AMD pretty much confirmed it here - http://www.anandtech.com/show/9886/amd-reveals-polaris-gpu-architecture/3
Middle Generation Console Upgrade Discussion [Scorpio, 4Pro]
- Status
AMD pretty much confirmed it here - http://www.anandtech.com/show/9886/amd-reveals-polaris-gpu-architecture/3
50% chance. They either include it in Scorpio or they don't
Doesn't any such distinction disappear when you are talking about a SoC?
(Unless AMD/Microsoft develop their own specialised NAND controller, they would still need a PCI-Express connection from the SoC to a NAND controller chip.)
Last edited:
now that you mention it... What does TMSC stands for? And GloFlo?
TSMC: Taiwan Semiconductor Murdering Chickens
Manufacturing Company
According to Apple, GloFo means Global Fuckups. 
If AMD have to design a part specifically for either GloFo/Samsung or TSMC, how did Apple switched part of it's production of their A9 to TSMC, did they have to design it in advance knowing they planned to support both, or is adapting the existing design for TSMC only a question of (short) time and cost?
If AMD have to design a part specifically for either GloFo/Samsung or TSMC, how did Apple switched part of it's production of their A9 to TSMC, did they have to design it in advance knowing they planned to support both, or is adapting the existing design for TSMC only a question of (short) time and cost?
According to Apple, GloFo means Global Fuckups.
If AMD have to design a part specifically for either GloFo/Samsung or TSMC, how did Apple switched part of it's production of their A9 to TSMC, did they have to design it in advance knowing they planned to support both, or is adapting the existing design for TSMC only a question of (short) time and cost?
Designed in advance for both processes. Apple intentionally chose to dual source for supply and/or cost reasons. It does involve extra design time and cost but not as much as a full design.
Edit: Note that for the lower volume A9X it was TSMC only.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Apple have always preferred multiple suppliers where feasible. It's the sensible thing to do when you move their volume of products.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Not being able to have multiple suppliers also greatly limits your ability to negotiate favorable pricing. And when you ship in the volumes that Apple does, if you can get even 0.05 USD in savings due to having greater negotiating power, that's a lot of money saved. Not to mention this mitigates potential supply issues if a supplier runs into manufacturing issues. A recent example, (http://www.tsmc.com/tsmcdotcom/PRListingNewsAction.do?action=detail&language=E&newsid=THHKHIHITH ).
Regards,
SB
Regards,
SB
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Yup. I worked in aerospace and we had lots of components in our missile systems that came from multiple suppliers. If there is only one supplier for something you need then you have to pay what they because you have no option whereas if there are multiple suppliers, they will invariably undercut each other to give you a better price because you are buying in volume and that's the best kind of customer to have.
Never for silicon though. It isn't always feasible to have multiple suppliers for silicon. They were at Samsung for multiple years. A9 was the first time they used TSMC and the first time they dual sourced. If rumours are to be believed they are going exclusively with TSMC for the next two gens. While going with multiple vendors does give you leverage..so does giving one vendor high volumes.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
And that's why I said where feasible. Apple are generally using the latest or close-to-latest processes for the iPhone but not all fabs offer the same processes and layouts may need re-designs for different processes. Given Apple use multiple suppliers for pretty much everything they can, I'd say that their use of a single supplier for silicon isn't a choice but that there isn't any other option except with the possible exception of Samsung with whom Apple have engaged in a lot of litigation. That probably isn't the kind of technology partner you ideally want to have if there is a choice.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
That's a perfect example of Apple using multiple suppliers to get a better price. Due to all the lawsuit battles between Apple and Samsung in the past few years there was likely concern that Samsung may leverage their position as the only supplier to gradually increase prices as well as concern that Samsung would no longer be willing to negotiate on price.
It's quite likely that TSMC has offered far more favorable pricing to secure as much of Apple's business as possible. And since Apple is capable of using Samsung as a source for their chip production that gives them continuing leverage with TSMC.
You can always use the threat of moving to another supplier in your negotiations, but if you don't at some point follow through on those threats, then the threat loses effectiveness. Hence you see things like Microsoft dual sourcing optical drives back in the X360 days. AIBs for graphics cards often dual source memory chips. Not always for any singular line of cards. But across various lines of cards they'll source memory from different manufacturers. SSD makers will source NAND chips from different manufacturer's. Typically for different SSD lines, but it's fairly common to have a single SSD line go through different sources of NAND chips throughout it's lifetime (so the SSD that got reviewed may not reflect the performance of the SSD you buy, Kingston is one maker that is notorious for doing this). Etc.
A little more difficult for something like a SOC, but obviously the situation got the point where Apple decided the extra costs associated with designing a chip that can be manufactured from different fab partners was worth it to increase their negotiating leverage.
Regards,
SB
I thought Apple start looking at fabs other than Samsung after Samsung started mimicking iPhones with their Galaxy line. At one time the chips, memory, displays and a ton of other components of the iPhone were sourced solely from Samsung.
It was only once the litigation began that Apple started to diversify away from Samsung.
It was only once the litigation began that Apple started to diversify away from Samsung.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Not as much as you may think.
- Wifi was originally handled by Marvell but soon transitioned to Broadcom.
- Bluetooth originally used Cambridge but soon moved to Broadcom.
- Cellular baseband was handed by Infineon and then Qualcomm.
- Audio went from Wolfson and then Cirrus Logic
- NAND isn't always sourced from Samsung either
- They've always had multiple DRAM suppliers, but early on Samsung was the primary source.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/08/07/12/every_iphone_3g_chip_named_illustrated_in_detail
Toshiba provided the NAND storage for that generation. Samsung provided just the SOC and DRAM.
Regards,
SB
The iPhone 4 sported a main processor, dram and flash all manufactured by Samsung. Plus I was mistaken as it was not the iPhone but the iPad that was also sourcing its batteries and the bulk of its displays from Samsung.
Plus I thought Apple gave tsmc exclusive rights for a10 manufacturing. Sourcing from multiple vendors makes sense if volumes needed can't be readily supplied by one manufacturer or you lack trust to put all your eggs in one basket. But the more volume the better pricing per unit, so splitting volume to multiple sources lessens your leverage as you are only offering each individual vendor a fraction of your needs.
Plus I thought Apple gave tsmc exclusive rights for a10 manufacturing. Sourcing from multiple vendors makes sense if volumes needed can't be readily supplied by one manufacturer or you lack trust to put all your eggs in one basket. But the more volume the better pricing per unit, so splitting volume to multiple sources lessens your leverage as you are only offering each individual vendor a fraction of your needs.
Last edited:
Changing components between generations isn't the same as multiple sourcing for the same product, although with the short iterations between products for mobile it's perhaps similar. In the console space, a seven year deal to make an SOC with no alternative options is limiting. You'd need a pretty awesome contract up front. If you can get your chips from 2 or more suppliers, you can operate shorter contracts and pitch them against each other, and be buffered against either one being suddenly incapacitated.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Multiple sourcing comes in two facets. One is you literally source from multiple vendors for a given product line. Apple does this with the RAM in the iPhones, although they generally have one preferred source that provides the majority of the RAM. This is what most people will associate with multiple sourcing.
The other is that you source from multiple vendors during product planning. You then negotiate price for components for the final product. And the final product gets the components from the vendor that offered the most favorable pricing. During product planning, sources can also be eliminated from contention if they don't meet your product requirements, so it isn't only price based.
So, while Apple currently has used, say, Cirrus Logic for it's audio solution for the past few generations, they keep negotiating power because they can switch to a different source for a new generation at any moment. And the fact that they've done this consistently in the past means that it isn't an empty threat.
The point is that a company will rarely settle on one key component without the ability to source it from another vendor. There are always exceptions, however. The CPU/SOC often have to be locked in. Thus those generally give you the least power in negotiations. Although in the non-premium handset business it's far easier to multiple source your SOC during product planning. When you get to premium handsets, however, the competition narrows significantly. It's one of the reasons Apple wanted to design and use their own SOC. It's the component with the single highest cost and the one where they had the least power WRT price negotiations.
Regards,
SB
- Status
