Welcome, Unregistered.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Reply
Old 23-Apr-2008, 15:34   #1
B3D News
Beyond3D News
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 440
Default Apple acquires PA Semi; Press proves lack of understanding.

It's official: the iPhone's future CPU will have a TDP of 25W! Or so mindlessly speculate Forbes and a variety of other websites following Apple's stunning acquisition of P.A. Semi, a manufacturer of power-efficient PowerPC-based CPUs.

Read the full news item
B3D News is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-Apr-2008, 18:59   #2
iwod
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 168
Default

Well if they use PowerVR it would be even better.
iwod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-Apr-2008, 22:04   #3
AlphaWolf
Specious Misanthrope
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Treading Water
Posts: 7,467
Default

iGame
AlphaWolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-Apr-2008, 16:40   #4
darkblu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,636
Default

interesting how that move suddenly makes the personal computing landscape just a tad more interesting..
darkblu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-Apr-2008, 05:08   #5
2senile
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Fantasy Land
Posts: 317
Default

Is it still a viable option for Apple to use a CPU from them for desktop/laptop, as an alternative to Intel?
Some work was done toward that end, with Apple staff actually working within PA Semi', before Apple made the move to Intel.

.. or has that time passed ?

Quote:
iGame
Apple game console, perhaps? Do they have the money to get into that game?
2senile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-Apr-2008, 05:30   #6
AlphaWolf
Specious Misanthrope
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Treading Water
Posts: 7,467
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2senile View Post
Apple game console, perhaps? Do they have the money to get into that game?
I was mostly joking, but their financial report (found here in pdf) listed about $9 billion in cash and cash equivalents with another $11 billion in short term investments. If they were inclined to try something, it seems like they have the money to do almost anything they want.
AlphaWolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-Apr-2008, 06:33   #7
2senile
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Fantasy Land
Posts: 317
Default

Very nice; maybe AMD should do an "Apple" & leave the WinTel stage! my turn to joke

Another question. Does the acquisition make sense for an Apple version of an Eee or is Intel the better/safer choice for such a product?

In fact, does anybody have thoughts on why Apple made this acquisition?
2senile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-Apr-2008, 06:48   #8
AlphaWolf
Specious Misanthrope
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Treading Water
Posts: 7,467
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2senile View Post
In fact, does anybody have thoughts on why Apple made this acquisition?
Quote:
Apple was "not interested in the startup's products or road map, but is buying the company for its intellectual property and engineering talent".
From the updates.
AlphaWolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-Apr-2008, 07:09   #9
aaronspink
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 2,570
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2senile View Post
Is it still a viable option for Apple to use a CPU from them for desktop/laptop, as an alternative to Intel?
Some work was done toward that end, with Apple staff actually working within PA Semi', before Apple made the move to Intel.
Considering all the info points to them killing the PA Semi product line, it appear to be simply a IP and employee based transaction.

Aaron Spink
speaking for myself inc.
aaronspink is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-Apr-2008, 07:25   #10
2senile
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Fantasy Land
Posts: 317
Default

Oh well, wish it had been more than that. Just to shake things up a bit.

Same reason Sun bought Montalvo, apparently.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04...buys_montalvo/

Quote:
A notice seen by The Register states that Sun "has acquired the technology assets" of the chip company, which has been working on a low-power x86 processor design. The Montalvo crew and IP will slot into Sun's Microelectronics business unit.
2senile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-Apr-2008, 12:12   #11
tangey
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 0x5FF6BC
Posts: 826
Default

With regard to Apple already having done semiconductor R&D "behind closed doors", this would fit in with the PowerVr licence to an "International Electronics Systems Company" back in July last year. This was the first occasion Imagination Technologies was not in a position to explicitedly mention by name the licence taker, and also the first time their IP was not licenced to a semi-conductor company. it is widely assumed to be Apple, a famously secretive company, licensing PowerVr SGX. Apple currently uses PowerVr MBX in the iphone and itouch via Samsung.

The licence announcement went on to state:-

"The SoCs to be developed under this license agreement will be produced for this new partner by Imagination’s existing semiconductor partners and/or new chip manufacturing partners"

Now at the time I assume this most likely referred to Samsung for a next get Soc for next gen iphones, I'm starting to think otherwise as Samsungs latest chips appears to not be using IMG IP.

Lead time from licence sign to product has been typically 18-24 months for IMG, that points to 1st half of 2009 for product launch if true.
tangey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-Apr-2008, 12:31   #12
Arun
Unknown.
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 4,877
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tangey View Post
Lead time from licence sign to product has been typically 18-24 months for IMG, that points to 1st half of 2009 for product launch if true.
But we don't know if this wasn't signed before; it very well could have been signed as the design for the iPhone 2G ended and only announced later. If that wasn't the case, however, it could indeed refer to the iPhone 3.5G instead... But I'm skeptical. Or, of course, it could refer to something else such as Sony's PSP2 (after all, it's even more accurate to describe Sony in such terms than Apple).
__________________
Focusing on non-graphics projects in 2013 (but I still love triangles)
"[...]; the kind of variation which ensues depending in most cases in a far higher degree on the nature or constitution of the being, than on the nature of the changed conditions."
Arun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-Apr-2008, 13:39   #13
tangey
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 0x5FF6BC
Posts: 826
Default

In relation to 3G iphone (wandering off topic slightly), is there any impending reason why the current processor can't power the 3G iphone. The new iphone may have GPS and of course has 3G which is more processor intensive, but the graphics test done thus far on the phone would indicate that overall performance is at the very least on a Par with Nokia's N95, and its 3G + GPS etc. Ok the screen on the iphone is signficantly bigger, but it appears to me to be likely that the 3G iphones will have the same processor as the current ones.

I know you weren't suggesting otherwise but I have until recently thought the new iphone might have a different processor, perhaps they'll just clock it up a bit if necessary.
tangey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-Apr-2008, 14:42   #14
Simon F
Tea maker
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the Island of Sodor, where the steam trains lie
Posts: 4,382
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tangey View Post
In relation to 3G iphone (wandering off topic slightly), is there any impending reason why the current processor can't power the 3G iphone. .....
I know you weren't suggesting otherwise but I have until recently thought the new iphone might have a different processor, perhaps they'll just clock it up a bit if necessary.
One would imagine that the CPU has little to do (apart from driver support) with the transceiver technology used. According to the register the current iphone has 2 chips dedicated to cellular support. I'd imagine something else would be substituted for 3G... but IANA hardware engineer so take with the usual crystal of NaCl.
__________________
"Your work is both good and original. Unfortunately the part that is good is not original and the part that is original is not good." -(attributed to) Samuel Johnson

"I invented the term Object-Oriented, and I can tell you I did not have C++ in mind." Alan Kay
Simon F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-Apr-2008, 15:30   #15
Arun
Unknown.
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 4,877
Default

I agree with Simon; I've never seen a single piece of evidence that the application processor's performance would matter for the baseband (at least in a non-negligible way). And no matter that, the iPhone 2G's application processor is vastly more powerful than that of many 3G phones anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tangey View Post
I know you weren't suggesting otherwise but I have until recently thought the new iphone might have a different processor, perhaps they'll just clock it up a bit if necessary.
Did you mean 'might not have'? Either way, I do believe they could keep the current chip, yes. However, it's a 90nm chip and given the timeframe it would be bizarre bot to switch to 65nm. As for the ARM core itself, it would likely remain an ARM11 either way, just perhaps clocked a bit higher indeed.
__________________
Focusing on non-graphics projects in 2013 (but I still love triangles)
"[...]; the kind of variation which ensues depending in most cases in a far higher degree on the nature or constitution of the being, than on the nature of the changed conditions."
Arun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-Apr-2008, 18:38   #16
tangey
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 0x5FF6BC
Posts: 826
Default

"3G more processor intensive"....was meant to suggest what happens after the data gets passed from baseband to processor i.e. going from 2.5G to 3G can give a 10x increase in the data stream. So streaming video becomes higher-def and more Frames per second, webpages come in a lot quicker and to stop the rendering being a bottleneck requires quicker page rendering etc.


I actually meant that I assumed the processor *would* be changed in a 3G iphone, for the above reasons, but given the iphone procesor seems to have good performance (interpolating from the GLbenchmarks) maybe there is no need.
tangey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-Apr-2008, 18:43   #17
knux
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 26
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iwod View Post
Well if they use PowerVR it would be even better.
Well they are a PowerVR licensee, so it's not unlikely that they may integrate a PowerVR IP as part of an SoC
knux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-Apr-2008, 19:01   #18
tangey
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 0x5FF6BC
Posts: 826
Icon Exclaim

Quote:
Originally Posted by knux View Post
Well they are a PowerVR licensee, so it's not unlikely that they may integrate a PowerVR IP as part of an SoC

Allegedly
tangey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-Apr-2008, 19:02   #19
knux
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 26
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tangey View Post
Allegedly
It's almost definite that they are an IMGTEC licensee.
knux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-Apr-2008, 11:20   #20
tangey
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 0x5FF6BC
Posts: 826
Default

IMG just announced a licence to Samsung

"Imagination Technologies Group plc (LSE:IMG; "Imagination") - a leader in System-on-Chip Intellectual Property ("SoC IP") - reports that it has signed a licence agreement with Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”) with respect to certain POWERVR SGX graphics and VXD video IP cores.

This licence enables Samsung to manufacture semiconductor devices which integrate these IP cores from Imagination."

This is the first time IMG have announced a MANUFACTURING ONLY licence. In all other licences its been described as the company licensing use of a particular IP product or products.

So we have Samsung, who don't have an SGX and VXD licence themselves, being given the permission to manufacture parts that contain those IP cores. Samsung are a known provider of the current iphone processor to Apple. We previously have an "electonics systems" company licensing IMG's SGX and Video cores, the first time IMG did not mention a licencee by name. Apple are notoriously secretive.

Clearly todays license announcement tells me that Samsung will be producing processors containing IMG's next gen IP, on behalf of and for use by Apple.


And of relevance to this thread, I suspect at least part of the reason for the purchase of PA semi was to use their knowledge of Low power to design the Soc that Samsung will manufacture.

Last edited by tangey; 30-Apr-2008 at 11:28.
tangey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-Jul-2008, 14:05   #21
Rob Evans
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 44
Default

The comments ARM made as part of their second quarter results sheds new light on why Apple bought PA Semi

Extracts from http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080730/ukw004.html?.v=101

"Q2 also included four significant licenses with major OEMs: a leading handset OEM who bought a long-term architecture license to ARM's current and future technology for use in mobile computing ..."

There cannot be many "leading handset OEMs" that also have the semi expertise in low power processors required to do their own versions of ARM chips.
Rob Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-Jul-2008, 16:23   #22
Ike Turner
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 683
Default

Well there's Qualcomm too, no?
Ike Turner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-Jul-2008, 16:27   #23
Rob Evans
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 44
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ike Turner View Post
Well there's Qualcomm too, no?
I didn't realise Qualcomm made handsets.
Rob Evans is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:26.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.