4 ms·
They were designed to the same spec, and had to pass the same suite of compatibility tests. However, they handled the implementation details differently. >Arc
by GeekyBear 6y ago
They were designed to the same spec, and had to pass the same suite of compatibility tests. However, they handled the implementation details differently.
>Architectural licensees get a set of specs and a testing suite that they have to pass, the rest is up to them. If they want to make a processor that is faster, slower, more efficient, smaller, or anything else than the one ARM supplies, this is what they have to do.
https://semiaccurate.com/2013/08/07/a-long-look-at-how-arm-licenses-chips/ https://semiaccurate.com/2013/08/07/a-long-look-at-how-arm-l...
- p_l 6y agoHummingbird and A4 were co-developed originally by Samsung and Apple, but the companies parted ways before finishing either one. That's why I mention common ancestry (which they don't share with Qualcomm's custom design, for example)
- GeekyBear 6y agoApple did use the Hummingbird part (which was developed by Samsung and optimized by Intrinsity using their custom EDA software) and Apple did later buy Intrinsity. However, neither Apple or Intrinsity had any IP rights over Samsung's core, as far as I ever saw.
- p_l 6y agoMy understanding of the event chain is that originally there was a common project, and both parties had rights to use the IP from it, but without any rights to further changes after the split. Didn't know the part about Intrinsity, thanks for that :)