If tricore A10X @ 2.4Ghz is faster than dualcore Broawdwell @ 3Ghz in Lightroom and other image processing apps then why isn't the entire industry talking about this?
Because MacOS!=iOS.If tricore A10X @ 2.4Ghz is faster than dualcore Broawdwell @ 3Ghz in Lightroom and other image processing apps then why isn't the entire industry talking about this?
If tricore A10X @ 2.4Ghz is faster than dualcore Broawdwell @ 3Ghz in Lightroom and other image processing apps then why isn't the entire industry talking about this?
Note: I also used to have a Surface Pro 4 and lightroom performance was significantly worse than the macbook pro. It was quite a pain to use. I believe the cause might be that CPU was throttling significantly on the Surface Pro during heavy use.
TSMC has been doing very well of late. Given this:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11337/samsung-and-tsmc-roadmaps-12-nm-8-nm-and-6-nm-added
And this:
http://markets.businessinsider.com/...folio-for-TSMC-7-nm-FinFET-Process-1002358329
Might we expect A12 on TSMC 7 nm next year? Or it too early?
People are starting to see some mild slowdowns in iOS 11 with A9 in the iPhone 6s and 6s Plus, but it's still very much OK. I know I'm perfectly happy with the performance (outside of 4K HEVC performance) of my A8X in my iPad Air 2, which is roughly in the ballpark of A9. Also, with my brief testing of my wife's iPhone 6s, it seems fine too. Certainly, my wife hasn't complained at all about iOS 11 performance on that phone.The A9 is still a complete monster of a chip. I have never seen any slowdown on iOS10 barring an Safari adblocker bugging out on Amazon.com on my SE.
TSMC has been doing very well of late. Given this:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11337/samsung-and-tsmc-roadmaps-12-nm-8-nm-and-6-nm-added
And this:
http://markets.businessinsider.com/...folio-for-TSMC-7-nm-FinFET-Process-1002358329
Might we expect A12 on TSMC 7 nm next year? Or it too early?
The doors to Ax fabbing are forever closed to Samsung, when TSMC is a conflict of interest free party from Apple's perspective barring wafer supply allocations vs NV/QC etc.
As for OLED, trust me when I say Apple is spending tens of billions into LG now to at least get a bargaining chip against Samsung for the next cycle.
Apple gets first dibs to new nodes. Qualcomm has shifted its leading edge business to Samsung ("quid pro quo" to get Snapdragon into Galaxy S), and NVIDIA doesn't bring anywhere near the kind of business (esp. leading edge) to TSMC that Apple does.
TSMC is basically Apple's personal fab at this point.
I would say TSMC is Apple's preferred foundry. Both the companies are fueling each other's growth and success. Without TSMC Apple will not be able to deliver the significant yearly improvements we see in the Ax chips. I think this partnership is comparable to the Wintel alliance which dominated the PC industry and made x86 dominant in desktops,notebooks and servers.
It's not like Apple is known for corporate ethics. Hah. Just ask Imagination. There are a lot more parts than OLED screen made by Samsung in the new iPhones. These corporations seek profits, not score-settling.
Yeah. I think part of that is due to TSMC just being a better strategic partner (Samsung is a direct competitor and it's not exactly known for its amazing ethics), and part of that is just that TSMC has a superior logic R&D manufacturing org to Samsung, so going with TSMC means better/denser/more efficient chips than going with Samsung Foundry means.
True. Apple would be far more comfortable dealing with TSMC than Samsung which directly competes with Apple in the high end smartphone market. I agree that TSMC has better transistor performance, efficiency and yields than Samsung though density is not a measure on which they had the lead at 16F++ . At 10nm TSMC is ahead on density and retains the transistor performance and efficiency lead. For 7nm we need to wait for 2019 to see how TSMC N7+ with EUV and Samsung 7LPP fare on key metrics. It looks like TSMC has regressed on their earlier performance claims wrt N7 and N7+ with EUV against 16FFC.
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1332293&page_number=2
"TSMC sketched out what it called a relatively simple process of porting design rules and IP to an N7+ process using EUV that it could put into production in 2019. The process can deliver 20% greater density, 8–10% higher speeds, or 15–20% less power than its current N7 node. Compared to its 16FFC process, N7+ can enable 30% higher speed or 50% less power on an ARM A72 core, said Cliff Hou, vice president of R&D for design technology at TSMC."
"The talks showed that TSMC is working multiple levers to eke out gains, said G. Dan Hutcheson of VLSI Research. “They are getting density, power, and speed improvements — things some people say no longer hold true with semiconductors.
However, some of the results were less impressive than what TSMC estimated back in March, said Mike Demler, senior analyst at the Linley Group. The number of 7-nm tape outs and its performance gains, as well as power savings on 22ULP and performance gains with 12FFC, were all slightly lower than the foundry predicted six months ago, he said."
Six months back
https://community.cadence.com/cadence_blogs_8/b/breakfast-bytes/archive/2017/03/22/tsmc2
"Actually, Cliff Hou, TSMC's VP of Research & Development and Technology Platform, presented in the morning but since his presentation serves in some ways as an introduction to more detailed presentations in the afternoon, I cover it today.
He kicked off by talking about N7 and N7+ readiness. N7 is ready for tapeouts and all tools will be certified by the end of March. Foundation IP (standard cells, memories etc) are ready. Some ecosystem IP (which is TSMC-speak for IP created by other companies such as Cadence) is validated in silicon. N7 (compared to 16FFC) gets either a 33% speed boost or a 58% power reduction (on an ARM core).
N7+, which uses several EUV layers to simplify the process and improve the routing, will get a further 10% performance boost, and the logic will be shrunk a further 15-20%. All design rules remain the same except for the EUV layers, which it seems are more aggressive. So to move from N7 to N7+ will require reimplementation to take advantage of the improved cell libraries, whereas SRAM, analog and I/O will just require re-characterization."
The cause most likely is that Apple paid Adobe to optimize it for the iPad pro specifically because it's 1 device with same hardware. Can't do that with windows laptops.
Microsoft can't afford to optimize specifically for its (3) SP4 skus? The only difference between them is memory size and clock speed. This explanation made me LOL
Kind of interesting that Apple sells more CPU's per year than Intel.