Not fair that we have to wait 13 months for the next Apple phone. Can we sue anyone?
I can sue you for being, well, I guess stupid. iPhone 7 will be a huge success even if it does "look the same".
Not fair that we have to wait 13 months for the next Apple phone. Can we sue anyone?
Core M isn't the benchmark, Intel chips are good enough for most of a decade now. And battery life improvements are eaten up with bigger high-density screens and thinner lighter devices. Or in case of the iPhone Apple adds a Taptic Engine, which steals space from the battery and battery life stays the same even with more efficient CPUs. So if you're able to live without 3D Touch there is little reason to upgrade.I disagree. A better chip could mean better battery life for iPhone and better performance for iPad. A9X is still a bit inferior to Core M brodwell according to anandtech, so IMHO ...
In terms of CPU performance the a9x is inferior to the core m series processors. However in gpu tasks the a9x has about same power as a Xbox 360. It's pretty much a tie. So it depends on what you want, better cpu or better gpu?I disagree. A better chip could mean better battery life for iPhone and better performance for iPad. A9x is still a bit inferior to core m brodwell according to anandtech, so IMHO improvement is needed for the iPad to level up (or for use in mac... I wonder what can be done with a 4 core A10x)
This chip is going to scream performance.
Yes but my iPhone 6S was never slow. Actually that's the best feature. I now want a total redesign to go with the speed. I don't think it's much to ask for after 2 years.
On a motorcycle there's not much difference going 150mph vs 200mph. Fast is fast. With this cpu update we will be lucky to a second or two improvement in most apps.
In terms of CPU performance the a9x is inferior to the core m series processors. However in gpu tasks the a9x has about same power as a Xbox 360. It's pretty much a tie. So it depends on what you want, better cpu or better gpu?
]
Great gif!
Tsmc really needs to update their logo.
Why should they? No need for posing or style updates when you're not dealing with end customers. The money for a professional redesign and all the implicit consequences (necessary brand transfer activities, update of presentation headers, website etc.) is better invested in R&D and improved products.Man TSMC really need to update that logo.
You're probably right but that logo just makes me feel like im in 1982 or something.Great gif!
Why should they? No need for posing or style updates when you're not dealing with end customers. The money for a professional redesign and all the implicit consequences (necessary brand transfer activities, update of presentation headers, website etc.) is better invested in R&D and improved products.
Making a game like on a traditional console can be expensive and take time, developers just dont care when they can make money of simpler games and charge a couple bucks as apposed to $40-$60.I keep hearing such claims, but I've yet to see a load of new amazing 3D games for these mobile devices, that are as good as titles on an XBox360
We have painfully embarrassing titles like crossy road and such like.
If it's genuinely as good as a 360, why are people not hooking them up to TV's and playing loads of high end games via their Apple phones/tablets ?
The hardware is definitely there.I keep hearing such claims, but I've yet to see a load of new amazing 3D games for these mobile devices, that are as good as titles on an XBox360
We have painfully embarrassing titles like crossy road and such like.
If it's genuinely as good as a 360, why are people not hooking them up to TV's and playing loads of high end games via their Apple phones/tablets ?
The truth is, A-series chips are good enough already. If you own an A8/A9 device, there is little reason to upgrade.
Coincidentally I haven't bought a new notebook since the "Penryn" C2D MBP.That is like saying a C2D is adequate and no reason to upgrade.
Coincidentally I haven't bought a new notebook since the "Penryn" C2D MBP.
Steve Jobs would've never attached the silicon die directly to the PCB to minimize height and reduce the lengths of interconnects between components.
It would be far worse for Apple if Samsung dicided not to make any parts for Apple. Because if you like it or not... iPhone is almost a rebatched Samsung.Did Samsung stop making Qualcomm's high-end SOCs?
Samsung Semi's 2Q sales are up 6% (YoY) and 8% (QoQ), so despite Apple's recent dramatic decline, the company is doing well -- a sign that the division doesn't depend on Apple sales.
Got any data to back that up? If you're talking about Samsung's 14LPE (early) being first gen and 14LPP (production) being second gen, I believe the A9 was already on the 14LPP process, and real world showed that was slightly inferior in performance to chips manufactured on TSMC N16ff+ (which was *their* 2nd gen of 16nm)
You get a total redesign of the motorcycle every two years?Yes but my iPhone 6S was never slow. Actually that's the best feature. I now want a total redesign to go with the speed. I don't think it's much to ask for after 2 years.
On a motorcycle there's not much difference going 150mph vs 200mph. Fast is fast. With this cpu update we will be lucky to a second or two improvement in most apps.
So this does have a number of cool advantages, but I have to wonder if it's really going to give them much of a leg up on Samsung. The Galaxy S7 uses a 14nm process CPU already, whereas this is a 16nm process. Still has other advantages, but I don't expect the improvements to be that significant.
Apple moving away from them is still a fairly significant chuck of business they are losing.
It's the most significant SoC advance in a decade. The overall performance of the system will be many fold greater. We're looking at a huge reduction in power between major components with a similar large increase in both communications speed and bandwidth. There will be absolutely no way Apple will be able to not infringe upon Mactel performance and promises a major shift in computing to mobile, obsoleting the need for Intel Processors in most of Apple's devices, dare I say even Mac...
Maybe not but it is better than some of the process shrinks Intwl went through. In any event to me that isn't the important thing, the important thing is that we are getting improvements without process shrinks. Realistically we only have a few, maybe even a couple, of process shrinks left for the current technology approaches. So gains like this between process shrinks are very welcomed indeed.
Combine a new process like this with additional architecture improvements from Apple and we might see a real world 20% increase in CPU performance. Why only 20%, mainly because things like improved caching has a negative impact on thermals, not all of the thermal improvements in the packaging system will translate directly into gains in performance. It really depends upon how aggressive Apple will be in this spin of the processor architecture. If there is room for thermal improvement, in the SOC architecture, we could see them going beyond 30% but Apple chips are already pretty aggressive thermally.
Interestingly what I see happening is that greater bandwidth to RAM will benefit the GPU substantially. On most of the so called APU designs out there the biggest performance problem isn't the GPU cores but their ability to get to RAM. People may be in for a surprise in this respect.
I tried to visualize the solder bumps because I couldn't figure out how the CPU would be attached to the PCB if they were eliminated. As as mentioned in the OP, it sounded like the connection method was NOT going to be with solder bumps. After looking at your visualization, it seem that the connection to the PCB will still be via solder bumps, and the major change here is the connection between the different components that comprises the actual chip.
1) What is the material used for connection of the various chip components? Is it wire?
2) If my interpretation is correct, which it may not be, the original article should be updated to reflect that it is not connection to the PCB that has changed. Additionally, if it is wire that connects the components of the chip, that needs to be updated too.
These are only different names for what is technically more or less the same process node with Transistor Fin Pitch, Contacted Gate Pitch, and Interconnect Pitch having the same length on both nodes, 14FF LPP and 16FF+ and being significantly shorter on Intel's 14FF process.The Galaxy S7 uses a 14nm process CPU already, whereas this is a 16nm process.
Samsung Semi's 2Q operating profits are down 22% (YoY) so I'm sure they are very happy to have substituted Apple orders with Qualcomm orders.Samsung Semi's 2Q sales are up 6% (YoY) and 8% (QoQ), so despite Apple's recent dramatic decline, the company is doing well -- a sign that the division doesn't depend on Apple sales.
Apple ist faster in cranking up the speed of their design than Intel is in reducing power of theirs.ARM is tailored for max performance at low watts while Intel's chips are for pure performance. There's a reason why Intel has been having a hard time getting their chips to perform really well at low wattages. Apple would have the same problem trying to scale their low power designs up to high wattage performance.
Mass production for LPP startet January this year. The A9 APL0898 is produced in LPE.I believe the A9 was already on the 14LPP process
∆ speed = 33%On a motorcycle there's not much difference going 150mph vs 200mph. Fast is fast.
I think for the next two product cycles all SoCs will be built by TSMC, and we will not see any APL0898 anymore. Also the S2 SiP will be produced by TSMC. That will add a few dollars to what will not be payed to Samsung but to TSMC instead...Apple pays TSMC $3.6-3.8B USD per year.
Core M is one of my benchmark ... because I have a 2016 macbook. I know what it can do easily, what is OK but perfectible, and what I would not run on it. For example, lightroom is OK 99% of the time, but struggle when before/after view is in use (although it is not worse than with my surface pro 2 with i5 4200u).Core M isn't the benchmark, Intel chips are good enough for most of a decade now.