Facebook and instagram will absolutely fly with these chips!
Apple has never been the most valuable company there is. It WAS the most valuable public listed company, but not currently.
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.
TSMC on Course to Secure 5nm Chip Orders for 2020 iPhones
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Facebook and instagram will absolutely fly with these chips!
Apple has never been the most valuable company there is. It WAS the most valuable public listed company, but not currently.
This is pretty good news for the near future and beyond. At some point the nm is "good enough" just like at some point Ghz was good enough. The next thing is 5G everywhere on every device and accessory. I still would like to see backward software compatibility with Win.Unix.OSX apps and peripherals. Smallness is also good enough.
What is needed is form factors that suit the task. Desktop, mini headless, mini, mid, large laptops, mini, mid, large pads, mid and large phones. Wearables, injectables (bone fone, wrist, etc).
What is needed is form factors that suit the task. Desktop, mini headless, mini, mid, large laptops, mini, mid, large pads, mid and large phones. Wearables, injectables (bone fone, wrist, etc).
Can someone explain to me, what will happen when it reaches 1 nm? What's next? I am clueless on this subject!
Not going to happen and investors wouldn’t want it.
TSMC is a gigantic, capital intensive business.
At current prices, Apple would likely need to offer $300B to get it, making it too large for even Apple.
Plus, Apple doesn’t want to buy a capital intensive business when their current arrangement has worked beautifully.
nice. Wonder how TMSC is getting around the supposed gate issues with Silicon. Remember seeing some scientists do a report that showed that under 7nm, in silicon that the gates were getting too small and close together that electrons could bleed and cause the gates to "short" (not sure if proper term). and that past 7nm it was likely that there would need to be some new substrate.
From the chip side. The more power efficient and faster that a CPU can be made the better. it will only help battery life. the shorter you need to process something, the shorter you need to run CPU at 100%, which will save battery.
From the chip side. The more power efficient and faster that a CPU can be made the better. it will only help battery life. the shorter you need to process something, the shorter you need to run CPU at 100%, which will save battery.
that's my problem - Apple will take advantage of the shrinkage by thinning the laptop instead of giving you more battery when running at full load - 14-18 hours would be glorious
The moment you realise that most people don't benefit or need any more CPU power. There are a lot of ways the iPhone can be improved (as can any phone), I don't think people are craving for more performance though.
Tired of hearing every year of how the brand "new" phone has 40% more CPU/GPU power. You could have lowered it by 20% and I wouldn't have been able to tell, that is the difference.
- Improve Siri
- Make it so that the camera bump no longer exists, it should be flush with the phone
- Innovative ways to hide the notch
- Greatly improve battery life
- USB-C port
- Maybe the headphone jack back?
But a 5nm chip? Don't care.
Tired of hearing every year of how the brand "new" phone has 40% more CPU/GPU power. You could have lowered it by 20% and I wouldn't have been able to tell, that is the difference.
- Improve Siri
- Make it so that the camera bump no longer exists, it should be flush with the phone
- Innovative ways to hide the notch
- Greatly improve battery life
- USB-C port
- Maybe the headphone jack back?
But a 5nm chip? Don't care.
Slept late, you got the word in - superb!
Q1: Do we need "quantum" progression with each model? Asking because it keeps the cost high.
Q2: Such attention to detail to designing at the nanoscopic level Apple, great job. Now, how about that at the macro level
? That design team stinks and is costing you sales and repair dollars.
We might be able to get multiple birds with one stone. I think I heard USB-C is slightly thicker than Lightning. However, if we made iPhones deeper, Apple could put in USB-C, make the camera flush with the back, and use the added depth for a larger battery. Unfortunately, I think too many people want thinner. They'd just say something along the lines of "If you want lower battery life, just use a battery case."
This is very good news for Apple. I was reading this article just yesterday about how their chips is one of their biggest assets. Any of us using older Apple phones can attest to the longevity and performance of those chips.
https://www.fastcompany.com/company/apple
https://www.fastcompany.com/company/apple
I wonder the same give Mr. Cook's background as a supply chain guru. How can they justify putting all their eggs in one basket? And on top of that the basket is located on a political football called Taiwan.
It used to be more common for a chip company to own their own fab. But over the years that has become less popular.
Today, there is only one company (Intel) which is fully vertically integrated in that they control the architecture, the design, and the fab; and they make some de minimis amount of consumer-level computers too.
Samsung is sort of there, in that they design chips and fab some of them; but not all of them.
AMD used to have a fab, but they spun it out as GlobalFoundries.
As others pointed out, it's more advantageous to have several fabs available as options rather than being stuck with your own in-house fab.
[doublepost=1550849526][/doublepost]
People in this thread are way way way overblowing the benefits of smaller process nodes. There are certainly benefits, but its not the be-all end-all of processors. It's still entirely possible for a 28nm Intel chip to be far more powerful than a 5nm ARM cortex chip.
Wrong. This can be used not just for raw power but energy efficiency. Also how about making chips for Macbook Pro and eventually Mac Pro. Apple is working on developing their own modem ... shrinking the size and improving its performance while making it more efficient works there too. Thinner long lasting mobile devices, able to pack more tech into them. This also makes a flip phone "better" in the future especially if battery technology catches up. There will always be a need for this and it makes no sense to slow down. And Apple is big enough to do this AND address all the other concerns with software. Theyve already started and we'll start to see the results this year with iOS13 and new crop of mobile devices between 2019-2021
[doublepost=1550850170][/doublepost]
It's the end all be all for MOBILE computing. This could easily transfer to other things like maybe car infotainment, etc.
[doublepost=1550850206][/doublepost]
Are they?
I disagree, there are so many other important factors for mobile computing too. And cars are actually the opposite, where physical durability is so important that actually bigger chips are more desirable, and power consumption and heat don't matter as much.
Was going to say the same. Intel really slipped up with it's focus on 10nm and all the issues that the node caused them. They were basically unmatched in 2015 and had a significant node edge on AMD. Now even AMD is on 7nm now.
Hard to think A13 will have 3x denser gates than the A10 in my iPhone 7 Plus. No wonder Apple is dumping Intel over the next year.
This was posted just below this article. Insiders are expecting Apple to switch in 2020
https://www.macrumors.com/2019/02/21/apple-custom-arm-based-chips-2020/
HBTs are fast but use orders of magnitude more power. You can build bipolar logic today that operates beyond 100 GHz with SiGe or GaAs and related technologies, but CMOS devices win because they don't melt the computer and thus can scale to billions of transistors on a small die.
Not entirely true. Using CML with HBTs, for example, uses constant power - static power is the same as dynamic. For light payloads this means more power, but for heavy payloads they can be comparable. The problem with scaling has more to do with lateral dimensions than with current draw. I built a 1GHz RISC machine using GaAs HBTs in the mid-1990's, and it's power usage was more or less equivalent to high end risc designs at the time, but with a much higher clock frequency and much worse IPC. (We were researching how to make architectural tradeoffs to take advantage of super high frequency when you have to sacrifice IPC to get there).