When Apple announced the iPhone 16e on Wednesday , there was a lot of focus on the price tag ($599 is cheap for a new iPhone, but not that cheap), the lack of MagSafe support, and Apple’s decision to finally kill off the Home button .
But there’s an interesting discussion surrounding the 16e’s processor: the A18. At first glance, it seems like the same chip as the iPhone 16 and iPhone 16 Plus . The phones also have the A18, which makes it sound like the iPhone 16e offers the same performance as its more expensive sibling devices, for at least $200 less. The thing is, these aren’t the same chips: The A18 in the iPhone 16e is “binned.”
What is a “binned” chip?
“Binned” chips don’t just apply to Apple products. All computer chip makers can bin their chips. It has to do with the manufacturing process : Chips are extremely complicated products, and they don’t all come out exactly the same. Samples are tested for quality assurance purposes, and the chips that aren’t quite up to snuff are separated from the ones that perform to standard. The former are then “binned,” and won’t be used as high-end chips, since they aren’t able to hit the performance levels manufacturers are looking for.
That doesn’t mean binned chips won’t be used at all, however. On the contrary, binned chips are often used, especially as mid- and lower-tier options. Manufacturers will often disable different “cores” of these chips to keep their performance in check. They’re still perfectly capable chips, especially when they have this ceiling in place. Intel does this with its line of chips, for example, which is why you have different performance variants, like i5, i7, and i9. Apple does this, too: For the iPad mini 7, the company used binned A17 Pro chips . Now, Apple is using binned A18s for the iPhone 16e.
How the iPhone 16e uses binned A18s
So, Apple makes a batch of A18 chips, originally intended to ship with the iPhone 16 series. During testing, some of these A18 chips aren’t totally up to snuff, so they’re set aside and not used for iPhone 16 and iPhone 16 Plus devices.
However, Apple has a new iPhone they want to sell for less than its flagship line—one that strips out “premium” features to keep costs down, but also offers incentives for users to actually buy their new iPhone over other options. It does have some binned A18 chips lying around: Why not use those instead?
The iPhone 16e, then, uses the “same” chip as you’d find in the iPhone 16 and 16 Plus—but we know it doesn’t perform as well, and thus can’t be pushed as far. Apple, then, disables one of the GPU cores to keep performance in check. The 16e’s CPU has the same six cores as the 16 and 16 Plus’ (two performance and four efficiency), and the NPU has the same 16 cores across all devices. But where the GPU in the 16 and 16 Plus has five cores, the GPU in the 16e only has four cores. That’s because these chips are binned.
We won’t know exactly how the binned A18 compares to the A18 found in the iPhone 16 and 16 Plus until reviewers get their hands on the iPhone 16e. However, my guess is the differences will be minimal. The CPUs and NPUs are the same, and the 16e’s GPU still has four cores, which means performance for most tasks on the iPhone is going to be high. However, where the difference might show is in graphically demanding apps, such as AAA games. Developers could push the iPhone 16 a bit further than the iPhone 16e, because it has that extra GPU core. That will likely extend to the longevity of these devices, too: As software advances and becomes more demanding, the extra GPU core on the iPhone 16 could help keep it running smoother for longer.
That said, it’s just one extra core. In all likelihood, it’s not going to amount to that great a difference. We’ll see the numbers once reviewers run their benchmarks, but I think Apple’s choice here was more about saving the company money than offering users a noticeably worse experience.
