TSMC to Remain Sole iPhone Chip Supplier, Could Provide ARM-Based Chips for Mac in 2020, Apple Car Chips in 2023

[code-m]

MacBook Pro: Both ARM and Intel variants. Intel for the highest spec.

Do you mean a hybrid ARM/x64 MBP? Similar to the hybrid Integraded/Deducated GPU MBP.

Would be curious how hybrid ARM/x64 full apps would be auto switched between processors. Maybe the recent acquisition of that power management silicone company. This is all coming together.

Interesting prospect.
[doublepost=1539991572][/doublepost]

Just depends. Heck imagine all the money apple takes in using iPads or iPhones for point of sale transactions. For certain tasks iPads shine.

Instead of an iPhone, I never understood why not use an iPod touch. Are the LTE components really needed if it is communicating via WiFi.

 

[cmaier]

Do you mean a hybrid ARM/x64 MBP? Similar to the hybrid Integraded/Deducated GPU MBP.

Would be curious how hybrid ARM/x64 full apps would be auto switched between processors. Maybe the recent acquisition of that power management silicone company. This is all coming together.

Interesting prospect.
[doublepost=1539991572][/doublepost]

Instead of an iPhone, I never understood why not use an iPod touch. Are the LTE components really needed if it is communicating via WiFi.

When was the last time there’s been an updated iPod touch?

 

[code-m]

When was the last time there’s been an updated iPod touch?

Would not matter for a simple POS transaction.

 

[bjet767]

It's a solid platform, but come on, it's hardly flourishing compared to Windows, iOS or Android. The App Store is a few decent apps (many if which are still 32bit) amongst a barren wasteland of off-brand versions of more popular Apps.

I’m not really sure what your point is and considering the solid base of programs (not just apps) that support OSX. I think you just want to wrangle a bit.

My personal opinion is this, when Apple publishes a fully functioning Xcode program in iOS then, and only then, it can be said iOS has reached (or exceeded) parity and maturity.

 

[code-m]

I’m not really sure what your point is and considering the solid base of programs (not just apps) that support OSX. I think you just want to wrangle a bit.

My personal opinion is this, when Apple publishes a fully functioning Xcode program in iOS then, and only then, it can be said iOS has reached (or exceeded) parity and maturity.

Can ARM emulate a x64 environment.

Maybe that is the reason why Xcode has not been introduced on iOS, as it would only be able to create iOS/Swift software and not x64/macOS software. Developers are accustomed to having Xcode to write iOS/macOS software and emulation, something I suspect the iOS version would be unable to do.

Once there is an ARM macOS released, we may see an iOS Xcode. The “A” silicone is certainly capable to run it.

 

[curmudgeonette]

And remember it's a moving target so they need to be looking at the i10 one to two years from now.
Also getting from 2.5GHz or so to a 5GHz peak like the i9 is no easy feat.

Apple doesn't need to get to 5GHz. A quote from an article comment on AnandTech:

The Xeon Platinum 8176 is a 28 core, $9000 Intel server CPU, based on Skylake. In single threaded performance, the iPhone XS outperforms it by 12 percent for integers, despite its lower clock speed. If the iPhone were to run at 3.8ghz, the Apple A12 would outperform Intel's CPU by 64 percent on average for integer tests.

I'm actually shocked that Apple was able to improve "work per clock" by so much.

 

[Tech198]

"So, Apple, it's gonna be an ARM's race"

 

[cmaier]

Apple doesn't need to get to 5GHz. A quote from an article comment on AnandTech:

The Xeon Platinum 8176 is a 28 core, $9000 Intel server CPU, based on Skylake. In single threaded performance, the iPhone XS outperforms it by 12 percent for integers, despite its lower clock speed. If the iPhone were to run at 3.8ghz, the Apple A12 would outperform Intel's CPU by 64 percent on average for integer tests.

I'm actually shocked that Apple was able to improve "work per clock" by so much.

It’s easy to increase IPC. It’s a design choice. I can increase instructions per clock, but doing so reduces the maximum clock speed I can achieve. Higher IPC also requires more die area, so the chip is more expensive (and has longer paths which reduce clock speed). Depending on workload, one may or may not be able to achieve the maximum designed IPC. So there are reasons to instead focus on clock speed and sacrifice maximum IPC. However, for power efficiency it can be better to do the reverse, since the circuitry for increasing IPC doesn’t burn any power when it isn’t achieving high IPC, and power usage increases superlinearly with frequency (taking into account that you need to increase voltage increase the clock speed).

Apple is making good choices.

 

[bjet767]

Maybe that is the reason why Xcode has not been introduced on iOS, as it would only be able to create iOS/Swift software and not x64/macOS software. Developers are accustomed to having Xcode to write iOS/macOS software and emulation, something I suspect the iOS version would be unable to do.

I'll try to answer the question as simple as possible. A compiler can generate an executable file (an app or program) for any CPU or chipset out there as long as someone has programed it to do so. In reality all Apple has to do is write Xcode to generate the correct instructions for the platform the app/program is going to, so it really would not matter if an ARM based computer compiled apps for an Intel one.

Emulation is a different idea. what it does is use a program that converts a foreign instruction set to one that works on that particular computer. In Xcode when I test an iOS app there are simulators for iPhones, iPads, Watches... that run the apps on my Intel based MBP.

Now it gets a bit more complicated. These days computers don't always need CPU specific executable files because they can or do run programs/engines that send instructions to the hardware and the programs or apps only run inside these and are not hardware specific. Your web browser is a very good example of such software technology. A good web based app should be able to run on any browser regardless of the hardware. The only issues come when one web browser interprets the code different than another.

The major problems with emulation/engine or something similar is those programs use CPU clock cycles and thus slow down the program/app execution. For most general computer use this doesn't matter, but for time critical or huge computational needs it can slow things to a crawl.

Can Apple switch to ARM based Macs? Sure, but they better have their bases fully covered and be completely seamless with zero performance losses.

Personally my complaints with iOS are this; it still has a lousy multi-tasking OS, it needs a far better multiple view ability (app and view switching) and its file system has just begun to be open enough for decent use. Until they improve these few things it will never be a workhorse system. BTW these are not ARM limitations, Apple chose to design the system this way.

I think many tend to forget history, iOS started as an OS to run media and grew into a phone and computer system. OSX started as a computer system. a PC, that has matured into a whole lot more. I rarely watch videos, listen to music, read books or such from my MBP, but I do those things all the time on my iPad.

 

[Baymowe335]

Maybe it’s time to buy TMSC. On the other hand, we have no idea what agreement they have in place. They very well may be an exclusive partner well into the future, but it makes sense to stay flexible on Apple’s part. Either way, good to see. I expect big things from both companies in the coming years. Can’t wait till they drop Intel, fix macOS, and come up with some new computing concept ideas. The desktop paradigm as we know it is dying, let’s see what’s next aside from a strictly mobile experience.

TSMC is a great supplier, but Apple would never want to buy them. They are a hardware manufacturer with huge capital requirements. TSMC is also worth north of $200B, so they are even too big for Apple.

 

[code-m]

I'll try to answer the question as simple as possible. A compiler can generate an executable file (an app or program) for any CPU or chipset out there as long as someone has programed it to do so. In reality all Apple has to do is write Xcode to generate the correct instructions for the platform the app/program is going to, so it really would not matter if an ARM based computer compiled apps for an Intel one.

Emulation is a different idea. what it does is use a program that converts a foreign instruction set to one that works on that particular computer. In Xcode when I test an iOS app there are simulators for iPhones, iPads, Watches... that run the apps on my Intel based MBP.

Now it gets a bit more complicated. These days computers don't always need CPU specific executable files because they can or do run programs/engines that send instructions to the hardware and the programs or apps only run inside these and are not hardware specific. Your web browser is a very good example of such software technology. A good web based app should be able to run on any browser regardless of the hardware. The only issues come when one web browser interprets the code different than another.

The major problems with emulation/engine or something similar is those programs use CPU clock cycles and thus slow down the program/app execution. For most general computer use this doesn't matter, but for time critical or huge computational needs it can slow things to a crawl.

Can Apple switch to ARM based Macs? Sure, but they better have their bases fully covered and be completely seamless with zero performance losses.

Personally my complaints with iOS are this; it still has a lousy multi-tasking OS, it needs a far better multiple view ability (app and view switching) and its file system has just begun to be open enough for decent use. Until they improve these few things it will never be a workhorse system. BTW these are not ARM limitations, Apple chose to design the system this way.

I think many tend to forget history, iOS started as an OS to run media and grew into a phone and computer system. OSX started as a computer system. a PC, that has matured into a whole lot more. I rarely watch videos, listen to music, read books or such from my MBP, but I do those things all the time on my iPad.

Greatly appreciate the emulation explanation.

There were rumours that Apple has shifted focus for iOS iPad to version 13. The files system needs to be similar to finder and multi tasking on a tablet is still the Wild West of what is deemed productive on a touch device.

Hoping for the best June 2019.

 

[cmaier]

TSMC is a great supplier, but Apple would never want to buy them. They are a hardware manufacturer with huge capital requirements. TSMC is also worth north of $200B, so they are even too big for Apple.

Apple would only need to buy 50.001 percent. And they don’t need to pay cash.

But they won’t.

 

[DNichter]

TSMC is a great supplier, but Apple would never want to buy them. They are a hardware manufacturer with huge capital requirements. TSMC is also worth north of $200B, so they are even too big for Apple.

Good point. I didn’t even realize they were that big. I’m sure they have a long term agreement in place, which accomplishes the same thing in the end.

 

[cmaier]

The real issue is these things are cyclical. The next process node will require another tremendous investment and could easily go badly for any particular foundry. No reason for Apple to be locked in long term to what mind end up the losing Solution.

 

[bjet767]

The real issue is these things are cyclical. The next process node will require another tremendous investment and could easily go badly for any particular foundry. No reason for Apple to be locked in long term to what mind end up the losing Solution.

You lost me.

My opinion is that Apple was happy as a clam at high tide and then Microsoft came out with a very good pad PC, the Surface. If I didn’t like the Apple ecosystem so much I’d be using one of those over my MacBook Pro. Apple has done an outstanding job of linking all my Apple devices.

 

[pankajdoharey]

Dumping Intel for ARM architecture would just be proving that point. They've already fallen well behind in hardware, aren't even in the pro tablet realm

I dont think they will drop ARM, it doesnt make sense for them. With the release of Photoshop for iPad Pro it makes even more sense.