IMHO, one of the biggest issues is that PCs have been "good enough" for some time now for everything but games, and even then they haven't been growing much.
I also see a major reason is that for a long time, PCs were the only way to do things. Want to see videos, read email, visit a website: You had to have a PC as smart phones/tablets sucked. So people had to get a PC. Really the average consumer didn't need it; they just needed something that would work and PCs were the only solution. These days tablets and smartphones fulfill what your average consumer needs. Add to that other features that PCs are not good at doing: ebook reader, jogging tracker, etc, its not surprising why many people are not getting PCs. For example, many parents were set up with PCs for a decade and barely used them. Most of the time we had to clean up a lot of infections. They both got tablets and use them all the time.
Assembly and Test is a step in fabrication.
Um no. In the world of chip production, "fab" means specifically the facility that produced the chip from the wafer. It does not mean "plant".
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.
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.
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.
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.
A different die size and a different process node is not a trivial difference, as evidenced by differences in battery life and performance.
Apple (or any other manufacturer) isn't expecting a huge difference between 14nm and 16nm. 20nm and 16nm maybe sorta. 28nm and 14nm definitely.
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?
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.
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -- William E. Davidsen