News & Analysis
Comment
ManasK.RayChaudhuri
Let us wait and watch the reactions of other companies.
ManasK.RayChaudhuri
It is definitely not crap.Await the results.
A5: All Apple, part mystery
Paul Boldt and Don Scansen
4/13/2011 12:01 AM EDT
Apple Inc.'s iPad2 has only been publicly available for about a month. However, it appears this young device has kept few secrets since we have known there were 21 magnets in the smart cover and saw a die floorplan of the A5 within mere days of its release. The flurry of the first wave of disassembly and dissection seems to have died down while we might assume that some very detailed circuit analysis is likely just beginning to be scoped out.
When the A4 was subjected to the same procedure just under one year ago, there was a sense it was going to underwhelm anyone expecting a unique design because so little time had passed between Apple ramping up its design team with the acquisition of PA Semi and the release date. There simply wasn't time to generate a new design. The A5 is a different story. Another year has passed.
The A5 is also the second data point in terms of design strategy for Apple's iOS SoC. While two data points constitute a streak only in baseball, this second design would have had sufficient time for Apple to be moving in the direction they want. So how did the A5 fare? Has it met expectations at this early stage of the analysis?
First, a look back
During the Jan. 27, 2010, keynote both the iPad and A4 were publicly debuted for the first time. While the former has become a media darling and the object of global consumer desire, the latter quietly went about its business filling more and more sockets.
During 2010 the A4 appeared in the iPhone 4, iPod Touch and Apple TV. Although the A4 played second fiddle to the iPad, it did just fine in its own right. Yes it is not Apple's first design effort, but it is arguably their most important with the A4 being central to Apple's iOS devices and therefore key to a very large revenue stream for the largest technology company, something that cannot be said of previous design efforts.
While the client is somewhat captive in this case it is worth considering the A4 and now A5 as a semiconductor story. We might be jumping the gun to call them rivals, but other semiconductor companies are certainly taking the A-series of SoCs seriously because of the sheer number of sockets and high revenues those products generate.
At the time the A4 was announced, the burning question was how much of the design could be attributed to acquired design teams, especially PA Semi since they had been inside Apple longest. With an over-abundance of rumors by the time the A4 was available to the public, it was important to collate the physical evidence. Thus, our last look at the A4 consolidated some existing reverse engineering information, seasoned it with our own, and contemplated whether there was evidence of circuit design originating from Apple's PA Semi and Intrinsity acquisitions.
One conclusion was that there was evidence of Intrinsity design. We also concluded that the A4, on the block level, was very similar to Samsung's S5PC110. At that point the A4 did not appear all that unique. The simple finding that there were only two circuit blocks different between the A4 and S5PC110 spoke strongly to existing IP relationships.
The A5 should be different. Apple has had more time and Samsung has migrated to the Tegra 2 for their Galaxy 10.1.
Next: How Apple did on the A5
When the A4 was subjected to the same procedure just under one year ago, there was a sense it was going to underwhelm anyone expecting a unique design because so little time had passed between Apple ramping up its design team with the acquisition of PA Semi and the release date. There simply wasn't time to generate a new design. The A5 is a different story. Another year has passed.
The A5 is also the second data point in terms of design strategy for Apple's iOS SoC. While two data points constitute a streak only in baseball, this second design would have had sufficient time for Apple to be moving in the direction they want. So how did the A5 fare? Has it met expectations at this early stage of the analysis?
First, a look back
During the Jan. 27, 2010, keynote both the iPad and A4 were publicly debuted for the first time. While the former has become a media darling and the object of global consumer desire, the latter quietly went about its business filling more and more sockets.
During 2010 the A4 appeared in the iPhone 4, iPod Touch and Apple TV. Although the A4 played second fiddle to the iPad, it did just fine in its own right. Yes it is not Apple's first design effort, but it is arguably their most important with the A4 being central to Apple's iOS devices and therefore key to a very large revenue stream for the largest technology company, something that cannot be said of previous design efforts.
While the client is somewhat captive in this case it is worth considering the A4 and now A5 as a semiconductor story. We might be jumping the gun to call them rivals, but other semiconductor companies are certainly taking the A-series of SoCs seriously because of the sheer number of sockets and high revenues those products generate.
At the time the A4 was announced, the burning question was how much of the design could be attributed to acquired design teams, especially PA Semi since they had been inside Apple longest. With an over-abundance of rumors by the time the A4 was available to the public, it was important to collate the physical evidence. Thus, our last look at the A4 consolidated some existing reverse engineering information, seasoned it with our own, and contemplated whether there was evidence of circuit design originating from Apple's PA Semi and Intrinsity acquisitions.
One conclusion was that there was evidence of Intrinsity design. We also concluded that the A4, on the block level, was very similar to Samsung's S5PC110. At that point the A4 did not appear all that unique. The simple finding that there were only two circuit blocks different between the A4 and S5PC110 spoke strongly to existing IP relationships.
The A5 should be different. Apple has had more time and Samsung has migrated to the Tegra 2 for their Galaxy 10.1.
Next: How Apple did on the A5
|
|
|
|
|
Navigate to related information
hm
4/13/2011 12:21 PM EDT
Very good article. A5 is wonderful design. I wish it is available for general embeeded product design! However, it is Apple's final product design and marketing that takes A5 further as compared to other equally good designed SoC.
Sign in to Reply
luting
4/14/2011 1:23 AM EDT
Could you afford it?
Sign in to Reply
ManasK.RayChaudhuri
4/21/2011 9:40 PM EDT
Agreed,but one has to consider the price factor.
Sign in to Reply
elctrnx_lyf
4/13/2011 12:55 PM EDT
A5 and the Apple definitely are tightly coupled to provide best performance to the consumers. Apple has done things differently and they continue to do so!!!
Sign in to Reply
selinz
4/13/2011 2:01 PM EDT
Interesting article. I'd like to see the AB comparison between Samsung's own CPU for their Galaxy II devices...
Sign in to Reply
Singh_Y
4/13/2011 2:06 PM EDT
All things considered, Apple has done a great job with the A5 processor platform; However longer term Apple will need to make a decision from a competitive standpoint:
* Should apple continue to use Samsung Foundry at 45 nm process node ?
* Note Samsung is a competitor to Apple in the tablet and phone space
* If Apple could partner with Intel to create a low power , high performance multicore SOC at 28 nm it may be a better option strategically for the next 5 years and a win win for both Intel and Apple
Sign in to Reply
Moshe.Frankel
4/13/2011 2:18 PM EDT
For Microsoft, Intel, Nokia, Motorola and even Dell and TI it is probably too late. May be even for Google. Nokia should have done it with Symbian, Intel even both an OS,but they all have too much to loose from such a jump in efficiency. only Apple runs a business model that allows it to benefit from what benefit its customers (single source, integration, efficiency). It was a multibillion dollars decision that other with even more money should have made but only apple did. And it is only a question of time until they move to Intels and TI's territory with semiconductor technology they are investing in. Teh already taking a significant share limiting growth of those companies. The article closing words say it all: "Apple likely plans to venture further down the road of custom circuit design. Going beyond the need to remain generic and flexible to accommodate the broadest possible OS market might produce revolutionary hardware-software platforms. "
Sign in to Reply
Frank Eory
4/13/2011 3:42 PM EDT
Very interesting article, with some well thought-out speculations. In the end, the authors leave 34 mm2 of die area as a mystery. In 45 nm, this represents an enormous amount of logic. Is it possible there are IP blocks in there -- Apple's own, or licensed -- that have not yet been exploited by existing Apple products?
It was a relatively short time, basically a year, between A4 and A5 production readiness. I have a feeling the A5 has much longer legs than the A4 did, and we will not see an A6 next year...but probably in 2013.
Sign in to Reply
Paul Boldt
4/15/2011 11:53 AM EDT
When the A4 came out there was speculation that it would not support cameras because they were not included in iPad. Then iPhone 4 had two cameras and an A4. While not touching on this thread in the article I suspect the same. There is likely an "upgrade cycle" lurking in there somewhere.
Paul
Sign in to Reply
EdKorczynski
4/13/2011 6:59 PM EDT
If rumors serve...then after the A5 is ported to the TSMC CLN28HPL process the final die size will be closer to the A4. Then, a further tweak to the CLN28HPM process early in 2012 would presumably provide another performance boost without a re-design. If this plays out (seems like an obvious move, really) then the A5 will be the "low power, high performance multicore SOC at 28 nm" that will remain highly competitive for the next few years. Apple can put more resources into software, and clouds, and brick'n'mortar...and just use Samsung as a 2nd-source for Flash memory.
Sign in to Reply
GREAT-Terry
4/15/2011 3:09 AM EDT
Good article. Apple is really doing something differently. If the special logic blocks are really something that helps performance in whatever sense, I believe Apple will still lead the market and will lead for long time. Google seems haven't started such a hardware+software integration so it may not be able to catch up. Very anxious to see what the situation can be after 2 years.
Sign in to Reply
SZA
4/19/2011 3:13 PM EDT
Agreed. With both A4 and A5 on same node and A5 much larger than A4 while iPad still maintaining similar battery life. It certainly seems Apple has exploited clever hardware+software exploitation. It is still relatively hard for rivals to do that in current form (perhaps future close partnerships arise for Android+Samsung, Microsoft+Nokia :)).
Sign in to Reply
ManasK.RayChaudhuri
4/21/2011 9:47 PM EDT
Let us wait and watch the reactions of other companies.
Sign in to Reply
ArekZ
4/15/2011 4:12 AM EDT
I wonder if this article is sponsored by Apple. A5 seems to be glorified a lot here but I cannot see anything special in it, except it coming from Apple. Like many other ARM customers, Apple put together a few IP cores in an SoC and the chip does what they wanted, like for other customers.
This article compares A5 only to A4 hence does not really show to the readers the position of A5 in the global market.
Sign in to Reply
junko.yoshida
4/15/2011 6:27 AM EDT
ArekZ, I would like to make it crystacl clear that this article was NOT sponsored by Apple. I am the editor in chief of EE Times, and I know that it is not the case.
That said, the reason why we are running this article is because Apple has kept mum on their SoC strategy.
They have said very little about what's inside their A4 or A5 processors. The two engineers who contributed this article have done a great job in making "educated guesses" on what Apple might have done to A5, unlocking a few mysteries.
The article also gives us a glimpse of what might be Apple's future SoC strategy.
Sign in to Reply
Paul Boldt
4/15/2011 11:23 AM EDT
As one of the authors I just want to re-iterate that the article was not sponsored by Apple.
To go back a bit, both the A4 and A5 articles were inspired by Apple's big push into semi. design. This has the possibility to alter landscape.
Since the initial de-capping of the A5 there has been lots of discussion about its die size and if they could have done better. So we were curious and took a look.
Thanks for all of the positive comments.
Paul
Sign in to Reply
jpnKevin
4/18/2011 3:59 PM EDT
Apple becoming involved in semi-design to higher degree will certainly give them flexibility and may result in an ongoing strategic advantage.
A lot more understanding could have added in the article by comparing it to other ARM Cortex A9 processors on 45nm silicon like OMAP4;
http://focus.ti.com/lit/ml/swpt034b/swpt034b.pdf
Just looking at the block diagram and comparing it to A5 would tell you alot.
You could have discussed differences in size between PowerVR SGX543MP2 in A5 and PowerVR SGX540 in OMAP4;
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4216/apple-ipad-2-gpu-performance-explored-powervr-sgx543mp2-benchmarked
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerVR
Even ARM's site itself provides info on example die sizes with different process for development kit chips that give some insight on what to expect.
Cortex A8 supported optional upto 1MB of L2 Cache while A9 supports upto 8MB for example.
Here is an interesting quote;
"A final mobile constraint that must be addressed is balancing the need to minimize die size, but providing large enough memory cache to keep multiple cores from being stalled. If a single core device requires
N amount of cache, up to 4*N cache may be required to achieve good performance in a multicore device.
Other memory design issues include data coherence and system memory consistency, to ensure processors
all have access to the current data at the correct time"
See Page 3;
http://focus.ti.com/pdfs/wtbu/smp_wp_swpy022.pdf
Some more general information from other chip makers of ARM designs would have provided more insight.
Sure there are lots of different IP blocks to choose from and it is important to have designer level understanding to make right choices.
But Apple has nothing to gain making IP choices or custom development public public it is not selling chips. Apple can also benefit from the "magic" of people imagining they are doing much more than they actually are.
Sign in to Reply
ManasK.RayChaudhuri
4/21/2011 9:43 PM EDT
I would eagerly await a detailed writeup on the subject in order to evaluate properly.
Sign in to Reply
danny1024
4/15/2011 2:01 PM EDT
What a way to squander the PA-SEMI acquisition (their lead design team has almost entirely jumped ship)and the their PA6T architecture. Rather than unify their entire product range under a single, modern ISA (PowerPC) Apple elected to fragment it with ARM, PowerPC and x86. And to add insult to injury, ARM's Neon SIMD ISA is just woeful compared to VMX or even SSE.
Sign in to Reply
Singh_Y
4/15/2011 6:27 PM EDT
It would be good to compare A5 to the other Top 3 SOCs; Has EE times ever done a disection of the Atom Processor ? Why would Apple tout the A5 ? An Ideas for future article:
Can the A5 architecture be implemented in a 28 nm FPGA [Altera, Xilinx, Archonix] with similar performance and cost ?
Sign in to Reply
Stephen.Sliva
4/16/2011 9:04 PM EDT
My guess is that facetime is going to get REALLY fancy. You're looking at multi-way videoconferencing. One-on-one is soooo 2010. All that extra logic is just more GPU-like crap.
Sign in to Reply
ManasK.RayChaudhuri
4/21/2011 9:45 PM EDT
It is definitely not crap.Await the results.
Sign in to Reply