The article doesn't say if it's risk production or HVM, though.
It's quite early for A9 HVM though since the iPhone 6s will launch in 10 months or so.
Not only do they seem closer, camera sensors and lenses aren't quite as monopolized as high performance cpus, are they? So it makes even more sense for Apple to prioritze the CPUs, since they can likely pit suppliers for camera sensors and lenses against each other for features and price (they don't have monopsony power, but they do wield great market power) while they've got less sway over Intel, as Intel sort of stands alone. Even just having the threat of a competitive CPU gives them more power vs. Intel than it would in a more competitive market like I assume (with no real knowledge of the market, so correct me if I'm wrong) camera lenses and sensors are.There is probably tons of kinks to sort out to get the yield where they want. Its going to be relatively big core juding by history of Apple progression, so SS needs a lot of time. A9 is mass production in the extreme from the go, so even if they start now, would we call it a slow ramp? Now they get a rev a2 in 6 months to raise yields and get ready to ramp the nessesary volume from release day.
Secondly judged by former cores an a9 on finfet, beeing able to raise freq especially with higher tdp eg. 6 watt, in my eyes seems like an extreme potent cpu - from a brute performance perspective - not even couting the lesser leaking from the finfet. That gives other possibilities than just iphone. IMO its the software stack hindering adoption. But looking at history my guess is Apple absolutely wants independence from suppliers here. They want to control everything if they can. From cpu to camera sensor to lens. And my take is they are closer on independence on the first one than the last two technologies.
Not only do they seem closer, camera sensors and lenses aren't quite as monopolized as high performance cpus, are they? So it makes even more sense for Apple to prioritze the CPUs, since they can likely pit suppliers for camera sensors and lenses against each other for features and price (they don't have monopsony power, but they do wield great market power) while they've got less sway over Intel, as Intel sort of stands alone. Even just having the threat of a competitive CPU gives them more power vs. Intel than it would in a more competitive market like I assume (with no real knowledge of the market, so correct me if I'm wrong) camera lenses and sensors are.
Huh, sadly we likely won't know the truth to the 'production' claims until we get quarterly reports from certain equipment manufacturers in a bit over a month. Because at least through the end of Q3 we know that no one other than Intel actually has the equipment necessary for FinFET HVM.
As we have discussed on past conference calls, the difficult implementation of 3D FinFET microprocessors to high production manufacturing. Once again a major logic manufacturer delayed their FinFET ramp. We had then requested to prepare LSA tools for shipment for the end of the third quarter which was delayed. These LSA shipments for the most part caused our third quarter revenue to be less than projected. These LSA systems have been rescheduled for shipment in the fourth quarter.
There is anticipation of some minor ramp that we’re aware of in the fourth quarter. There is capacity in place currently. We have equipment that has been relegated to the 14 and 16 nanometer note, primarily 14. And so at this time we have capacity in place to take care of that need as they begin to ramp slowly. So we don’t see a significant ramp in Q4 in FinFETs. We see that occurring later or in 2015 and it’s really hard to project when. The current anticipation is they’re all being overly optimistic as to when they’re going to solve their problems. But the yields on the major companies right now is in the 10% to 20%. And so it's not giving them much indication as to when they’ll grow that problem, that area. So it appears to me right now and the problems aren’t really consistent in one area. They vary in the processing and possibly design.
Per Ultratech's October conference call:
I am reasonably confident that this "major logic manufacturer" is Samsung.
Per Ultratech's October conference call:
I am reasonably confident that this "major logic manufacturer" is Samsung.
Anyone knowing Samsung knew it was nothing but PR
Did it escape you that doing such claims is punishable by laws and that they could be sued by any investor ?.
Of course not, but , hey, let s speculate wildly that Samsung is lying..
Saying you are in production without specifying when you have done a small ramp in not technically lying, just misleading. But by this definition, who knows how long Intel has been in 14nm production? Since Q4'13 or so.
At this rate Samsung was also in production at the time...
The fact that they have a customer is an indication that they have at least some yields, i would call them mediocre if at 10% and good enough if at 20%, indeed that was the number posted in this very thread, now let s look at the economics.
Assuming 60mm2 chips are fabbed they would get about 1000 chips out of a waffer, at 10% yields, that is 100 chips, the cost is such that it is not worth to produce for others but since Samsung, like Intel, has a finished product that leverage the CPUs margins they could use it in high end phones at a cost of about 70-80$/chip.
For Apple it s different, they need at least 200 chips/waffer to get to 35-40$/chip, although high this cost can easily be amortized by Apple since, like Samsung and Intel, they have the mean to sell it within a high margins item, the very fact that they have this customer imply yields that are at least 20%.
Nonsense. $40 is more than a fair price to pay for a high-end processor (I really hate the word app(lication)(s) processor, whatever that even means). Apple should be happy that the smartphone race to the bottom isn't impacting their sales, since the iPhone 6 (Plus)'s price is a lot higher than anything else in the market. I don't think the A8(X)'s price is too far from that number.A$35-$40 apps processor would hurt Apple's bottom line quite a bit (i.e. impact measured in billions of dollars).
Nonsense. $40 is more than a fair price to pay for a high-end processor (I really hate the word app(lication)(s) processor, whatever that even means). Apple should be happy that the smartphone race to the bottom isn't impacting their sales, since the iPhone 6 (Plus)'s price is a lot higher than anything else in the market. I don't think the A8(X)'s price is too far from that number.
Don't forget that Apple's price has to include the R&D amortization that went into designing the chip in the first place. Craptastic yields are not their only concern when it comes to $/die.
Nonsense. $40 is more than a fair price to pay for a high-end processor (I really hate the word app(lication)(s) processor, whatever that even means). Apple should be happy that the smartphone race to the bottom isn't impacting their sales, since the iPhone 6 (Plus)'s price is a lot higher than anything else in the market. I don't think the A8(X)'s price is too far from that number.
Finally it seems someone can catch or at least come closer Intel fabs. I bet Samsung 14nm FinFET will come later than Intel 14nm, but not too late as many fabs will be. Seems like FinFet and 14 nanometers are both a big challenge for all foundries(include Intel), so Samsung is really doing the things very well. If they can still give continuity to Moore's Law on processors.
If Intel does deliver what they claim, we buy the naming of their 14nm process, the rest are effectively slinging a load of BS to the non-technical masses this generation.
Yes. Poaching Intel's, ARM's, and IBM's chip engineers ain't cheap
I have heard that Apple routinely offers 40%+ salary increases to employees at top chip companies to lure them over. These guys are deadly serious about developing great processors.