Why the IPhone 16e Uses a “binned” A18 Chip (and What That Means)
When Apple announced the iPhone 16e on Wednesday , much attention was paid to the price ($599 is cheap for a new iPhone, but not that cheap), the lack of MagSafe support and Apple’s decision to permanently disable the Home button .
But there is an interesting debate surrounding the 16e processor: the A18. At first glance, it appears to be the same chip found in the iPhone 16 and iPhone 16 Plus . The phones also feature A18, making it seem like the iPhone 16e offers the same performance as its more expensive siblings, but for at least $200 less. The fact is that these are different chips: the A18 in the iPhone 16e is “locked”.
What is a “binned” chip?
“Binned” chips don’t just apply to Apple products. All computer chip manufacturers can recycle their chips. This has to do with the manufacturing process : chips are extremely complex products, and not all of them come out the same. Samples are tested to ensure quality, and chips that don’t quite meet specifications are separated from those that perform to standards. The former are then “assembled” and will not be used as high-performance chips because they are not capable of achieving the level of performance that manufacturers strive for.
However, this does not mean that binned chips will not be used at all. In contrast, binned chips are often used, especially as mid- and low-end options. Manufacturers often disable various “cores” of these chips to control their performance. They are still perfectly capable chips, especially when they have that ceiling. For example, Intel does this with its line of chips, so you have different performance options like i5, i7, and i9. Apple is also doing the same: for the iPad mini 7 , the company used A17 Pro chips . Apple is now using split A18s for the iPhone 16e.
How the iPhone 16e uses split A18s
So, Apple is producing a batch of A18 chips that were originally intended to supply the iPhone 16 series. During testing, some of these A18 chips were not fully functional, so they were shelved and not used for the iPhone 16 and iPhone 16 Plus devices.
However, Apple has a new iPhone that it wants to sell for less than its flagship line – one that lacks “premium” features to keep costs down, but also offers users incentives to buy their new iPhone over other options. It has some A18 chips laid out: why not use those instead?
So the iPhone 16e uses the “same” chip as the iPhone 16 and 16 Plus, but we know it doesn’t work as well and that’s why it can’t be pushed that far. Apple then disables one of the GPU cores to monitor performance. The 16e CPU has the same six cores as the 16 and 16 Plus (two for performance and four for efficiency), and the NPU has the same 16 cores on all devices. But while the GPU in the 16 and 16 Plus has five cores, the GPU in the 16e only has four cores. This is because these chips are combined.
We won’t know exactly how the combined A18 compares to the A18 found in the iPhone 16 and 16 Plus until reviewers get their hands on the iPhone 16e. However, I expect the differences to be minimal. The processors and NPUs remain the same, and the 16e GPU still has four cores, meaning performance for most tasks on the iPhone will be strong. However, the difference may appear in graphics-intensive applications such as AAA games. Developers could push the iPhone 16 a little further than the iPhone 16e because it has an extra GPU core. This will likely impact the longevity of these devices too: as software evolves and becomes more demanding, the extra GPU core on the iPhone 16 could help it run more smoothly for longer.
However, this is just one additional core. In all likelihood, there won’t be that much of a difference. We’ll see the numbers once reviewers do their tests, but I think Apple’s choice here was more about saving the company money than offering users a noticeably inferior experience.