Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

Apple seeking Low-Density Flash Supplier

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
50,441
11,827
https://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogodarkd.png

Digitimes reports that Apple is looking for quotes for low-density NAND flash from Hynix Semiconductor.

Apple presently receives most of its supply of flash chips from Samsung and Toshiba, but due to high demand for these products, Apple is looking towards Hynix to fulfill their low-density needs for the iPod shuffle. With increased supplies of products available, overall pricing for these parts is expected to decline further.
 

Mord

macrumors G4
Aug 24, 2003
10,092
23
UK
this is most likely for regular ipod cacheing flash memory, current ipods use 256-bit modules if i remember correctly.
 
Comment

longofest

Editor emeritus
Jul 10, 2003
2,858
1,416
Falls Church, VA
... and because it's from digitimes, it MUST be accurate...

Page 2 rumor folks... and because it's from digitimes, take it with a bigger grain of salt than normal. Maybe, take the entire Nevada salt flats...
 
Comment

Eidorian

macrumors Penryn
Mar 23, 2005
29,094
299
Indianapolis
Hector said:
this is most likely for regular ipod cacheing flash memory, current ipods use 256-bit modules if i remember correctly.
Yeah, caching video with 32 MB just doesn't cut it on the 30 GB model. The 60 GB one has 64 MB which is much more tolerable. I'm waiting for 128-256 MB of cache though. :cool:
 
Comment

JDOG_

macrumors 6502a
Nov 19, 2003
786
0
Oakland
Eidorian said:
Yeah, caching video with 32 MB just doesn't cut it on the 30 GB model. The 60 GB one has 64 MB which is much more tolerable. I'm waiting for 128-256 MB of cache though. :cool:

Aren't we all.

I'd love to see a larger cache, and with the inclusion of video, it's an obvious next step of the internals. Although, doesn't a larger chip require quite a bit more power? I'd assume it's generally less than HD spin-up though.

Seems like the weakest link on the iPod...besides the screen these days :p
 
Comment

longofest

Editor emeritus
Jul 10, 2003
2,858
1,416
Falls Church, VA
JDOG_ said:
Although, doesn't a larger chip require quite a bit more power?

Not when it's flash memory. If it's RAM, then it would require more power, but flash is non-volitile, so I'm pretty sure it doesn't require more power. But remember that any power requirements that you talk about in regards to memory are negligable compared to HD spinup.
 
Comment

Lacero

macrumors 604
Jan 20, 2005
6,639
2
Hector said:
this is most likely for regular ipod cacheing flash memory, current ipods use 256-bit modules if i remember correctly.
Welcome back, Hector. :)

Is Digitimes to be trusted? Shuffles are likely to get a boost in capacity for 2006 so Apple is shopping around for 512 and 1Gbit modules. Hardly unexpected.
 
Comment

shamino

macrumors 68040
Jan 7, 2004
3,403
206
Purcellville, VA
Hector said:
this is most likely for regular ipod cacheing flash memory, current ipods use 256-bit modules if i remember correctly.
Ummmm.... Why in the world would an iPod use flash memory for cache?

Ordinary DRAM would be far more appropriate, faster, and less expensive.
 
Comment

Eidorian

macrumors Penryn
Mar 23, 2005
29,094
299
Indianapolis
JDOG_ said:
Aren't we all.

I'd love to see a larger cache, and with the inclusion of video, it's an obvious next step of the internals. Although, doesn't a larger chip require quite a bit more power? I'd assume it's generally less than HD spin-up though.

Seems like the weakest link on the iPod...besides the screen these days :p
320 x 240 is fine for me. I want to keep my iPod within tolerable width and squinting size. Any smaller than 2.5" for watching video and they're really pushing it. Now, DivX/XviD and scaling support. I'm up for that. :D

Does scaling video kill the battery life even more? I have 512 x 384 video at 1015 kb/s. I converted it to iPod ready at 320 x 240 at 810 kb/s. Seems kinda silly to convert when I can scale.
 
Comment

javiercr

macrumors 6502
Apr 12, 2005
419
0
London
If the thing works (ie plays videos on its screen resolution) what do you care of how much cache it has?
 
Comment

Mord

macrumors G4
Aug 24, 2003
10,092
23
UK
more cache more battery life, but it's diminishing returns as your more and more likely to change playlists before the cache needs refilling.
 
Comment

shamino

macrumors 68040
Jan 7, 2004
3,403
206
Purcellville, VA
Eidorian said:
Does scaling video kill the battery life even more? I have 512 x 384 video at 1015 kb/s. I converted it to iPod ready at 320 x 240 at 810 kb/s. Seems kinda silly to convert when I can scale.
Probably.

Scaling will increase the load on either the CPU or the video-decoding chip. This will result in higher power consumption and therefore shorter battery life.

But you may not notice. It may be very small (say, 15 minutes out of 12 hours) or very large (say, 6 hours out of 12). This will depend on the particulars of the hardware/software involved. It might be worthwhile to run some tests to see what (if any) effect scaling has on production iPods, to take this discussion out of the realm of the theoretical.
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.