Apple Spent $1 Billion to Tape Out New M3 Processors: Analyst

Apple M3 SoC
(Image credit: Apple)

Apple's A17 processor was the first chip to use TSMC's N3 (3nm-class) process technology, and this week, the company expanded its N3 lineup with a family of PC-oriented M3 chips for desktop and laptop computers. Analyst Jay Goldberg from Digits to Dollars believes the company spent as much as $1 billion on M3's design and tape-outs alone.

"We have to assume that [M3-series] tape out costs alone for the three [SoCs] has to be close to $1 billion," Goldberg wrote. "Very few companies can afford this large an undertaking."

Anton Shilov
Contributing Writer

Anton Shilov is a contributing writer at Tom’s Hardware. Over the past couple of decades, he has covered everything from CPUs and GPUs to supercomputers and from modern process technologies and latest fab tools to high-tech industry trends.

  • NinoPino
    Really impressive for a 16 thread CPU, in particular considering we are not talking of a brand new CPU but of an evolution design.
    It would be nice to have the same information on investments done from the competitors.
    Reply
  • ezst036
    And that right there is 1 billion reasons why the world still runs on x86.
    Reply
  • derekullo
    It's funny how the M3 Max has 2 less e-cores than the M3 Pro.

    Guess that allows them to make a SuperMax Titanium later on if needed!
    Reply
  • watzupken
    Despite the cost for Apple, I don't think it is going to reverse the decline in Apple's Mac. The problem is that M1 was very popular back then because it was surprisingly good, very efficient and don't cost as much as an Intel variant. Fast forward to now, the SOC is mostly more powerful, but design and efficiency have stagnated. Price on the other hand seem to keep climbing. We should see if the M3 will reverse the decline in demand next 2 quarters.
    Reply
  • palladin9479
    It's ok, worst case scenario Apple puts a gold foil inlay on a model and sells it for 5K. There are always people willing to throw their money at the latest Gucci bag, I mean Apple product.
    Reply
  • skiwi44
    watzupken said:
    Despite the cost for Apple, I don't think it is going to reverse the decline in Apple's Mac. The problem is that M1 was very popular back then because it was surprisingly good, very efficient and don't cost as much as an Intel variant. Fast forward to now, the SOC is mostly more powerful, but design and efficiency have stagnated. Price on the other hand seem to keep climbing. We should see if the M3 will reverse the decline in demand next 2 quarters.
    The issue, as you attest, is that the M1 is still entirely relevant and persuasive for a unique price/performance envelope. I could not believe how much better my M1Pro was than my MBP i9. That, and the MBP package hasn’t changed and has all the combination of features still needed for a modern workload. So, I’m in no rush to upgrade - as I’d guess are most M1 owners.
    Reply
  • skiwi44
    palladin9479 said:
    It's ok, worst case scenario Apple puts a gold foil inlay on a model and sells it for 5K. There are always people willing to throw their money at the latest Gucci bag, I mean Apple product.
    Says the guy, still in his bunker, who hasn’t priced a premium Dell or HP laptop recently……

    haters gotta hate….
    Reply
  • ezst036
    watzupken said:
    Despite the cost for Apple, I don't think it is going to reverse the decline in Apple's Mac. The problem is that M1 was very popular back then because it was surprisingly good, very efficient and don't cost as much as an Intel variant. Fast forward to now, the SOC is mostly more powerful, but design and efficiency have stagnated. Price on the other hand seem to keep climbing. We should see if the M3 will reverse the decline in demand next 2 quarters.

    Decline?

    Apple had over 16% market share prior to the introduction of the M1 toward the end of 2020. As of now its only a little above 20%.

    https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide/2020
    4% is the total "popularity" difference that changed from then to today.
    Reply
  • ThomasKinsley
    I speak as a tech consumer and not an expert, but it appears that Apple is spreading its talent thin, trying to design iPhone chips and M-series chips simultaneously. It's probably easier for a company like Intel, Qualcomm, or AMD whose business is nothing but designing chips. It doesn't help that other companies managed to poach Apple's talent, including some of the original designers of the M1 chip.

    https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/the-strained-relationship-between-apple-and-qualcomm
    Reply
  • skiwi44
    ThomasKinsley said:
    I speak as a tech consumer and not an expert, but it appears that Apple is spreading its talent thin, trying to design iPhone chips and M-series chips simultaneously. It's probably easier for a company like Intel, Qualcomm, or AMD whose business is nothing but designing chips. It doesn't help that other companies managed to poach Apple's talent, including some of the original designers of the M1 chip.

    https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/the-strained-relationship-between-apple-and-qualcomm
    Not at all. The ISA is ARM for all the designs - so the investment in design spreads across the ecosystem. The key was of course whether Apple could make the Mac work on an ARM ISA - and the results speaks for itself. My desktop is a 2021 i7 iMac w/128GB and my M1Pro blows it out of the water in image processing while unplugged.

    Bottom line - Apple is an immensely profitable company (100billion ISD profit last year) with huge amounts of money to invest in anything it wants to. The key question is whether those investments have provided a return to shareholders - and with the "M" chips, the answer is unequivocally "Yes".
    Reply