Apple's ongoing use of ImgTec PowerVR GPU IP

[loekf]

It's even 2015:

In a statement to Bloomberg issued on Friday, Apple says that it stopped accepting new technologies and told Imagination that it was going to discontinue the relationship in 2015. Imagination only told its shareholders that this was happening in 2016, after Apple invoked the clause in its contract to pay a lower royalty rate for using less of Imagination's technologies.

 

[Kaotik]

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple is aiming for some kind of hetereogenous architecture with CPU blocks, GPU blocks, AI blocks, video blocks etc. on one SoC. AMD was hyping this for years, but maybe finally someone figured it out.

Erm, how AMD APUs are not exactly that?

 

[Pixel]

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple is aiming for some kind of hetereogenous architecture with CPU blocks, GPU blocks, AI blocks, video blocks etc. on one SoC. AMD was hyping this for years, but maybe finally someone figured it out.

Erm, how AMD APUs are not exactly that?

Because Apple is a someone, AMD unfortunately is a no one.

 

[Arnold Beckenbauer]

Imagination and Apple Sign New Agreement

London, UK; 2nd January 2020 – Imagination Technologies (“Imagination”) announces that it has replaced the multi-year, multi-use license agreement with Apple, first announced on February 6, 2014, with a new multi-year license agreement under which Apple has access to a wider range of Imagination’s intellectual property in exchange for license fees.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Imagination and Apple Sign New Agreement

I wonder if RT IP will be part of the new agreement?

Regards,
SB

 

[Rootax]

Could it mean that Apple own effort to make a gpu failed ?

 

[Entropy]

Could it mean that Apple own effort to make a gpu failed ?

Well, the products they are delivering now are arguably the most efficient in the industry bar none, so that would be a strange take.
SB:s RT speculation, or simply that IMG has some good stuff in its patent portfolio that it would benefit Apple to use would be a more levelheaded assumption. Won’t make a headline on Fudzilla with that though.

 

[DavidGraham]

New Could it mean that Apple own effort to make a gpu failed ?

Or deemed not worthy of the cost of development relative to licensing fees.

 

[Rootax]

Or deemed not worthy of the cost of development relative to licensing fees.

Yeah sorry, I had more that kind of scenario in mind. And the patents minefield.

 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Could it mean that Apple own effort to make a gpu failed ?

Or that no such thing ever existed.

 

[Kaotik]

Or that no such thing ever existed.

I tend to agree with this, at most they've done custom implementations from IMG IP, I can't see any other way they wouldn't have been already sued to moon and back by other major parties with relevant graphics patents

 

[Entropy]

Or that no such thing ever existed.

Well they have assembled one hell of a big team of qualifed people to just sit around twiddling their thumbs. Including a load of prior IMG staff.

The most likely scenario is that they know that IMG sits on IP that would simplify for Apple to hit their performance/W/gate goals, and license it. Hell it could be stuff that Apple staff developed themselves while at IMG!

(It’s hilarious that with the proficiency Apple has demonstrated in low level architecture design, and the large number of GPU specialists they have assembled since years, that their ability to do a GPU is questioned. Its like we’re back almost a decade, when they couldn’t possibly design an ARM core, at best they might be gluing building blocks together...)

 

[Kaotik]

Well they have assembled one hell of a big team of qualifed people to just sit around twiddling their thumbs. Including a load of prior IMG staff.

The most likely scenario is that they know that IMG sits on IP that would simplify for Apple to hit their performance/W/gate goals, and license it. Hell it could be stuff that Apple staff developed themselves while at IMG!

(It’s hilarious that with the proficiency Apple has demonstrated in low level architecture design, and the large number of GPU specialists they have assembled since years, that their ability to do a GPU is questioned. Its like we’re back almost a decade, when they couldn’t possibly design an ARM core, at best they might be gluing building blocks together...)

No amount of qualified people gets you around the patent jungle. That's why it's most likely that Apples "own GPU" is in fact just Apple-designed GPU based on IMG IP
I mean, what are the chances that a company which has no previous GPUs of their own and doesn't hold tremendous amounts of GPU related patents could design a new GPU on their own without infringing patents held by the big players? Apple didn't design an ARM core without licensing IP (more than just patents) from ARM either

 

[mfaisalkemal]

Following the recent launch of A-Series, the fastest GPU IP in the market today, we have publicly said that ray tracing enabled GPU IP is on our roadmap with delivery in late 2020/early 2021 timeframe and we are already well advanced in our conversations with leading SoC designers about access to our patented IP ray tracing architecture under a range of different business models.

Link

Maybe apple soc?

Does anyone know what a video purporting to show software-based ray tracing using a custom game engine has already been shown on a popular handset that talked in that article?

 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Well they have assembled one hell of a big team of qualifed people to just sit around twiddling their thumbs. Including a load of prior IMG staff.

They're busy working on their "custom" GPUs and doing a industry-leading job. At a high level Apple's current GPUs still very much look like Rogue, even if Apple went ahead and improved and rewrote/replaced most of the blocks themselves over the years. It's essentially just a fork from the IMG design back in 2014-15 but developed independently.

But this is not a new custom GPU as originally stated in the 2017 claim; you'd need a clean-room implementation (preferably by a different design team, everything is absolutely polluted with IMG IP) and the resulting GPU would likely look nothing like the current designs. The fact that the announcement came out means that either failed, or more likely, it simply never existed in the first place.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Link

Maybe apple soc?

Does anyone know what a video purporting to show software-based ray tracing using a custom game engine has already been shown on a popular handset that talked in that article?

Interestingly enough a late 2020 timeframe and mention of other SOC designers (plural) could potentially involve the SOC designed for Sony by AMD. I'm not sure how that would work out or even if it's possible, but who knows?

Regards,
SB

 

[pcchen]

No amount of qualified people gets you around the patent jungle. That's why it's most likely that Apples "own GPU" is in fact just Apple-designed GPU based on IMG IP
I mean, what are the chances that a company which has no previous GPUs of their own and doesn't hold tremendous amounts of GPU related patents could design a new GPU on their own without infringing patents held by the big players? Apple didn't design an ARM core without licensing IP (more than just patents) from ARM either

Licensing someone's IP does not mean making a copy of their design. This is like saying AMD's CPU is just the same or very similar to Intel ones.
Also, Apple's ARM CPU are much more efficient and faster than other SoC using ARM designed cores. How's that possible if they only make something "based on someone's IP"?

 

[Kaotik]

Licensing someone's IP does not mean making a copy of their design. This is like saying AMD's CPU is just the same or very similar to Intel ones.
Also, Apple's ARM CPU are much more efficient and faster than other SoC using ARM designed cores. How's that possible if they only make something "based on someone's IP"?

I never said it would be a copy of their design, but that the work Apple has done is based on the IMG IP rather than a new GPU they cooked up themselves, as someone pointed earlier "it still looks very much like a Rogue on high level"

 

[Deleted member 13524]

But this is not a new custom GPU as originally stated in the 2017 claim; you'd need a clean-room implementation (preferably by a different design team, everything is absolutely polluted with IMG IP) and the resulting GPU would likely look nothing like the current designs. The fact that the announcement came out means that either failed, or more likely, it simply never existed in the first place.

That's my perception on the ordeal.
Apple just didn't want to mention IMG / PowerVR in their marketing material because it's a reather weak brand nowadays, and they wanted a new deal that allowed them to do just that.
Making a modern GPU architecture from the ground up without stepping into IP infringement from nvidia, AMD, Intel, IMG, ARM, etc. is probably a near impossible project. Just look at how that went for Samsung.

 

[pcchen]

I never said it would be a copy of their design, but that the work Apple has done is based on the IMG IP rather than a new GPU they cooked up themselves, as someone pointed earlier "it still looks very much like a Rogue on high level"

I'm not sure what the meaning of "on high level" though. I don't think Apple disclosed too much on the inner detail of their GPU. It could be very similar to older IMG GPU, or not. If you judge it base on Metal (or other graphics API) then probably all GPU are pretty much alike "on high level" (Metal supports many GPU from different vendors). Remember, Apple has to maintain compatibility with older apps for their new SoC so it has to be similar from software perspective.
Anyway, having a license deal means very little on how similar their designs are. I don't see anyone here providing a hard evidence on how similar the designs are, other than "because Apple has a licensing deal with IMG so they must be similar" which IMHO is a weak argument.