I'm well aware of this and it shows how bad things are at Intel and how little faith they have in their future processes.INTEL outsourcing manufacturing to TSMC
(was already reported years ago, some links)
Report: Intel Signs Contract To Outsource CPUs To TSMC's 3nm Process
A massive claim has just been made by Taiwan's leading newspaper, DigiTimes: Intel has apparently signed a contract with TSMC to fabricate core CPU product lines in 2020 on their 3nm process. This, if true, would change the dynamics of the x86 industry completely next year. Keep in mind, we are...wccftech.com
Intel to outsource more chip production after record year
US chip giant has been in talks to hand more work to Taiwanese chipmaker TSMCasia.nikkei.com
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.
Despite M1 Pro and M1 Max Performance and Efficiency Gains, Intel Still Hopes Apple Will Do Business With It
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yep. I think I've said this before, but x86 is now the second best computing architecture, and Intel is the second best x86 vendor...
What kept x86 alive all these years is less the core architecture and more the combination of Intel's world leading semiconductor process and an enormous R&D budget funded by hegemony in the PC market allowing a lesser architecture to outperform a better one. Now Apple has leveraged mobile devices to outstrip Intel’s R&D budget, and TSMC is eating Intel’s lunch on process.
If Intel’s process isn’t even good enough for Intel though, I don’t know why they imagine it would be good enough for Apple. It feels a little bit like "hey, use our fabs for your chips and free up some of that TSMC capacity for us to use". I can only assume these are purely aspirational statements.
Apple has relied and continues to rely on Samsung for components like displays and memory for years. Samsung is a mammoth company where one arm can be competing while the other arm cooperating. When Apple and Samsung were in their huge legal fight Samsung was still supplying many components to Apple.
Samsung's 3nm GAA is looking promising and is squarely aiming to compete toe to toe with TSMC. if this works out I dont know, but they are a serious competitor. Intel's 10nm process which is largely equivalent to TSMC's N7/N7P is still struggling with yields and power consumption. If anything Intel is falling further behind while Samsung is steadily working to catch up to TSMC. I'm hearing rumblings of TSMC's 3nm FINFET process facing delays (6 months) and huge costs. Apple will likely use TSMC's N4 process next year which is really N5++.
Either way as an Apple, TSMC, and ASML stock holder I win.
ARM is trashing x86 because x86 is an almost 50 year old ISA with huge baggage and inefficiencies. Apple is working off a better type of design that ignores anything before 2011. I believe x86 will never be capable of matching the efficiency of ARM, even if it killed off parts of what makes it inefficient, which would kill off backwards compatibility which is the major strength of x86.
I think we are going to witness a steady shift in the industry from x86 to ARM and perhaps RISC-V. The mobile space is almost 100% ARM, the huge cloud providers like AWS are already building their own ARM chips, the fastest super computer on earth is ARM. Really the only space left for x86 is servers and PC's which are being eaten from all sides by ARM.
I'd even go further and say ARM is inherently more secure than x86 which is yet another reason to move to ARM.
Obviously Apple will use Samsung components if they have no choice. The point is with foundry they do have a choice. You are certainly right that Samsung has advantages over Intel in other areas. It's a moot point anyways, Apple is not leaving TSMC, who is better than both.
I don't get the "ARM is better than x86" hype. Even if it is, Apple is the only company designing chips that go toe to toe with Intel's and AMD's best. Where is the M1 for PCs? All the other companies- Qualcomm, Samsung, NVIDIA, Google, MediaTek, AWS, Ampere, etc. are just using Arm's designs. They aren't bad designs but they aren't "x86 killers". I think a big reason ARM is growing isn't just power efficiency, but the ability to customize chips to your needs while still being part of the broader ecosystem. That's something Intel can't (won't) offer.
"Apple is the only company designing chips that go toe to toe with Intel's and AMD's best" This is not a clear cut statement. ARM is not seeing much success on PC's because PC's are typically using Windows and Windows for ARM is a s***show. Secondly, where companies are building high performance ARM chips, say for data centers (AWS Graviton) or for super computers (Fujitsi Fugaku) they are doing ground breaking things. ARM isn't dominating on Windows because Windows is completely tied to x86 and relies on x86 programs going back decades, until Microsoft gets serious it's always going to be stuck on x86. You only need to look at benchmarks between Apple's M1 and x86 based Macs, it's a brutal wakeup call for Intel and Microsoft.
"Qualcomm, Samsung, NVIDIA, Google, MediaTek, AWS, Ampere, etc. are just using Arm's designs" Qualcomm, Samsung, Google, AWS are all building custom ARM chips now using the ARM ISA, most have perpetual licenses which is something you only do if you are serious about future development. Nvidia is BUYING ARM which signals just how serious they are. Ampere? Are you referring to Nvidia's GPU uArch - I don't know what that has to do with ARM? MediaTek will probably start building their own custom silicon as they push up the value chain but they are a budget chip company.
Your last statement is correct, being able to customize your design whilst being compatible is a big part of the appeal of ARM. But the x86 killers are here and in operation. M1 Max, A64FX 48C, upcoming Graviton3. You just aren't seeing it in the consumer PC space because Microsoft is stuck treading water with x86. The data center space is the most important area to look out for, they have regular turn over of chips, long development road maps, immense budgets, typically run platform agnostic code, and above all perf/watt is king.
Just two days after Apple further advanced its Apple silicon portfolio with the M1 Pro and M1 Max, marking the first professional high-end chips designed for the Mac, Intel is reportedly making yet another attempt to win Apple back as a customer.
Given Intel's recent track history of terminating microcode updates for its processors, why would Apple want to get back in bed with them and let someone else control product longevity?
That's like saying ARM is 35 years old because the ARM1 was released in 1985. Today's x86-64 ISA is actually quite modern, and the ARM ISA can't really be called RISC anymore.
Apple's chips are not so good because they are ARM-based but because of their highly customized design and TSMC's manufacturing process. That's easily apparent if you look at other ARM CPUs.
What I’ll find interesting is if the Apple Silicon speed-buzz will help sell the Mac so much that Microsoft might take notice, i.e. their marketshare dropping to Apple’s rise.
If (or when?)this is the case, I wonder what Microsoft either together with Intel (and or AMD..) will be forced to do.
Besides, I cannot imagine AMD or Intel not developing their own ARM CPUs, very competitive to Apple, and nVidia will be happy too.
Time will tell.
If (or when?)this is the case, I wonder what Microsoft either together with Intel (and or AMD..) will be forced to do.
Besides, I cannot imagine AMD or Intel not developing their own ARM CPUs, very competitive to Apple, and nVidia will be happy too.
Time will tell.
ARMv8 which Apple uses only came out in 2011 and their chips are not compatible with anything that came before it. It definitely can still be called RISC even if they have added a lot to it over the years seeing as 1 instructions 1 cycle still holds true. I'd argue it's also better at multitasking than x86 is.
While their tight software and hardware integration is definitely a part of it, ARM in general is a far more efficient and modern processor design than x86 which will run code built before I was born. Show me an example of x86 being competitive?
That's not true. The v8 has an AArch32 compatibility mode. I don't know if Apple's custom design supports it though.
What exactly does "better at multitasking" mean?
Are you kidding me? The only niche where an ARM-based CPU currently clearly beats its x86 counterparts are low- to mid-power laptops running MacOS. Amazon is nipping at x86's heels in the datacenter with their AWS Graviton CPUs, but they are not there yet and the x86 CPUs aren't standing still. There's a reason why x86 has 90+% market share in every segment where it's present.
Siri, remind me to check back in 2 years for status on his projects/employment status.
"In 2013, Gelsinger co-founded Transforming the Bay with Christ (TBC), a coalition of business leaders, venture capitalists, non-profit leaders and pastors aiming to convert one million people over the next decade."
"In 2013, Gelsinger co-founded Transforming the Bay with Christ (TBC), a coalition of business leaders, venture capitalists, non-profit leaders and pastors aiming to convert one million people over the next decade."
Hmmm … let's see, Apple invests gazillions on silicon development and manufacturing and right out of the gate makes the huge gains we all figured should have happened long ago. "Hey Apple, can make chips for you again like in olden times?" Uhh …
johnnyturbouk
macrumors 68000
One should stress that there is a difference between custom cores and and custom chips. Most are doing the latter, Apple is one of the few doing the former. Qualcomm might start with the purchase of Nuvia. However, your larger point stands since custom chips are where most of the “tight integration” between software and hardware lies.
He was speaking of Apple’s ARMv8 designs which do not have ARMv7 compatibility (why 32bit was removed) nor will upcoming ARMv9 chips from ARM. Again, strictly speaking, ARMv9 allows for ARMv7 compatibility in user land but no announced core going forwards will support it.
In contrast while x86-64 cleaned up a lot about x86, chip designers still cite the cruft in each, especially the latter as one reason why x86 chips are bigger and hotter than they otherwise would be.
I would agree however that an emphasis on tight integration between hardware and software and custom chip design is a benefit of ARM’s business model rather than ISA.
That x86 has 90% of the market share everywhere else is a function of ARM only just only just starting to seriously compete outside of mobile rather than an x86 processor advantage. And indeed x86 may yet win out. An entrenched ecosystem is difficult though not impossible to overcome and as you say AMD and Intel won’t stand still.
Last edited:
It's okay Intel. You'll still get some of Apple's customers' business once they go full in-house chips. A lot of Mac users still need to be able to either run Bootcamp or virtualization software for Windows. I'll soon be forced to buy a PC build once my mini and laptop are both Apple silicon.
And Apple has a smart bridge to sell to you, Intel. You can have a choice from five colours: midnight, starlight, product red, blue and green. Available in Pro and Pro Max models plus customisable. Hurry though as there are rumours of common steel shortages and deliveries times are expected to blow out to December.