Apple will snub Samsung and call upon TSMC to exclusively produce all of its next-generation A10 processors for 2016’s iOS devices, according to a new report. It’s thought Apple considers TSMC’s chips to be superior to Samsung’s in performance and efficiency.
Apple’s new A9 processor, which ships inside the iPhone 6s and iPhone 6s Plus, is being produced by Samsung and TSMC. Apple often employs multiple manufacturers to ensure a steady supply of components, which helps it meet the ever-increasing demand of its fans.
But if you’ve been following “Chipgate,” you’ll be aware that there are some differences between the A9 chips manufactured by Samsung and TSMC. While Samsung’s are slightly smaller, TSMC’s are more efficient and provide slightly better battery life.
Now it seems Apple is looking to make TSMC its sole supplier of A10 processors for next year’s iPhones and iPads. Chinese news network UDN, citing analysts at JP Morgan, claims the Taiwanese company has secured 100% of Apple’s A10 orders.
This isn’t the first time we’ve heard this; DigiTimes reported the same thing back in September based on an earlier report from another Chinese source, Commercial Times.
Despite this, we’re still a little skeptical Apple would rely on just one supplier to produce so many chips. iPhone sales reach new highs every year, and although iPad sales have been falling, they’re still pretty good — and could get a boost from the iPad Pro.
Take this one with a pinch of salt for now, then. Samsung might be Apple’s biggest enemy, but the Cupertino company has been unable to live without it until now.
Source: UDN
Via: G for Games
Killian Bell is a freelance writer based in the U.K. He has an interest in all things tech and also covers Android over at CultofAndroid.com. You can follow him on Twitter via @killianbell.
11 responses to “Apple might spurn Samsung for next-gen iPhone chip”
*sigh* You’re a well respected Mac news site – please don’t perpetuate misinformation. The TSMC chip isn’t more efficient than the Samsung one. What’s happening is these benchmarks are synthetically ramping the CPU %100 to drain the battery (again artificially) to see which one drains faster. The only problem is, Samsungs chip is smaller… meaning it produces LESS HEAT… meaning it can run at 100% longer WITHOUT throttling and thus the battery drains faster because it’s running at 100%… It can do this because again it’s not generating as much heat as the TSMC chip. The TSMC chip runs hotter and thus starts throttling (ramping down CPU speed) sooner which will cause whatever application you’re using to ‘slow down’ but with a side affect of the battery lasting longer. Case in point if you were rendering video with let’s say iMovie on iOS with the Samsung chip, it would be done quicker – because it’s staying at high CPU usage for longer- than the TSMC chip, but when the TSMC chip completes, it *might* have more battery life left because it did the task slower. Please update the article with real info and not the stuff that’s been floating around the blogosphere.
THIS!
Journalists with no background in engineering wont have a clue.
Just a parrot repeating what others are saying!
I’m trying to make sense about what you’ve written.
“The only problem is, Samsungs chip is smaller… meaning it produces LESS HEAT… meaning it can run at 100% longer WITHOUT throttling and thus the battery drains faster because it’s running at 100%”
1) If a CPU is being “throttled”, it is being slowed down instead of running at 100% (which it is doing in the tests).
2) If a CPU produces more heat it is LESS efficient than another CPU that runs cooler, since heat is wasted energy… Which means that the hotter CPU would be using more battery power, NOT the cooler CPU (as you claim).
3) You also claim that the TSMC CPU is being slowed down. But we know that the OPPOSITE is true. The TSMC CPU has been benchmarked as FASTER than the Samsung CPU!
A same architecture CPU tabbed at 14nm SHOULD be faster and be more efficient with battery power than a 16nm version of the same processor. It SHOULD be, but in this case it ISN’T!
He is talking about different CPU operation modes.
If you’ve followed this topic closely, you should know that someone had repeated ArsTech’s test, with a little twist: he had redone the Geekbench test twice; for the second test he’s using the same settings as Aristech, and for the first test he leaved screen on, wifi off, LTE on but SIM removed. And the result is surprising (or not):
1st: Screen ON, LTE ON, TSMC A9 last 204 mins, Samsung A9 lasts 201 mins.
2nd: Screen OFF, LTE OFF: TSMC A9 last 320 mins, Samsung A9 lasts 250 mins.
He’s doing the test on the same two devices. Doing some calculation and you’ll find that with extra power drain by screen and LTE module, Samsung A9 SHOULD last only 163 minutes. But it lasts almost identical time as TSMC A9 in real world.
You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure this out: by turn off the screen and LTE module, you’ve triggered a special power conserving mode on TSMC A9.
The Geekbench test is bogus, since it’s doing the test keeps the CPU continuously running at the same level of usage (actually it’s 30%+30%, not 100%), instead of assigning the same amount of tasks to different CPU. If one CPU is set to power conserving mode, which will lower the internal clock rate, “same level of usage” would result in different computing performance during the test. In other words, in the second test (as well as ArsTech’s test) Samsung A9 could finished 1,000,000 computing tasks, while the TSMC A9 just finished 800,000 tasks, at the same time.
It’s unknown why the iOS would trigger power conserving mode on TSMC A9 but not on Samsung A9. Maybe Apple had set different threshold, or it could simply be a bug in iPhone 6s firmware. It’s high possible that the Geekbench would debunk itself if they set the designated CPU usage at different level.
Nevertheless, it’s NOT due to 14nm or 16nm process, and you shall NOT expect your battery life is 25% longer (or shorter), since you will NOT be able to play games with your screen OFF. 14nm process and 16nm process are the same generation, so the difference on both battery and power usage won’t be so significant for the same architect.
“It’s unknown why the iOS would trigger power conserving mode on TSMC A9 but not on Samsung A9. Maybe Apple had set different threshold, or it could simply be a bug in iPhone 6s firmware. It’s high possible that the Geekbench would debunk itself if they set the designated CPU usage at different level.”
If true, it means there is a bug in Samsung A9 design. Mobile chip will always error on the power conservation mode by design.
Or more likely, a bug in iPhone 6S firmware.
Yeah, I’m not sure I buy what you’re saying. I read about Consumer Reports testing of iP 6s’s with the two chips today, and they found very little difference in heat production in their tests…which were done in various usage situations (web browsing, music playing, etc) and which showed between 5 and 10 hours (IIRC) of battery life, depending on the activity.
I don’t think they were running those CPUs at 100% for 5 hours. Perhaps others have run these tests full-out, but not CR (who found battery consumption in these real-life-usage scenarios varied only a few percent between the two chips, just like Apple claimed).
Given the number creditable sites collecting data from from thousands of iPhone 6S devices, a clear trend has emerged. It appears there is something systemically wrong with Samsung’s 14nm process.
From talking with semiconductor industry engineers who is working with both TSMC 16nm process and Samsung 14nm process. They indicated that Samsung 14nm leakage current (the quiescent current drawn when the phone is not active) is much higher than that of TSMC 16nm. Reduction of leakage current is sole purpose of Finfet transistors. Whatever Samsung is doing (maybe to avoid violating TSMC FinFet transistor manufacturing patents) it appears is not working for them. This would be the source of the higher power consumption and battery drain.
“iPad sales have been falling, they’re still pretty good”
Well, if you condider ~45,000,000 units a year just good.
This ‘get rid of Samsung rumor’ circulated last year. Apple is not going to get rid of Samsung unless price wise Samsung cannot compete. Apple needs more than one supplier to keep the cost of the A series chip down. Multiple suppliers ensures competitive prices.
@ Max load, iPhone6S TSMC A9 runs at ~35C. iPhone6S Samsung A9 runs at ~40C. There are not going to be any throttling at those temperature.
Unless you have a bad chip.