Samsung core confirmed inside iPhone 4S | Hacker News Reader

Samsung core confirmed inside iPhone 4S

news.cnet.com

45 pointsGarbage17 comments

It's an ARM core on a chip manufactured by Samsung (i.e. not a Samsung core).

Also, if the "A5 is SoC including RAM", then the RAM is on the same piece of silicon as the ARM core (for it to be SoC). Not sure how it's possible for Samsung to make part of the silicon (for the core) and someone else to make the RAM. Perhaps the RAM isn't on the A5 after all ;-)

There's no risk in Apple switching manufacturers (e.g. Samsung Nexus uses a TI OMAP SoC CPU, instead of a Samsung Exynos for the Galaxy S II). Switching to Intel is the massive risk, since they don't use ARM cores at all, so the O/S would require a rewrite.

Finally, the Ivy Bridge microarchitecture isn't aimed at lower power computing (Intel Atom chips are based on the Bonnell microarchitecture), so there's unlikely be 3D transistor technology...

Apple's real move would be to drop the A6 entirely and focus on the same CPU's used by Android, since the both Android and Apple are using ARM V7 instruction sets with Cortex A9 cores.

There's speculation that Apple has been looking into using TSMC to source their next generation A6. Apple would have to port the IC designs to be compatible with the TSMC process which would take some time but is entirely doable with the chip design team they've built up. Although there has been reports that TSMC has been having trouble with quality issues on the 28 nm process which is why we might see Samsung manufacturing Apple's SOCs for a while.

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4229790/Samsung-ramp...

> Switching to Intel is the massive risk, since they don't use ARM cores at all, so the O/S would require a rewrite

I think the idea behind the Intel rumour is that Intel would 'just' be a fab in this scenario. They would license the ARM tech and fab the A6, so the story goes...

That's an even bigger story, as it would mean Intel is no longer able to design CPU's LOL

Odds are in the case of the Galaxy Nexus, Samsung's using the OMAP at Google's request; to serve as a reference platform for ICS. AFAIK Samsung doesn't sell Exynos, so other OEMs would be at a disadvantage.

Often these SOC chips use POP (package-on-package) RAM, where the RAM is on a separate package that is directly on top of the processor (soldered to pads on top)... That could explain it.

Rewrite iOS? Huh? Anyone who builds a modern OS tied to a single architecture needs their head examined.

We already know Apple isn't that stupid, for two reasons:

1) OS X ran on both PowerPC and x86 from the moment it was born. They know how to plan ahead.

2) That "emulator" in Xcode isn't an emulator --it's running native x86 code, that's why it's so fast and why you have to build specifically for it. Most of what constitutes iOS runs as native x86 code every time a developer uses the "emulator".

I don't believe for a nanosecond that iOS boots in full only on ARM. Not a chance.

It would be interesting to know what the politics inside Samsung are vis-a-vis the dispute with Apple. It's hard to believe that the silicon people were thrilled with the mobile division kicking sand in their biggest customer's face. If Samsung's mobile division gets a little bit bigger and their components business gets a little bit smaller, is this a net-win for them?

I wonder what Samsung's long-extant mobile division thought of Samsung's silicon division getting in bed with a competitor?

"Business as usual."

That's the thing with large companies. If each division was a separate company, that wouldn't be an issue.

If they're still dependent on Samsung for their main processor it kinda makes you wonder how well they're doing finding another processor for the iPhone 5.

I know the 4S just came out but traditionally iPhones have come out over the summer so we might see the iPhone 5 as soon as 7 months from now.

There's not much of a story here. Where chips are fabbed doesn't matter than much. When the A5 came out in the iPad 2, it was manufactured by Samsung (that decision was probably made around two years ago) and nothing has changed since then.

How long does a contract to supply silicon usually last?

Varies pretty heavily and could be many years. Check all the wrangling when Apple bought P.A. Semi. The DoD contracts can go on for more than a decade.

i remember reading that apple tended to financially help companies set up new fabs/equipment/whatever in exchange for fairly long term contracts. For example, when they do a die-shrink, apple might pay 30% of the cost to upgrade the fab, in exchange for preferred (in terms of quality and price) chips for X years. No source, too lazy.

Corporations as large as both of them really do not care.

Greed for profits overrides any "pride". Happens all the time.

Google is still paying Mozilla millions for home page links right?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com