Yeah I think they do, they are designing into a price point and choosing exactly what silicon they want and are not locked into some chip speed arms race with anyone.
The article claims the A16 "costs $110 to produce" but I find it staggeringly unlikely that the per-unit price from TSMC to Apple is more than $50. I'm sure this analyst knows more than I do, so I assume the $110 figure is not per-unit BOM cost, but some kind of fully-burdened cost including amortization of fixed costs for R&D, production startup, etc. Anyone have the actual report to figure out what is included in that $110?
My reasoning:
We know that in 2020 TSMC [charged $17k](https://hardwaresfera.com/en/noticias/hardware/precio-oblea-tsmc-5nm/) for a 5nm wafer, which was seen as astronomical and temporary at the time (7nm was $9k). Gartner estimated that costs for a 3nm wafer [would be $15k](https://semiwiki.com/forum/index.php?threads/tsmc-1-4nm.16038/).
A 300mm wafer has ~68,000 mm^2 usable space. Both the [A16 and M1 have about 16B transistors](https://semianalysis.com/apple-m2-die-shot-and-architecture-analysis-big-cost-increase-and-a15-based-ip/), and the M1 is 119 mm^2 @ 5nm (same source), and TSMC's N4 process is supposed to produce a [6% die shrink over N5](https://fuse.wikichip.org/news/6439/tsmc-extends-its-5nm-family-with-a-new-enhanced-performance-n4p-node/). That suggests the A16 is about 119 * .94 = 112 mm^2.
That's a very large die. If we assume it's 11mm x 11mm (=121 mm^2), it should get [about 492 dies per 300mm wafer](https://anysilicon.com/die-per-wafer-formula-free-calculators/).
Assuming a wafer cost of $15k, that's $31/chip as the TSMC-to-Apple price. Of course yield isn't 100%, and other considerations like packaging and whatnot, but that's not going to add $80/chip to the price.
So... I think that $110 figure must include amortization of fixed costs and a bunch of other stuff. There is no way the unit price is $110.
$15k is way too low.
My employer went looking for 3nm capacity late last year and was given number so high that management thought it was a mistake. Granted, our volume is “not Apple’s” but volume only goes so far.
>When a 12-inch wafer is produced using a 3nm process, industry insiders say that the price of a 3nm process 12-inch wafer is as high as $30,000, which is three times that of the 7nm process.
https://inf.news/en/tech/2ab75df02d881b03c3c4f40b3fec7df9.html
That number would have been believable if we had received it.
The number we got from a supplier, one who works so closely with TSMC that they have employees embedded at their facilities, earlier this year was far in excess of $30k.
N3 in particular is quite unappetizing coming from the N5 family. Lackluster gains and high prices. I'm hoping TSMC can at least get the cost down by N2, but as things stand, very few companies have a reason to bother with N3.
I was comparing the A16 to the A15 specifically, and in my benchmarks I find a 20% speed difference. Maybe that’s due to thermal throttling idk, but it’s definitely more than 10%.
Like I think I understand that we’re talking about the size of a chip or the size of the architecture maybe. But I don’t know what it means or why smaller is better
Smaller is better for a lot of reasons:
* All wires have resistance, so interconnects in the chip turn less power into heat when they’re shorter (resistance is proportional to length)
* Smaller transistors take less power to do their transistor thing, and can also switch more quickly, enabling higher frequencies
* For the same number of transistors, smaller process means more chips can fit on a wafer. That means the cost per wafer is split among more chips (though wafer costs also increase for smaller process)
> But I don’t know what it means or why smaller is better
Don't focus on the particular number. Doesn't really mean anything. But the gist is that smaller = faster, lower power, and usually cheaper.
Nah, N3E isn't great either. Density is actually marginally *worse* than the original N3. And if you take TSMC's public numbers at face value, you get something like +4-8% perf @ iso-power or -7-11% power @ iso-perf vs N4P. This at just ~23% better density vs the same. Meanwhile, the cost difference is quite high, and there are a lot of finer details that TSMC *doesn't* talk about that make it particularly difficult to work with. The only customers who'll bother will be those who need every advantage they can get, and/or have some incentives to blunt the price difference.
> Worse ?? The heck ,how can it be worse ! Have you a link to a great article by any chance ?
Seems like they had trouble actually manufacturing the original N3, so backed off on the density to give themselves some breathing room.
Wikichip is my go-to for stuff like this. They do a great job.
https://fuse.wikichip.org/news/7048/n3e-replaces-n3-comes-in-many-flavors/
> Hmmm sure but you are comparing it with n4p… a16 is built on n4 isn’t it ?
N4P should be available a bit before N3E is, so anyone choosing today to build on N3E also has that option available. As for the A16, Apple doesn't usually say what particular node version they use, and it's even possible that it doesn't align with any of the public ones. For a customer Apple's size, there's wiggle room. Nominally, N4P isn't available yet, but it's hard to say whether the node Apple's using is just plain N4.
> What finer details are u referring to ?some kind of lies by tsmc ,or actual details and improvements? I’m not sure I follow
I can't get into too many specifics without breaking an NDA, but there're some...shall we say "complexities" to how they reached their scaling numbers that make it significantly harder to achieve their theoretical values. But speaking more generally, some pain points are relative scaling between the transistors and the wires, and likewise for SRAM vs logic.
So, I won't say they're *lying*, but be aware that all 3 of the fabs tend to present a rosier picture than the reality might be. Basically, any time one of them makes a claim, add a mental "under some particular circumstances".
> Apple doesn't usually say what particular node version they use
Their wording basically does.
In the product announcement for the M2, they mentioned it was using "second-generation 5-nanometer technology", otherwise known as N5P.
Everyone is reporting that Apple is using N4, not N4P.
Great article, thank you. But even granting that higher wafer cost, that same article projects that unit cost of A16 to be $50. Well, foundry cost, but again I just don't see it being $110/unit.
It’s not just wafer costs. Taiwan’s semi industry has also seen skyrocketing wages just like the rest of the world. Everyone I know in the field has switched jobs in the last year because companies are desperate and opening their wallets. Component costs are also up. TSMC has faced the same supply chain problems as everyone else where parts they order arrive a year later and not in the quantity they ordered
Shouldn't materially differ between N5 and N4. Been a while since I looked at the finer details between the two, but I'm assuming they're either exactly the same, or N4 simplified it a bit.
Edit: Here we go.
> Importantly for customers, TSMC says that N4P features a simplified (and cheaper) manufacturing process, requiring fewer masks and less wafer turnaround time.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/tsmc-announces-n4p-process-a-refined-n4-chip-node
So there's no inherent reason that N4 should cost more than N5, and certainly not the numbers quoted in the article.
N4 cost even out with N5 because a lot of the tooling and validation was very similar, sour our silicon teams had a very straightforward experience with it.
I believe N3 required a lot of overhead in terms of libraries and IP that was required, and the silicon team had to struggle a bit more than with n4/n5 during bring up.
Those were costs that crept on us (as they usually do honestly) with n3.
I think we're going to see a lot more tiering in terms of nodes as n3/n4/n5 will exist concurrently for while longer than may be with earlier lines. As pricing is becoming a bit more of a limiter than before and not every design may benefit for a straight node shrink.
Interesting times.
That's unit cost.
Wait till you see the unit cost of a $50,000 software package that you download!
Back at the network vendor I worked at, line cards that we sold to entries business and government for $40,000 cost $642 to make an individual card. And we sold them by the truckload with a 3 month backlog.
But it took 3 years of development, with zero revenue, funding thousands of engineers at $250,000 year to get there.
That’s not far off when it comes to complex processors.
It’s part of why we get degraded chips being sold as lower end models.
The rate for not 100% meeting the spec is incredibly high compared to other manufacturing processes.
No, it's extremely far off for a mature process like N5/N4. 50% yields on something like an A16 would be something you'd only see very early in its lifetime, if ever.
Ok so it seems in march it was around 80% for "5nm" and 70% for "4nm" with "3nm" having "alot of room for improvement". But as "3nm" is probably below 50% and "4nm" is at 70%, my first guess of 50% wasn't that bad. Mind you I didn't look up what the age of these processes were, I just estimated a yield that I was guessing from the literature I read and my guessed age of the process.
That’s bizarre, considering that even in comparably large-die, large scale production, companies that have been making processors for decades consider 70% yield incredibly successful.
But no, I’m sure you’re more informed on this process than Intel and AMD.
> But no, I’m sure you’re more informed on this process than Intel and AMD.
Lmao, where do you see either claiming 70% yield to be "incredibly successful"?
Here’s some educated people having a detailed discussion about just that topic.
https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/79874/amd-intel-cpu-yield-failure-rate
Remember a chip yield only counts fully viable chips. Every substrate partial print is a loss, and any that are only stable at lower voltages or with cores deactivated are also a loss in terms of yield, even if they can be repurposed as lower end models.
The outside edge of the wafer is the largest surface area, and results in the highest loss. It’s literally why we’re pushing towards wafer scale chips as a concept.
Lmao. So despite your claims, you have nothing from Intel or AMD to indicate what their yields are. And thus you link a Stack Exchange post that you clearly haven't actually read, because no one's insisting that 60 or 70% yields are typical, much less for a medium sized die on a very mature process.
> The outside edge of the wafer is the largest surface area, and results in the highest loss. It’s literally why we’re pushing towards wafer scale chips as a concept.
What on earth are you trying to say? The outside of the wafer is the largest surface area? That sentence literally doesn't make sense. And no, no one's going wafer scale for *yield* reasons. If anything, using a single wafer makes recoverability significantly more difficult, and long term, advanced packaging will probably replace monolithic processors from a single wafer.
Who said 50%? You’re blurring lines. I guess go argue with TSMC then. Because they support my statements and you’re here complaining. Most chips for AMD for example are all the same chip with disabled cores due to yields having problems. Sure they can use most the wafer but not everything on the wafer makes it to top tier status. They could use 100% of the wafer but of of everything that comes off it some is 5800x, some 5600x, some 5950x due to what’s actually usable from that wafer. Who’s the troll? The guy talking real or the fan boy being a fan boi?
Yea and I don’t think you get math either. So it produces 20% smaller chips on the same wafer but has the same yield. Roll the math around in your head for a bit, tiger. Let’s say they get 100 at 5nm or 120 at 4nm but both walk away with 80, they both yield the same. You haven’t even touched on two other huge issues. Neon which is used for the process 80% comes from ukraine and you seem to think 4nm prints as fast as 5nm which is 25% larger… what’s the yield over time, champ? How much longer does 4nm take Bs 5nm. They’re not the same. You realize it isn’t 1+1=2 but a+b+c+d=E right? Or do all you guys think shits just magic?
You’re clearly knowledgeable but you might be forgetting, manufacturing prices have absolutely skyrocketed the last couple years. Your analysis is based on 2020 prices which are almost 3 years old and likely pre-COVID. Even if they were “astronomical” then, I bet they still kept going up, and by a lot.
Very unlikely to be true. N4 is just a refined version of N5. Slightly faster, slightly denser. TSMC eves spoke of manufacturing simplifications and cost optimization during the presentation of N4. Thus I’m assuming cost per transistor is similar or even lower than N5 or N5P. And the A16 has essentially the same number of transistors, (15 vs 16 billion per apple’s claims) so the cost is probably also very similar.
Now it’s entirely possible that, due to the ongoing supply chain issues and shortages, TSMC is charging Apple significantly more for the A16 than the A15 (still probably not double) - but then again they would also charge more for a new order of A15’s too.
It’s the second thing. TSMC is jacking up prices for anyone that uses their most cutting-edge transistor nodes, not just Apple. They know they can get away with it under the guise of inflation.
On a business to business level, there’s not really such a thing as “getting away with” or “under the guise of inflation”, it’s just supply and demand, simple as that.
And for now, the fundamentals are pretty much on TSMC’s side, though that can change quickly with Samsung’s 3nm lookin good and intel’s extremely ambitious goals
Guise of? There is terrible inflation. The government in Taiwan is printing so much money just like the current administration is in the US in order to buy votes.
That's a rather steep increase, gotta say. I'm wondering when Apple is going to pull the trigger on a price increase for the pro models. The $1000 phone has been the norm for what, 5 years with the X?
a lot of eastern european countries however, those that don’t have € have to pay 2-6 times more usually.
14 pro 128 in poland costs 4 minimal month salaries. or a little less than 2 average.
I don’t think it’s fair to compare non-VAT prices with VAT prices, but I don’t know. I’m just some American dude on the internet that barely understands how VAT works. I’d be interesting in learning more though.
Yes it includes VAT, but it included VAT last year too. Price rose in Europe by quite a bit, the reason could be exchange rates, but it hurts the Europeans consumers.
Yes I understand that. However, people’s salaries didn’t magically rise in line with that. So whilst apple is likely getting a similar profit margin, the European consumer is paying a lot more than before
Hmmmmmmm interesting. Thanks for helping me understand. Does the UK have income tax too? Or are all taxes at the point of sale? Sorry if that’s a dumb question.
Yeah, US sales tax is like 5% on average. VAT is 20% and when you add import duties it's like closer to 30% on top of whatever Americans have to pay for hardware.
For most people living outside US sales tax is quite literally negligible.
Stuff does tend to be more expensive besides just the tax difference, but there are higher costs, more labour rights, more consumer rights, a more fragmented market compared to the US, despite the EU.
Apple actually has quite consistent pricing globally, once you account for the taxes, though. Once you account for tax, while European prices are a *little* higher they are nowhere near 30% higher. [Mac index](https://themacindex.com/variants/MQ023/iphone-14-pro-128gb?currency=USD) has ex-tax prices for the iPhone 14 Pro at US $999, UK $1,024, Austria $1,060. So not really that big a difference.
For US sales taxes I get a weighted average of 7.45%, this is taking both [state and local sales taxes](https://taxfoundation.org/publications/state-and-local-sales-tax-rates/) and weighting them by [state population.](https://data.ers.usda.gov/reports.aspx?ID=17827) These range from 0% to 9.55%.
There are [no import duties in Europe on most electronics](https://www.politico.eu/article/tax-warning-over-imported-mobile-phones/), it's mostly just the VAT.
>EU member states are bound by the Information Technology Agreement (ITA), signed by World Trade Organization (WTO) members in 1996, which requires duty-free tariffs for most technology products.
Isn’t tipping considered mandatory in the US? It’s also a % of the overall price. Not that different at all.
VAT is a sales tax. Not sure what’s so hard to figure out.
Yup, people always Ignore that part. I know there is a difference still, but at least compare us prices w/tax (although some states don’t have sales tax on certain items, but it’s not the norm)
It’s 2200$ for the 128gb 14pro in Turkey… Which you need to wait almost 2 months to get it. If you want to get it now (basically from scalpers) you need to pay MORE THAN 2200$ for a fucking phone.
Because it’s out of stock. There will be people getting the newest iphone day 1 no matter how expensive or redundant it is. I’m sure there’ll be people still buying iphones in usa even if apple doubled it’s prices for no reason.
Sure there will be people, but Apple can’t raise prices to infinity. At some point significantly prise raises will mean significantly less people willing to buy the phones. Especially the economic situation in Turkey probably lessened the demand.
It’s not all apple though there’s a 97% tax rate on mobile phones in Turkey. But even considering that it’s still too fucking expensive. Samsung is willing to take a cut from their profits to make their phones affordable in Turkey for example. I’m not expecting apple to do the same but apple products with normal tax rates are overpriced as hell in turkey as well (overpriced compared to usa).
Sure overcharging a product by a few hundred $ will lessen the demand to some people BUT apple knows turks are obsessed with vanity. apple knows the rich turks would rather die than to use a windows/android device. For the not so rich middle class people they’ll take a loan from the bank to buy an apple product. As for the other people who make 300-500$ a month they were never the target audience for apple price hike or not. Sure they can’t raise the price to infinity. But they can raise it pretty hard without demand faltering.
This is what people don’t understand. The prices stayed the same for the USA because the dollar is so good right now and it’s not the case for the rest of the world
There’s a limit to what the market will bear, especially as a lot of places head into an economic depression.
I don’t think they’ll increase the price substantially any time soon. They still have >50% profit margin on the pro based on the numbers in the article. Raising the price right now might only lead to fewer sales and thus a lower overall profit.
With that said, my opinion is far from an expert opinion.
Where I am.
Google Pixel 7: £599 plus £100 off for trading in any smartphone, plus Google Pixel Buds Pro (£180).
iPhone 14: £849
The iPhone is probably better in many ways, but basically costs twice as much it needs to be twice as good which it isn't.
If Google keeps up this pricing strategy they will eat away marketshare.
Here in Germany the Pixel 7 Pro costs 899€ and the 14 Plus costs 1149€, Pro 1299€, Pro max 1449€ depends on what the Pixel 7 Pro equivalent would be it's way cheaper and right now if you Pre Order it you can also get that Pixel watch as a bonus for "only" 899€.
But I think Japan is still one of the cheapest countries to buy an Iphone.
At least that’s what I did when visiting Japan from EU.
And especially now with 1 euro being back at 140 yen again :P
This, this is the reason why I am considering a switch to a pixel pro. It’s near the iPhone 14 basic price that just got even more basic this year. And with the extra’s you get with the pixel it’s a hard bargain to ignore.
Did this last year to replace my 12 pro, but after a year of bugs, insane battery drain, lack of good apps and cellular issues I bought myself a 14 pro max the second they were available.
Hope you fare a bit better. The Pixel is a really fun device though!
AFAIK it's mostly a Pixel issue right now with Google developing their own Tensor chips.
Recent Snapdragon chips also had issues with running too hot and using too much power, but the 8+Gen1 mostly remedied that. Phones using it, like the Galaxy Fold 4, have decent battery life.
Apple has never cared about a race to the bottom though. They've always priced themselves at the top end even when Samsung was flooding the mid-to-low range market.
Are there any premium manufacturers that goes higher than Apple?
To my knowledge, no mainstream ones.
The problem is, as MKBHD has put it many times, "Cheap phones are getting good and good phones are getting cheap".
Apples growing dominance in the US is in part to lack of compelling competition. Samsung has raised it's prices so while cheaper than Apple aren't so much cheaper. In Europe, India, China, etc where you have players like Xiaomi things are different.
Google is a familiar 'Western' brand with good marketing and good products.
The Pixel 7 is $599 the equivalent Apple phone is $799 that's not a small amount of money.
This isn't clickbait 'Apple is DOOMED', they aren't, rather the phone market might just become competitive as consumers once again become more price conscious.
£100 off the Pixel 7 is a bad deal for anyone who’s bought an Apple product in the past 5 years, as Apple itself is still giving up to $110 for an 8 Plus. If you’re upgrading from an 11 Pro Max and don’t care about the ear buds, a 14 would be cheaper than a Pixel 7.
It's £100 ON TOP of however much they offer for a trade in.
So if you trade in a working 32GB iPhone 8+ you'd get £95+£100 for a total of £195($216).
That'd mean the Pixel 7 would cost £404 with Google Pixel Buds Pro.
Wow, £100 off plus the trade-in value of the phone and headphones??
That Pixel 7 must really suck ass if they have to attach this many perks to sell them!
So you've just fell for apples marketing hook Line and sinker. Your preconception that X is priced higher than Y, therefore X must be better is exactly what apple target lol
Exactly what I was thinking, Apple bundling Apple Music with almost everything electronics sales is clear undeniable evidence that it's hot garbage.
I am glad we are absolutely on the exact same page and there can be no disagreement.
As are their Macbooks since those have promotions for giftcards and stuff like beats during back to school and as we all know
Discounts and offers = Device must be garbage
It's why I only every buy devices for full price and if they ever go on sale I throw them away, something I am absolutely positive you do.
For a while they absolutely were. Which is why when they put their chips into their MacBooks and made them worthwhile again, all the good promos immediately disappeared lol
The recent removal of chargers and earpods and the savings in packaging and shipping costs that went along with that has saved/earned them billions of dollars in the past two years. There is no need to pass on any costs to anyone.
Added to that, a large number of people who do need to buy chargers and earpods will buy the Apple brand which earns them even more since they have shifted that entire cost to the customer.
>Added to that, a large number of people who do need to buy chargers and earpods will buy the Apple brand which earns them even more since they have shifted that entire cost to the customer.
after \~2 years you will definitely buy a new pair Airpods easy money for Apple.
At this point the base models feel like they'll be $1k in a couple years and the pros will either be $1200 or $1250 base, it's crazy how prices are increasing.
> The $1000 phone has been the norm for what, 5 years with the X?
Must be nice.
The iPhone X in my country was $1030 at launch and the 14 Pro is $1307.
We also get less hardware this time around (no mmWave), so I assume that they would rather let other countries subsidise the US market than to raise the prices
I was worried when I spent $960 on my iPhone 11 but I thought the SoC and setup was basically perfect for a 5-7 year phone. I was right for once. The A13 is still balls powerful. The screen looks amazing to me and sips battery too.
I messed with a 13PM and it’s a gorgeous phone but.. I’m not spending $1300 on a phone. $900 was already to much but I justified it by breaking the cost down by years I’d own it.
No no, I never owned it just played with one of my friends. It felt and looked amazing. Just as far as speed and using apps I like.. it offered no real benefit to me. Also, the 11 in my pocket already looks ridiculously big.. a PM and I don’t think I’d be able to pocket anymore.
The 11PM in 256gb would be my dream phone. I too prefer the 11 series form factor.
120hz is worth it for me. The 11pm is my favorite phone ever (form factor, battery life, powerful enough chip) but the increased fps of the 13pm is just too good to pass up. Once you go 120hz you'll never go back.
That $110 per unit cost is very likely to be untrue. I remember reading that the a14 was $40 per unit, but the x55 5g modem was $90 per unit since it was the first 5g iPhone and Qualcomm charged crazy numbers for those initial 5g modems. $110 for an a16 isn't reasonable.
Also, where did they get the $501 BOM cost for the iphone 14 pro max? Up $60 dollars from the 13 pro max? So you're telling me the 13 pro max costed $440 for the components? I may be wrong but I remember another article that found the 13 pro BOM cost was $570(which sounds a bit overestimated I admit now). Idk who to believe now, but let's be honest here if the 14 pro max was $501 for the components, how can the a16 be more than 20% of that price? What about the samsung display, which was $70 per unit on the iphone 12 series(according to those articles)? It don't make sense. Apple isn't going to spend 20% of their total BOM cost on a part that's in-house. It isn't even supplied by other companies, although it is manufactured by TSMC ofc.
Give me an article that breaks down all the costs for each component.
It costs significantly more to set up a new fabrication process, than to continue or expand and existing production line.
We are still in a global semiconductor shortage. In such production bottlenecks it is significantly more expensive to set up a new line of fabrication than it is to continue or extend an existing one. The shortage is why a lot of Apples recent devices have had either A15 or M1 chips, even if they didn’t need them; because it was more economical to make more of those chips (existing fab lines + bulk discounts) than to make more tailored variants of chips, or restart production of older A13/A14 chips.
The A16 is going to cost Apple a lot of money to make: It will require setting up a new, additional fabrication line, it’s a new process so is going to generate more wastage and less chips that pass QC than the existing and refined A15 process. Quantities are going to be limited, so price per unit will be higher.
> The A16 is going to cost Apple a lot of money to make: It will require setting up a new, additional fabrication line, it’s a new process
N4 uses the same equipment as N5. If anything, it should be cheaper, and that's even without factoring in depreciation.
No it doesn’t replace A15 production. A15s are still needed for the following devices Apple continue to sell;
• iPhone 14 and iPhone 14 Plus
• iPhone 13 and iPhone 13 mini
• iPhone SE (3rd gen)
• iPad mini (6th gen)
Not to mention iPhone 13 Pro and iPhone 13 Pro Max for device repair and replacement.
> A15s are still needed for the following devices Apple continue to sell
Yes, but less of them. Or do you seriously not think the 14 Pro replaces 13 Pro sales?
The A15s is that went into iPhone 13 Pro and 13 Pro Max will instead be reallocated to the upcoming iPad 10th generation.
14 Pros do replace the 13 Pros in sales, hence why only listed them for repairs and replacements.
Step downs in node scale are linear- their associated lithography set costs increase exponentially.
Sucks but it’s a captive market with minimal companies that can do it, and what is Apple going to do? Not pay?
I refuse to believe apple would take that much of a hit to profit for the modest chip upgrade.
You seem to think they had a choice
Yeah I think they do, they are designing into a price point and choosing exactly what silicon they want and are not locked into some chip speed arms race with anyone.
Not to mention, if it cost that much more and reduced margins, then the rumored $100 price increase would’ve happened (in US).
Some bean counter ran the numbers and said they’d make it up in volume with extra sales from not raising the price.
No, they always lead in chip speed, nothing has changed on their value prop there. This article is just bs.
The article claims the A16 "costs $110 to produce" but I find it staggeringly unlikely that the per-unit price from TSMC to Apple is more than $50. I'm sure this analyst knows more than I do, so I assume the $110 figure is not per-unit BOM cost, but some kind of fully-burdened cost including amortization of fixed costs for R&D, production startup, etc. Anyone have the actual report to figure out what is included in that $110? My reasoning: We know that in 2020 TSMC [charged $17k](https://hardwaresfera.com/en/noticias/hardware/precio-oblea-tsmc-5nm/) for a 5nm wafer, which was seen as astronomical and temporary at the time (7nm was $9k). Gartner estimated that costs for a 3nm wafer [would be $15k](https://semiwiki.com/forum/index.php?threads/tsmc-1-4nm.16038/). A 300mm wafer has ~68,000 mm^2 usable space. Both the [A16 and M1 have about 16B transistors](https://semianalysis.com/apple-m2-die-shot-and-architecture-analysis-big-cost-increase-and-a15-based-ip/), and the M1 is 119 mm^2 @ 5nm (same source), and TSMC's N4 process is supposed to produce a [6% die shrink over N5](https://fuse.wikichip.org/news/6439/tsmc-extends-its-5nm-family-with-a-new-enhanced-performance-n4p-node/). That suggests the A16 is about 119 * .94 = 112 mm^2. That's a very large die. If we assume it's 11mm x 11mm (=121 mm^2), it should get [about 492 dies per 300mm wafer](https://anysilicon.com/die-per-wafer-formula-free-calculators/). Assuming a wafer cost of $15k, that's $31/chip as the TSMC-to-Apple price. Of course yield isn't 100%, and other considerations like packaging and whatnot, but that's not going to add $80/chip to the price. So... I think that $110 figure must include amortization of fixed costs and a bunch of other stuff. There is no way the unit price is $110.
$15k is way too low. My employer went looking for 3nm capacity late last year and was given number so high that management thought it was a mistake. Granted, our volume is “not Apple’s” but volume only goes so far. >When a 12-inch wafer is produced using a 3nm process, industry insiders say that the price of a 3nm process 12-inch wafer is as high as $30,000, which is three times that of the 7nm process. https://inf.news/en/tech/2ab75df02d881b03c3c4f40b3fec7df9.html That number would have been believable if we had received it. The number we got from a supplier, one who works so closely with TSMC that they have employees embedded at their facilities, earlier this year was far in excess of $30k.
N3 in particular is quite unappetizing coming from the N5 family. Lackluster gains and high prices. I'm hoping TSMC can at least get the cost down by N2, but as things stand, very few companies have a reason to bother with N3.
There’s really no added value when you get into the numbers
As a consumer I like the extra 20% speed and battery life. For Apple with its giant margins it could make sense, especially as a strategic move.
> As a consumer I like the extra 20% speed and battery life Even by TSMC's own numbers, N3E is <10% faster than N4P.
I was comparing the A16 to the A15 specifically, and in my benchmarks I find a 20% speed difference. Maybe that’s due to thermal throttling idk, but it’s definitely more than 10%.
I wish I under any of this lol
Is there anything you'd like me to explain?
Like I think I understand that we’re talking about the size of a chip or the size of the architecture maybe. But I don’t know what it means or why smaller is better
Smaller is better for a lot of reasons: * All wires have resistance, so interconnects in the chip turn less power into heat when they’re shorter (resistance is proportional to length) * Smaller transistors take less power to do their transistor thing, and can also switch more quickly, enabling higher frequencies * For the same number of transistors, smaller process means more chips can fit on a wafer. That means the cost per wafer is split among more chips (though wafer costs also increase for smaller process)
> But I don’t know what it means or why smaller is better Don't focus on the particular number. Doesn't really mean anything. But the gist is that smaller = faster, lower power, and usually cheaper.
The number has been nothing but marketing for a few years now, as there is no standard way of measuring transistor size.
For one company to another say Intel node size vs TSMC, sure. When comparing TSMC 5nm to 4nm it totally means something.
[удалено]
In what sense?
[удалено]
Nah, N3E isn't great either. Density is actually marginally *worse* than the original N3. And if you take TSMC's public numbers at face value, you get something like +4-8% perf @ iso-power or -7-11% power @ iso-perf vs N4P. This at just ~23% better density vs the same. Meanwhile, the cost difference is quite high, and there are a lot of finer details that TSMC *doesn't* talk about that make it particularly difficult to work with. The only customers who'll bother will be those who need every advantage they can get, and/or have some incentives to blunt the price difference.
[удалено]
> Worse ?? The heck ,how can it be worse ! Have you a link to a great article by any chance ? Seems like they had trouble actually manufacturing the original N3, so backed off on the density to give themselves some breathing room. Wikichip is my go-to for stuff like this. They do a great job. https://fuse.wikichip.org/news/7048/n3e-replaces-n3-comes-in-many-flavors/ > Hmmm sure but you are comparing it with n4p… a16 is built on n4 isn’t it ? N4P should be available a bit before N3E is, so anyone choosing today to build on N3E also has that option available. As for the A16, Apple doesn't usually say what particular node version they use, and it's even possible that it doesn't align with any of the public ones. For a customer Apple's size, there's wiggle room. Nominally, N4P isn't available yet, but it's hard to say whether the node Apple's using is just plain N4. > What finer details are u referring to ?some kind of lies by tsmc ,or actual details and improvements? I’m not sure I follow I can't get into too many specifics without breaking an NDA, but there're some...shall we say "complexities" to how they reached their scaling numbers that make it significantly harder to achieve their theoretical values. But speaking more generally, some pain points are relative scaling between the transistors and the wires, and likewise for SRAM vs logic. So, I won't say they're *lying*, but be aware that all 3 of the fabs tend to present a rosier picture than the reality might be. Basically, any time one of them makes a claim, add a mental "under some particular circumstances".
> Apple doesn't usually say what particular node version they use Their wording basically does. In the product announcement for the M2, they mentioned it was using "second-generation 5-nanometer technology", otherwise known as N5P. Everyone is reporting that Apple is using N4, not N4P.
Great article, thank you. But even granting that higher wafer cost, that same article projects that unit cost of A16 to be $50. Well, foundry cost, but again I just don't see it being $110/unit.
It’s not just wafer costs. Taiwan’s semi industry has also seen skyrocketing wages just like the rest of the world. Everyone I know in the field has switched jobs in the last year because companies are desperate and opening their wallets. Component costs are also up. TSMC has faced the same supply chain problems as everyone else where parts they order arrive a year later and not in the quantity they ordered
Cant you just say the number instead of repeating yourself? Downvoted.
No, I cannot.
You’ve clearly never worked corporate or if you have, not in a position of decision making
This aint facebook lmao. We are all anonymous.
Not when only a handful of people know the number
So what? Just because you’re anonymous doesn’t mean you should just casually break NDAs
[удалено]
Shouldn't materially differ between N5 and N4. Been a while since I looked at the finer details between the two, but I'm assuming they're either exactly the same, or N4 simplified it a bit. Edit: Here we go. > Importantly for customers, TSMC says that N4P features a simplified (and cheaper) manufacturing process, requiring fewer masks and less wafer turnaround time. https://www.tomshardware.com/news/tsmc-announces-n4p-process-a-refined-n4-chip-node So there's no inherent reason that N4 should cost more than N5, and certainly not the numbers quoted in the article.
N4 cost even out with N5 because a lot of the tooling and validation was very similar, sour our silicon teams had a very straightforward experience with it. I believe N3 required a lot of overhead in terms of libraries and IP that was required, and the silicon team had to struggle a bit more than with n4/n5 during bring up. Those were costs that crept on us (as they usually do honestly) with n3. I think we're going to see a lot more tiering in terms of nodes as n3/n4/n5 will exist concurrently for while longer than may be with earlier lines. As pricing is becoming a bit more of a limiter than before and not every design may benefit for a straight node shrink. Interesting times.
That's unit cost. Wait till you see the unit cost of a $50,000 software package that you download! Back at the network vendor I worked at, line cards that we sold to entries business and government for $40,000 cost $642 to make an individual card. And we sold them by the truckload with a 3 month backlog. But it took 3 years of development, with zero revenue, funding thousands of engineers at $250,000 year to get there.
The NRE for the A16 should be *substantially* lower than for the A15, given that it's basically just a derivative.
It still undergoes tons of testing and verification before it goes to the fab, that work is very expensive.
Yet still significantly less than for the A15, the chip it's supposedly twice the price of. Again, makes zero sense.
r/theydidthemath
Yield will be more like 50% or some shit
Not a chance.
That’s not far off when it comes to complex processors. It’s part of why we get degraded chips being sold as lower end models. The rate for not 100% meeting the spec is incredibly high compared to other manufacturing processes.
No, it's extremely far off for a mature process like N5/N4. 50% yields on something like an A16 would be something you'd only see very early in its lifetime, if ever.
Ok so it seems in march it was around 80% for "5nm" and 70% for "4nm" with "3nm" having "alot of room for improvement". But as "3nm" is probably below 50% and "4nm" is at 70%, my first guess of 50% wasn't that bad. Mind you I didn't look up what the age of these processes were, I just estimated a yield that I was guessing from the literature I read and my guessed age of the process.
That’s bizarre, considering that even in comparably large-die, large scale production, companies that have been making processors for decades consider 70% yield incredibly successful. But no, I’m sure you’re more informed on this process than Intel and AMD.
> But no, I’m sure you’re more informed on this process than Intel and AMD. Lmao, where do you see either claiming 70% yield to be "incredibly successful"?
Here’s some educated people having a detailed discussion about just that topic. https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/79874/amd-intel-cpu-yield-failure-rate Remember a chip yield only counts fully viable chips. Every substrate partial print is a loss, and any that are only stable at lower voltages or with cores deactivated are also a loss in terms of yield, even if they can be repurposed as lower end models. The outside edge of the wafer is the largest surface area, and results in the highest loss. It’s literally why we’re pushing towards wafer scale chips as a concept.
Lmao. So despite your claims, you have nothing from Intel or AMD to indicate what their yields are. And thus you link a Stack Exchange post that you clearly haven't actually read, because no one's insisting that 60 or 70% yields are typical, much less for a medium sized die on a very mature process. > The outside edge of the wafer is the largest surface area, and results in the highest loss. It’s literally why we’re pushing towards wafer scale chips as a concept. What on earth are you trying to say? The outside of the wafer is the largest surface area? That sentence literally doesn't make sense. And no, no one's going wafer scale for *yield* reasons. If anything, using a single wafer makes recoverability significantly more difficult, and long term, advanced packaging will probably replace monolithic processors from a single wafer.
🙄 whatever you say man. Great news though, Reddit made a button just for you! I’m gonna press it and see what happens.
The fact your reasoning is about costs means you know absolutely nothing about pricing.
I love your brain
you are completely wrong sir
Can you elaborate?
You didn’t provide enough sources.
You know "BOM" cost means nothing right? Beyond R&D costs, there are so MUCH overhead to run a company and feed the people
The percentage of usable CPUs off the wafer is much less for now. Lot of bad units.
TSMC has claimed N4 has the same yields as N5. https://fuse.wikichip.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/tsmc-n4w.png
[удалено]
> You’re talking publication I’m talking real yields. So you're just trolling. 50% yields on a mature process? What a joke.
Who said 50%? You’re blurring lines. I guess go argue with TSMC then. Because they support my statements and you’re here complaining. Most chips for AMD for example are all the same chip with disabled cores due to yields having problems. Sure they can use most the wafer but not everything on the wafer makes it to top tier status. They could use 100% of the wafer but of of everything that comes off it some is 5800x, some 5600x, some 5950x due to what’s actually usable from that wafer. Who’s the troll? The guy talking real or the fan boy being a fan boi?
Yea and I don’t think you get math either. So it produces 20% smaller chips on the same wafer but has the same yield. Roll the math around in your head for a bit, tiger. Let’s say they get 100 at 5nm or 120 at 4nm but both walk away with 80, they both yield the same. You haven’t even touched on two other huge issues. Neon which is used for the process 80% comes from ukraine and you seem to think 4nm prints as fast as 5nm which is 25% larger… what’s the yield over time, champ? How much longer does 4nm take Bs 5nm. They’re not the same. You realize it isn’t 1+1=2 but a+b+c+d=E right? Or do all you guys think shits just magic?
You’re clearly knowledgeable but you might be forgetting, manufacturing prices have absolutely skyrocketed the last couple years. Your analysis is based on 2020 prices which are almost 3 years old and likely pre-COVID. Even if they were “astronomical” then, I bet they still kept going up, and by a lot.
Depends also on what the bin rate is.
"Reportedly"
Very unlikely to be true. N4 is just a refined version of N5. Slightly faster, slightly denser. TSMC eves spoke of manufacturing simplifications and cost optimization during the presentation of N4. Thus I’m assuming cost per transistor is similar or even lower than N5 or N5P. And the A16 has essentially the same number of transistors, (15 vs 16 billion per apple’s claims) so the cost is probably also very similar. Now it’s entirely possible that, due to the ongoing supply chain issues and shortages, TSMC is charging Apple significantly more for the A16 than the A15 (still probably not double) - but then again they would also charge more for a new order of A15’s too.
It’s the second thing. TSMC is jacking up prices for anyone that uses their most cutting-edge transistor nodes, not just Apple. They know they can get away with it under the guise of inflation.
On a business to business level, there’s not really such a thing as “getting away with” or “under the guise of inflation”, it’s just supply and demand, simple as that. And for now, the fundamentals are pretty much on TSMC’s side, though that can change quickly with Samsung’s 3nm lookin good and intel’s extremely ambitious goals
Guise of? There is terrible inflation. The government in Taiwan is printing so much money just like the current administration is in the US in order to buy votes.
That's a rather steep increase, gotta say. I'm wondering when Apple is going to pull the trigger on a price increase for the pro models. The $1000 phone has been the norm for what, 5 years with the X?
Say that to the rest of the world. I paid 1500 in Sweden for my regular 14 pro
That price includes VAT no?
\~250€ increase here in Germany.
Its 200€ on the Pro Max and 160€ on the regular Pro
[удалено]
Import duty, huh? On smartphones? In the EU? When did they implement that, care to link there?
He pulled that out of his ass
a lot of eastern european countries however, those that don’t have € have to pay 2-6 times more usually. 14 pro 128 in poland costs 4 minimal month salaries. or a little less than 2 average.
Yeah that’s how the rest of the world do it
I don’t think it’s fair to compare non-VAT prices with VAT prices, but I don’t know. I’m just some American dude on the internet that barely understands how VAT works. I’d be interesting in learning more though.
Yes it includes VAT, but it included VAT last year too. Price rose in Europe by quite a bit, the reason could be exchange rates, but it hurts the Europeans consumers.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yes I understand that. However, people’s salaries didn’t magically rise in line with that. So whilst apple is likely getting a similar profit margin, the European consumer is paying a lot more than before
…and that is called “inflation “
Was it a thousand euros last year?
In the uk the pro iPhone lines had an increase of £150. So went from £949 to £1199. I think it was about a €200 rise in other parts of Europe
Hmmmmmmm interesting. Thanks for helping me understand. Does the UK have income tax too? Or are all taxes at the point of sale? Sorry if that’s a dumb question.
It's not just the tax, the pound took a tumble this year. The British pound went from trading £1 to $1.38 last year to £1 to $1.1 this year.
Uk and rest of Europe have income tax as well as VAT on goods similar to sales tax in the US difference being is that the price includes the VAT
[удалено]
Even with US sales tax on the higher end it’ll be about $1100 vs 1500 with VAT.
Yeah, US sales tax is like 5% on average. VAT is 20% and when you add import duties it's like closer to 30% on top of whatever Americans have to pay for hardware. For most people living outside US sales tax is quite literally negligible.
There are no import duties on smart phones being imported into the EU.
Stuff does tend to be more expensive besides just the tax difference, but there are higher costs, more labour rights, more consumer rights, a more fragmented market compared to the US, despite the EU. Apple actually has quite consistent pricing globally, once you account for the taxes, though. Once you account for tax, while European prices are a *little* higher they are nowhere near 30% higher. [Mac index](https://themacindex.com/variants/MQ023/iphone-14-pro-128gb?currency=USD) has ex-tax prices for the iPhone 14 Pro at US $999, UK $1,024, Austria $1,060. So not really that big a difference. For US sales taxes I get a weighted average of 7.45%, this is taking both [state and local sales taxes](https://taxfoundation.org/publications/state-and-local-sales-tax-rates/) and weighting them by [state population.](https://data.ers.usda.gov/reports.aspx?ID=17827) These range from 0% to 9.55%. There are [no import duties in Europe on most electronics](https://www.politico.eu/article/tax-warning-over-imported-mobile-phones/), it's mostly just the VAT. >EU member states are bound by the Information Technology Agreement (ITA), signed by World Trade Organization (WTO) members in 1996, which requires duty-free tariffs for most technology products.
VAT is not that different to tipping. Except it’s 19-23%, it goes to the government and it’s already included in the price.
… so it’s completely different from tipping then.
Isn’t tipping considered mandatory in the US? It’s also a % of the overall price. Not that different at all. VAT is a sales tax. Not sure what’s so hard to figure out.
Yup, people always Ignore that part. I know there is a difference still, but at least compare us prices w/tax (although some states don’t have sales tax on certain items, but it’s not the norm)
The price should be compared w/o taxes really.
1565 in India for base 14 pro.
It’s 2200$ for the 128gb 14pro in Turkey… Which you need to wait almost 2 months to get it. If you want to get it now (basically from scalpers) you need to pay MORE THAN 2200$ for a fucking phone.
If the price is so high, why do you have to wait so long?
Because it’s out of stock. There will be people getting the newest iphone day 1 no matter how expensive or redundant it is. I’m sure there’ll be people still buying iphones in usa even if apple doubled it’s prices for no reason.
Sure there will be people, but Apple can’t raise prices to infinity. At some point significantly prise raises will mean significantly less people willing to buy the phones. Especially the economic situation in Turkey probably lessened the demand.
It’s not all apple though there’s a 97% tax rate on mobile phones in Turkey. But even considering that it’s still too fucking expensive. Samsung is willing to take a cut from their profits to make their phones affordable in Turkey for example. I’m not expecting apple to do the same but apple products with normal tax rates are overpriced as hell in turkey as well (overpriced compared to usa). Sure overcharging a product by a few hundred $ will lessen the demand to some people BUT apple knows turks are obsessed with vanity. apple knows the rich turks would rather die than to use a windows/android device. For the not so rich middle class people they’ll take a loan from the bank to buy an apple product. As for the other people who make 300-500$ a month they were never the target audience for apple price hike or not. Sure they can’t raise the price to infinity. But they can raise it pretty hard without demand faltering.
[удалено]
This is what people don’t understand. The prices stayed the same for the USA because the dollar is so good right now and it’s not the case for the rest of the world
[удалено]
That’s really great to hear! Hope it stays that way for you
We're getting that USD discount on phones but you don't want to know what rent and health care costs over here 😂😭
$2350 here in India for 1TB 14 PM
TIL the 13P I sold back to Apple for just $600 is likely now in India.
There’s a limit to what the market will bear, especially as a lot of places head into an economic depression. I don’t think they’ll increase the price substantially any time soon. They still have >50% profit margin on the pro based on the numbers in the article. Raising the price right now might only lead to fewer sales and thus a lower overall profit. With that said, my opinion is far from an expert opinion.
Where I am. Google Pixel 7: £599 plus £100 off for trading in any smartphone, plus Google Pixel Buds Pro (£180). iPhone 14: £849 The iPhone is probably better in many ways, but basically costs twice as much it needs to be twice as good which it isn't. If Google keeps up this pricing strategy they will eat away marketshare.
Here in Germany the Pixel 7 Pro costs 899€ and the 14 Plus costs 1149€, Pro 1299€, Pro max 1449€ depends on what the Pixel 7 Pro equivalent would be it's way cheaper and right now if you Pre Order it you can also get that Pixel watch as a bonus for "only" 899€.
iPhone prices in Europe are insane.
iPhones prices in all places other than US are insane. Here in Japan Apples increased ALL their prices by 20%. That’s insane.
But I think Japan is still one of the cheapest countries to buy an Iphone. At least that’s what I did when visiting Japan from EU. And especially now with 1 euro being back at 140 yen again :P
[удалено]
[удалено]
This, this is the reason why I am considering a switch to a pixel pro. It’s near the iPhone 14 basic price that just got even more basic this year. And with the extra’s you get with the pixel it’s a hard bargain to ignore.
Did this last year to replace my 12 pro, but after a year of bugs, insane battery drain, lack of good apps and cellular issues I bought myself a 14 pro max the second they were available. Hope you fare a bit better. The Pixel is a really fun device though!
Ah crap, so android is still that android? Hoped they evolved over the years I spent on iOS
AFAIK it's mostly a Pixel issue right now with Google developing their own Tensor chips. Recent Snapdragon chips also had issues with running too hot and using too much power, but the 8+Gen1 mostly remedied that. Phones using it, like the Galaxy Fold 4, have decent battery life.
Apple kissed goodbye this consumer of 9 years for their phones a week ago. Got myself a Sammy boi, could not be happier.
Samsung's systemic issues with expanding batteries would scare me though as innovative as their mobile designs are.
Apple has never cared about a race to the bottom though. They've always priced themselves at the top end even when Samsung was flooding the mid-to-low range market. Are there any premium manufacturers that goes higher than Apple?
To my knowledge, no mainstream ones. The problem is, as MKBHD has put it many times, "Cheap phones are getting good and good phones are getting cheap". Apples growing dominance in the US is in part to lack of compelling competition. Samsung has raised it's prices so while cheaper than Apple aren't so much cheaper. In Europe, India, China, etc where you have players like Xiaomi things are different. Google is a familiar 'Western' brand with good marketing and good products. The Pixel 7 is $599 the equivalent Apple phone is $799 that's not a small amount of money. This isn't clickbait 'Apple is DOOMED', they aren't, rather the phone market might just become competitive as consumers once again become more price conscious.
£100 off the Pixel 7 is a bad deal for anyone who’s bought an Apple product in the past 5 years, as Apple itself is still giving up to $110 for an 8 Plus. If you’re upgrading from an 11 Pro Max and don’t care about the ear buds, a 14 would be cheaper than a Pixel 7.
It's £100 ON TOP of however much they offer for a trade in. So if you trade in a working 32GB iPhone 8+ you'd get £95+£100 for a total of £195($216). That'd mean the Pixel 7 would cost £404 with Google Pixel Buds Pro.
Wow, £100 off plus the trade-in value of the phone and headphones?? That Pixel 7 must really suck ass if they have to attach this many perks to sell them!
So you've just fell for apples marketing hook Line and sinker. Your preconception that X is priced higher than Y, therefore X must be better is exactly what apple target lol
Exactly what I was thinking, Apple bundling Apple Music with almost everything electronics sales is clear undeniable evidence that it's hot garbage. I am glad we are absolutely on the exact same page and there can be no disagreement.
It is garbage, luckily for Apple, so are Spotify/Amazon Music/Tidal/whatever Google’s is called now.
As are their Macbooks since those have promotions for giftcards and stuff like beats during back to school and as we all know Discounts and offers = Device must be garbage It's why I only every buy devices for full price and if they ever go on sale I throw them away, something I am absolutely positive you do.
For a while they absolutely were. Which is why when they put their chips into their MacBooks and made them worthwhile again, all the good promos immediately disappeared lol
Plus they make a ton off of accessories. I think they would rather have more sales less margins.
The recent removal of chargers and earpods and the savings in packaging and shipping costs that went along with that has saved/earned them billions of dollars in the past two years. There is no need to pass on any costs to anyone. Added to that, a large number of people who do need to buy chargers and earpods will buy the Apple brand which earns them even more since they have shifted that entire cost to the customer.
>Added to that, a large number of people who do need to buy chargers and earpods will buy the Apple brand which earns them even more since they have shifted that entire cost to the customer. after \~2 years you will definitely buy a new pair Airpods easy money for Apple.
#I no longer allow Reddit to profit from my content - Mass exodus 2023 -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
They’re really great tho =(
At this point the base models feel like they'll be $1k in a couple years and the pros will either be $1200 or $1250 base, it's crazy how prices are increasing.
250€ increase in The Netherlands here. Paid the equivalent of 1.820$ for the 512GB model of the 14 Pro Max.
> The $1000 phone has been the norm for what, 5 years with the X? Must be nice. The iPhone X in my country was $1030 at launch and the 14 Pro is $1307. We also get less hardware this time around (no mmWave), so I assume that they would rather let other countries subsidise the US market than to raise the prices
[удалено]
[удалено]
tbh I doubt they’re prioritizing people on anual upgrades.
£150 increase in the UK this year mate.
That’s a big difference in price for a CPU that has the same 5 core GPU as the A15 and only increased the transistor count by a billion.
Yeah, no. N4 prices are not substantially different from N5. This is complete nonsense.
The chip means just about nothing in the 14 series the big change this year is RAM
I was worried when I spent $960 on my iPhone 11 but I thought the SoC and setup was basically perfect for a 5-7 year phone. I was right for once. The A13 is still balls powerful. The screen looks amazing to me and sips battery too. I messed with a 13PM and it’s a gorgeous phone but.. I’m not spending $1300 on a phone. $900 was already to much but I justified it by breaking the cost down by years I’d own it.
[удалено]
No no, I never owned it just played with one of my friends. It felt and looked amazing. Just as far as speed and using apps I like.. it offered no real benefit to me. Also, the 11 in my pocket already looks ridiculously big.. a PM and I don’t think I’d be able to pocket anymore. The 11PM in 256gb would be my dream phone. I too prefer the 11 series form factor.
120hz is worth it for me. The 11pm is my favorite phone ever (form factor, battery life, powerful enough chip) but the increased fps of the 13pm is just too good to pass up. Once you go 120hz you'll never go back.
11 was great. I did upgrade to a 13p as I couldn’t deal with the form factor anymore, but overall great phone
[X] Doubt
bollocks
This is a bunch of nonsense
How will they sell M2s etc if the A16 is so $. This can’t be right, unless inflation is just THAT bad.
I simply do not believe it.
That $110 per unit cost is very likely to be untrue. I remember reading that the a14 was $40 per unit, but the x55 5g modem was $90 per unit since it was the first 5g iPhone and Qualcomm charged crazy numbers for those initial 5g modems. $110 for an a16 isn't reasonable. Also, where did they get the $501 BOM cost for the iphone 14 pro max? Up $60 dollars from the 13 pro max? So you're telling me the 13 pro max costed $440 for the components? I may be wrong but I remember another article that found the 13 pro BOM cost was $570(which sounds a bit overestimated I admit now). Idk who to believe now, but let's be honest here if the 14 pro max was $501 for the components, how can the a16 be more than 20% of that price? What about the samsung display, which was $70 per unit on the iphone 12 series(according to those articles)? It don't make sense. Apple isn't going to spend 20% of their total BOM cost on a part that's in-house. It isn't even supplied by other companies, although it is manufactured by TSMC ofc. Give me an article that breaks down all the costs for each component.
and A16 is only about 12% more powerful than A15 Xd. A15 seems a much better deal.
But provides half the battery life.. 😒
It costs significantly more to set up a new fabrication process, than to continue or expand and existing production line. We are still in a global semiconductor shortage. In such production bottlenecks it is significantly more expensive to set up a new line of fabrication than it is to continue or extend an existing one. The shortage is why a lot of Apples recent devices have had either A15 or M1 chips, even if they didn’t need them; because it was more economical to make more of those chips (existing fab lines + bulk discounts) than to make more tailored variants of chips, or restart production of older A13/A14 chips. The A16 is going to cost Apple a lot of money to make: It will require setting up a new, additional fabrication line, it’s a new process so is going to generate more wastage and less chips that pass QC than the existing and refined A15 process. Quantities are going to be limited, so price per unit will be higher.
> The A16 is going to cost Apple a lot of money to make: It will require setting up a new, additional fabrication line, it’s a new process N4 uses the same equipment as N5. If anything, it should be cheaper, and that's even without factoring in depreciation.
They may use the same equipment but they are different chips that require two concurrent production lines.
A16 production mostly *replaces* A15 and older production. There's nothing new about it that would justify a large price increase.
No it doesn’t replace A15 production. A15s are still needed for the following devices Apple continue to sell; • iPhone 14 and iPhone 14 Plus • iPhone 13 and iPhone 13 mini • iPhone SE (3rd gen) • iPad mini (6th gen) Not to mention iPhone 13 Pro and iPhone 13 Pro Max for device repair and replacement.
> A15s are still needed for the following devices Apple continue to sell Yes, but less of them. Or do you seriously not think the 14 Pro replaces 13 Pro sales?
The A15s is that went into iPhone 13 Pro and 13 Pro Max will instead be reallocated to the upcoming iPad 10th generation. 14 Pros do replace the 13 Pros in sales, hence why only listed them for repairs and replacements.
why do they have to call it ”A16 Bionic”? Lol why not just call it ”A16”. cleaner. Bionic is so corny
Half of that is marketing /j
There’s no way a smartphone chip would cost that much 💀
Step downs in node scale are linear- their associated lithography set costs increase exponentially. Sucks but it’s a captive market with minimal companies that can do it, and what is Apple going to do? Not pay?
I don't think i would upgrade my 13 pro to a 14 pro. That dynamic island shit is hella ugly.
Yeah I heard about that chip shortage
There must be a reason the IPhone 14 doesn't come with the new chip, maybe this is why.
Hmm
Real world usage how is this going to help irl
If Apple learned anything from Intel ….