Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I prefer they not use Samsung parts. One can only speculate at the quality of Samsung chips being sold to Apple. A company that Samsung views as a competitor.
One does not need to speculate. Apple is a customer for Samsung. They are only a competitor for the mobile phones division.

And even if Samsung viewed them as a competitor, there is no smarter business model than supplying parts to your own competitors. No matter where the market goes, you can only win with that. So supplying low-quality parts to your competitors, thus risking the end of this beautiful business model, would be unbelievably stupid.

So perhaps it's time to stop with these silly speculations, especially seeing how Apple has now produced 9 generations of iPhones with Samsung-supplied parts without any indications that the parts did not live up to Apple's quality requirements. One could speculate that Apple executives are not actually as dumb as people here think.
 
One does not need to speculate. Apple is a customer for Samsung. They are only a competitor for the mobile phones division.

And even if Samsung viewed them as a competitor, there is no smarter business model than supplying parts to your own competitors. No matter where the market goes, you can only win with that. So supplying low-quality parts to your competitors, thus risking the end of this beautiful business model, would be unbelievably stupid.

So perhaps it's time to stop with these silly speculations, especially seeing how Apple has now produced 9 generations of iPhones with Samsung-supplied parts without any indications that the parts did not live up to Apple's quality requirements. One could speculate that Apple executives are not actually as dumb as people here think.

Your reasonable, rational and sound thought processes are annoying.

...to the minds that spend their free time watching the Kardashians and all other manner of reality television. :)
 
But the substrate on my chips that came off assembly line 2 is not as good as the substrate from assembly line 1! How can I tell if I have an assembly line 1 phone??
 
to summarize:

From what I understand it means integrating the different silicon chips which make up an Ax processor in a new way: the package is smaller, therefore has better (9C some paper says) thermal specs, or faster speed at the same temp. At the same time signal speed increases (CPU speed) as does packaging reliability. This is the advantage of FO-WLP over the currently used tech.

pretty much a no-brainer decision to us this...

(good job MR by the way, only the TSMC paper is from 6/14 and we all missed it back then)
 
Doe anyone know if this TSMC will be going lower in the nanometer area (12nm or 10nm) as they produce chips using the FO-WLP or will they stay at the current level? Just curious because that is also supposed to help with performance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Avieshek
Another thought:

Even with the 10+ years of experience, it took TSMC something like 2 years (2014-2016) and investments of (I read somewhere) more than $1.5 billion to bring this technology to the market.

And that's just for a tiny part which normal users never get to see; but they notice (and complain) even if it's only 1% slower; with fabrication tolerances of 3%.
 
Don't be surprised when the story flips back and forth. Unless Apple flat out says it don't count on it. The janitor could have leaked the story from a bathroom conversation for all we know.
Just look at what happened with the sapphire reports before iPhone 6 came out. Don't be easily tricked into everything you read.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Avieshek
Oh come on, it's not rocket surgery.
The problem with having DRAM separate from the CPU is twofold
- it costs more power to transfer information and data between discrete chips than within chip
- the links between discrete chips are expensive (to manufacture, and in area) and limited in speed, hence limiting the bandwidth.

The closer you can get the DRAM to the CPU, the more these two issues go down. These sorts of 3D packaging solutions are not as good as having the RAM manufactured on the CPU (that's not practical given how different the manufacturing technologies for CPUs and DRAMs are) but it's about as close as is realistic.

Bottom line is with this packaging
- communicating with RAM should use about half as much power as is used today
- the combined package will be slightly smaller
- there will be substantially higher bandwidth available to the SoC --- useful for the CPU but even more so for the GPU.
 
Don't be surprised when the story flips back and forth. Unless Apple flat out says it don't count on it. The janitor could have leaked the story from a bathroom conversation for all we know.
Just look at what happened with the sapphire reports before iPhone 6 came out. Don't be easily tricked into everything you read.

There are stories that make sense because they just match the technical zeitgeist. 3D packaging of this sort has been discussed for years, and this year has become real. Intel is in on the action (HMC), Samsung has their version (WideIO), AMD has shipped products using the tech. It comes as zero surprise to anyone following the field that Apple and TSMC are working together in this space, and the timetable likewise is what any reasonable person would expect.
http://www.extremetech.com/computin...es-between-wide-io-hbm-and-hybrid-memory-cube
 
  • Like
Reactions: Avieshek
Having been an engineer, (now a computer consultant) it's nice to see the occasional super-techy article on MacRumors. Admittedly, I didn't understand all of it, but it made me tab out and go research some of the terminology. Good article!
Once an engineer, always an engineer.

(It's like herpes... you can't get rid of it, and it shows up at least once a month...)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Avieshek



tsmc_logo_new-250x205.jpg
According to a recent report from Taiwan's Commercial Times, via EE Times and a separate research report from KGI Securities' Ming-Chi Kuo, Taiwan-based TSMC may have won sole production rights on the A10 chip slated for the next-generation iPhone 7.

This is in contrast to the split production of the A9 processor between Samsung and TSMC featured in the iPhone 6s and iPhone 6s Plus. Apple's decision to revert back to TSMC as a single supplier, as was seen in A8 chip production, could be motivated by advanced device packaging techniques offered by TSMC that may not have equivalents in Samsung's packaging offerings.

The Commercial Times report mentions TSMC's integrated fan-out wafer-level packaging (InFO WLP) technology as one of the key inclusions in the production contract. InFO WLP is one of many competing 3D IC technologies that promise higher levels of component integration in a single package with better electrical characteristics.

Among those improvements is the possibility for higher-width memory buses that support lower-power operation necessary for mobile devices, which for consumers means better performance and efficiency. 3D IC technologies are just beginning to emerge in the consumer space, with AMD's use of High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) in its Fiji XT line of discrete graphics cards being one of the first implementations.

According to a paper abstract from TSMC engineers, InFO WLP also allows for better thermal performance as well as superior performance for radio frequency (RF) components such as cellular modems. We reported last year about Apple hiring more engineers to potentially bring RF component development in house, so this packaging technology could serve as additional motivation to Apple for packaging in the future. Even if Samsung could offer Apple a comparable technology, the challenges of verifying a design on two new manufacturing flows may be a motivating factor for Apple to stick with one supplier for its next processor.

In the near term, the thermal advantages and potential increased memory bandwidth are the more immediate sources of improvement for Apple's potential next chip. Many 3D IC technologies have seen slow adoption due to increased costs and processing steps, but the simpler InFO WLP technology offers an easier, cheaper entry point for Apple, which also has the luxury of uncommonly high margins on its devices.

tsmc_chip_packaging.jpg

Comparison of packaging technologies offered by TSMC

TSMC's InFO WLP differs from many competing 3D IC solutions in that it does not require an additional silicon interposer along with the existing package substrate used for component integration. Though they do not feature active components, silicon interposers are made on silicon wafers just like the application processors featured in mobile devices, making them a costly addition to the device assembly.

InFO WLP allows multiple flip chip components to be placed side-by-side on a package substrate resembling a traditional assembly, but with the ability to interconnect to one another through the package substrate. This is in contrast to traditional methods which feature stacked packages (package on package, or PoP) interconnected with tiny wires. As mobile memory technologies advance, with LPDDR4 being the latest iteration, electrical signaling becomes an increasing technological challenge which begins to make 3D IC technologies more attractive for enhanced performance.

The list of included components would not be limited to memory, however, so future device teardowns will be interesting as mobile devices begin to include these technologies. More information on TSMC's packaging technologies can be accessed via this PDF.

Article Link: Rumored A10 Production Win for TSMC Could Be Tied to Device Packaging Advances
 
Single source for a chip can be dangerous. Wonder what Apple's fall back plan is in case TSMC can't deliver or they find a bug they can't fix quickly.
 
Single source for a chip can be dangerous. Wonder what Apple's fall back plan is in case TSMC can't deliver or they find a bug they can't fix quickly.

they seemingly had a single source for the A7 and most chips before that... Though now with massive volume that may be harder to sustain.
 
"...highly technical language [...] highly technical language..."

Erm, what does this all mean exactly...?! I suspect this simply means: "It's better-er-er than the current one." :-|

It means what it always means: "Thinner and faster."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Avieshek
I'm pretty indifferent on this given that as long as the chips produced are of quality and work they are supposed to - I don't really care what name is on the chip. However, I will say that there's something to be said about not relying on any one vendor for a major component where possible.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.