Intel To Build Next Gen Processor For iOS Devices 255
BogenDorpher writes "It looks like Apple will be using Intel as a main processor manufacturer to power the iPad, iPod touch, and the iPhone. Apple, who currently uses Samsung, will focus on making a switch to Intel within a year."
Retribution (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
April 1st was last month.
Re: (Score:2)
or, you know... could just be that they want to support a single architecture to make debugging and porting code between OS X and IOS a whole shitload easier.
Could be interesting if they have a cut down x86/x64 based console coming out - cross platform IOS/OS X apple games anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they're switching to x86. Rather, Intel will be fabbing ARM chips again.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. They want a single architecture, which is why they bought CPU design companies like PA Semi to design ARM CPUs for them...
Apple has long had a policy of maintaining versions of their OS's on other platforms in order to insure code portability and good architecture, even when they have no intention of ever releasing on that platform.
Apple isn't telling all the AppStore developers suddenly "port all your apps to x86 now!" for a very very good reason. If they did however, Google would be jumping up and down in joy: the biggest advantage of Apple gone! No more overwhelming amount of Apps...
Apple has wisely kept the developer tools used on iOS under their control. As such "porting your apps to x86" would likely mean recompile and run through debugging on another device before it is added to the store as an option for those users. Apple is very well positioned to make an architecture tr
Re: (Score:3)
Apple isn't telling all the AppStore developers suddenly "port all your apps to x86 now!" for a very very good reason. If they did however, Google would be jumping up and down in joy: the biggest advantage of Apple gone! No more overwhelming amount of Apps, especially for tablets, compared to Android Market!
You have a misunderstanding of Apple's development tools. Adding a new CPU binary to an existing app for Apple developers is trivial - just a recompile. There would be no significant change in the number of iOS apps for either iPhone of iPad. This is one of the reasons that Apple has been at pains to ensure that iOS developers only use Apple's tool chain. It allows Apple to make significant changes to the underlying platform and/or CPU architecture, and have iOS developers' apps just work with a simple reco
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
LoB
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not so much that Samsung is competing, but that Samsung is blatantly copying Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple and Samsung are blatantly copying WinCE 6 and PalmOS!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Everything but the Recycle Bin, according to the judge way back when. At least he left them with something to carry the rest of their lawsuits in.
Re:Retribution (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I don't know if you're being deliberately silly, but Samsung (among others) have designed a phone that appears to be deliberately an iPhone clone, down to quite small details. If you're aware of a phone that existed before the iPhone that most non-techincal users would easily confuse with the iPhone, I'd concede the point. Without debating the rights and wrongs of it, it's disingenuous to try to claim that there aren't a number of manufacturers copying the iPhone hardware and software design to cash in on the market.
Don't you mean that Apple designed the iPhone that appears to be deliberately a Samsung F700 clone?
http://technobuzz.info/android-users-apple-copied-off-samsung.html [technobuzz.info]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Apple "copied" Nokia.
Funny you should say that, I was an engineer working for Nokia before I started working on iPhone apps. I'm afraid you don't know what you are talking about. Before the iPhone, Nokia avoided using touch screens. All their phones had keyboards. The reason was that Nokia was convinced one-handed operation was everything, and that was unwieldy with a touchscreen.
Apple took the exact opposite view, and created a completely different sort of phone to Nokia.
Re: (Score:2)
Your example of what Apple blatantly copied?
Re:Retribution (Score:5, Insightful)
They copied the idea that anyone with a remotely similar (read: competitive) product must have "copied" or "stolen" all their ideas from them, from Microsoft. Microsoft really ought to file a copycopyright suit.
Seriously, though; I own a Samsung device that is allegedly "copied" from the iPhone. Trust me, if it were ANYTHING like an iPhone, I would NOT own it.
not invented at Apple (Score:2)
Ugh. Where to start?
Here's just the tip of the iceberg:
1. rectangular electronic devices with/without rounded corners
2, icons: either in rows & columns or all over the place
3. cell phones
4. devices with touch screens
5. multi-touch
6. pinch to zoom
and perhaps the biggest:
7. thinking they invented everything
Engadget has an interesting article that covers some of this: http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/28/apple-vs-palm-the-in-depth-analysis/ [engadget.com]
And one other interesting article: http://www.billbuxton.com/multi [billbuxton.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Your example of what Apple blatantly copied?
Konfabulator with Dashboard, and Classics / Delicious Library with iBooks would be obvious examples of blatant copying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except, Samsung doesn't design it, they just manufacture it. There's no particular requirement that Samsung be the one who produces the Apple-designed SoCs. Apple could just as easily contract any other SoC manufacturer (or even just a generic fab like TSMC) to produce the things.
The idea that Apple would replace ARM with Intel is a bit silly since at the present point in time Intel doesn't have anything even remotely competitive with ARM's products in the embedded market. The idea that Apple would replace
Re: (Score:3)
Um, this has nothing to do with android phones.... Android is not an Intel based OS
Although you are correct about Android not being an Intel based OS you are incorrect about it being about Android Phones. Samsung is a manufacturer of both Android phones [samsung.com] and tablets. [samsung.com]
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, wooosh! Really? Did it sound anything like the assertion was that Apple (who competes with Android) was unhappy with Intel (who they just sent a boatload of chip business)?
Re: (Score:3)
Android can run on Intel (or indeed any cpu) just fine :).
The after math of suing (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but it's not a vindictive type of thing - it's strategy. "Well Samsung, you have a bit more to lose if you stay on your present course.
How big is the revenue Samsung gets from making Apple devices, percentagewise? It should be tiny compared to all of their business, right?
And the revenue they get from their own Android devices? Is it even less than they get from Apple? After all, the margins on them should be much better for Samsung.
I have some problems believing Samsung would be at all impressed by this, but maybe the numbers I have in my head are off.
Re: (Score:2)
You may call that drop in the bucket if you want, but I don't Samsung is going to.
Re: (Score:2)
that's 140 million dollars in sales in the most recent quarter on iPads alone (nevermind iphones or ipods).
You may call that drop in the bucket if you want, but I don't Samsung is going to.
Sure, but they sold over 10 million of the Android phones Apple is pissed about (Galaxy S), at what, 400 bucks each? So that's over twice as much, for one model alone.
Re: (Score:3)
that's 140 million dollars in sales in the most recent quarter on iPads alone (nevermind iphones or ipods). You may call that drop in the bucket if you want, but I don't Samsung is going to.
Sure, but they sold over 10 million of the Android phones Apple is pissed about (Galaxy S), at what, 400 bucks each? So that's over twice as much, for one model alone.
When Samsung sells a part for $X to a supplier, they get $X. When a Samsung phone is sold for $Y, they do not collect $Y. The phone is sold through other entities, who also choose to profit.
Apple is reported to be buying 7.8 billion from Samsung [cnet.com] this year alone through existing contracts. This makes them their largest customer. So yeah, it's a big deal. Probably worth settling lawsuits and licensing patents over. Time will tell.
Compatible? (Score:3, Interesting)
I thought Intel only did x86/64 and Samsung didn't do either. Is this another PowerPC->Intel type move from Apple or am I missing something (quite likely)?
Re:Compatible? (Score:4)
This is about using Intel as a fab producing Apple's A5 chips, not Apple switching to an Intel based chip
Re:Compatible? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
FTFA:
''Based on a number of inputs, we believe Intel is also vying for Apple's foundry business,'' said Gus Richard, an analyst with Piper Jaffray & Co., in a new report.
Intel may not be necessarily designing the chips. Apple could have gone with any other foundry such as TSMC, GlobalFoundries, etc.
process (Score:5, Interesting)
That's always the case (Score:4, Informative)
Intel spends massive amounts on fab R&D and as a result are usually a node (generation) ahead of everyone else. Intel has had 32nm online and working for quite some time now. All Sandy Bridge chips are 32nm, many gen 1 Core i series laptops are 32nm, and so on.
Other fabs are catching up, GF will probably have 32nm chips coming out fairly soon for AMD, but Intel has been doing it for a long time, has scaled things up and has it working well. Also they are already building their 22nm fabs.
Only time Intel got outdone to an extent was with some companies doing a 40nm half-node. TSMC scaled down the 45nm process to 40nm and it is what all the GPU makers use now. Fine but it was fraught with problems and took a long time to get it working right and producing in volume. By that time Intel had 32nm parts on the market.
Same thing may happen again, a number of companies like TSMC are looking at skipping 32nm and going for a 28nm half node, based on 32nm scaled down. If they get that producing this year as they think they can, then they'll temporarily be ahead of Intel until Intel brings 22nm online.
However over all, Intel is always ahead on this shit. They spend a lot of money to stay that way.
Re: (Score:2)
I tried to read the article but got a blank page. I can see this conversation going like this.
Intel: Your happy with the X86 on the desktop so how about using it in your mobile products.
Apple: No.
Intel: How about we us our fabs to make your chips smaller, faster, and more power efficient then?
Apple: Maybe, you may kiss the Holy ring of Steve and leave now.
Just kidding about the last part. Actually Intel is probably really regretting selling off the StrongARM line. In many ways Intel is not in a great posit
Re:Compatible? (Score:5, Informative)
Intel does what ever you pay them to make. The have a ton of fab shops. I'm sure if you had enough leverage and handed them a chip spec, you could get them to build PPC RISC processors too.
Apple comes in, says "We're going to want X millon of these A5s, and BTW I'm sure AMD would be more than glad to supply us with these chips AND the chips for our next laptops & desktops, your call."
Re: (Score:2)
Apple comes in, says "We're going to want X millon of these A5s, and BTW I'm sure AMD would be more than glad to supply us with these chips AND the chips for our next laptops & desktops, your call."
Intel says "lol go ahead". AMD need Bulldozer to come out soon, Intel stumbled in the Sandy Bridge release but they've been shipping again a while now and AMDs lineup is now the weakest in years. Right now the aging Phenom II doesn't even compete well against Intel's 200$ processors, the X6 is really the only high-end chip worth buying today. That is AMD's high end, Intel's high end is way out of AMDs range, but then your wallet will bleed to because Intel right now essentially has a monopoly on that segmen
Re: (Score:2)
"Intel does what ever you pay them to make." -- Well, no, yes, and no. Intel does have a ton of fab. But Intel tends to be fab limited most of the time, running them all flat out. Intel runs whatever parts yield highest gross margin per wafer. Beginning and end of story. Projects from inside Intel that fall below a certain threshold are forced to use outside fab. Gross margin per wafer is king. Atom is cheap, but a tiny part, which is the only way it works in the Intel world model. And Intel doesn't
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure GloFo (AMD) wanted the business, though.
I have friends at Freescale and all were VERY happy when Apple went to Intel. Apple bargains with their suppliers like Wal-Mart does. Short-term contracts,cut the price to the bone. Freescale decided it was no longer worth developing and manufacturing CPUs for Apple with minimal returns. I imagine the situation with Samsung is the same.
Intel is probably currently the only mfr that can supply at a price Apple wants to pay and still make a high enough A
Re:Compatible? (Score:5, Interesting)
Intel has roughly 2 years head start on the rest of the industry, process wise. Especially with computational lithography they are light years ahead of everyone else, and this is a critical technology to keep scaling immersion lithography ... which is necessary because EUV is very late. Because of patents they will probably not lose this lead up till EUV breaks through.
It would be foolish not to convert that lead into foundry business if they have spare capacity, or given just how fucking late EUV is they might even build extra fabs and take everyone's lunch. Not healthy for the industry ...
Re: (Score:2)
We will see when the iphone 5 is out. Intel has promised super low power x86 for a while but didnt really deliver so far.
They might also just make some ARM cpus based on Apple's specs.
That said the x86 way would be of course more interesting. Especially if it's actually more efficient than arm somehow. Magic. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
I had one and it sucked, I wasn't ever sure whether it was that terribly Windows implementation or if the chip itself wasn't as fast as advertised, but the thing wasn't particularly responsive.
Re: (Score:3)
XScale wasn't all that bad, it was a standard ARM processor. We used it for a SAN box for our low end systems. It got the job done, but with all the fun of the ARM instruction set.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Intel does have great process though and ARM has always beat Intel handily on older/cheaper processes. If Apple can
Re: (Score:2)
With all due respect to Apple, I kind of doubt it ... unless they want to tape out a dozen times it will be handled mostly by Intel.
More than one type of CPU (Score:2)
Nice! (Score:2)
Can't read the slashdotted article but... (Score:2)
Its likely Intel would be a contract manufacturer in this case, just manufacturing Apple's custom designed processor. Not something Intel would usually embrace, but with their current impotence in the mobile market, it may be the best they can hope for. They keep Apple close and get back in the ARM game (indirectly). Apple gets world class fabs from someone who isn't directly competing with them at retail.
Remember the venom (Score:5, Funny)
When Apple switched to Intel chips a few years back, I remembered all the venom spewed toward Intel by all my Apple-obsessed friends over the previous 20 years.
Now they cherish their Intel chips. But they still bash MS. Why, I got an Outlook e-mail from one of my Apple friends just yesterday, sending me a Powerpoint presentation he had made on his Mac, with a funny joke about how lame MS is.
I had no problem opening it in OpenOffice on my AMD-powered CentOS box.
Re:Remember the venom (Score:4, Informative)
That's somewhat oversimplified.
For years there were a lot of advantages to the PowerPC chips. They were fast, energy efficient, had nice extensions like AltiVec and so forth. RISC was seen as inherently better than older instruction sets like x86. Heck, all the computer architecture classes I taught in school taught MIPS, etc. Given backing by IBM et al, the PowerPC line was believed to be able to quickly scale up.
By the end of the G4 era of PowerMacs and certainly by the G5 era, the writing was on the wall. New processors weren't coming out fast enough. They weren't scaling fast enough. Breakthroughs in x86 chips brought about a renaissance of CISC. It was time to find something else.
None of that negates the fact that for a lot of the run of PowerPC macs, their processors were highly competitive (at worst, if not better) than x86 chips in many ways.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe Intel became acceptable for two reasons. First, the PC and MS Windows really did not provide a market for high end products, so I think Intel became more willing to expand beyond the WinTel monopoly. Second, t
Remember, kids: Samsung is complicated (Score:2)
Samsung is a vast conglomerate of many businesses in many sectors. The people who make the phones so not share a cafeteria with the people who make the processors, and more importantly the people who make the phones don't always buy their processors from Samsung.
First Wintel, now... (Score:2)
...Macintel (Score:2)
Intel is at 22nm and ARM is still 45nm (Score:2)
early 2012 Intel is going to release 22nm CPU's. Almost every ARM SoC is 45nm. the power and performance improvements are huge. i bet Intel will just fab the A6 CPU instead of Samsung.
or maybe there is a secret Atom 22nm CPU coming soon that will be a lot more power efficient
Re: (Score:2)
2012 is the release schedule for 28nm ARM SoC's. Intel's processes are still way ahead, of course, since they've already moved into several generations of HKMG.
Re: (Score:2)
and 22nm will probably use larger wafers which means a lot more chips per wafer and more energy efficient.
being thin and energy efficient are the 2 biggest apple fetishes for devices. and ifans are willing to pay the price of apple experimenting
Re: (Score:2)
22nm Ivy Bridge CPU's are scheduled for late 2011 or early 2012. Intel has committed to a 2 year upgrade process. one year is an architecture upgrade, the next is process. Sandy Bridge was the 2010 32nm process but an architecture upgrade. Ivy Bridge will be 22nm but the same architecture.
Build their processors (Score:2)
They are not switching to Intel processors. They are letting Intel build their processors. Big difference.
They will just probably use Intel's advanced 22nm technology to build processors based on ARM architecture. Something they might also design themselves.
Much like GlobalFoundries is not AMD, they just manufacture AMD products.
When does "wants to" == "going to" (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows on iPad (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Maybe they are planning to switch to Windows like Nokia did?
Jobs is sick, not dead.
This is great news... (Score:2)
Apple seeks refuge with Intel again (Score:2)
After taking a massive dump onto their supply chain (Samsung), Apple has declared that Intel is their new chip maker of choice.
Spin. Spin. Spin. Go the revisionist Apple PR people. Spin. Spin. Spin.
ARM vs x86 - developers nightmare (Score:2)
as a developer; it is going to be a royal pain in the rear to recompile our apps to support another processor architecture; unless of course they go down the emulation route; but using x86 and emulating ARM is going to require a lot of processing power. if intel was to build ARM chips; sure - but typically we associated x86 with intel. apple has experience with this with the transition from PPC to x86 for the mac osx environment; i am sure they'll keep that in mind for iOS developers as well. i would only s
Re: (Score:2)
As long as the programs are written in a high-level language, and the tool chains are compatible, it shouldn't be a lot of work to recompile the apps.
Incestuous (Score:2)
er what? (Score:2)
Er Didn't Apple buy a chip manufacturer so they could design their own chips? Who makes the A4 and A5 chips? I don't think it's Samsung...
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think intel are going to produce any rectangular-with-rounded-edges shaped tablets any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a similar report from EETimes [eetimes.com].
Re:But the source? (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a similar report from EETimes [eetimes.com].
Of course that article says that the "Next Gen Processor For iOS Devices" (as well as the current A5) will be build by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (TSMC) (at least some of them), and that Intel may want to build the Gen after that.
Re: (Score:2)
Either: 1. Intel is going to build a non-x86 cpu with their fab -- highly unlikely.
Why is that highly unlikely? Intel has produced ARM chips for years and years. What is all that highly unlikely about it?
Re: (Score:2)
It says that Samsung manufactures an Apple designed processor, and Intel may start a business of manufacturing non-Intel designed processors. So, at this point is very simple: Apple can take advantage of the manufacturing process of Intel to mass produce their own processors. I.e. none of your options.
Re: (Score:3)
Hint: Intel != x86
Apple buys chips for their iDevices on a seriously awesome scale, in advance. They have a epic boatload of cash which they drop on suppliers, and get very, very good deals as a result.
Intel has serious fab capacity, and although this may not really fit with their "x86" or "Atom" strategy, maybe they wouldn't mind having some more BILLIONS dumped on them to produce epic tons of chips for Apple?
Currently Samsung does a lot of that: Apple is their single biggest customer, but Samsung in anoth
Re: (Score:2)
They sold off all of that to Marvell, so it's still unlikely.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. The production for Apple is a very specific IC, by and for Apple, and it wouldn't take any business away from their x86 line. In the meantime, they make some extra money. Makes perfect sense.
Re: (Score:3)
It would be quite interesting, though, if this was a case of Intel taking a contract fab job. Traditionally, they haven't done that(at least with their leading edge process stuff, I don't know what they do with older fabs). Intel doing an apple-exclusive run of ARM chips on the same process they do their x86s on would be dramatic and probably make a bunch of people rather sad pandas...
Re: (Score:2)
Good point. That would kinda spoil the Samsung/Android party.
OTOH, promoting non-x86 is very contrary to past Intel strategy. That's why they sold off their old ARM business, for starters.
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, promoting non-x86 is very contrary to past Intel strategy. That's why they sold off their old ARM business, for starters.
It would be a major strategic departure. I assume that it comes down to a mixture of their confidence in their ability to displace ARM with their upcoming low-power products and their desire to get paid now vs. take risks for possible longer term gains. I imagine that Apple would be the company most capable of capturing profit margin from their embedded products, and thus the vendor most capable of paying well for very advanced ARM SoC fabrication; but they are also the ones with the greatest demonstrated w
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile MS has just started chasing ARM.
And by "just started" you mean they've had versions of Windows on ARM for going on near 15 years?
Re:Doubtful (Score:5, Informative)
The report from EETimes [eetimes.com] suggests Intel is only going after foundry business to produce the A-series processors for Apple, not that Apple is looking to change architectures.
It could be Apple leaving Samsung, or it could be they've decided to go with multiple suppliers for everything to reduce potential impacts from future disasters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:PA Semi? (Score:4, Informative)
Probably because (quoting Wikipedia): "P. A. Semi (originally "Palo Alto Semiconductor"[1]) was a fabless semiconductor company"
You still need a fab. Apple already knows how to design CPUs.
Re: (Score:2)
was a fabless semiconductor company
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.A._Semi [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably more accurate to say "x86 architecture doesn't seem to be very good with battery (duh!)". The iPhone won't be switching to an x86 processor.
Re: (Score:3)
Yup. The slashdot article and the winbeta article it references don't really unpack this, but this is about Intel's foundry business, not their x86 business. Presumably Intel will be making A5s in their foundry. It would be bizarre for Apple to switch away from the A4/A5 processor line after the investment they've made in it, particularly because there's simply no way the x86 architecture can ever go toe-to-toe with the ARM architecture on power efficiency.
Re: (Score:3)
simply no way the x86 architecture can ever go toe-to-toe with the ARM architecture on power efficiency.
Spoken like someone without a clue. There is fundamentally absolutely nothing in x86 that would cause it to consume more power than ARM. If anything the instruction predication in ARM gives x86 an advantage.
As ARM processors get more performance competitive with x86 they are beginning to match the power usage too. The big power advantage in current high performance ARM's is more due to the SOC integration
Re: (Score:3)
I'm feeling particularly bored today..
BTW: Its not byte aligned instructions in x86 that cause the problems, but variable width instructions. Which of course ARM now supports (although not as bad as x86) via THUMB2, as well as the fact that the most recent ARM versions are also modal decoders, meaning that you have to know what mode the CPU is in before decoding a block of code.
Also, ARM has support byte load for as long as I can remember (always?), and added misaligned loads in ARM6 (IIRC). Its the misalig
Re: (Score:3)
In general, the larger the die and transistor count, the higher the power requirements (not always true, but generally).
You of course remember that the 386 (fundamentally the same functionality provided by the base ARM instruction set) was implemented in 275 thousand transistors, and that the intel atom has roughly the same transistor count as the P4, yet burns significantly less power. Why is that? Well the first chapter of H&P talks about dynamic power (CMOS mostly burns power switching) being=.6CV^2f
Re: (Score:2)
yup, on samsung made processors... NT-4 for ARM maybe?
Re: (Score:2)
It won't be an x86 that Intel makes for Apple, it will be apple's own in-house designed A5/A6/A7 processor.
Re: (Score:2)