'A5X' CPU featured on purported Apple 'iPad 3' logic board

123457

Comments

  • irelandireland Posts: 15,270member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Technarchy View Post


    You can always get an ASUS Transformer Prime.



    Sure it is laggy balls, but at least it is quad core.



    I like the iPad, I want a quad core iPad over a dual core iPad. You're all a bunch of insecure silly fanboys.
  • irelandireland Posts: 15,270member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    As to iOS 7 you have real concerns. However RAM will have a bigger impact on future OS performance than cores.



    That's debatable and I would argue unlikely.
  • hattighattig Posts: 787member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sunilraman View Post


    Er, may I interject, I get what you're saying, but there's no 4x as much memory, it doesn't scale that way. The only 4x we know for sure is in the final output to the framebuffer, ie, 12MB required instead of 3MB. But everything up to that point does not necessarily mean 4x the memory required.



    I do still however think something over 500MB is the minimum RAM, with 1GB being just nice. It's hard to imagine the GPU not needing less than 100MB (but not directly 4x the RAM that the iPad 2 GPU uses)



    The compositing system in use on iOS, Mac OS X, etc, doesn't construct the framebuffer each frame from nothing, like a Mac OS 1-9 application. If it did then we would be dealing with 12MB * 2 only, plus application graphics data.



    However, each app has its own render buffer. This may be double buffered for smoothness. That includes the dashboard and potentially the lock screen.



    The framebuffer is composited every frame from an OpenGL context describing the exact display at that time - for example you may be scrolling between screens on the dashboard - I expect that's an OpenGL effect that ties together two screens (using the iOS equivalent of Core Animation). 24MB double buffered = 48MB to scroll between iOS home pages, and on top of that will be the icons and text and other stuff to be rendered. Very little CPU work, and the GPU can do it in its sleep too, but it uses RAM.



    Of the current 512MB in the iPad 2, we can assume that ~256MB will be for graphics use only (media, screens, etc). 4x that is 1024MB, plus the 256MB that Apps, OS, etc can use for executable code and their data structures. 1.25GB before considering the need for apps to have more memory for their own datastructures (each tab in a browser can use tens of MB) as time moves on. You can move the graphics slider down - 160MB? still 992MB required with a larger display. Many people would argue to move the graphics slider up, but they would have to argue for a 2GB iPad 3!



    Of course disabled apps can be removed from memory (take a snapshot of the UI for when it is restored) so maybe it isn't all that bad. But we don't want apps getting removed from memory too eagerly.
  • hattighattig Posts: 787member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    I like the iPad, I want a quad core iPad over a dual core iPad. You're all a bunch of insecure silly fanboys.



    Maybe the X stands for @2x - 2x the cores (4), 2x the GPU (MP4), ...



    Apple are willing to make large SoCs (120mm^2 A5 on 45nm). They could do a plain shrink to 32nm and get a ~70mm^2 die, but they could add two more CPU cores and/or more GPU cores, and still keep the overall die smaller than the 45nm A5 die.



    So A5 == ARM Cortex A9 chips. A6 == ARM Cortex A15 chips. Quad-core ARM Cortex A9? -> "A5X"



    But - I still think they'll take the die space saving, maybe add some more cache and USB3, or something, and take the bonus faster clock speeds for the CPU and GPU.
  • d-ranged-range Posts: 396member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post


    Tegra 3 was delayed substantially and may not offer as great of an improvement as some would have liked, however it's up to 3x faster than the Tegra 2 and currently the most advanced SoC of its class.



    Source for this please? NVidia PR don't count.



    The Tranformer Prime benchmarks I've seen were nowhere near 3x faster than Tegra 2, in fact, clock for clock, Tegra 3 was *slower* than Tegra 2 for single threaded tasks.



    Quote:

    It is good enough so that Audi selected it as the application and graphics processor for its in-vehicle infotainment systems and digital instrument display.



    I fail to see how Audi using Tegra 3 says anything about how good it is. Just that the NVidia PR department did a good job once again. Looks like they fooled you as well, which you could say is surprising, since what I've been seeing is an exact replay of what I've seen with Tegra 1 and Tegra 2. Both were heralded as the fastest, most efficient ARM SoC's, with the most advanced 'desktop class' graphics, and both turned out to be the weakest performers of their generation of ARM chips, both in CPU and GPU performance.



    Quote:

    Also, it doesn't have "4x the same cores as the current dual-cores", since that would make it 8-core, right?



    I can only say har har, nice one \
  • technarchytechnarchy Posts: 296member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by d-range View Post


    Tegra 1 and Tegra 2. Both were heralded as the fastest, most efficient ARM SoC's, with the most advanced 'desktop class' graphics, and both turned out to be the weakest performers of their generation of ARM chips, both in CPU and GPU performance.




    Anyone that has touched a Tegra2 based tablet or phone knows that chip absolutely sucks. Not even in a small way. Performance is utterly abysmal in fact.
  • irelandireland Posts: 15,270member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hattig View Post


    Maybe the X stands for @2x - 2x the cores (4), 2x the GPU (MP4), ...



    Hopefully.
  • tipootipoo Posts: 577member
    Apple SoCs

    2007\t 2008\t 2009\t 2010\t 2011\t 2012

    Process\t 90nm\t 90nm\t 65nm\t 45nm\t 45nm\t 28/32nm

    µArch\t ARM11\t ARM11\t Cortex A8\t Cortex A8\t Cortex A9\t ?

    CPU Clock\t 412MHz\t 412MHz\t 600MHz\t 800MHz\t 800MHz\t ?



    Two revisions on ARM11, two on Cortex A8, one so far on Cortex A9...I think its conceivable they stay with the same architecture and core count, just higher clocked on a smaller fab. I'd be ok with that, the GPU matters more imo. I hope its the dual core 600 series SGX chips, which are supposedly 20x faster than the 500 series. Even if its a conservative 10x in real world, that would be enough for the same quality games on 4x the pixels.
  • wizard69wizard69 Posts: 11,477member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    Apple's chips will be better than any multicore chip.



    It all depends upon what you mean by better. Apples greatest advantage right now is its software. It really leverages what hardware they do have.

    Quote:

    Apple's current iPad screen is better than any alternative.



    It isn't bad that is for sure.

    Quote:

    No LTE. The iPad is better without it.



    Baloney. LTE can be a significant asset in iPad 3.

    Quote:



    Even if the iPad 2S were basically the same as the iPad 2, with just a somewhat faster clock speed, everybody and his brother would buy it.



    Err no! It would sell at the same rate no doubt but many of us looking to upgrade might put the buy on hold. The devil is in the details, but a slightly faster clock alone is not compelling.
  • wizard69wizard69 Posts: 11,477member
    Do you really believe their would be a benefit to 4 cores on a machine with the current RAM allotment? There would be some benefit no doubt, but could the system really leverage those cores well when the hardware is already RAM limited.



    My point is going to 4 cores without addressing iPads single biggest weakness, the lack of RAM, will not have a significant pay off. More so in order for iOS to deliver any significant new features RAM usage will go up. This doesn't even take into account the impact of a retina display on RAM usage.



    It isn't just the system in the future that will need more RAM, many apps are obviously constrained by the RAM in the iPad. This includes many apps from Apple. To bring these apps up to parity with apps on other platforms Apple will need a lot more RAM in future iPads.



    In any event quad core or not I don't think Apple will have any problems doubling CPU performance again in iPad 3. Bigger and faster caches combined with higher clocks could be one avenue to that higher performance. It really does look like they can hit 2GHz at thermal parity. Will that be the way they go? I don't know, all I'm saying is that quad cores aren't needed in iPad 3 even though they would be very nice.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    That's debatable and I would argue unlikely.



  • wizard69wizard69 Posts: 11,477member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tipoo View Post


    Apple SoCs

    2007\t 2008\t 2009\t 2010\t 2011\t 2012

    Process\t 90nm\t 90nm\t 65nm\t 45nm\t 45nm\t 28/32nm

    µArch\t ARM11\t ARM11\t Cortex A8\t Cortex A8\t Cortex A9\t ?

    CPU Clock\t 412MHz\t 412MHz\t 600MHz\t 800MHz\t 800MHz\t ?



    For one thing it should be a piece of cake to hit 1.6GHz. For another that frees up an amazing amount of space for other improvements, for example a much more powerful GPU. However Apple could also move other units on die to save power and increase performance.



    Or they could just do a die shrink and bump clock rates on just about everything. Personally I'd want more but it could be enough to deliver the required performance boost.

    Quote:



    Two revisions on ARM11, two on Cortex A8, one so far on Cortex A9...I think its conceivable they stay with the same architecture and core count, just higher clocked on a smaller fab. I'd be ok with that, the GPU matters more imo.



    Yep that could happen and not be really that bad depending upon the clock rates they can reach in each unit. Note I don't want to see a simple die shrink but people need to realize that it is possible.

    Quote:

    I hope its the dual core 600 series SGX chips, which are supposedly 20x faster than the 500 series. Even if its a conservative 10x in real world, that would be enough for the same quality games on 4x the pixels.



    Yes but an SGX is a lot more than a die shrink. Which brings us back to the question what the A5X might be.



    In any event I don't see A15 in the future at all. Cortex A9 could remain dual core this rev and move to quad in the next rev. That would give Apple and ARM the time to come up with a more viable architecture than A15 for a new generation of iPads.



    The other thing that is going on here is that Apple was rumored to have split the SoC development groups a couple of years ago. One group to focus on iPhone sized chips and the other to focus on iPads. If true it is hard to say what a prototype board is for. They could simply be testing a chipset in a iPad board with no intention of using it there.
  • slurpyslurpy Posts: 4,445member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hattig View Post


    Ultimately, RAM is cheap - even low-power RAM that is PoP like the A5. It's also dropped massively in price in the past year. So if the iPad 3 has less than 1GB it would be really frustrating. Stick 2GB on the top-end 128GB iPad as a bonus.



    Sticking different amounts of RAM in the different iPad models is one of the stupidest things Apple could do, and they know that. Either 1GB cuts it, or it doesn't. Having different performance on different capacity models would be idiotic, and would make the lives of developers more difficult and the consumer experience worse, with the fragmentation and lack of optimization. I don't see how anyone who truly understands what has made Apple successful would want this, and I'm glad most of you will never have any say in Apples decisions.
  • juggernaut30juggernaut30 Posts: 55member
    I don't really care if its a quad core or dual core. Just as long as it's faster than the A5. Which I'm sure the iPad3 will be. And I guess I'm not sure how I feel about LTE. If iPad3 did have LTE I would probably leave it downgraded to 3G most of the time to save battery.
  • technarchytechnarchy Posts: 296member
    Not for nothing, but consider the source of these leaks is China...No reason to be skeptical at all...



    Everyone just prepare yourself for the possibility that the real iPad3 might have nothing in common with the speculation...especially speculation from China of all places.



    China is Home of awesome "Apple" products that Apple has never heard of.

















  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 39,897member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Technarchy View Post


    Everyone just prepare yourself for the possibility that the real iPad3 might have nothing in common with the speculation...especially speculation from China of all places.



    This might come as a shock, but China is also where actual Apple products are made. So they'd be the only place that could do any real leaking.
  • sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Hang on, you're making some leaps here. Let's ignore the frame buffer part since we both agree that it doesn't take much RAM. I agree as well that however the "render buffer" is handled it takes much more RAM, whether it be memory for Vsync, textures, shaders, etc.



    But firstly, are you suggesting that the GPU in the iPad 2 takes up to 256mb of RAM? Half of the total iPad RAM for 1024x768? When only a few years ago Intel integrated took only up to 144MB of RAM driving 1920x1080 graphics?



    Secondly, are you saying that because of 4x the pixels, automatically the GPU is going to take 4x the RAM? That would mean on a 1GB iPad 2X the GPU can use up ~all~ the RAM?



    Thirdly, are you saying that in the best case scenario the GPU would be using 992MB of RAM with only 256MB of RAM for everything else?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hattig View Post


    The compositing system in use on iOS, Mac OS X, etc, doesn't construct the framebuffer each frame from nothing, like a Mac OS 1-9 application. If it did then we would be dealing with 12MB * 2 only, plus application graphics data.



    However, each app has its own render buffer. This may be double buffered for smoothness. That includes the dashboard and potentially the lock screen.



    The framebuffer is composited every frame from an OpenGL context describing the exact display at that time - for example you may be scrolling between screens on the dashboard - I expect that's an OpenGL effect that ties together two screens (using the iOS equivalent of Core Animation). 24MB double buffered = 48MB to scroll between iOS home pages, and on top of that will be the icons and text and other stuff to be rendered. Very little CPU work, and the GPU can do it in its sleep too, but it uses RAM.



    Of the current 512MB in the iPad 2, we can assume that ~256MB will be for graphics use only (media, screens, etc). 4x that is 1024MB, plus the 256MB that Apps, OS, etc can use for executable code and their data structures. 1.25GB before considering the need for apps to have more memory for their own datastructures (each tab in a browser can use tens of MB) as time moves on. You can move the graphics slider down - 160MB? still 992MB required with a larger display. Many people would argue to move the graphics slider up, but they would have to argue for a 2GB iPad 3!



    Of course disabled apps can be removed from memory (take a snapshot of the UI for when it is restored) so maybe it isn't all that bad. But we don't want apps getting removed from memory too eagerly.



  • MarvinMarvin Posts: 13,622member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hattig View Post


    Maybe the X stands for @2x - 2x the cores (4), 2x the GPU (MP4), ..



    That sounds plausible. They will probably be following the same tick-tock process as Intel now: architecture change -> die shrink -> architecture change... this will match up well to the device names.



    This time will be a die shrink with more cores so same Cortex architecture, same PowerVR SGX543 but just more of those cores and possibly higher clock speeds. They need 4x the GPU power for the described display and they already have an MP2 so unless they bump up the clock speeds in the GPU, they need an MP8.



    Right now, the GPU seems to be running at 200MHz, they can put in an MP4 and then scale the clock speed up to 400MHz for gaming but most of the time run at the same 200MHz. That's probably the best compromise so the power draw isn't too high:



    CPU dual-core 1.5GHz

    GPU SGX543 MP4 200MHz - 400MHz on demand

    1GB RAM



    The NAND storage memory shown is listed in Hynix's data sheet:



    https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...XHuhWfzXKtUSGg



    It looks like it's the H2DTDG8UD1MYR = 16GB per chip, so this is the 32GB iPad motherboard. Hynix only has product listings for 16GB, 32GB and 64GB chips. They could just leave a chip out for a 16GB model but they might just go with 32GB, 64GB and 128GB models. This would be a wise thing to do so that people don't just end up buying an older 32GB iPad 2 vs an entry 16GB iPad 3 (or 2S) and they can put the chips in RAID 0.
  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    The NAND storage memory shown is listed in Hynix's data sheet:



    https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...XHuhWfzXKtUSGg



    It looks like it's the H2DTDG8UD1MYR = 16GB per chip, so this is the 32GB iPad motherboard. Hynix only has product listings for 16GB, 32GB and 64GB chips. They could just leave a chip out for a 16GB model but they might just go with 32GB, 64GB and 128GB models. This would be a wise thing to do so that people don't just end up buying an older 32GB iPad 2 vs an entry 16GB iPad 3 (or 2S).



    1) Nice find on the Nynix storage.



    2) I don't think that a refurbished or used iPad 2 with 32 or 64GB will be a huge seller over the same capacity iPad 3 if it has a HiDPI display. Plus, it's not like the competition is even competing well with flash storage.



    3) If we get a HiDPI iPad 3 I have trouble seeing how a doubling of the storage makes sense from a marketing and cost PoV unless they raise the cost of entry or only put the HiDPI displays on the more expensive models, both of which seem unlikely to me.
  • MarvinMarvin Posts: 13,622member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    If we get a HiDPI iPad 3 I have trouble seeing how a doubling of the storage makes sense from a marketing and cost PoV unless they raise the cost of entry or only put the HiDPI displays on the more expensive models, both of which seem unlikely to me.



    NAND memory is pretty cheap now. Adding 16GB on the entry model would only be $16. Hynix seem to be gearing up for 15nm NAND, although I think the pictured chips are still 20nm+:



    http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/h...emory-2011129/



    Combined with their Anobit purchase, this could make for some nice developments in storage prices for all the Mac line, especially the Air (128GB entry level, 256GB entry level for the slim MBP).



    The benefit for the iPad is that application sizes will go up with the higher resolution textures. Rage for the iPhone went from 540MB to 747MB, from SD to HD. It won't apply to all apps of course, Angry Birds only went from 12MB to 14MB but if we said 20-40% increase in space and you've already maxed out the 16GB iPad, the 32GB entry model is almost necessary to be able to upgrade from a 16GB iPad 2 to a higher resolution iPad 3 with all new SHD or HD+ apps.
  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    NAND memory is pretty cheap now. Adding 16GB on the entry model would only be $16. Hynix seem to be gearing up for 15nm NAND, although I think the pictured chips are still 20nm+:



    http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/h...emory-2011129/



    Combined with their Anobit purchase, this could make for some nice developments in storage prices for all the Mac line, especially the Air (128GB entry level, 256GB entry level for the slim MBP).



    The benefit for the iPad is that application sizes will go up with the higher resolution textures. Rage for the iPhone went from 540MB to 747MB, from SD to HD. It won't apply to all apps of course, Angry Birds only went from 12MB to 14MB but if we said 20-40% increase in space and you've already maxed out the 16GB iPad, the 32GB entry model is almost necessary to be able to upgrade from a 16GB iPad 2 to a higher resolution iPad 3 with all new SHD or HD+ apps.



    What about speed and reliability? Are there issues with either at the small size?



    Anand has suspected that one way Apple looks to be besting the competition is to be using faster chips. I'd personally like to see faster storage than more of it (though ideally both, of course).
Sign In or Register to comment.