news & analysis
MADISON, Wis. – last week, hypothesis about Google's plans for its personal Android chips shifted into excessive equipment.
The advice pronounced that Google held discussions with silicon carriers about co-setting up chip designs, together with a mobilephone's main processor. The designs would "enable new aspects Google hopes to put into effect within Android software in the following few years." The report quoted unnamed sources who claim to were briefed on the discussions.
EE times hasn't been capable of ascertain this file. Nor have a number of business analysts to whom we reached out.
besides the fact that children, the very concept – Google ambitions to design chips optimized for future developments within the Android working gadget – is making waves in the industry. Market watchers' opinions are cut up as as to whether Google's approach – to virtually comply with Apple's footsteps in chip design – will show constructive for the Android group.
Three elements are at concern:
Jim McGregor, founder and a major analyst at TIRIAS research, informed us, "Some of those rumors [on Google's plan on chip designs] first surfaced a few weeks ago with some job postings by Google for multimedia chip designers."
Google replied to such speculations by "asserting that they aren't seeking to make their personal chips, but they want the abilities to communicate their necessities to their silicon partners." He added that Google made that remark in line with the Pixel C, a new Android tablet Google's team lately unveiled.
Google's chip design plan didn't come as a shock to Linley Gwennap, major analyst on the Linley group, Inc. Google has been "trying to drive the Android hardware platform in a variety of ways," he defined. Such examples consist of: designing the Nexus telephones and tablets, and buying (however later selling) Motorola Mobility. "Google has additionally designed its own chips for its facts centers, so it has chip-design adventure," Gwennap delivered.
but "what surprises me," he noted, is that "Google thinks it might seize as much as Apple through chip design."
Gwenapp doesn't believe that Apple owes its iPhone success to its own application processors (AP).
He followed that Apple's items are "built wholly from typical chips apart from the utility processor." despite the fact Apple designs its personal AP, "we've considered little facts that this AP parovides any gigantic expertise over off-the-shelf processors from Qualcomm and others," he mentioned.
"The astonishing photographs performance of the iPad, as an instance, comes from a certified imagination GPU this is accessible to other chip or mobile makers. The performance of the Apple-design CPU core is very decent, however no improved than that of Snapdragon. Qualcomm supports excessive-conclusion video and imaging points that fit or exceed the iPhone's capabilities," he defined.
Going for MIPS?now not everyone has the same opinion with Gwennap.
Will Strauss, president of forward ideas thinks Google may nevertheless differentiate from Apple if it "can exhibit chips with superior (confidently) efficiency vs. Apple's ARM-based mostly strategy."
Strauss theorized, "What if Google goes for non-ARM platform, reminiscent of imagination technologies' MIPS?"
subsequent page: imaginative and prescient hardware?
extra related hyperlinks
Apple's sophisticated performance Doug_S 11/9/2015 1:53:forty nine PM this text is about SoCs, and that's the place Apple has a transparent lead over Android. you can argue all you need that single core efficiency doesn't remember, however each a professional adult will disagree with you. which you can deliver up beside the point stuff like instant charging which have zero to do with the discipline of the article. Clueless fanboy rants have no location on EETimes.study Anandtech's article about Apple's A9 the place they benchmark it versus the newest Android telephones, and it wins on just about each metric. Even on many multithreaded benchmarks despite having only two cores. Apple's SoC is similar dimension to high conclusion Android SoCs like Qualcomm's and Samsung's, they've just chosen to use the silicon enviornment in a different way (extra cache, bigger GPU, fewer cores)
The query is whether or not this matters - I don't consider it does. people don't seem to be opting for between iPhone and Android in keeping with efficiency . If Apple's A9 changed into 2x its already lofty efficiency that is rarely going to get Android users to swap. If Samsung was able to get forward and Apple fell at the back of, that won't trigger iPhone clients to abandon the platform. telephones are already at the factor the place they're "quickly satisfactory" for the initiatives they're requested to do.
If Google is looking at new stuff like AR that is likely to be performed by way of specialized blocks on the SoC, as opposed to with the CPU. it's what Google would need to insure receives brought, so they can depend on it being. Apple's control over their SoC has allowed them to have facets that Android has lacked for years and nonetheless lacks - corresponding to default encryption of the equipment. though Android has supported it for a pair years, even these days a minority of Android gadgets do that because few have a dedicated encryption block just like the iPhone has since the 3gs, and it slows down the eq uipment extraordinarily to have the CPU take on this task. AFAIK Google has made this a (type of) requirement with the new edition of Android.
rather than move through that ache once again, Google desires to be capable of dictate or as a minimum 'strongly suggest' capabilities to SoC makers like Qualcomm and Samsung, so that they've a typical API for these hardware capabilities and might constructed it into Android and have it supported immediately instead of ready years as they have been compelled to do with device encryption.
In a way here is the primary white flag from Google, admitting that their shotgun method to Moble (making an attempt to emulate Microsofts's home windows method from the 80' - 90's) is not relevant in the new modern cell world. Apple's iPhone can also now not be the king of Specs, but they are king when it involves the journey: and that includes the software infrastructure (iCloud/Mac integration). there is truth to the "kind, feature, layout" method of doing things. folks can gripe about choice, freedom, flexibility, and so on. comfortable you have the time to mess around along with your cellphone, I simply need mine to work. And it does (iPhone 5s). Apple has fairly a great deal always been a vertically built-in company (forgetting the clone years. . .) - like IBM, HP of old. There is right/widsom here - Apple "obtained it" - most enterprise's executed. They rush not-smartly-concept-out items to buyers within the hopes that "market share" will make the product a success. . . And we see where it truly is going to. . . Apple commands eighty+% of the on-line App profits, looking income, and so on. Most individuals don't truly care about Spec's, they care about being able to do what they desire. if they are going to edit photos/video on the telephone, they sure, they need extra CPU energy. in the event that they simply wish to call grandma, then no. . . . Google Tango yairs eleven/9/2015 12:forty eight:forty three PM Re: Android silicon bobdvb 11/9/2015 eleven:eleven:53 AM The issue looks to be that while Android thinks it is a good idea to "lift the tide" the rationale also potential you tend to also suffer from decent historic fashioned bloat.i've been designing set-true field stuff for ages now and people retain asking me about Android, ask why do i want a framework that is never very respectable at doing television, prices me extra and has horrible legal risks? The mobilephone app environment is first rate and that i am a consumer of Android Nexus telephones, however beyond the mobile world Android is competing with Linux (+HTML5) and failing.
Thanks to your comments, @realjjj. I cannot believe you extra on the element, if you happen to spoke of, "fragmentation is an asset no longer an issue."As to your frustration with Apple's getting all the attention of the world, yes, I share that view as well. but the statement I made within the story is rarely about technology spec shoot-out between Apple and Android (thanks in your distinctive view here. valuable), but a rhetorical query to set the stage -- as the world views it -- whether Google to design its personal Android chips makes feel.
Thanks for your comment, @bobdvb. That pretty a whole lot sums up, deosnt' it? Android silicon bobdvb eleven/9/2015 four:24:07 AM i used to be given a presentation by means of a silicon enterprise pretty lately and the representative mentioned 'there's our android chip, we relatively tons span it simply to preserve Google and everybody asking about Android satisfied, however you may not need it.'They were right, we don't.
.... realjjj eleven/eight/2015 7:34:forty PM Android One failed because it changed into poor value. The cellphone makers tried to upsell Android One whereas their other modes have been more desirable is specs per price. Plus, Android One became simply Google trying to push it's services and not lose different markets like they misplaced China. there have been many issues they might have performed to make Android better but that wasn't the goal.if they have some ideas to save area, vigour, quantity or for some new compute unit, they may still just go together with open source. You don't need to kill variety and innovation, you do not are looking to compete with ARM , creativeness and others.. Open supply if ARM and the likes aren't drawn to entering that market. Fragmentation is an asset no longer a problem,basically we want much more of it. I kinda doubt that Google misplaced or not it's mind and here's no longer basically some compute unit(s),might be next gen RAM ,inteconnect, possibly packaging. whatever more ahead search ing may well be an option but may be too early for that and to be fair it be slightly late to focus on the smartphone kind element given that it's galloping towards EOL.The transition to glasses is not that standard. or not it's like the transition from computer to telephones but worse. The most suitable volume and weight for glasses is zero. Very excessive res at excessive FPS, more sensors , all the time on computer imaginative and prescient, the need for low latency are making issues even more difficult.
"Will having its personal chips support Google's Android community capture up with and possibly outperform Apple's iPhone universe?"
That capability you suppose Apple is ahead and that is the reason absurd.Apple does not lead in anything else (superb) and that i dare you to discover ways to justify your statement.This week is like all of you at EETimes received your yule bonus from Apple's PR.Fooled by way of advertising and media way of life like toddlers.... I dare you to seem to be round you at your colleagues and try to locate an explanation as to why so many are the use of such low value items. Is it ok for an adult to purchase on advertising, for a tech journalist to be an irrational customer when it comes to tech? The fact that it has a huge affect on the pleasant of your articles is, ofc, so a whole lot worse- assuming objectivity matters. Lets trash speak every thing else because buying Apple is the bourgeois aspect to do. Can one even write about computing when, as an Apple consumer, you don't experience it? Macs are perhaps somewhat more than 5% of the installed base and iphones tending towards 15%. a few of you go so far as to use phrases like "Apple haters" because rejecting poor value and greed pushed vision are hate -just like regulating guns is hate or the appropriate to selected is homicide. it is what humanity is today, we just buy Apple and watch fact television?
Apple's dual core plus 3MB L2 looks to be some 13mm2 on 14LPE , Huawei's quad A72 cluster with 2MB L2$ on 16ff+ is 8mm2. Apple also advertisements a huge 8MB L3. So yeah they have a huge and dear core as a result of they could come up with the money for to spend there, not like individuals that need to care about enviornment. but we don't seem to be in 1995 to faux that single core perf is every thing. humorous how the Apple press ( curiously that comprises this site now) simplest cares about single core perf or does not care about monitor or digital camera decision when caring about these would make Apple look much less glorious. Anyway, is Apple main in PPE, or may still we use any other metric that is advertising described and irrational? should still we consist of the battery ability, volume ,as well as machine enviornment, and extent within the math. How concerning the lack of wireless charging and quickly charging once we talk about power. How about monitor measurement and backbone, RAM and even sign energy due to the fact the S oC handiest comes with everything else attached to it. bet no longer as a result of Fox information common sense works superior with our feelings for an organization.sure they may have speedy NAND these days too however that type of lead on no account lasts for more than a number of months and leading in 1 of 20 things is nothing to brag about. This fragmentation that Apple users love to declare it's a negative ( like Fox news and elitism, Joe the Plumber for president!), ensures that Apple is nearly always behind in each metric. fiscal causes on Apple's aspect slow Apple down further.
one more issue, when speaking about single core CPU perf you might ask ARM if they are planning a core with a stronger vigour envelope and ofc the others that have customized cores. A legit searching slide that leaked a long time ago mentions Ares on 10nm at 1-1.2W so one has to ask yourself.but then again , single core perf would not equal total perf and one has to element in decent adequate pe rformance too.
Navigate to related links
Datasheets.com components Search 185 million searchable parts(please enter an element quantity or hit search to begin)
ConversionConversion EmoticonEmoticon