50% faster memory, and 100% more storage—and got exactly that.
Apple doesn't literally pay less for lower-binned chips. Binning reduces the number of chips on a wafer (which is what Apple pays for) that are wasted, therefore reducing the average per-chip price.
Imagine a baker making a tray of cookies - they can't easily sell the ones that are a little burnt. In order to make up the cost of making those imperfect cookies, they would need to increase the price of the good cookies to compensate.
If this baker decides to sell the burnt cookies as an "Extra Crispy & Crunchy" version, the average cost of all cookies goes down since they no longer need to recoup the cost of disposing of imperfect cookies.
All this to say yes there are savings to be had with binning, but not in the way you imagine it.
It’s always a joy to see the amount of hoops posters jump through to justify apples deceiving practices. If microsoft did the same the forums would be dishing out all the hate.
Appreciate the nuanced correction: Apple usually does not pay per die but per wafer. I was generalizing but it's my understanding whatever yield numbers TSMC can get (eg. 80% 10c, 10% 9c) Apple will negotiate price less per wafer than if TSMC was getting 90% 10c. So in that sense they are paying less per binned chips—but as an expected percentage, not literally counted.
* 3nm M3 chips are an exception to the die vs wafer rule. Apple negotiated to not pay for any defective 3nm dies. (Source) None of that concerns binned chips so your point stands.
It really is phenomenal and frightening, the leverage that Apple has over other other businesses. I can't imagine someone else (Nvidia, AMD, etc.) getting such a good deal.
I am not asking about perf. I am asking about cores. If TSMC delivers one core less, would Apple accept it? If they do, then I would be sorry for Apple because it has such a subpar QC department. Apple should fire them.
Yes. They are called binned chips.
Some M2 chips had 8c GPUs, some had 10c GPUs—which would go into MacBook Airs—and now the iPad Airs have 9c GPUs. This is normal chip business. In fact the M2 iPad Air has 1 more GPU core than the majority of M2 MacBook Air owners. So again, why is everybody crying?
See image:
Last edited: