Slashdot Mirror
Not All iPhone 6s Processors Are Created Equal (itworld.com)
itwbennett writes: Apple is splitting the manufacture of the A9 processor for its iPhone 6s between TSMC (~60%) and rival Samsung (~40%) — "and they are not created equal," writes Andy Patrizio. For starters, Chipworks noted that Samsung uses 14nm while TSMC uses 16nm. A Reddit user posted tests of a pair of 6s Plus phones and found the TSMC chip had eight hours of battery life vs. six hours for the Samsung. Meanwhile, benchmark tests from the folks at MyDriver (if Mr. Patrizio's efforts with Google Translate got it right) also found that the Samsung chip is a bigger drain on the phone's battery, while the TSMC chip is slightly faster and runs a bit cooler. So how do you know which chip you got? There's an app for that.
Simple: don't buy it at all. If a company is going to play shenanigans like this where products marketed with the exact same name and part number are significantly different and it's just a luck-of-the-draw ass to whether I get the good one or the crappy one, I'm just not going to buy their product at all.
How about if it IS a Conspiracy; but not one of Apple's doing.
Which of the two suppliers, Samsung or TSMC, is aDirect Competitor to Apple in the Mobile Device Space?
Which of the two suppliers, Samsung or TSMC, is the Largest Competitor to Apple in the Mobile Device Space?
Which of the two suppliers, Samsung or TSMC, was already suspected of ripping-off Design Elements from Apple's SoCs?
Which of the two suppliers, Samsung or TSMC, would dearly love to see Apple get "bad press" (ChipGate, anyone?) over their flagship phone?
Which of the two suppliers, Samsung or TSMC, could afford to piss-off Apple?
I think we have an answer as to who is most likely at fault here.
It's very simple: Apple gets the Sample Parts from both Suppliers. Then Supplier "S" changes the Recipe ever-so-slightly on the Doping of certain layers to decrease Isolation Resistance of the Oxide dielectric layers... VOILA! Less battery life and more heat (same thing) from more parasitic currents flowing around in the die. Who's to know, right?
And if they're caught (which it looks like they are), then they can just pay a penalty and claim it was a "Process Error" in a few batches, "Due to Apple's agressive rollout schedule".
Or, perhaps it really isn't a Conspiracy, and Samsung's 14 nm process isn't quite ready for prime-time yet. I mean, the smaller the die, the smaller the dielectric layers; and the smaller the dielectric layers, the more "leakage currents"; and the more the "leakage currents" the higher the current draw; and the higher the current draw, the greater the heat and the lower the battery life.
So, either of those scenarios, Samsung Conspiracy or Samsung Process Issues, are entirely possible.
But one thing's for sure: Apple didn't plan this; because they have absolutely nothing to gain by being "found out".
The reason you haven't seen this in other phones is that the only other manufacturer, Samsung, who has even close to the initial Demand for their new phones, almost assuredly fabs all their own SoCs, and so automatically has only one "Supplier" to keep tabs on, and NONE to compare for unit-to-unit "component trends".
That does not equate to "Don't buy Apple", however; but more like "Don't buy the first production run of any new tech-Product from anybody". Just like "Never install version x.0 of an OS or other Software". Same logic.