fake news don't believe this ......

And do you believe in an Argentine leaker? Lol.

Google it :  "argentineada" = Fake news.

Quote from: S.Yu on September 22, 2020, 16:31:55
I was rather expecting disabled graphics, which makes sense both for yield and positioning.

Also, while there is no doubt you can do this to improve yields, a question is whether you have enough of suitable scrap. You don't want to cripple too much of perfectly good silicon just because demand outstrips supply. And Apple can find other, less demanding uses for their scrap silicon. Which would compete for the supply of scraps.

Quote from: S.Yu on September 22, 2020, 16:31:55
I was rather expecting disabled graphics, which makes sense both for yield and positioning.

Sure, disabling parts of a chip and reusing scrap is a way. But it makes more sense for SE rather than mini (as far as positioning). At least in my mind, 12 mini is really a successor to the old standard iPhone, perhaps even smaller than 6/7/8 (I really hope) but larger than 5 (with a screen almost as big as a Plus). While the 12 appears to succeed the Xr and 11 which were a sort of compromise between the 6/7/8 and Plus (because there was only one size of a standard iPhone in those generations and while screen got bigger, body was sized in between). So, they should have the same chip just like in the past. If you want to differentiate, the line should be drawn between the standard and the Pro, not the 12 and the 12 mini. If the mini is supposed to be a new, lower-end product rather than a continuation of a tradition of small iPhones, then you're right - it would make sense for positioning with respect to the other iPhones 12. Except, there is the SE. I have trouble seeing Apple trying to introduce another cheaper line and above SE no less.

Although, the impact to a mini could be minimal as the display should have lower resolution so practical performance in graphics-intensive applications could be comparable. However, doing so might have negative impact on energy efficiency (which would be a problem with the very small galvanic cell). I.e. having more units means less work per unit which could be more efficient (lower frequencies). But it depends. If frequencies are low enough, it might be better to disable a unit to get rid of its leakage current.

I was rather expecting disabled graphics, which makes sense both for yield and positioning.

Quote from: _MT_ on September 22, 2020, 12:32:03
Either way, it's to be expected that the smallest iPhone 12 is going to offer the least performance. It's going to have smaller galvanic cell. Meaning it won't be able to provide as much current to the chip (= less power, lower frequencies, less performance). There is going to be less space for any kind of heat spreading device. And the surface area of the body is smaller, which means lower cooling capacity for the same surface temperature (even if you could get the power, the chip would be running hotter - that is if it didn't throttle). Even with identical chips, you can expect smaller devices to be slower and larger devices to be faster.

As for actually making a different chip, you have to remember economics of scale. Chips are very, very expensive to design. Apple actually uses fairly large chunks of silicon so their chips are relatively expensive to manufacture, but the actual cost of making more chips is significantly lower than what would be the sticker price. That's why Apple can put their latest, most powerful chip into an entry level (for their brand) device. The design is already paid off and the manufacturing line is ready and has free capacity (the cheaper devices come when the demand for the more expensive devices has died down). It also makes for simple logistics. I'm not expecting the mini to be the best selling iPhone 12. Even when you add the future SE into the mix, I'm not sure there is enough volume to justify it. Obviously, it would depend on the exact change.

I'm not sure that Apple and others have fully explored the potential of thermally conductive but electrically non-conductive and RF transparent plastics in phones, these are much less thermally conductive than metals such as aluminum but by the same margin (roughly 10x) are much more thermally conductive than glass. Combining that with thermal throttling when required might do the trick.

hopefully this is not a true rumor, what users of the original SE have been waiting for is a small, lightweight, full cameras, full performance phone to replace the aging SE. Price is no object and would be willing to pay hundreds extra over the cost of a standard iphone 12 in order to have small size. They just don't seem to get it.

Either way, it's to be expected that the smallest iPhone 12 is going to offer the least performance. It's going to have smaller galvanic cell. Meaning it won't be able to provide as much current to the chip (= less power, lower frequencies, less performance). There is going to be less space for any kind of heat spreading device. And the surface area of the body is smaller, which means lower cooling capacity for the same surface temperature (even if you could get the power, the chip would be running hotter - that is if it didn't throttle). Even with identical chips, you can expect smaller devices to be slower and larger devices to be faster.

As for actually making a different chip, you have to remember economics of scale. Chips are very, very expensive to design. Apple actually uses fairly large chunks of silicon so their chips are relatively expensive to manufacture, but the actual cost of making more chips is significantly lower than what would be the sticker price. That's why Apple can put their latest, most powerful chip into an entry level (for their brand) device. The design is already paid off and the manufacturing line is ready and has free capacity (the cheaper devices come when the demand for the more expensive devices has died down). It also makes for simple logistics. I'm not expecting the mini to be the best selling iPhone 12. Even when you add the future SE into the mix, I'm not sure there is enough volume to justify it. Obviously, it would depend on the exact change.