Technology Android

[dilla]

Exynos S10 users are butthurt over this on Reddit: https://9to5google.com/2020/03/23/gpu-updates-pixel-4/amp/

With the S7, the SD variant had shit battery life and maybe performance too. The Exynos model had an extra 2 or 3 hours of SOT reported by users and we SD users just had to suck it up. Now it seems the tables have turned and the SD variant is vastly superior and Exynos users are missing out on quite a few updates and features and not just the one mentioned above. I think they got the Night Mode update much later than the SD variant and some other stuff too. The S10 sub is full of salt with those Exynos users promising to never buy Samsung again lol

 

[dilla]

I think it was about two years ago when AMD blew the lid off its Ryzen introduction and how hard @masta247 got about it lol

I don't follow hardware news as closely so I don't know if the best AMD outperforms the best Intel as yet, but I do know price and power usage is much lower on AMD and many people prefer that when building their systems.

And then I also saw this:

Looks like the 2060, or whatever GPU it had was the bottleneck for the CPU, so AMD has reached that point with Ryzen that its really shining bright and can be seriously considered for gaming.

This is more of a personal take but Apple is going to miss out if they keep staying in bed with Intel and ignore the AMD offerings. I've heard more about possible ARM MacBooks within the next year or two than I have about Apple adopting AMD.

 

[masta247]

I think it was about two years ago when AMD blew the lid off its Ryzen introduction and how hard @masta247 got about it lol

I don't follow hardware news as closely so I don't know if the best AMD outperforms the best Intel as yet, but I do know price and power usage is much lower on AMD and many people prefer that when building their systems.

And then I also saw this:

Looks like the 2060, or whatever GPU it had was the bottleneck for the CPU, so AMD has reached that point with Ryzen that its really shining bright and can be seriously considered for gaming.

This is more of a personal take but Apple is going to miss out if they keep staying in bed with Intel and ignore the AMD offerings. I've heard more about possible ARM MacBooks within the next year or two than I have about Apple adopting AMD.

There is no comparison at this point. AMD are delivering over twice the performance per watt. They also offer 50% more cores per $, each of them on par or just a little faster than Intel's. Then the roadmap - AMD releasing a new Zen 3 core (with Ryzen 4000 desktop processors) in a couple of months, which will further offer double-digit performance increases over their current Zen 2 core. Intel is still on the 2015 Skylake core, just offering more of them, and they don't have anything faster in their roadmaps (Ice Lake processors aren't faster in mobile and will never exist in desktop). Intel's chips are also on the 14nm process and are much hotter than AMD's 7nm chips.

From a user's perspective, no reasons now exist to get an Intel chip as they are significantly behind in all possible regards. I'm really happy about what AMD managed to achieve - they delivered a lot of progress in the CPU space that was stagnating for over 8 years with Intel. That said, Intel has existing contracts and mind share, so they are still rewarded for this.. to the point they are struggling to meet demand.

 

[masta247]

Apple revealed the new iPad Pros today. I really like that Magic Keyboard, or whatever they called it, but it's the usual price-gouging at $300 for the 11" and $350 for the 12.9."

When you wrote that I thought you meant the prices of the new iPads and was excited for a second, lol. That's the price of the entry-level iPad and not much less than I paid for the original Air that I still absolutely love, which at the time was the most flagship tablet far exceeding anyone's wildest expectations. I got it then for $400-ish days after launch in Hong Kong. Wow, how things have changed, now it's almost the price of its keyboard accessory!

I look forward to a new mid-range iPad. I'm not a fan of the Pros as multiple great cameras or quad speakers don't really resonate with me, as I would never ever use them on a tablet.

I got my girlfriend the 2019 Air and that's a sweet spot tablet that feels like a true successor to the 2013 Air (I can't believe it's served me for 7 years now!).
I'll keep my Air for as long as it works, since it's more than good enough for Netflix, music, web browsing, etc, which is literally what I use iPads for. It even runs PUBG well. I find it ridiculous and funny that 7 years later you can still buy the exact same tablet in the exact same chassis and same display, just with a faster processor for $300 brand new from an Apple store.

Alternatively, if Apple launches another reasonably priced tablet (below the magic $500 threshold) that is just an amazing screen with iOS and a fast chipset, I'd probably get that. Perhaps the 2019 Air's successor, if they decide to further upgrade the design and display size/bezel trim while keeping it light would be my best bet. I don't like their Pro lines, and getting their budget line would feel like getting a device I already own that's almost a decade old, just snappier.

 

[dilla]

When you wrote that I thought you meant the prices of the new iPads and was excited for a second, lol. That's the price of the entry-level iPad and not much less than I paid for the original Air that I still absolutely love, which at the time was the most flagship tablet far exceeding anyone's wildest expectations. I got it then for $400-ish days after launch in Hong Kong. Wow, how things have changed, now it's almost the price of its keyboard accessory!

I look forward to a new mid-range iPad. I'm not a fan of the Pros as multiple great cameras or quad speakers don't really resonate with me, as I would never ever use them on a tablet.

I got my girlfriend the 2019 Air and that's a sweet spot tablet that feels like a true successor to the 2013 Air (I can't believe it's served me for 7 years now!).
I'll keep my Air for as long as it works, since it's more than good enough for Netflix, music, web browsing, etc, which is literally what I use iPads for. It even runs PUBG well. I find it ridiculous and funny that 7 years later you can still buy the exact same tablet in the exact same chassis and same display, just with a faster processor for $300 brand new from an Apple store.

Alternatively, if Apple launches another reasonably priced tablet (below the magic $500 threshold) that is just an amazing screen with iOS and a fast chipset, I'd probably get that. Perhaps the 2019 Air's successor, if they decide to further upgrade the design and display size/bezel trim while keeping it light would be my best bet. I don't like their Pro lines, and getting their budget line would feel like getting a device I already own that's almost a decade old, just snappier.

Yeah, that's how obnoxious the pricing is on Apple accessories. We all know the Apple Premium on the device but the accessories? It's $120 for an Apple battery case. Something Zerolemon or Mophie sells for less than half of that. But that is how it is.

Yeah, I love my iPad. My MBP pretty much stays stationary at my desk because I use it with my eGPU daily, along with my monitor. To unhook even two cables feels like a chore when it's much easier to just grab the iPad and browse on my bed. I also take my iPad Pro to work and do work on it there.

I still paid a lot for my 10.5 Pro. It was on "sale" for $500 at Microcenter around May of 2018. The new, 11" Pros came out later that Fall and while they made some nice improvements on it, including USB-C, my usage wouldn't have warranted that bump in power. I think the cheapest 11" is $800? Never say never, but...never would I put that kind of money on a tablet. Maybe I'd do it for the 12.9" but not the 11" or 10.5".

I needed the Apple Pencil, though, and the "regular" iPads didn't get Pencil support until last year, a whole year after I bought mine.

But it's been great. I hate that iOS doesn't have a system-wide ad blocker like Android does with AdGuard and some other apps/services, so I started using a VPN late last year and have it set to block ads and trackers. Well, it blocks the ads decently. I guess you never know about trackers but Apple has made Safari relatively safe and secure in that regards too, and that's what I use on iOS as my browser. So with Windscribe, using my iPad for browsing the web is a lot like using it on desktop. Previously, I was using the AdGuard extensions in Safari on the iPad and it was good but I think a VPN is better. Plus, it was $50 for two years, as part of a package/bundle of Mac apps, so it ends up less than $1 a month.

Apple just needs to polish up iPad OS and make it feel like an OS catered towards the iPad instead of a Frankenstein iOS fit to an iPad.

 

[dilla]

There is no comparison at this point. AMD are delivering over twice the performance per watt. They also offer 50% more cores per $, each of them on par or just a little faster than Intel's. Then the roadmap - AMD releasing a new Zen 3 core (with Ryzen 4000 desktop processors) in a couple of months, which will further offer double-digit performance increases over their current Zen 2 core. Intel is still on the 2015 Skylake core, just offering more of them, and they don't have anything faster in their roadmaps (Ice Lake processors aren't faster in mobile and will never exist in desktop). Intel's chips are also on the 14nm process and are much hotter than AMD's 7nm chips.

From a user's perspective, no reasons now exist to get an Intel chip as they are significantly behind in all possible regards. I'm really happy about what AMD managed to achieve - they delivered a lot of progress in the CPU space that was stagnating for over 8 years with Intel. That said, Intel has existing contracts and mind share, so they are still rewarded for this.. to the point they are struggling to meet demand.

But do OEMs still offer the Intel-equivalent AMD chips as their build options on their sites? Or would someone need to build their own desktop to be able to get an AMD chip that is on-par or better than what they would've gotten had they gone the Intel route? Laptops are out of the question because who builds their own laptop?

Some OEMs, like Dell or HP, sell a model with an option of a Ryzen or Core i5/i7. I'm asking do we trust OEMs to not suck up to Intel and offer a powerful i5 or i7 from Intel but then offer some dinky Ryzen model, several levels below the Intel offerings, just to encourage people to buy the Intel CPU with a higher clockspeed?

 

[Casey]

Any good laptops with those AMD chips that can compare to the Dell XPS 13 2020?

 

[dilla]

But do OEMs still offer the Intel-equivalent AMD chips as their build options on their sites? Or would someone need to build their own desktop to be able to get an AMD chip that is on-par or better than what they would've gotten had they gone the Intel route? Laptops are out of the question because who builds their own laptop?

Some OEMs, like Dell or HP, sell a model with an option of a Ryzen or Core i5/i7. I'm asking do we trust OEMs to not suck up to Intel and offer a powerful i5 or i7 from Intel but then offer some dinky Ryzen model, several levels below the Intel offerings, just to encourage people to buy the Intel CPU with a higher clockspeed?

Replying to my own comment because it looks like Dave Lee had the same questions and concerns I did.

It's all up to the OEMs to adopt the equivalent AMD processor to their Intel offerings and that's the issue; it's all up to the OEMS, at least when it comes to laptops. He mentions building your own desktop with an AMD setup is simple, as it always has been. But even if we're not talking about high-end gaming laptops, you'd still like to see that performance in all laptops, where the offerings are an AMD and an Intel chip and on equal footing. And I don't think many OEMs are going to play fair when it comes to that and will either just offer Intel or offer a high-end Intel CPU and then a mid-range AMD CPU and market it (and build it) as a budget option, cheaper than the Intel setup.

 

[dilla]

Imagine if this analyst is correct and the new iPhone SE, due to be released soon, is $399. Those specs, the 11's processor, for $400.

I would call this a mid-range phone, but aside from being in the packaging of the iPhone 8 with the chip of the 11, the only compromise I can think of is the screen?

I'd call it a mid-range device too but 4 years later, it still has the latest iOS. Not many Android flagships can say that, let alone the mid-range devices.

And $399?! Rumored price, but it says the 8 is $499, so it shouldn't be too far off from that.

 

[dilla]

The iPad was announced and/or released a decade ago today. Crazy how the initial thoughts and impressions on it were that it was just a "stretched out iPhone" and yet it started the boom in tablets by the industry. Well, today there's really only one relevant OEM for tablets, at least in the US, but it's crazy how long it has been since the announcement (doesn't feel that long) and how the features have changed. Hardware, software, and the actual applications of the iPad today versus what we thought it would be a decade ago.

On second thought, I guess Microsoft still makes tablets, if you consider the Surface lineup. But those still have full fledge notebook internals, if I'm not mistaken, but I also don't know how they benchmark against Apple's chipsets. But Samsung tablet releases seem to generate little-to-no interest or hype and I think LG and Moto/Lenovo just straight up stopped tablet releases. I'm sure millions of newer Android tablets have been sold in the past couple of years but I imagine they're from no-name brands and have significant corners cut.

Maybe these OEMs surprise us sometime in the future with a release that challenges the iPad but it looks like that time is too far gone; the power of the Apple brand and the iPad moniker might not be enough to sway the vast majority of people, if this were to ever happen. Sort of like what AMD is facing right now against Intel after being in the shadows for 10+ years.

 

[masta247]

Imagine if this analyst is correct and the new iPhone SE, due to be released soon, is $399. Those specs, the 11's processor, for $400.

I would call this a mid-range phone, but aside from being in the packaging of the iPhone 8 with the chip of the 11, the only compromise I can think of is the screen?

I'd call it a mid-range device too but 4 years later, it still has the latest iOS. Not many Android flagships can say that, let alone the mid-range devices.

And $399?! Rumored price, but it says the 8 is $499, so it shouldn't be too far off from that.

I expect a low-end iPhone to save a lot on the cameras and the screen. Also, when you think about it, they will be just reusing parts they already had - made for their older phones. They just need to manufacture more of them, which is much cheaper these days. Almost no new R&D expenses needed. The iPhone 11 chips will be dirt cheap to manufacture soon as everyone is jumping to the newest manufacturing nodes and foundries are offering their older ones for super cheap as they ramp them down and move to the newer nodes. Software support is already in place for those chips. It's a great way to release a budget product and a win-win to them and the customers.

Definitely a very commendable move from Apple as well. The fact they are selling $300 iPads and potentially $400 iPhones, and that they are really good, is great. It is actually better than Android OEMs can say today. Apple definitely went a long way, and Android camp definitely strayed from what made them great. I really grew a dislike towards Samsung over their last few generations and how they priced mediocre products. Google's definitely a shadow of its former self - all products that keep them afloat are products they came up with during their glory days. The other Android OEMs are pretty much non-existent outside of China. Huawei would definitely be a market leader by now, and they were a breath of fresh air on a stale market, but it got preemptively shut down by the US government, lol.

 

[masta247]

The iPad was announced and/or released a decade ago today. Crazy how the initial thoughts and impressions on it were that it was just a "stretched out iPhone" and yet it started the boom in tablets by the industry. Well, today there's really only one relevant OEM for tablets, at least in the US, but it's crazy how long it has been since the announcement (doesn't feel that long) and how the features have changed. Hardware, software, and the actual applications of the iPad today versus what we thought it would be a decade ago.

On second thought, I guess Microsoft still makes tablets, if you consider the Surface lineup. But those still have full fledge notebook internals, if I'm not mistaken, but I also don't know how they benchmark against Apple's chipsets. But Samsung tablet releases seem to generate little-to-no interest or hype and I think LG and Moto/Lenovo just straight up stopped tablet releases. I'm sure millions of newer Android tablets have been sold in the past couple of years but I imagine they're from no-name brands and have significant corners cut.

Maybe these OEMs surprise us sometime in the future with a release that challenges the iPad but it looks like that time is too far gone; the power of the Apple brand and the iPad moniker might not be enough to sway the vast majority of people, if this were to ever happen. Sort of like what AMD is facing right now against Intel after being in the shadows for 10+ years.

For Microsoft tablets, their biggest thing is that they run Windows. No matter how fast iPads get, they won't be competing in the same market without Windows, X86 chips (like AMD's or Intel's), and their humongous software support. The operating system and ARM processors, no matter how fast, years later still can only support super mainstream programs in a rather limited extent. For anything but basic tasks, they still feel like toys, no matter how many "Pro" monikers and unreasonable price tags are associated with them.

The way I see it, iPads can now do 1% of the most popular tasks 90% as well as Windows on a super-light device with excellent battery life, perhaps another 1% of programs will have an app that maybe covers 30-50% of their full Windows/Mac version. At the same time, Windows and X86 will still be exclusive for the remaining 98% of programs, even if they are much less popular, and offer more advanced options in the 2% that iOS does too.

ARM chips, no matter how competitive they become in web browsing or video encoding, support a very limited number of software libraries, meaning they are orders of magnitude slower the less common the task becomes, and that's by design - they are a one-trick pony, which is why they can be so small and low-power - they don't have the "baggage" of dedicated parts for dealing with most software natively. While X86 chips have thousands of dedicated parts dedicated to natively handle immense numbers of workloads effectively, ARM chips specialize in a few that take place during most common use-cases and brute-force through everything else slowly chugging along with what they have, trying to decode complex instructions using hardware that only performs well with simple instructions.

With Windows, you can launch pretty much any program imaginable, including billions of really niche and exotic tools not listed on any online stores, supported by processors that natively support any task imaginable - that's where Microsoft dominates. iOS and Android can brag about how many apps they have in their stores, but truth is, EVERYTHING is on Windows, including stuff that wouldn't dream of being added to the Apple or Google Stores. I mean types of software and their complexity/performance. Wanna run that niche Japanese hentai game someone wrote 25 years ago? Windows will do that no problem. Want to work with that proprietary file format for getting X done? Odds are only Windows will do that.

iPad as the default computer is good enough for those who never needed more than the very basic tools, meaning it's a great alternative if it's much cheaper. For those who need a fast computer running a full-fledged operating system, iPad is still a perfect secondary media consumption tool. The current iPad Pros are competing in price with really advanced devices that you can actually do any work done on really well. If you want the simplicity of an iPad, I can't imagine at the very same time wanting to spend close to $1000 to get that.

I'm not saying Windows is the be-all and end-all operating system, but its software support, including legacy software support, is something nobody else can dream of coming close to in the foreseeable future. That's why Windows can't be replaced or competed with - you can just steal away bits of its market that never needed that. The fact that the fastest and most advanced devices also run Windows surely helps.
I see the "iPad Pro" literally more as a "Almost-A-Computer-Lite-But-We're-Charging-$999-For-It-Now-Lol-tm" - it definitely makes more sense at $300-$500. I'm a fan of iPads, but in their own lane.

 

[dilla]

For Microsoft tablets, their biggest thing is that they run Windows. No matter how fast iPads get, they won't be competing in the same market without Windows, X86 chips (like AMD's or Intel's), and their humongous software support. The operating system and ARM processors, no matter how fast, years later still can only support super mainstream programs in a rather limited extent. For anything but basic tasks, they still feel like toys, no matter how many "Pro" monikers and unreasonable price tags are associated with them.

The way I see it, iPads can now do 1% of the most popular tasks 90% as well as Windows on a super-light device with excellent battery life, perhaps another 1% of programs will have an app that maybe covers 30-50% of their full Windows/Mac version. At the same time, Windows and X86 will still be exclusive for the remaining 98% of programs, even if they are much less popular, and offer more advanced options in the 2% that iOS does too.

ARM chips, no matter how competitive they become in web browsing or video encoding, support a very limited number of software libraries, meaning they are orders of magnitude slower the less common the task becomes, and that's by design - they are a one-trick pony, which is why they can be so small and low-power - they don't have the "baggage" of dedicated parts for dealing with most software natively. While X86 chips have thousands of dedicated parts dedicated to natively handle immense numbers of workloads effectively, ARM chips specialize in a few that take place during most common use-cases and brute-force through everything else slowly chugging along with what they have, trying to decode complex instructions using hardware that only performs well with simple instructions.

With Windows, you can launch pretty much any program imaginable, including billions of really niche and exotic tools not listed on any online stores, supported by processors that natively support any task imaginable - that's where Microsoft dominates. iOS and Android can brag about how many apps they have in their stores, but truth is, EVERYTHING is on Windows, including stuff that wouldn't dream of being added to the Apple or Google Stores. I mean types of software and their complexity/performance. Wanna run that niche Japanese hentai game someone wrote 25 years ago? Windows will do that no problem. Want to work with that proprietary file format for getting X done? Odds are only Windows will do that.

iPad as the default computer is good enough for those who never needed more than the very basic tools, meaning it's a great alternative if it's much cheaper. For those who need a fast computer running a full-fledged operating system, iPad is still a perfect secondary media consumption tool. The current iPad Pros are competing in price with really advanced devices that you can actually do any work done on really well. If you want the simplicity of an iPad, I can't imagine at the very same time wanting to spend close to $1000 to get that.

I'm not saying Windows is the be-all and end-all operating system, but its software support, including legacy software support, is something nobody else can dream of coming close to in the foreseeable future. That's why Windows can't be replaced or competed with - you can just steal away bits of its market that never needed that. The fact that the fastest and most advanced devices also run Windows surely helps.
I see the "iPad Pro" literally more as a "Almost-A-Computer-Lite-But-We're-Charging-$999-For-It-Now-Lol-tm" - it definitely makes more sense at $300-$500. I'm a fan of iPads, but in their own lane.

So ARM would make sense for people with simple requirements from their devices, which would be, say, 85% of the world? Web browsing and media consumption versus something that would be used in a very specific profession? Like designing something in 3D?

I still feel like people use the iPad Pro for doing just that. I think some reviewers used their iPhones to shoot a video and then edited it on their iPads to show how capable it was. Same with editing photos and music production.

I understand that it may not do it as well as a machine that's $4K+, which is what these iMac Pros and the Surface-equivalent machine costs, but maybe the priority for these users is still something that they can be casual on and do serious work on but still be able to be more mobile with it. There would always be a need for a proper set up, but if many of these people can get away with using an ARM chipset to do all of that, that further lessens the pool of "pro" users that would truly need to utilize all that power.


It would be like a construction working owning a Ferrari of his own for personal use, but driving a semi truck or pick up truck for work. For those who need the power of 32 cores and 64GB of VRAM, they have a machine for it at work that they leave there and use a lightweight iPad Pro (or other tablet) for the times they're not at work.

 

[masta247]

So ARM would make sense for people with simple requirements from their devices, which would be, say, 85% of the world? Web browsing and media consumption versus something that would be used in a very specific profession? Like designing something in 3D?

If you think about it, the same 85% would also not need an iPad Pro then. Besides, I'm not so sure about these numbers, I think this largely depends on your circle. I don't really know anyone yet who does any editing or production work on an iPad. That would mean they'd be making their life really miserable trying to work on it for not much benefit. Thing is, if you want to do anything "Pro" the same money can get you a much better device to do your work on - these iPads are so expensive that you don't even need to spend more to get something that will offer incomparably better productivity. I don't mean only much higher performance, but also far superior software, better input devices, larger screens etc. iPads are convenient if your work relies on just looking information up and occasionally entering simple data, but you can do it exactly as well on the entry level $299 iPad.

As for ARM processors, even just doing my personal stuff I'd shoot myself if I had to use a current-gen ARM processor on my PC. That would just not be a good experience. It's fine for small apps and really simple programs, but even these have elements that will be painfully slow on ARM chips. Then there are instructions that won't even work on ARM chips, meaning programs won't work at all. To get a sense of the overall experience you might be able to check out the Snapdragon Windows laptops at the Microsoft Store. It's definitely not something you'd want to use. There are also reasons Apple has 101% interest in going ARM in their Macs but still haven't, despite the fact their ARM chips are insanely fast and miles ahead of any other ARM chips, and they have likely invested hundreds of millions of dollars in these. They'll likely have to resort to creating a whole new ecosystem for ARM, like they did when they ditched IBM for Intel. And then deal with the PR hit that even then some things will still be painfully slow compared to how they run on Windows and AMD/Intel chips.

 

[dilla]

If you think about it, the same 85% would also not need an iPad Pro then. Besides, I'm not so sure about these numbers, I think this largely depends on your circle. I don't really know anyone yet who does any editing or production work on an iPad. That would mean they'd be making their life really miserable trying to work on it for not much benefit. Thing is, if you want to do anything "Pro" the same money can get you a much better device to do your work on - these iPads are so expensive that you don't even need to spend more to get something that will offer incomparably better productivity. I don't mean only much higher performance, but also far superior software, better input devices, larger screens etc. iPads are convenient if your work relies on just looking information up and occasionally entering simple data, but you can do it exactly as well on the entry level $299 iPad.

As for ARM processors, even just doing my personal stuff I'd shoot myself if I had to use a current-gen ARM processor on my PC. That would just not be a good experience. It's fine for small apps and really simple programs, but even these have elements that will be painfully slow on ARM chips. Then there are instructions that won't even work on ARM chips, meaning programs won't work at all. To get a sense of the overall experience you might be able to check out the Snapdragon Windows laptops at the Microsoft Store. It's definitely not something you'd want to use. There are also reasons Apple has 101% interest in going ARM in their Macs but still haven't, despite the fact their ARM chips are insanely fast and miles ahead of any other ARM chips, and they have likely invested hundreds of millions of dollars in these. They'll likely have to resort to creating a whole new ecosystem for ARM, like they did when they ditched IBM for Intel. And then deal with the PR hit that even then some things will still be painfully slow compared to how they run on Windows and AMD/Intel chips.

My examples were just anecdotal. It was what I see a lot on the iPad and Apple subreddits, as well as what I see on YouTube and what some popular YTers say, so it's definitely not from experience.

One other thing that I have in the back of my mind is the Geekbench scores for multicore tasks that came out for the iPad Pros and showed them being similar to some notebooks. Namely MacBooks, and I think it was the 13" Pros. So does that just show the capability of performing tasks at that level but the fact that the iPads are on ARM and not being able to run the same programs and possibly complete all of the same tasks as a computer being the one limiting factor, albeit a large factor?

 

[dilla]

I was just reading this article on Google making its own chips when I was reminded Samsung still makes stuff for Apple.

https://www.axios.com/scoop-google-...oks-e5f8479e-4a38-485c-a264-9ef9cf68908c.html

So what exactly does it mean when they say that Samsung makes Apple's chipsets as well? Apple isn't using Exynos, is it? With all the complaining about the Exynos' being inferior to the SD variants of Samsung's flagships, this doesn't mean Apple is also dealing with similar issues because Samsung is making their chips too, right?

 

[masta247]

I was just reading this article on Google making its own chips when I was reminded Samsung still makes stuff for Apple.

https://www.axios.com/scoop-google-...oks-e5f8479e-4a38-485c-a264-9ef9cf68908c.html

So what exactly does it mean when they say that Samsung makes Apple's chipsets as well? Apple isn't using Exynos, is it? With all the complaining about the Exynos' being inferior to the SD variants of Samsung's flagships, this doesn't mean Apple is also dealing with similar issues because Samsung is making their chips too, right?

Samsung manufactures Apple's chips, Exynos chips and even some of Qualcomm's chips. They own the most advanced fabs (factories) second only to TSMC.

 

[dilla]

Samsung manufactures Apple's chips, Exynos chips and even some of Qualcomm's chips. They own the most advanced fabs (factories) second only to TSMC.
That's

Ah so manufacturing vs designing them. So Apple sends them the plans, Samsung's labs just make it and give it back to them?

I remember the iPhone 5 or 5S had a split supplier and TSMC was one of them. And I think one was supposedly inferior to the other one?

 

[masta247]

Ah so manufacturing vs designing them. So Apple sends them the plans, Samsung's labs just make it and give it back to them?

I remember the iPhone 5 or 5S had a split supplier and TSMC was one of them. And I think one was supposedly inferior to the other one?

Every cutting edge processor in the world is made either by Samsung or TSMC. Intel are the only company other than Samsung that designs and manufactures their own processors, except Samsung is the only one that also takes external orders.. and insane quantities of these at that.

Designs are a completely separate thing. Apple can design their own chips and work with Samsung to make them, AMD or Nvidia can design their own chips and work with Samsung to make them. Because it costs dozens of billions of dollars to get into chip manufacturing and the light-years of tech progress and experience that Samsung and TSMC have, nobody can enter that business anymore and just start making their own chips. The underlying logic is designed by Apple/AMD/Nvidia/Samsung in collaboration with the manufacturing divisions of Samsung/TSMC who provide guidance and support the process from the manufacturing point of view and then manufactured at Samsung or TSMC.

Over the last few years these two and Intel were competitive. Sometimes one was better than the other (when that iPhone came out TSMC's node was better than Samsung's, then Samsung's were better, now it's TSMC again).
At the moment TSMC has by far the best manufacturing nodes and are on track to do insane things with their 5nm and 3nm nodes coming up in 2021/2022. If you want your chips made at TSMC's 5/7nm EUV, you have to wait for close to a year now, despite the fact they are producing literally millions of processor cores every day. They are rolling in money and almost all of it goes back into R&D and equipment to develop even more advanced chip manufacturing technologies. It's impossible to catch up. Samsung is a bit behind - their technology is still amazing and bleeding edge, but most of the manufactured chips are faulty and have to be discarded. Intel is miles behind at an old 14nm node.

If you think that there are very few actual chipmakers, even funnier part is that each of those companies are using machinery from a single dutch maker. There isonly one company in the world capable of developing them. All of the 7nm, 14nm and pretty much all the progress of the last decade is made possible by ASML Holding, as everyone just uses their equipment with no other choices in the market.
A SINGLE line that can manufacture 3nm EUV processors costs over 4 BILLION USD at the moment. A single device for printing "cheaper" 7nm processors is $120 million, and you need tens or hundreds of them to fabricate your own processors on an industrial scale. And then billions in investment, decades of know-how, huge factories and cutting edge processor design backbone to work with these.
"Samsung announcing a new and advanced 5nm process" means Samsung learned to make mainstream processors using ASML's newest 5nm machinery (which is a huge achievement in its own right though). All the real process tech R&D happens at ASML with money coming in from Samsung, TSMC and Intel fueling it.
But also.. mess with the Dutch, or even just ASML, and you can't make any modern chips anymore. They really have all the power in the tech world.

 

[dilla]

lol wow I had no idea.

So one company makes the equipment that makes the chips. Only 2 or 3 big name companies make the chip after that. And all the OEMs use the parts from those 3 companies in their phones.

So in the case of the iPhone debacle many years ago, it was only at that time that TSMC was behind Samsung's chip, but really they go back and forth but right now it's TSMC in the lead?

Going back to the Snapdragon vs Exynos thing real quick, who does Qualcomm use to manufacture their chips? Are they in-house or do they make their "superior" chips at Samsung and Samsung just shrugs its shoulders and makes those superior chips anyway?

On another note, the OnePlus 8 released today and it looks like there's a lot of hype around this one. All the tech YTers I follow had their videos ready at the same time lol. UAC actually had a video titled along the lines of why the US doesn't really buy OnePlus phones.

I know they were the anti-flagship with the OnePlus2 or 3. I can't remember but it was like 2014 or 15 when I last saw this much hype for it. But I think it being GSM and having bands only for a few US carriers sort of soiled its debut in the US and its sales afterwards. I always felt the Xiaomi and the Huaweii phones never really took off in the US. I only hear the thoughts of users on Reddit and I'm sure they're non-NA users, likely in Europe or Asia. Whenever I see an article with a headline about a brand from China or something, I scroll past it because I know I'm never going to see that phone here.

At least OnePlus sells in the US and I don't need to go through a reseller to get it; I can just order from their site but 1+ has become just like all the other OEMs in terms of pricing. Their features are on-par or better than the competition but it's no longer considered the "anti-flagship."

I'll have to watch the video UAC put out to see what he says but I'm pretty sure he'll say what I'm saying now. Americans are a vastly different market than the rest of the world and I bet most people that don't keep up with tech have never even heard of OnePlus. I think they are only sold in one carrier's store, T-Mobile, so customers would likely have to go to a store and ask about the phone, if they're even interested in the first place.

I don't plan on changing my phone until it dies. I know, I always say that, but lol. But with TMo and Sprint merging, I imagine the lineup of phones to choose from will be much bigger when the time rolls around. Hopefully 5G will be more widespread and not a battery-killer like it is right now. But also hopefully his means this opens up the doors to getting exposure to more brands because their phones are now shipping with the bands for TMo and Sprint's spectrum together.

Some users have already started noticing their Sprint phones connecting to TMo bands near them, so the rollout, or whatever you call it, has already begun. So I'm assuming many of the bands for TMo are already built in to these phones, or for any carrier for that matter. But hopefully having access to TMo bands after this merger means that I won't have to worry about Sprint or TMo compatibility after this.