4 ms·

The iPhone SoC was made by Samsung in Austin for many years, so this has already happened. At the time everyone assumed that Apple wanted to diversify away from

The iPhone SoC was made by Samsung in Austin for many years, so this has already happened. At the time everyone assumed that Apple wanted to diversify away from Samsung for other reasons which were not necessarily financial.

klelatti 4y ago
I bet the Samsung SoC's were a lot cheaper though as less sophisticated. Samsung -> TSMC got them away from a competitor, possibly cheaper (US -> Taiwan) and onto better roadmap. This is quite different and possibly a further sign of Apple spending to diversify supply chains.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- tooltalk 4y ago
  It was probably a bit cheaper, but Apple was Samsung's anchor customer since mid 2000's. I don't think Apple used Samsung's 10nm or 7nm -- ie, there was no "dual sourcing" or "diversifying" supply chains to speak of. I think Apple's move to TSMC was largley driven by Apple's China/Taiwan first outsourcing practices.
GeekyBear 4y ago
> At the time everyone assumed that Apple wanted to diversify away from Samsung for other reasons which were not necessarily financial. When Apple was dual sourcing chips from both Samsung and TSMC, the Samsung version of the A9 had a ~10% reduction in battery life compared to the TSMC version, although the performance was nearly identical otherwise. https://www.tomshardware.com/news/iphone-6s-a9-samsung-vs-tsmc,30306.html https://www.tomshardware.com/news/iphone-6s-a9-samsung-vs-ts...
- metadat 4y ago
  The article you linked actually reports the Samsung version lasted longer than the TSMC chip (the opposite of what you've stated). Samsung was on a 14nm fab process. TSMC was on a 16nm fab process.
  - GeekyBear 4y ago
    My bad. I should just say that there were the same silicon lottery issues we see when we buy a chip from a single vendor, eg Intel today, compounded by the fact that the process nodes were different too. The popular narrative at the time was that TSMC chips had the better battery life, but it depended on those silicon lottery results. >What we know is that there isn't enough information currently out there to accurately determine whether the TSMC or Samsung A9 SoC has better power consumption, and more importantly just how large any difference might be. 1-on-1 comparisons under controlled conditions can provide us with some insight in to how the TSMC and Samsung A9s compare, but due to the natural variation in chip quality, it's possible to end up testing two atypical phones and never know it. https://www.anandtech.com/show/9708/analyzing-apple-statement-for-tsmc-and-samsung-a9 https://www.anandtech.com/show/9708/analyzing-apple-statemen... However, when the chips fell as they may, Apple single sourced the A10 at TSMC, and they would have had the largest number of performance data points.
- tooltalk 4y ago
  dual sourcing? I thought TSMC's 16nm was just transitional to wean off Samsung's US operation completely in favor of TSMC in Taiwan. Did Apple "dual-source" at Samsung/TSMC 10nm? or 7nm?

klelatti 4y ago

I bet the Samsung SoC's were a lot cheaper though as less sophisticated. Samsung -> TSMC got them away from a competitor, possibly cheaper (US -> Taiwan) and onto better roadmap. This is quite different and possibly a further sign of Apple spending to diversify supply chains.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
tooltalk 4y ago
It was probably a bit cheaper, but Apple was Samsung's anchor customer since mid 2000's. I don't think Apple used Samsung's 10nm or 7nm -- ie, there was no "dual sourcing" or "diversifying" supply chains to speak of. I think Apple's move to TSMC was largley driven by Apple's China/Taiwan first outsourcing practices.

GeekyBear 4y ago

> At the time everyone assumed that Apple wanted to diversify away from Samsung for other reasons which were not necessarily financial. When Apple was dual sourcing chips from both Samsung and TSMC, the Samsung version of the A9 had a ~10% reduction in battery life compared to the TSMC version, although the performance was nearly identical otherwise. https://www.tomshardware.com/news/iphone-6s-a9-samsung-vs-tsmc,30306.html https://www.tomshardware.com/news/iphone-6s-a9-samsung-vs-ts...

metadat 4y ago
The article you linked actually reports the Samsung version lasted longer than the TSMC chip (the opposite of what you've stated). Samsung was on a 14nm fab process. TSMC was on a 16nm fab process.
- GeekyBear 4y ago
  My bad. I should just say that there were the same silicon lottery issues we see when we buy a chip from a single vendor, eg Intel today, compounded by the fact that the process nodes were different too. The popular narrative at the time was that TSMC chips had the better battery life, but it depended on those silicon lottery results. >What we know is that there isn't enough information currently out there to accurately determine whether the TSMC or Samsung A9 SoC has better power consumption, and more importantly just how large any difference might be. 1-on-1 comparisons under controlled conditions can provide us with some insight in to how the TSMC and Samsung A9s compare, but due to the natural variation in chip quality, it's possible to end up testing two atypical phones and never know it. https://www.anandtech.com/show/9708/analyzing-apple-statement-for-tsmc-and-samsung-a9 https://www.anandtech.com/show/9708/analyzing-apple-statemen... However, when the chips fell as they may, Apple single sourced the A10 at TSMC, and they would have had the largest number of performance data points.
tooltalk 4y ago
dual sourcing? I thought TSMC's 16nm was just transitional to wean off Samsung's US operation completely in favor of TSMC in Taiwan. Did Apple "dual-source" at Samsung/TSMC 10nm? or 7nm?