Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:You can't explain that... (Score 1) 35

Here is the context: Bill O'Reilly said to an atheist that we didn't know what causes the tides as proof that God did it. To which people were like: "The moon causes tides." Of course, Bill rather than admit he was simply ignorant about centuries-old science, then said "How did the moon get there? . . . How come we have that and Mars doesn't have it? . . . " To which people countered that Mars has two moons. Bill again ignorant about basic science.

Comment Re:Too little, too late (Score 1) 251

From your own article, the first sentence is "Intel on Friday announced the opening of a massive $1 billion chip testing and assembly facility in Vietnam, the biggest such facility for Intel anywhere in the world." Again, Intel has no fab in Vietnam. It has an assembly plant. Just admit it that you're wrong as facts are not on your side. To figure out the fab, you have to read the other numbers on the chip.

Comment Re:Too little, too late (Score 1) 251

It does not. It requires that they at least did an equivalent test that would expose the same difference. I don't think there's anything unreasonable about that assumption.

And their equivalent test may not have shown any difference. I wasn't in Apple's testing facility and neither were you.

You suppose that Apple tested their chips inadequately.

No that's not what I said. I said you don't know how Apple tested their chips.

You suppose that Apple released hardware without knowing about performance problems.

That would be evident IF the Reddit user's tests can be verified. At this point a single point of data is hard to base any larger conclusion.

I suppose that Geekbench is the 2nd item listed on the App Store when I search for "benchmark", and that it would make sense for Apple to test its hardware with the same software that large numbers of customers will be testing it with.

Again you don't know Apple tested it. GeekBench is what consumers can use; the manufacturers may have their own software because GeekBench doesn't test for the same things.

Comment Re:Too little, too late (Score 1) 251

You don't have to look at the billions of transistors. You just have to run a widely-available benchmark on the two models of phone. Not even "you" personally; I'm sure that we'll quickly have documentation of the difference, independently supported by large numbers of tech enthusiasts.

I don't know what's in the GeekBench and if Apple used it to test their phones. At this point all I have is a single point of data from someone on Reddit. If Consumer Reports did the test, I'd more likely trust it as the have some documentation on methodology, experience during testing, etc.

Because battery life in a mobile device is a highly-advertised, important aspect of selling the device, and it would be foolish to advertise performance metrics without thoroughly testing them beforehand.

My point is Apple's tests may not be the same as this Reddit user. All we have from the reddit user are two photos. Not tables. Not methology. And what we can tell is the TSMC one had a SIM and the Samsung didn't which already brings questions as the methodology.

Comment Re:Too little, too late (Score 1) 251

By definition, chips with a smaller feature size draw less power and are faster than chips with a larger feature size.

As a general rule, smaller feature size should draw less power but the smallest sizes start to leak current. Chip designers have had to do things like finFET to compensate for this paradox.

The TSMC chips might have extra cache,

Unlikely as they are the same identical physical design as far as I can tell.

Apple might be clocking the Samsung chips at a lower frequency because of poorer heat dissipation

Maybe but this might more of an automated thing not specifically targeting Samsung chips.

Comment Re:Too little, too late (Score 1) 251

If Apple sent a design to multiple manufacturers, I'd expect those manufacturers to produce identical parts.

Apple would expect that too. But in this case it didn't do so for a test that Apple may not have used.

As you note, that's the whole point of using multiple suppliers. As everyone else has been trying to point out: these parts aren't identical.

I said they appear not to function the same but they might appear to be identical except for size.

Either Apple sent out 2 designs, for the different lithography scales, or one of the suppliers modified Apple's design.

From what I can tell by the Chipworks assessment, they appear the same with one being smaller. But then again I didn't look at the billions of transistors to determine if there are minor differences.

Either way, Apple has to know about the difference from internal testing, and implicitly agreed that knowingly releasing two differently-performing pieces of hardware under the same model number was acceptable.

They perform differently according to a Reddit user using a test Apple may not have used. How do you know that Apple should have known?

Comment Re:Too little, too late (Score 1) 251

I know for sure that you don't take a vendor's performance claims as truth until you verify for yourself.

That wasn't the point. The AC contended that Apple knew that there was a performance problem. That requires that they did the test the Reddit user did and found the discrepancy but ignored it. I contend that there is no proof that they did that test or that the test is somehow standard for Apple to do.

Measurements of power consumption and processing speed for the parts from each vendor are the bare minimum of what I'd expect, since Apple has to know what kinds of marketing claims it can make. To do anything else would be negligent.

But what are the parameters of this "bare minimum"? Apple might have done their battery of tests that didn't uncover the problem. Or that the production Samsung A9s are different from the prototype Samsung A9s. It is possible that a manufacturing change caused the problem. We don't know.

What it seems that Apple has done is to base is marketing claims on the lesser of the two CPU models. Anyone that receives the TSMC CPU by chance just got lucky, since they'll get a phone that performs significantly above Apple's advertised specs.

That is supposition. First, I haven't performed the test as I don't have iPhone 6s with two different processors to confirm it. Second, I don't know (and you don't know) how Apple tested their A9s.

Comment Re:Too little, too late (Score 1) 251

Changing an Xbox chip to a lower sized process doesn't negatively impact things like battery life, which is an advertised spec on the iPhone.

Your assumption is that Apple intended the two processors to behave differently. They didn't. As for changing the Xbox chip, shrinking the die size may have other impacts like increased heat/power which then they have to account for in the design of the Xbox. That increased heat/power may require additional fans. That affects the power performance of the console. While many people probably don't care about power in a game console, it is a change.

Even still, Xbox changes the model number when making hardware revisions, where as this iPhone and the similar issue with MacBook Airs a few years ago were not detectable by the hardware revision.

It may be detectable in the Apple iPhone 6s serial number. I don't know as I can't decipher them.

No line available at 300 baud.