
The iPhone 5's A6 SoC: Not A15 or A9, a Custom Apple Core Instead - sciwiz
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6292/iphone-5-a6-not-a15-custom-core
======
ChuckMcM
Wow, I hadn't realized Apple had bought into the 'Sun' model that to be the
best you had to have your own CPU. Well I knew they were doing their own
silicon, I think that is actually kind of nominal for folks who want to
innovate in the small device space since you can't get to the components
otherwise, but to change the CPU architecture in the process is a pretty bold
step. Sun discovered that you can get a jump on the competition like that, the
first SparcStations really blew away the competition, but ultimately you can't
outspend even three other competitors at the same time.

Of course this was also why Samsung has been a much bigger threat to Apple
than the other Android handset makers, they too make their own SoC silicon.

So we get to see three companies pursuing products in the same space with
three different strategies:

Apple - Custom OS (iOS), Customized Silicon

Samsung - Third party OS (Android), Customized Silicon

Asus/HTC - Third party OS (Android), Third party silicon (nVidia)

These kinds of situations don't come around that often so when they do they
make for great learning experiences.

~~~
macrael
Is Samsung making their own cores? The news in the article is that Apple is
making their own cores now, they've been making their own silicon for the last
few revisions, right?

~~~
ChuckMcM
It isn't clear to me that Samsung has publicly enhanced the ARM architecture
in the Exynos [1] series but they certainly could and exploit that in their
own products. Like Apple they are full licensees to the ARM architecture
(which means they can make derivative works of the ARM cpu) and of course if
they did they would be able to exploit that in their version of Android if
they so chose to. There were a few companies that did that with the 6502
'core' back in the day adding some custom instructions in the space that was
reserved or undefined by MOS Semiconductor.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exynos>

~~~
nilsbunger
It's _really_ hard to build a custom processor with decent performance these
days. There are very few teams that can do it, and it takes way more
investment than normal ASIC design. The people who can do it largely work for
Intel, AMD, IBM, some at Apple, and probably a few other major shops.

So I suspect it would be hard for Samsung to build a custom ARM processor
unless they teamed up or bought a team that already has this specialized
skill. That's what Apple did...

------
mendocino
It is interesting to note that Apple now designes their own programming
language, the compilers, the operating system, the processors and the products
all that tech goes into. That's a pretty rare configuration of a company that
hasen't existed since what? the 80s? [1]. That's a really unique opportunity
to do really wild things, I hope they don't squander it. But I guess that
requires a bold visionary, not of the Jobs type, more of an academic.

[1] I guess IBM still counts, but mainframes aren't that sexy anymore :)

~~~
achille2
Oracle. In addition they make their own Storage, Servers, virtualization, OS,
Compilers, Database, Middleware and Applications.

\- Storage: Storagetek

\- Virtualization: LDOM, Xen (OracleVM), VirtualBox

\- OS: Solaris, EOL Linux, and also Jrockit (Java running on top of Xen)

\- Compilers: Java, Pl/SQL (Compiles to ADA bytecode), C

\- Database: Oracle, MySQL, BerkeleyDB

\- Middleware: SOA Suite

\- Applications: Fusion Apps (EBS, PeopleSoft JDEdwards)

In Addition, Oracle has their own Appliances: Exalogix, Exadata, etc.

~~~
yskchu
Storagetek only does Tape; the Pillar division does real storage.

------
programminggeek
One thing that makes Apple in a very special situation is that they have $100
billion cash to fund various forms of competitive advantage. From the supply
chain to the hardware design to the software to the retail delivery
experience, Apple can invest an optimize every point in the whole process. It
will be fascinating to see how this plays out.

------
arrrg
If this is true, it's strange that Apple didn't tout it more. I guess "And
this Apple designed chip we told you is Apple designed already the last few
times is even more Apple designed now!" is a hard message to sell, and from a
consumer's perspective, those implementation details are completely irrelevant
anyway.

I guess Apple will tout completely irrelevant tech specs when it sounds good
and fits the message, but when it would just cloud the issue and be confusing
they just leave it out, even if those tech specs would put them in a positive
light.

~~~
polshaw
Apple have touted it. Twice as fast as 4S, longer battery life. That is all
that matters to the consumer and those are the benefits brought by the CPU.

~~~
arrrg
That's the boring part. Sure, that's what's actually matters (or at least a
good deal closer to what actually matters), but Apple hasn't been shy to share
some technical details at pretty weird opportunities.

~~~
doe88
I think part of the problem is they already have introduced the cpu as
"theirs" in a previous iteration (I don't remember which one) when they
introduced for the first time the "Apple Ax". So I think it would now be
difficult to explain that the cpu was not really completely made by them, that
now this it is their design (built on the ARM IP) and put in silicon by
Samsung... Too much hassle to explain I think for too few marketing gain.

~~~
6ren
They could have said "completely redesigned* - the closest they came to that
was calling it "A6". They are right to sell the benefits, because that's what
sells. Even Woz chastised them for saying "quad-core" graphics for the iPad 3.
This time, they didn't even say that - just "2x faster graphics".

------
aidenn0
I'm pretty sure power scales quadratically not exponentially with voltage,
right?

~~~
mbell
In a general case P = V^2 / R

That said, at the manufacturing scales of these parts leakage in the
transistor can be as big a power consumer as the switching.

Leakage current increasing as voltage increases at a rate that is of the order
~e^Vth

I wouldn't really say its strictly either exponential or quadratic, you'd have
to know a lot more about the process and the implementation to know how
significant leakage current is in the design.

------
hristov
This is just a bunch of rumors and the author patting himself on the back for
being well connected and talking to the right people. Well it may be true, but
this article does not really prove it. This is one of the things that, if
true, would come from official apple channels rather than un-sourced rumors.

~~~
recoiledsnake
Dismissing Anand Lal Shimpi as one would dismiss a blogger is not right. He
carries a lot of reputation and experience.

>This is one of the things that, if true, would come from official apple
channels rather than un-sourced rumors

Err, Apple has a policy of not officially talking about even the amount of
RAM, so we need to rely on third parties for this info.

~~~
jsnell
In all fairness, on this particular issue his track record isn't too good :-)
Within the last a week he has been strongly of the opinion that it's going to
be an upclocked A9, then that it's an A15 mysteriously launching months ahead
of schedule, and now that it's a previously unheard of Apple design.

At this rate we're going to hear in two days that actually Apple licensed
Krait from Qualcomm, and in a week that what really happened was a switch to
Medfield.

~~~
xtdx
This is the first time he's claimed confirmation from people who are supposed
to know.

------
_djo_
This is an important development, as it marks Apple's first use of an
internally-designed ARM core in any of its products. Apple's acquisition of
processor design expertise is going to start paying off at a much more
fundamental level than it has in the past.

I'm excited to see where this leads, as Apple possesses for the first time the
ability to design the SoC for a device like the iPhone from the cores up.

It's a huge step for Apple.

~~~
jjtheblunt
"Apple's first use of an internally-designed ARM core" : ARM itself was a
joint venture including Apple, for just this reason.

------
sauce71
Is this really a surprise? [http://gizmodo.com/382929/apple-buys-itself-a-
little-chip-co...](http://gizmodo.com/382929/apple-buys-itself-a-little-chip-
company-known-for-super-efficient-processors)

~~~
redcircle
Right, Apple bought P.A. Semi, and assuming that those guys stuck around after
Apple switched from PowerPC to Intel, Apple has a proven CPU devel team.

~~~
majormajor
That purchase occurred a couple of years after the Intel switch. In
retrospect, it looks a lot like a purchase intended for the newcomer iOS
lineup.

~~~
redcircle
Oh yeah. I merged things together in my memory.

------
polshaw
I'm not surprised, it was too early for an A15, and Samsung would not give it
to Apple before they used it themselves.

Similarly, they were unlikely to be high clocked A9s because of battery life-
apple has a history of using low clocked cores too.

I see this as Apple's long-term play for competitive advantage, while their
main previous ones- refined OS and high PPI screen- have become the norm.

~~~
bryanlarsen
"Samsung would not give it to Apple before they used it themselves."

two mistakes in that phrase:

\- A15 isn't Samsung's to give to Apple -- they license that from ARM. Yes,
Samsung manufactures Apple's chips, but the chip is designed by Apple using IP
licensed from ARM, Imagination Technologies and others, but as far as Samsung
is concerned the chip is a black box.

\- Samsung has given technology to Apple before they used it themselves
several times in the past.

I also doubt the first part of your statement. It's early for an A15, but it's
certainly within Apple's power to persuade ARM to help them get something they
want to market early. Spending their billions to bend supplier's arms is one
of the things that Apple does best.

~~~
polshaw
1\. Samsung are poised to be the first manufacturer to bring an A15 based SOC
to market. There are no doubt many issues involved in the reality of
manufacturing a new arm core, no one else is as close as Samsung. So i
maintain that Apple would have needed Samsung to enable them to use an A15.

2\. Yes, they have supplied apple with stuff that only they can make before
using it themselves - eg. the iPad screen (but IIRC LG were meant to be
supplying too), but i still don't think they would want to give apple a CPU
platform that was undoubtedly better than their flagship phone so soon after
releasing it.

3\. ARM aren't really a supplier to apple, they just licence designs. ARM have
no manufacturing expertise.

~~~
objclxt
> "i still don't think they would want to give apple a CPU platform that was
> undoubtedly better than their flagship phone so soon after releasing it"

You need to bear in mind that the division of Samsung that sells the chips is
totally separate from the division that sells the phones. The silicon division
doesn't particularly care about the phone division - they care about their
bottom line alone. And Apple turning up with a dump truck of cash, which is
basically what they've been doing to secure component supplies, is not
something they wil turn down lightly.

Apple is somewhat unique among consumer electronics companies in that it is
very singly focused. Samsung, along with Sony, Microsoft, and others, are
multi-conglomerates, with vast reaching business interests, and Samsung's chip
fab division only really cares about the profits their division is making.
Money from Apple, money from an internal cross-charge: profit is profit.

> "3. ARM aren't really a supplier to apple, they just licence designs. ARM
> have no manufacturing expertise."

I don't think this is what you mean. You mean ARM have no expertise
manufacturing _at scale_. ARM have extensive manufacturing expertise, because
they need to supply reference designs _that work in production_. ARM has
manufacturing expertise because they need to produce designs that are easy to
manufacture.

~~~
polshaw
I would say ARM have expertise in 'designing for manufacture' which is
distinct from the actual manufacturing, but lets say they have no expertise in
'production manufacturing'.

While Samsung does indeed contain a bunch of largely separate companies, both
chips and phones are part of Samsung Electronics, there is one set of top
management for both.

~~~
taligent
Samsung have made it very clear that there is a 'firewall' between the
component and product sides of the business.

One side does not affect the other.

~~~
sjwright
I wonder if it's actually true.

~~~
chucknelson
They have most likely done many calculations that clearly say "if we lose
Apple on the supply side, we lose <insert ridiculous amount of money that
eclipses smartphone revenue here>."

------
DenisM
Hey, I had no idea that Apple discontinued armv6 support from the latest
SDK... learned something new.

~~~
rsynnott
The latest SDK only supports iOS 5 and up (if you want to target 4 you have to
install an old one), and there are no ARMv6 devices which can run iOS 5, so it
makes sense.

~~~
DenisM
Ouch. Do you have to have two Xcodes side by side, or can you install old SDL
into new Xcode?

~~~
paxswill
Officially, side by side is the way to go. Unofficially, you can sometimes
merge the actual SDK bundles into the most recent Xcode directory.

