Discussion Apple Silicon SoC thread

[Eug]

M1
5 nm
Unified memory architecture - LP-DDR4
16 billion transistors

8-core CPU

4 high-performance cores
192 KB instruction cache
128 KB data cache
Shared 12 MB L2 cache

4 high-efficiency cores
128 KB instruction cache
64 KB data cache
Shared 4 MB L2 cache
(Apple claims the 4 high-effiency cores alone perform like a dual-core Intel MacBook Air)

8-core iGPU (but there is a 7-core variant, likely with one inactive core)
128 execution units
Up to 24576 concurrent threads
2.6 Teraflops
82 Gigatexels/s
41 gigapixels/s

16-core neural engine
Secure Enclave
USB 4

Products:
$999 ($899 edu) 13" MacBook Air (fanless) - 18 hour video playback battery life
$699 Mac mini (with fan)
$1299 ($1199 edu) 13" MacBook Pro (with fan) - 20 hour video playback battery life

Memory options 8 GB and 16 GB. No 32 GB option (unless you go Intel).

It should be noted that the M1 chip in these three Macs is the same (aside from GPU core number). Basically, Apple is taking the same approach which these chips as they do the iPhones and iPads. Just one SKU (excluding the X variants), which is the same across all iDevices (aside from maybe slight clock speed differences occasionally).

EDIT:



M1 Pro 8-core CPU (6+2), 14-core GPU
M1 Pro 10-core CPU (8+2), 14-core GPU
M1 Pro 10-core CPU (8+2), 16-core GPU
M1 Max 10-core CPU (8+2), 24-core GPU
M1 Max 10-core CPU (8+2), 32-core GPU

M1 Pro and M1 Max discussion here:

Page 78 - Discussion - Apple Silicon SoC thread

Page 78 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

forums.anandtech.com

M1 Ultra discussion here:

Page 109 - Discussion - Apple Silicon SoC thread

Page 109 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

forums.anandtech.com

M2 discussion here:

Page 127 - Discussion - Apple Silicon SoC thread

Page 127 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

forums.anandtech.com

Second Generation 5 nm
Unified memory architecture - LPDDR5, up to 24 GB and 100 GB/s
20 billion transistors

8-core CPU

4 high-performance cores
192 KB instruction cache
128 KB data cache
Shared 16 MB L2 cache

4 high-efficiency cores
128 KB instruction cache
64 KB data cache
Shared 4 MB L2 cache

10-core iGPU (but there is an 8-core variant)
3.6 Teraflops

16-core neural engine
Secure Enclave
USB 4

Hardware acceleration for 8K h.264, h.264, ProRes

M3 Family discussion here:

Page 215 - Discussion - Apple Silicon SoC thread

Page 215 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

forums.anandtech.com

M4 Family discussion here:

Page 263 - Discussion - Apple Silicon SoC thread

Page 263 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

forums.anandtech.com

 

[jdubs03]

I think it's an admission that it's won't be as good as Qualcomm's modems. They're not setting expectations high.

This is a cost savings measure more than a technical one. The technical benefits are a bonus.

It is… for now. I’m just going off of Gurman. For example what he was saying a couple months ago there will be significant improvements in capability from C1 to C2 and then C2 to C3. Where is C3 becomes equal to Qualcomm’s best offering at the time.

For example:

Apple's C1 Modem Debut Suggests iPhone 17 Air Will Lack mmWave

Apple's first custom-designed modem chip, the C1, has finally made its debut in the iPhone 16e, which Apple announced on Wednesday. It's a...

www.macrumors.com

 

[mvprod123]

Reviewing the rumours, it seems that the new rumoured large sized iPhone 17 Air in Sept. will have C1 and thus no mmWave. However the other models will have Qualcomm. So, paraphrasing the pundits, for phones released in 2025:

Apple C1
iPhone 16e
iPhone 17 Air

Qualcomm
iPhone 17
iPhone 17 Pro
iPhone 17 Pro Max

This prediction seems a little off to me though, as this would suggest that iPhone 17 and iPhone 17 Air are different product tiers. It would be weird to have no mmWave on the large sized 17 Air if there is mmWave on the smaller 17.

Bloomberg report:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-12-06/apple-s-three-year-modem-road-map-company-plans-to-beat-qualcomm-by-2027

2025
Apple C1 ('Sinope'):
TSMC N4 (N4P?)
Support four-carrier aggregation
The theoretical maximum speed in laboratory conditions is 4 gigabits per second
iPhone 16e, iPhone 17 Air, iPad 11, iPad Air M4 (M3) (?)

2026-2027
Apple C2 ('Ganymede')
TSMC N3E (?)
Matching Qualcomm's leading capabilities
Support mmWave, six-carrier aggregation when using Sub-6, and eight-carrier aggregation when using mmWave
The theoretical maximum speed in laboratory conditions is 6 gigabits per second or more
iPhone 18 line, iPad Pro (?)

2027
Apple C3 ('Prometheus')
TSMC N3P or N2(?)
Surpassing Qualcomm in performance and artificial intelligence features.
The next-generation satellite networks support.
Merging modem and main SoC into a single component. (A-series SoCs) (?)
Completion of the transition to in-house developed modems.
MacBooks with cellular (?)

 

[notposting]

A bit of a non-sequitur, but here's a good read:

https://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2024/10/102809019-05-01-acc.pdf

Keller goes into his time at Apple and some of its advantages when it came to the economics and designs of its SoCs.

Thanks for linking it, that was a great read. Guy's been everywhere it seems like. Forrest Gump of CPUs.

 

[Eug]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1892605046078259711

MCK reiterates only iPhone 17 Air will have C1, but states that all of the iPhone 17 series will have an in-house WiFi chip.

 

[jdubs03]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1892605046078259711

MCK reiterates only iPhone 17 Air will have C1, but states that all of the iPhone 17 series will have an in-house WiFi chip.

Better get the same performance at a minimum… Though I suspect they wouldn’t bring it to their premium segments if it didn’t outperform.

 

[name99]

Why is that surprising? Their Globalstar satellite uses L band which is smack in the middle of most of the cellular frequencies, so there is very little additional hardware required for them to handle it.

Once you support midband cellular you're into the 5/6 GHz wifi bands so you could build that into chip, along with BT. I'm not sure if the talk about Apple designing their own wifi/BT chip will actually mean a separate chip. Maybe at first, but it'll either become part of C2 or C3 or be made part of the SoC. I expect they'll integrate cellular onto the iPhone SoCs someday, but I doubt they would for Apple Silicon. Pointless to waste silicon area on something not very many people need or want in a PC.

I'm not interested in the frequencies, I'm interested in the baseband.

I would assume that the modulation details, FEC details, signaling details etc of Globalstar are different because of course they are, that's the way these things always work when different technologies are rolled out at different times expecting very different use cases.

Which in turn means a whole additional set of baseband work in addition to the cellular work. (And the GPS work.)

And I'm not as certain as you are that people don't want cellular in their PCs. Why has the MBA M4 been delayed so long? To me the best explanation is that it has been waiting on the C1.

The real problem is that in the US (and I expect elsewhere) every carrier is being a total twat about connecting multiple devices to a single account at a reasonable cost. That's what's hindering all this stuff. But at SOME POINT not just Apple but Google and all of tech are going to demand, one way or another, that this be done better, because it opens up so much future activity - people are going to want their car to have an eSIM, and their robot, and their house for backup internet, and and and. And if VZW and ATT won't do this in a reasonable fashion, maybe the FCC can persuade them?
Or maybe Google or Apple points out they can partner with ONE of them to get this done right, and generate a Cingular situation all over again ... with all that implied for the non-Cingular carriers... or they can all just stop being idiots.

As for why? The same reason that when you're at a hotel you use your cell phone. In theory, yes, WiFi is available at many of the places you use your laptop. In PRACTICE most of those places do the job so badly that a reasonable person just switches to hotspot right away. And sure, hotspot works. But it's a waste of power. Why not just provide for multiple eSIMs all linked to the same account, sharing the same pool of data?

 

[Eug]

And I'm not as certain as you are that people don't want cellular in their PCs. Why has the MBA M4 been delayed so long? To me the best explanation is that it has been waiting on the C1.

It hasn't even been a year yet since the M3 MacBook Air was released.

 

[name99]

That's pretty aggressive, I suppose that's how Apple can beat Qualcomm power wise - by using a better process. I wonder if the reason why Qualcomm embedded modems on Snapdragon SoCs beat their discrete modems power wise is simply due to process advantage? Maybe there isn't any real advantage integrating modems beyond that?

Why do you guys ALWAYS go to process first as the explanation for everything?
Why aren't you willing to accept that there are just better heuristics available for all these protocols, in the same way that the M1 uses better heuristics than ARM for the problem of "execute code OoO"?

To give just one (but easy to understand) example: suppose that a phone wants to send a packet to a tower. It can encode that packet with a ton of different options - what sort of QAM? what sort of FEC? how specifically to use MIMO (to counteract fast fading, or to boost bps?) etc. There are curves that theoretically show the best solution to some of this (eg FEC and QAM based on SNR) but in the real world effects that are not included in those graphs matter, for example doppler effects and fast fading.
So, given the real world, not text book, what's the optimal encoding from one transmission to the next?
Obviously QC has heuristics for this. So will Apple. You're just assuming QC's heuristics are better, but there's no good reason to assume this.

What often happens in these things is that a good model gets invented fifteen years ago, then the company just keeps iterating on that year after year. Meanwhile a new company, seeing things with fresh eyes and in light of the constraints of now, not 15 years ago, sees a very different (but now practical) algorithm for the issue. This is more or less the story of Apple's CPUs and then GPUs, both rethought given the constraints of modern process rather than of process in say the 1990s.

Ultimately the question is:
- is QC Intel (rests on their laurels, easier to just keep modifying what already exists rather than redesign when necessary)
- or is QC nVidia (willing to disrupt things every generation to stay the best)
?

I'd argue that everything we have seen about QC outside modems suggests Intel, not nVidia. So why assume modems are so different?

 

[name99]

It hasn't even been a year yet since the M3 MacBook Air was released.

But wouldn't you expect the MBA to be the first mac with M4 (and any M chip)?

 

[name99]

Reviewing the rumours, it seems that the new rumoured large sized iPhone 17 Air in Sept. will have C1 and thus no mmWave. However the other models will have Qualcomm. So, paraphrasing the pundits, for phones released in 2025:

Apple C1
iPhone 16e
iPhone 17 Air

Qualcomm
iPhone 17
iPhone 17 Pro
iPhone 17 Pro Max

This prediction seems a little off to me though, as this would suggest that iPhone 17 and iPhone 17 Air are different product tiers. It would be weird to have no mmWave on the large sized 17 Air if there is mmWave on the smaller 17.

The reuters article says
"Qualcomm executives have told investors they expect their share of Apple modems to drop from its current 100% to as low as 20% by next year,"

I don't know enough about the split of models across different iPhones, but this seems to suggest a much more aggressive move to an Apple modem than people here are predicting.

 

[name99]

I think it's an admission that it's won't be as good as Qualcomm's modems. They're not setting expectations high.

This is a cost savings measure more than a technical one. The technical benefits are a bonus.

Define "not as good as"...
Are Apple A-series "not as good as" eg a Snapdragon because they can't execute Vulkan code?

Apple has specifically said:
"
Apple's Srouji said that the company's goal was not to match the specifications of its chip rivals but instead to design products specific to the needs of Apple products.

"We're not the merchant vendor to go compete with Qualcomm and MediaTek and others. I believe we're building something truly differentiating that our customer will benefit from," he said.
"

Apple cares about power much more than any other company. They will clearly win on that axis, apparently already so.
They also prioritize the user experience over the benchmark experience, which may mean that they will never win the "guaranteed not to exceed 8TB/s !!!" race but will do better (willd deliberately design the system to do better) when trying to maintain a connection at 1 bar levels.

 

[name99]

Reviewing the rumours, it seems that the new rumoured large sized iPhone 17 Air in Sept. will have C1 and thus no mmWave. However the other models will have Qualcomm. So, paraphrasing the pundits, for phones released in 2025:

Apple C1
iPhone 16e
iPhone 17 Air

Qualcomm
iPhone 17
iPhone 17 Pro
iPhone 17 Pro Max

This prediction seems a little off to me though, as this would suggest that iPhone 17 and iPhone 17 Air are different product tiers. It would be weird to have no mmWave on the large sized 17 Air if there is mmWave on the smaller 17.

Why?

The Air is the replacement for the iPhone mini, an attempt to satisy the people who are always whining that they want a "small" phone without being at all clear exactly what that means. The hope is that maybe they will shut (and actually buy!) is the phone is shrunk in depth rather than in screen size.

This means the phone is defined by "smallness". It will be high end to the extent that high-end is small, but not otherwise.
Which means that mm wave, being both somewhat niche and taking up extra space, will be one of the things that is not present (along with, eg, some camera lens functionality).

 

[name99]

Bloomberg report:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-12-06/apple-s-three-year-modem-road-map-company-plans-to-beat-qualcomm-by-2027

2025
Apple C1 ('Sinope'):
TSMC N4 (N4P?)
Support four-carrier aggregation
The theoretical maximum speed in laboratory conditions is 4 gigabits per second
iPhone 16e, iPhone 17 Air, iPad 11, iPad Air M4 (M3) (?)

2026-2027
Apple C2 ('Ganymede')
TSMC N3E (?)
Matching Qualcomm's leading capabilities
Support mmWave, six-carrier aggregation when using Sub-6, and eight-carrier aggregation when using mmWave
The theoretical maximum speed in laboratory conditions is 6 gigabits per second or more
iPhone 18 line, iPad Pro (?)

2027
Apple C3 ('Prometheus')
TSMC N3P or N2(?)
Surpassing Qualcomm in performance and artificial intelligence features.
The next-generation satellite networks support.
Merging modem and main SoC into a single component. (A-series SoCs) (?)
Completion of the transition to in-house developed modems.
MacBooks with cellular (?)

Another way this could play out is that new iPhones don't ship in September...

Yes, that date has been sacred for 17 years or whatever it is, but it doesn't HAVE TO be that way. Forcing new models (and new iOS) to September constrains Apple in multiple ways, limiting their ability to try something risky, and forcing them to occasionally miss a new TSMC process.
Maybe it's considered time to move on, to ship iPhones, like Macs, when they are ready?

Delaying the new (ie "2025") iPhones to say Q1 2026, with the justification that they will have "total" Apple Silicon and it will be so awesome, so power saving, provides as good a justification as any for breaking the pattern while not looking like you have lost control of your flagship product...

 

[Eug]

The Air is the replacement for the iPhone mini, an attempt to satisy the people who are always whining that they want a "small" phone without being at all clear exactly what that means. The hope is that maybe they will shut (and actually buy!) is the phone is shrunk in depth rather than in screen size.

No it's not a replacement for the iPhone mini. It's a completely different class of iPhone. Those who want the mini obviously aren't going to be happy with the iPhone 17 Air, especially if it truly is bigger than the iPhone 17 like it is rumoured to be.

But wouldn't you expect the MBA to be the first mac with M4 (and any M chip)?

No I would not expect that. The MacBook Pro has equal if not higher sales overall, and is the premium machine. It makes more sense for it to get M4 first. The entry level MacBook Air doesn't have to be on the bleeding edge.

Another way this could play out is that new iPhones don't ship in September...

Yes, that date has been sacred for 17 years or whatever it is, but it doesn't HAVE TO be that way. Forcing new models (and new iOS) to September constrains Apple in multiple ways, limiting their ability to try something risky, and forcing them to occasionally miss a new TSMC process.
Maybe it's considered time to move on, to ship iPhones, like Macs, when they are ready?

Delaying the new (ie "2025") iPhones to say Q1 2026, with the justification that they will have "total" Apple Silicon and it will be so awesome, so power saving, provides as good a justification as any for breaking the pattern while not looking like you have lost control of your flagship product...

They are like that because people buy phones on 2 year schedules. At the end of the two years they return the iPhone and get a new one.

Macs are generally not purchased this way, and the upgrade cycle for Macs is also much, much longer.

Apple rations its feature upgrades anyway. Even if it can theoretically offer a whole bunch of new features in the same year, often they don't just so they can "save" it for the following year. A good example of this is camera technology.

 

[mvprod123]

M4 MacBook Air

Mac16,12 - Geekbench

Benchmark results for a Mac16,12 with an Apple M4 processor.

browser.geekbench.com

 

[Eug]

M4 MacBook Air

Mac16,12 - Geekbench

Benchmark results for a Mac16,12 with an Apple M4 processor.

browser.geekbench.com

Hmmm... Release imminent? That score is as expected BTW.

So, I wonder if I should buy in March when it comes out, or wait until June to get a CAD$200 / US$140 discount off education pricing. It's not as we need it right at this minute though.

Also:

Mac16,12 - Geekbench

Benchmark results for a Mac16,12 with an Apple M4 processor.

browser.geekbench.com

 

[Doug S]

Having everything on the same die is almost always better from a power perspective even if the node isn't as advanced.

It can't be THAT big a hit or Intel and AMD wouldn't be plunging into chiplets with both feet.

 

[Doug S]

Reviewing the rumours, it seems that the new rumoured large sized iPhone 17 Air in Sept. will have C1 and thus no mmWave. However the other models will have Qualcomm.

That assumes the C1 doesn't support mmwave. Just because the 16e doesn't support mmwave doesn't mean that the C1 is 100% for sure incapable of mmwave. Maybe it can do it, but they aren't adding the required antennas/discretes to support it to the 16e to cut a few bucks off the BOM, make more room in the case for battery, as well as to market segment the 16e from the 16.

It doesn't make sense that the 17 Air would have lower specs than the base 17, when the 17 Air will undoubtedly cost more. I guess "doesn't make sense" isn't a reason why Apple wouldn't do it. After all, the Air is basically their third attempt to find a compelling market segment between the base iPhone and the Pro. The market didn't like the Mini, and it didn't like the Plus. Apple hopes they will like the Air, because if they don't they're probably out of ideas for the fourth iPhone model.

One thing about the 16e I wonder is whether that becomes the new "last year's phone", so they drop the base 16 when the 17 line is introduced and the 16e becomes "last year's phone". If so, does that mean there will be a 17e arriving this time next year? Maybe the new lineup in September will be: 17/17A/17P/17PM/16e, then in September 2026 it'll be 18/18A/18P/18PM/17e and maybe still 16e at $499?

 

[Eug]

That assumes the C1 doesn't support mmwave. Just because the 16e doesn't support mmwave doesn't mean that the C1 is 100% for sure incapable of mmwave. Maybe it can do it, but they aren't adding the required antennas/discretes to support it to the 16e to cut a few bucks off the BOM, make more room in the case for battery, as well as to market segment the 16e from the 16.

The rumour from last year (posted by @mvprod123 above) said that the first Apple modem would not have mmWave. It also said that chip would have a lower maximum speed. The second chip in 2026 (iPhone 18 series?) or 2027 (iPhone 19 series?) would bring faster speeds and mmWave.

 

[Doug S]

And I'm not as certain as you are that people don't want cellular in their PCs. Why has the MBA M4 been delayed so long? To me the best explanation is that it has been waiting on the C1.

The real problem is that in the US (and I expect elsewhere) every carrier is being a total twat about connecting multiple devices to a single account at a reasonable cost. That's what's hindering all this stuff. But at SOME POINT not just Apple but Google and all of tech are going to demand, one way or another, that this be done better, because it opens up so much future activity - people are going to want their car to have an eSIM, and their robot, and their house for backup internet, and and and. And if VZW and ATT won't do this in a reasonable fashion, maybe the FCC can persuade them?
Or maybe Google or Apple points out they can partner with ONE of them to get this done right, and generate a Cingular situation all over again ... with all that implied for the non-Cingular carriers... or they can all just stop being idiots.
As for why? The same reason that when you're at a hotel you use your cell phone. In theory, yes, WiFi is available at many of the places you use your laptop. In PRACTICE most of those places do the job so badly that a reasonable person just switches to hotspot right away. And sure, hotspot works. But it's a waste of power. Why not just provide for multiple eSIMs all linked to the same account, sharing the same pool of data?

How has the MBA M4 been delayed? The MBA M3 was released less than a year ago. Maybe Apple trails on MBA to avoid cannibalizing low end MBP sales.

The carriers sucking about connecting multiple devices is a one of the reasons WHY people don't want cellular in their laptop. Using your phone as a hotspot is seamless and works exactly as well as having a separate modem in your laptop, so why pay another $100 for something you don't need. Using a hotspot doesn't use more power - it transfers power that would have been used by the laptop to the cell phone. Since you can plug the cell phone into the laptop to charge it while using it as a hotspot that's a non issue. OK I guess there is a bit of overhead since both devices have to use wifi to communicate with each other but wifi is super efficient compared to cellular and isn't going to make any real difference in the battery of your cell phone, let alone your laptop.

Carriers do have reason to be gun shy about allowing multiple devices - because many/most plans are unlimited these days, so what's the incentive to buy a family plan if you can buy a single unlimited plan and put your family's phones on that? The only way around that is to discriminate by device type - which Visible (Verizon's prepaid carrier which I use, and which is to my example unlimited everything) does by letting you put your Apple Watch on the account for free if you have Visible+.

 

[Doug S]

Why?

The Air is the replacement for the iPhone mini, an attempt to satisy the people who are always whining that they want a "small" phone without being at all clear exactly what that means. The hope is that maybe they will shut (and actually buy!) is the phone is shrunk in depth rather than in screen size.

This means the phone is defined by "smallness". It will be high end to the extent that high-end is small, but not otherwise.
Which means that mm wave, being both somewhat niche and taking up extra space, will be one of the things that is not present (along with, eg, some camera lens functionality).

It isn't the replacement for the Mini, it is the replacement for the Plus. They killed the Mini several generations ago, after they killed the Plus the first time because it wasn't selling well enough and they decided to try the Mini which also didn't sell well enough.

Apple isn't filling a "size" with the Air, it is filling a niche. They want something between the base iPhone and the Pro, and are trying everything they can to fill that niche. The Air is their latest attempt. Just because there was once a Mini in that segment doesn't mean the Air is the heir to the Mini. So it will not be defined by "smallness". It will be defined by "thinness", which is not the same thing. The bits and bobs necessary for mmwave do take up some space, but I find it hard to believe they would take up enough space that they couldn't find room for them in there if they wanted.

Maybe they leave it out, and have an odd situation where the more expensive non-Pro iPhone is missing features compared to the Pro. I could see Apple doing that, they aren't afraid to price things in a way that pisses off a certain segment of consumers (mostly those who wouldn't buy Apple products anyway)

 

[Doug S]

The rumour from last year (posted by @mvprod123 above) said that the first Apple modem would not have mmWave. It also said that chip would have a lower maximum speed. The second chip in 2026 (iPhone 18 series?) or 2027 (iPhone 19 series?) would bring faster speeds and mmWave.

Well first you have to believe the rumor - that the person originating it got the ground truth. Then you have to believe that the person who originated the rumor understood the context of that ground truth. Maybe the C1 doesn't do mmwave. That's certainly possible. Or maybe it does, and the reason the rumor said it didn't do it was because the first phone that will get the C1, the SE4 (now 16e) will not do mmwave, so they ASSUMED the C1 was incapable of mmwave.

If you look at the (claimed) specs the only speed difference between C1 and C2 (4 Gbps vs 6 Gbps) is due to the former supporting 4 carriers vs the latter supporting 6. The claim it supports 8 for mmwave makes no sense in the context of the claimed 6 Gbps max speed, so something is wrong in their claims for C2.

 

[Eug]

Well first you have to believe the rumor - that the person originating it got the ground truth. Then you have to believe that the person who originated the rumor understood the context of that ground truth. Maybe the C1 doesn't do mmwave. That's certainly possible. Or maybe it does, and the reason the rumor said it didn't do it was because the first phone that will get the C1, the SE4 (now 16e) will not do mmwave, so they ASSUMED the C1 was incapable of mmwave.

Perhaps, but that's a lot of handwaving.

Basically the rumour said Apple's first modem chip does not support mmWave, and then Apple released C1 without mmWave support. The KISS principle would suggest it's most likely that C1 just doesn't support mmWave.

 

[Doug S]

Perhaps, but that's a lot of handwaving.

Basically the rumour said Apple's first modem chip does not support mmWave, and then Apple released C1 without mmWave support. The KISS principle would suggest it's most likely that C1 just doesn't support mmWave.

No, they released a product containing C1 without mmwave support. Not the same thing. That's my point. I agree KISS suggests C1 doesn't have it, and maybe it doesn't. Not sure how much additional area that requires, if it isn't that much it seems silly not to include it even if the only products containing it will ship without mmwave, because that would allow them to do some real world testing now - and have time to fix C2 if they identify any hardware issues.

 

[Eug]

No, they released a product containing C1 without mmwave support. Not the same thing. That's my point. I agree KISS suggests C1 doesn't have it, and maybe it doesn't. Not sure how much additional area that requires, if it isn't that much it seems silly not to include it even if the only products containing it will ship without mmwave, because that would allow them to do some real world testing now - and have time to fix C2 if they identify any hardware issues.

How are they going to do real world testing of mmWave if their real world iPhones with C1 don't have it? (Prototypes aren't truly real world devices.)