Well, when you consider that Intel currently has a fair percentage of their leading edge process manufacturing capability idling due to lack of demand...I don't see how this deal would help Intel maintain their 60% gross margin policy.
I would agree if not for TSMC's track record. I highly doubt that they weren't informed by their customers of approximately how many wafers were desired on their 28nm process well in advance, yet they were clearly unable to meet that demand for something around half a year. If Apple does indeed require around 415k wafers per year as one of the articles states, then they'd use up at least 80% of the additional capacity that TSMC's Fab 14 phase 5 and phase 6 would provide when they come online in 2014.Anyone who's on the ground and been to TSMC's Fab 14 complex knows exactly where Apple is having their next generation of IC's built. (20nm)
It's also quite possible that for Intel, them idling the plant produces higher gross margins than running the plant to make a bunch of $20(that's what Apple SOC cost based on iSupply BOM) ARM chips/SOC's for Apple.Well, when you consider that Intel currently has a fair percentage of their leading edge process manufacturing capability idling due to lack of demand...
I would agree if not for TSMC's track record. I highly doubt that they weren't informed by their customers of approximately how many wafers were desired on their 28nm process well in advance, yet they were clearly unable to meet that demand for something around half a year. If Apple does indeed require around 415k wafers per year as one of the articles states, then they'd use up at least 80% of the additional capacity that TSMC's Fab 14 phase 5 and phase 6 would provide when they come online in 2014.
But since when has Apple gone with such a risky proposition? I seem to recall them being quite cautious with process transitions at Samsung for the simple reason that if it doesn't work out, it's not a $25 chip that they don't sell, it's a $500+ product. So yeah, it is possible that they'd switch over completely to TSMC, but almost certainly in such a way that they can source parts from both Samsung and TSMC during the transition.
One thing though...
If TSMC is going to do it for Apple at Fab 14 anyway, why didn't TSMC accept Apple's $1 billion offer from a few months ago?
You should go onsite at Fab 14, you'll get the picture. This is one of those "proof of the pudding is in the eating" situations. As far as supply goes, exactly, which is why if you saw the pace of activity at Fab 14 then you'd recognize something is quite different now versus the past, and if you know someone in the industry who can tell you why it is different this time around, well, then the picture kinda gells :sneaky:
I'm guessing you didn't see Intel's Medfield vs. Tegra 3 charts...Anyone today using x86 for phone is suicidal. Even if you can get it for free or at production cost from Intel or AMD the power consumption and heat will kill your project before it ship.
I'd imagine Intel is already fabbing ARM cores for their Infineon Wireless chips or planning to do so, and will go after Qualcomm, TI, ST Micro, MediaTek, etc in the future. They might come up with a low power RISC type instruction set similar to ARM (like ARC), but it would be very different than x86.
Alas, my sources for information on TSMC are just whatever can be scrounged up on the internet and hence don't include going onsite But yeah, currently they're at something around 1,700k 12" wafers per year and if phase 5 and 6 of fab 14 double that fab's capacity then the total goes up to around 2,640k 12" wafers per year, with the new capacity guaranteed to be on the leading edge process node. Though there's still the question of how much of the existing 12" wafer capacity will be upgraded to the new node? Not to mention what demand from other sources is going to look like at that point?
Anyway, no question that TSMC is the most likely candidate for Apple to switch to, and it's rather clear that TSMC is building up their infrastructure in anticipation of such... but there still seems to be room for other possibilities, no? Given a likely Q3 2014 product launch, they'd have a quarter or possibly two to decide before they have to lock in on a particular process for the design cycle. Heh, and it sounds exactly like Apple to explore all options in order to play one off the other and get the best terms possible.
I did read a story earlier last month or two ago about Samsung delaying building a fab in anticipation of them losing contract with Apple.Apple has already decided, and both TSMC and Samsung are aware of the outcome of the decision, as are the suppliers (both tool and chemical vendors). It is the worst kept secret in the industry.
Processors stopped getting much faster every year so upgrade cycles have lengthened.clearly if they're moving Celerons to 22nm they don't have enough business to fill the fabs (how that happened, I have no friggin' idea).
Apple has already decided, and both TSMC and Samsung are aware of the outcome of the decision, as are the suppliers (both tool and chemical vendors). It is the worst kept secret in the industry.
I think apple could very easily port iOS over to 22nm x86. Think about how many extra transistors they have to work with. They could shove an entire A6X core into their hypothetical A7 SoC and still end up with a smaller die. Remember, the ARM core section of the A6X is relatively small (< 30mm^2), even though the A6X is quite large at 124mm^2. Most of the A6X is gpu, and that doesnt care about ARM/x86 anyway.
Intel and AMD have both proven themselves to be incredibly stupid by not following any of my advice (integrated SSD controller, integrated PCH, a muxed NAND/DRAM bus, hybrid x86+ARM cores, etc) but apple may not be so dumb. They've at least done a couple of the things I suggested.
FYI, this an Atom in a phone:
Not bad.
in other words, this is fluff and crap?
The ball already rolled over to morris chang?
I was kinda excited about a new "Apptel" era approaching :C
Not updated with the latest A15 variant SoCs though, such as 'Swift' and the latest Exynos.
Heh, now if only that Tom's Hardware article was actually capable of relating the entire rumor instead of actively attempting to negate the more interesting half.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/11/30/intel-apple-samsung-chips/
Note that it's the second point that's news here. There have been rumors regarding Intel possibly fabricating chips for Apple before, but there was never any mention of why Intel would want to do so. Combined with the fact that the current market has resulted in fabs idling the lure of getting into the iPad would be more than adequate incentive for Intel.
There is no way that would happen. The iPad uses the same OS and apps as the iphone and ipod touch devices. There is ZERO chance they will fragment their mobile products by moving to x86 on the iPad. It's that second point that makes it abundantly clear this is nothing more than a rumor designed to get clicks. Apple is more likely to put ARM into their Macbook Air's then they are putting x86 in the iPad.