Originally Posted by tipoo
As Ars so eloquently put it, "its the software, stupid!". But still, I cant help but feel dissapointed. The A9's provide an enormous benefit, they are out-of-order processors for one, which is a huge benefit in itself, and for two they are either dual or quad cores. I cant remember who's specific test it was, but the A9 kept toe-to-toe with Intel's Atom (pinetrail) while consuming so much less power. Two Cortex A9 cores would be a screamer for a device like this, the A8 seems merely adequate.
The A9 is certainly a more advanced chip, not just a newer title. but I have to wonder if this new avenue of chip design for Apple pretty much required they use the A8 for the first go around because they have had more time to optimize it. Maybe in a couple iterations they can be on the cutting edge with the most advanced chip tailored to their specific needs, but I'm happy to finally see this being tackled.
Of course, this article is not canon and it could very well be an A9 inside.
The A9 catching up with Atom while using less power isn't good for Intel. It was thought that in a few year Atom would start catching up to ARM for comparable power to performance but that simply isn' the case. And now with Apple paving the way for a tailored OS on a tablet (and likely netbooks) we're not going to see many desktop OSes shoehorned into these devices like we have for the last decade. Android for sure, and possibly WebOS and Win7. This market is going to be big and I don't think Intel will be a major part of it.