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.
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.
Intel Vietnam made that one. Learn how to read part numbers.
You are very purposefully ignoring what I wrote to rage against something I did not. Intel processors made on different processes have a different part number the customer can see when ordering.
And you fail to understand the whole point of using multiple suppliers. The parts ARE NOT supposed to be different in terms of function. They are made by different people/processes.
Heck, they even have different part numbers for the same processor on the same process that have been binned differently.
As does Apple.
But if you want to keep talking about a the same processor made on the same process from the same company, go ahead an knock yourself out. It has nothing to do with anything I wrote.
No I am asking you why you feel Apple should do something that you don't expect of anyone else that uses multiple suppliers. Did you know that RAM is made all over the world? Two stick of memory from the same manufacturer with the same part number might have different chips? Shocker!
I agree there should not be a difference in performance, but there is. Whether that performance difference is a problem or not should be left to the customer.
If Apple didn't intend there to be a difference, it should be up to Apple to let the customer know which products have a difference they didn't know about? Do I understand that correctly? If there's a difference; it's a defect that Apple will have to fix. Period. Letting the customer know which phones to avoid before they knew which phones are a problem requires pre-cognition don't you think?
For the following post, the sarcasm flag is assumed to be active.
1. has to rely on 3rd parties to integrate their hardware into an existing enterprise..
Yes because Apple's primary focus is enterprise. It's not like Dell or HP ever rely on 3rd parties for consumer or enterprise. Ever.
2. Srir was a huge failure even with 3rd party support
That's why they removed and banished it from all iPhones and iPads and they didn't include it in the new AppleTV.
3. Newton (even with the greatest minds it still could nto get off the ground)
Yes because 20 years ago, mobile hardware was much superior than it is today. Also at the time, Apple was a tightly focused machine.
4. Deperciation of the equipment as compared to its "PC" equiv. is way out of whack.
That's why whenever I go to buy used Apple machines, they are 1/2 of what the comparable Dell or HP is. They are so cheap, people are begging me to take their Macs.
5. They have to reply on 3rd parties for any and all laptop/desktop hardware (intel)
Yes because Dell, HP, Lenovo, Samsung, Asus, etc have all started to make their own processors now. Every single one of them even have their own GPUs and make their machines by hand. I've seen the farms where they grow their cases from the soil. It's all organic.
6. they bastardized a variant of BSD and "made it their own" also a 3rd party reliance.
Instead of every other OS out there that magically one day was born. Linux isn't based on Unix at all. And Windows was created completely by Gates and Co one night and didn't rely on design cues from VMS or DOS or anything prior.
7. They tried to tout a turnkey infrastructure (X system [xserv, etc]) which lasted 2-4 years and resembled SUN equipment..
Because every time a company makes a product they should sell that product FOREVER even if it isn't very profitable or core to their strategy. That's why Microsoft and Dell still make MP3 players. IBM still makes PCs right?
8. the cost of the equiv. equipment (PC) is a 3rd of the cost.
In every single case this is true. That's why people still buy Macs; suckers!
9. For any credible attempt at repair, a device must be taken to a service center, no way to "HOME-FIX"
Yes, the internet and websites dedicated to fixing computers don't exist. Also all other manufacturers will honor your warranty when you try to fix things yourself. Warranty, schmwarranty, they say.
10. when people in my env. request a mac. after about a week or so they request a windows 7 vm poped on the "DESKTOP" so they can remain productive and still have the nice SHiny..
This has nothing to do with the fact that some companies rely and insist on Windows only things. I mean, IE is famous for being completely compatible with every other browser known in existence. This is the opposite of those PCs where they have only 1 option: Windows or die. That's fine. Less choice is so much better.
So now we are on the 6th gen of the Iphone, and.......... Samsung the #1 Iphone competitor is varying their production of chips to Apple, like thats a suprise.. It actually seems so friggin lame..
Yes because chip fabs are everywhere. You can't go down the street without some homeless bum offering to move me to a 10nm process. Especially companies like NVidia who didn't decide to use Samsung to fab the Tegra X1. And Apple didn't do a responsible thing by using 2 different fabs for redundancy. Not at all
With so Much Apple has going for itself.. Why can't it just produce their own products and why with all the brilliant people over there, the money, the intelligence (or lack thereof) it should not be that difficult? Or so you would think..
Yes why doesn't Apple do like Dell and make 100% of their own machines. Have you tried the new Dell OS (Windows)? It's fantastic. And the new Dell Core i7 (Intel) processor is far superior to Intel's. I don't know you've ever understand the beauty of listening to Spotify using my Dell SoundMax (Intel) chip over wifi (Intel). If I have to watch a movie I can use my Dell DVD player (Toshiba) or ripped movies from my Dell SSD (Intel). I mean HP and Lenovo and Asus all produce their own products and never use 3rd parties. Ever.
I know this may be perceived as "FLAME BAIT" but seriously, look at whats in front of you. This is not apple hating, it an attempt to identify key events in their past and starting a conversation about why they are where they are now, and why this current BlunderFu*k has developed? Perhaps, its just too much for appl
Agreed. Apple has never done anything original unlike every other manufacturer out there who makes 100% of every product they sell.
Intel labels parts made on different processes with different part numbers. That allows you to choose which processor you want.
Really? Which plant made this processor? Can you tell me? At best you can tell it's a 14nm process but you don't know which 14nm plant made it from the information provided. You have to look at the chip when you get it, but you've already bought it at that point.
It's clear from my post I'm talking about the phone part number that the customer uses to order, not the internal Apple part number for the two different processors made on two different processes from two different companies with different performance.
I would guarantee you that every smartphone model including the iPhone has parts from multiple sources. For example the exact same model might have RAM from Samsung in one phone and RAM from Hynix in another. They shouldn't be different in terms of performance or function but if they are, the manufacturer has to trace down why. The point I'm trying to make is that there shouldn't be a difference in performance.
The fact that one process is called 16nm and one is called 14nm tells you almost nothing about the relative sizes of equivalent features.
Um, yes it does. 14nm is the smallest size possible that can be reliably produced by the process. It does not say that ALL features are 14nm. Where possible, the feature will be 14nm, but not all of them will be for practical reasons.
These days, a process is called "14nm" because the previous one was called "20nm" and the next is going to be called "10nm".
You seem to imply that die shrink is completely fictitious because of naming.
That would allow customers to make an informed decision on which product to buy, the 6sm or the 6ss.
Does Intel let you know which of their plants made the Core i7 you get from Newegg?
If they are marking these products with the same part number at least they should call it the "6?", as in what will you get?
They're not the same part number; the model number A9 is the same. The internal part numbers were APL0898 and APL1022.
If sourcing substantially different parts from different vendors is necessary to meet production volume, then they need to have different part names and model names for these products.
Let's start with the first thing: These parts are not supposed to be substantially different. They are the same design but at a smaller feature size. The fact that they are is a problem and Apple will have to get with Samsung and TSMC to figure what is the issue. Second, different sources parts are known internally but not externally. After all, does Intel rename a Broadwell Core i7 differently when it comes from Oregon or Arizona or Ireland? No. There is a part number that tells where the chip was made and you as a customer don't know where it came from when you order it from Newegg or Micron or wherever.
This isn't a case of having resistors or capacitors from different manufacturers, something that won't affect performance in any measurable way, this is a case of having two completely different CPUs, with very different performance from the two.
How is an dual core A9 from Apple a "completely different CPU" than an dual core A9 from Apple. They are the exact same design by Apple. If you feel that makes them "completely different", did you lecture Microsoft when they switched Xbox processors? From what I remember IBM Xenon processor was shrink reduced from 90nm to 65nm to 45nm. These are all "different" CPUs to you?
6h vs. 8h in a power-consumption test is a huge, huge difference.
And if it's true, Apple will have to look into why.
Intel sells CPUs all the time which are very similar, but have performance that differs to that extent: they use completely different part numbers to describe these parts.
The problem with this comparison is that a Core i7 is not the same as a Core i5 with actual differences like L3 cache size, TDP, clock speed, etc. and these come from different designs.
At increasingly smaller sizes, there's something called the short-channel effect or leakage because the size of each gate is starting to be affected by atomic forces not shown in larger gates. It's why chip companies are employing multi-gate devices like FinFET.
Planar transistors have been the core of integrated circuits for several decades, during which the size of the individual transistors has steadily decreased. As the size decreases, planar transistors increasingly suffer from the undesirable short-channel effect, especially "off-state" leakage current, which increases the idle power required by the device.
The reason companies are pushing for smaller size is economics. Reducing the feature size allows for more chips to be made from a single wafer. The move from 20nm to 16nm is about 15% more from what I remember.
"Free markets select for winning solutions." -- Eric S. Raymond