Live data from Hacker News

Apple orders entire supply of TSMC's 3nm chips for iPhone 15 Pro and M3 Macs

macrumors.com

411–420 of 467 posts

Re: Apple orders entire supply of TSMC's 3nm chips for iPhone 15 Pro and M3 Macs

#411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From Wikipedia: " A second generation of Microdrive was announced by IBM in June 2000 with increased capacities at 512MB and 1GB, with the 512 MB model costing $399 and the 1 GB model costing $499. " Yes, storage technology existed at the time, but it was an order of magnitude more expensive than what Apple needed to put in a consumer product. It's unquestionable that iPod unleashed the explosive miniaturization of t…

> It's unquestionable that iPod unleashed the explosive miniaturization of technology, and paved the road for everything that we saw in the following decade with smartphones. PDAs were being developed at the same time as the iPod and probably have a much better parental claim than the iPod. The first smartphones -- the ones before the iPhone -- were basically PDAs with cellular modems, and utilized the similar OSes a…

Agree there were many attempts before. Heck, even General Magic created an iPhone-like experience over a decade earlier!

But none of those early predecessors achieved anything even close to the scale of the iPod.

I'm not arguing that Apple is the sole responsible for miniaturization of technology, but selling dozens of millions (and eventually hundreds of millions) of their gizmo certainly helped fast-forward the industry. Things would have happened a lot slower if it weren't for the iPod.

Re: Apple orders entire supply of TSMC's 3nm chips for iPhone 15 Pro and M3 Macs

#412
post #11

> Compared to 5nm process, the first-generation 3nm process can reduce power consumption by up to 45%, improve performance by 23% and reduce area by 16% compared to 5nm, while the second-generation 3nm process is to reduce power consumption by up to 50%, improve performance by 30% and reduce area by 35%. What kind of real-world impact are we likely to see on the 3nm chips for the new iPhone and M3 macs? These figures…

For the first year or so, the experience of using these 3nm machines will be unparalleled. Then after most devs switched to using M3 Macs, app performance will regress back to the baseline, making everything slow on M1/M2 machines, and basically unusable on Intel Macs. Paraphrasing the old saying: "What TSMC giveth, Electron taketh"

I know this is a joke but I’ve heard many variations and - how does Electron taketh?

Is the codebase getting de-optimized with time? Is it badly architectures extensions? Is the JS runtime becoming slower?

Re: Apple orders entire supply of TSMC's 3nm chips for iPhone 15 Pro and M3 Macs

#413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100%. I stopped pirating altogether for a few years because everything I needed was conveniently available, at a low price. I've told multiple people that if anime had a netflix equivalent with nice UX, I would happily pay for it. Sadly now I feel like the UX and recommendation system of netflix/disney/hulu/etc. is genuinely worse than just pirating. I still pay for spotify though, its feature full, fairly cheap, and…

Crunchyroll?

I tried it for a while, it didn't seem to have all the shows I wanted and the UX was worse than quite a few of the anime piracy sites.

Of course, anime is a bit of an oddball when it comes to piracy sites, the lack of legal enforcement combined with (from what I've noticed) that a disproportionate part of the audience are developers means there are some really good sites out there.

Re: Apple orders entire supply of TSMC's 3nm chips for iPhone 15 Pro and M3 Macs

#414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting article, thanks for that. One of my key takeaways is the iPod represented not one but multiple simultaneous tech revolutions. Consumer storage until then unseen, paired with material and interface design that companies hadn't considered a priority.

I forget the exact timeline, but I think part of it too was music pricing. Physical media (tapes, records) had gotten very expensive, and almost everyone was pirating MP3s from Napster etc. Apple's iTunes prices were low enough that it became simpler just to buy stuff legally than pirate it. I can't recall if iTunes was introduced at exact same time as iPod not not. Google search suggests it may have been 1 or 2 year…

[deleted]

Re: Apple orders entire supply of TSMC's 3nm chips for iPhone 15 Pro and M3 Macs

#415
post #327
post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> by 2001 virtually all new software you bought at retail would require you to have one. Yeah, but a piece of consumer electronics requiring someone to own a computer produced in the last five years (as a Firewire Mac would have been at the time) is a surprising choice, and especially so in that era. The majority of scanners and printers produced in 2001 were still parallel-port driven, because peripheral companies c…

No, you are wrong. Since Windows 98, having a machine with a CD was mandatory to be a multimedia PC. Heck, I remember four CD game releases such as Blade Runner.

Okay? You're talking about the requirements for new computers in the era, that retail software could assume. Meanwhile, I'm talking about the requirements for consumer electronics sold into the market in the era; where, to have the widest TAM, companies would usually design connectivity around the assumption that the person purchasing the device has a very old computer.

Re: Apple orders entire supply of TSMC's 3nm chips for iPhone 15 Pro and M3 Macs

#416
post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> by 2001 virtually all new software you bought at retail would require you to have one. Yeah, but a piece of consumer electronics requiring someone to own a computer produced in the last five years (as a Firewire Mac would have been at the time) is a surprising choice, and especially so in that era. The majority of scanners and printers produced in 2001 were still parallel-port driven, because peripheral companies c…

I got my first Mac in 1995 (Performa 5200CD). Obvious from its name, it had a built in CD-ROM drive. I had the internet throughout the rest of the 90’s, dialing up via a series of external modems. 14.4, 28.8, 33.6, and eventually a 56k modem. I downloaded MP3s and played them with SoundJam MP (which Apple bought and reskinned as iTunes). That computer was so slow (75MHz PowerPC 603) that it took nearly all of its res…

To be clear, my point was that consumer electronics — like the iPod — were and are typically targeted at "everyone", not "computer enthusiasts" (which would be far too few people to be worth the CapEx of hardware product development); and that, for every one computer enthusiast on Earth, there are 100 grandmas (and other similar demographics.)

(Professional electronics, on the other hand, could make all sorts of demands and assume a very specific niche audience, because they were incredibly high-margin. There used to be a big difference between professional vs consumer electronics in terms of not just what parts they used, but what connectivity standards they could assume.)

> It was only grandmas who bought a Pentium 120 in the mid 90’s and hung onto it for decades.

And, uh, you know... poor people. Blue-collar poor people, who don't care much about computing. But who would really would like to listen to some music as they take the bus to work.

As I said in my original post, Apple was doing something very exceptional within the space of consumer electronics, by selling a consumer device (not a professional device!) that actually assumed a niche market (computer enthusiasts, who had thus purchased a recent Mac) rather than being "for everyone."

Re: Apple orders entire supply of TSMC's 3nm chips for iPhone 15 Pro and M3 Macs

#417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Apple showed up with a big bag of money, presumably.

And, importantly, Apple continues to show up with even more big bags of money. Giving Apple de facto right of first refusal for new node capacity is as much about maintaining TSMC's relationship with its most important customer as it is about this year's bottom line.

I bet they could ask the same amount for 80% of the capacity and Apple would agree.

Re: Apple orders entire supply of TSMC's 3nm chips for iPhone 15 Pro and M3 Macs

#418
post #11

> Compared to 5nm process, the first-generation 3nm process can reduce power consumption by up to 45%, improve performance by 23% and reduce area by 16% compared to 5nm, while the second-generation 3nm process is to reduce power consumption by up to 50%, improve performance by 30% and reduce area by 35%. What kind of real-world impact are we likely to see on the 3nm chips for the new iPhone and M3 macs? These figures…

For the first year or so, the experience of using these 3nm machines will be unparalleled. Then after most devs switched to using M3 Macs, app performance will regress back to the baseline, making everything slow on M1/M2 machines, and basically unusable on Intel Macs. Paraphrasing the old saying: "What TSMC giveth, Electron taketh"

I think TSMC N3 will be underwhelming. It offers a shrink of logic transistors, but ZERO shrink to SRAM meaning one of Apple's biggest advantages (massive caches) isn't going to have much room to improve.

Re: Apple orders entire supply of TSMC's 3nm chips for iPhone 15 Pro and M3 Macs

#419
post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About the area, keep in mind that not every part of a chip is composed of dense logic: Typically, sram (cache memories for example) doesn't scale as much as core logic, and interconnect (connections between the cores, DDR, etc...) almost don't scale at all. This is highly dependent on the design of the SoC, but the core logic is rarely the largest of the three, so you will not see a 35% reduction of the total area of…

Have you seen the 3nm SRAM scaling? It's really depressing. It won't bother CPUs too much but other devices are going to struggle to scale.

N3 scaling? There's literally zero scaling.

N3 is a stop-gap as TSMC is behind on their N2 GAA process. It's not so different from Intel's 14nm++++++ where it was dramatically better than before, but still not enough.

Re: Apple orders entire supply of TSMC's 3nm chips for iPhone 15 Pro and M3 Macs

#420
post #360
post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're talking about the period starting in 2001. I'm talking about the period ending in 2001. 2001 was a transition point from slow progress to the sort of performance-doubling progression you're thinking of. PCs running Windows 3.1 stuck around, doing what they do, until ~2002. People kept making games for DOS until ~2002! Then that all stopped. But someone planning a product for release in 2001 , would tend to hav…

*2001 was a transition point from slow progress to the sort of performance-doubling progression you're thinking of.* You are way off here. Lets check a contemporary source to understand the public sentiment at the time: "My new computer's got the clocks, it rocks But it was obsolete before I opened the box You say you've had your desktop for over a week? Throw that junk away, man, it's an antique Your laptop is a mon…

> "My new computer's got the clocks, it rocks But it was obsolete before I opened the box You say you've had your desktop for over a week? Throw that junk away, man, it's an antique Your laptop is a month old? Well that's great If you could use a nice, heavy paperweight"

Yes, all that is true... for people who were frequently trying to do anything "interesting" with their computers. Most people didn't try to do anything interesting with their computers! Most people — your average plumber in a small town in Ohio, for example — bought a computer for "productivity" (i.e. running Word); never played a single game on it other than the ones that came with Windows; and forgot it existed basically 99% of the time. Eventually, maybe they got AOL because of the free trial CD/floppy, and checked their email once a month. (But not more often than that; they didn't want to tie up their phone line!)

For these people, buying a piece of consumer electronics like an MP3 player, that forced them to use their computer to populate it (or, indeed, to do anything other than using Word), was a confusing incursion into what had previously been an analogue affair of tape dubbing, suddenly surprising them that the machine they thought would be just fine, had suddenly "gone bad" (i.e. gone obsolete) despite having been left mostly untouched.

> You also are totally incorrect about internet connectivity adoption at that point.

You are aware that in plenty of places that theoretically had the capacity for Internet connectivity, there were still many people who didn't bother to actually get Internet access, because they had no use for it, and that (unlike today) nothing out there demanded they get online to e.g. file their taxes, right?

Or that, even for many people "with Internet", they were still essentially using a captive portal experience (like AOL) at that point, with no web browser, FTP client, or anything else that would ever lead them to try to download a piece of software or anything else 1MB or larger, right?

Also, you know there are places outside the US, right? And that consumer electronics manufacturers care very much about selling into non-US markets? Look at global Internet penetration in 2001. Think about what you'd have to do to sell a consumer electronics device to someone in India or Indonesia in 2001.

My point wasn't that any of these factors pertained to the specific technosphere bubble that Apple released — and still releases — its products into. My point was, in fact, the opposite: that Apple is distinctive among consumer electronics manufacturers for a product marketing strategy involving addressing only that technosphere bubble. Everyone else used to target the lowest common denominator — that Ohioan plumber with the "antique paperweight", or even whatever someone might be using as a computer somewhere in Nigeria or the Philippines at that time.

Post reply on HN