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.
Kuo: iPhone 18 Models Will Feature 2nm Chips
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But also, there comes a time when physics says a specific technology has come to the end of the road. We take it for granted that we will always get 15% more power or efficiency. Apple selling MacBooks at Walmarts could be a sign of what's to come. We stop innovating, and the iPhone becomes another low commodity at Walmart. Or just Tim's new roadmap after he realizes Memojis and folding phones are not "the future"
I think the only reasonable interpretation you can make is that 2nm is "better" than 3nm. By how much, why, and to what overall benefit in reality is open to further interpretation. Generally smaller, faster and more efficient. But often the changes are small.
We've been used to arbitrary ratings such as "A rated, B rated..." or "Bronze" , "Silver", "Gold" for decades so this isn't anything really new. What people seem to be objecting to is using a unit of measurement, such as metres, or in this case nanometers, which is normally taken as a thing of precision, in an arbitrary way. But then we often say "heck, that's miles away", when in fact it may well not actually be even 1 mile. It's just a turn or phrase. A marketing turn of phrase in this case.
If the focus was on efficiency and quality they could make huge advancements in software performance without a yearly SoC refresh.
The bloat in some software these days is insane.
Better hardware makes the many software bugs appear even faster. Wow, isn't that amazing?
Apple should make it a priority to allow developers to make high quality software. With top-notch development tools and API's, few restrictions to the capabilities of the hardware. Their walled garden is becoming a desolated prison yard.
Apple should make it a priority to allow developers to make high quality software. With top-notch development tools and API's, few restrictions to the capabilities of the hardware. Their walled garden is becoming a desolated prison yard.
Sometime I wonder have we really come that far from Commodore 64 days?
What we could achieve in such a small amount of memory.
I wasted way too many hours gaming on that thing.
And sure graphics today leave it for dead.
But the gameplay and addictiveness isnt the same.
And boot/load times seem as long to get to a game as they did back in cassette load days
I managed a team of web designers for a brief while. They were cheap labour and lived in Bali.
Great people. Hard working. But when issues came up and webpages ground to a halt it was clear they had no idea how to optimise things. They were so used to high end hardware and unlimited storage they didnt need to (or felt they didnt need to).
this will be my next MBA: 2nm M-chip, newly designed body, 512gb SSD, OLED screen (hopefully), additional usb-c port on the right side
Conscious that these 3nm/2nm labels are now more marketing labels, rather than the actual physics, but miniaturisation is nonetheless continuing and we're now in a territory where features on the chip are now a handful of atoms across. How much further can we go before quantum effects start to take root?
The article and I were not talking about chips. We're talking about TSMC's 2nm node.
You can have -30% power OR 15% faster clock speed. It's not both. That's the way it works. Now of course you can design a chip that uses slightly less power and a bit more clock speed. But that's not the point.
The article is wrong in stating that TSMC N2 will allow a chip to be both -30% power and 15% faster clock speed.
I’ll personally wait for the zero nanometer chip. I hear it would run forever on a charge!
The iPhone has had way more than enough camera competence for this "you folk", for years.
I need the camera to be better protected, more than I need to take production-quality video with it. The current (and worsening) P-shaped cross section leaves the camera very vulnerable even with a case.
my question is not that 3 is 3 or 2 is 2 and not that 2 is smaller than 3 but at some point does not the electron get stuck and cant move in the laser tracks cut for it.
What would be that in real nm numbers?
I wonder IF 4 was truly 4nm
and 3 is 3.5nm
and 2 is 2.9nm
next number will be
1.5nm but its really 2.5nm then
1.25 nm which is really 2nm finally
1.00 nm which is 1.8nm and this is the end of shrinkage
that mean only 4 levels of shrinkage and the end has come.
Holy hell, if those performance rumors are true, along with the new modems, wifi, etc. and that battery life is going to be insane.
PreciselySometime I wonder have we really come that far from Commodore 64 days?
What we could achieve in such a small amount of memory.
I wasted way too many hours gaming on that thing.
And sure graphics today leave it for dead.
But the gameplay and addictiveness isnt the same.
And boot/load times seem as long to get to a game as they did back in cassette load days
I managed a team of web designers for a brief while. They were cheap labour and lived in Bali.
Great people. Hard working. But when issues came up and webpages ground to a halt it was clear they had no idea how to optimise things. They were so used to high end hardware and unlimited storage they didnt need to (or felt they didnt need to).
Most people program in high level languages that can end up being way less efficient than lower level languages. Sure it makes programming easy, but it means that often many software and as you mentioned, webpages, end up being resource hogs. I’m always shocked when some webpages take hundreds of megabytes sometimes in gigabytes for relatively simple interfaces.
But companies and people want fast results. What’s the point in optimizing if you are developing for super fast Apple silicon and gigabytes of RAM. And the next version is just around the corner, so why bother.
