or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › iPad's Apple A4 CPU is feature-stripped ARM Cortex-A8 - report
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

iPad's Apple A4 CPU is feature-stripped ARM Cortex-A8 - report - Page 5

post #161 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I already made the point about computers, which was that they can be running programs that are taxing them. Then, and only then, does it matter. If, like most people, a buyer will not be doing anything taxing, then they really don't have to wait for the newest model. Of course, if the new model is just a short time away, then it does pay to wait. But not an entire year! That's what you suggested if the cpu here wasn't what you thought it SHOULD be.

I'm saying that for this type of device, if it works well now, then it will work well a year from now, and so buying it now is fine.

Again, using Apple historical products as a guide there was significant advantages in waiting a year for new products.

Example:

MBP 2006 vs MBP 2007: The jump from Intel Core Duo and Intel Core 2 Duo means far more than 1 year of usable life for the platform. The jump from 32 bit to 64 bit means the C2D machines will be the natural cut line for OS support moving forward. Examples can already be seen such as the lack of Java 1.6 support for Intel Core Duo machines.

The difference isn't running slower but runs at all. Significant OS features and apps will be limited to 64bit Intel plaforms.

iPhone 2G vs iPhone 3G: There's significantly more difference between geolocation using towers only and GPS vs GPS and GPS with Compass. Entire classes of apps aren't all that useful in the 2G. Not to mention the difference between EDGE and UTMS/HSDPA.

Again, with the GPS the difference isn't runs slower but runs at all. The 3G will last longer as a viable platform than the 2G will. The delta will be greater than a year.

Is Cortex A9 vs Cortex A8 that big a deal? No, not as big as between Core2 and Core2Duo or ARM11 vs Cortex A8.

But it still does mean that Apple has left significant power savings on the table. Even the single core A9 at 45nm will be more efficient than an A8 at 65nm.

Plus, it's not a phone that you might expect to replace anyway every other year for $200. The average price will likely be closer to the $700 price point than the $500 price point...
post #162 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Again, using Apple historical products as a guide there was significant advantages in waiting a year for new products.

Example:

MBP 2006 vs MBP 2007: The jump from Intel Core Duo and Intel Core 2 Duo means far more than 1 year of usable life for the platform. The jump from 32 bit to 64 bit means the C2D machines will be the natural cut line for OS support moving forward. Examples can already be seen such as the lack of Java 1.6 support for Intel Core Duo machines.

The difference isn't running slower but runs at all. Significant OS features and apps will be limited to 64bit Intel plaforms.

iPhone 2G vs iPhone 3G: There's significantly more difference between geolocation using towers only and GPS vs GPS and GPS with Compass. Entire classes of apps aren't all that useful in the 2G. Not to mention the difference between EDGE and UTMS/HSDPA.

Again, with the GPS the difference isn't runs slower but runs at all. The 3G will last longer as a viable platform than the 2G will. The delta will be greater than a year.

Is Cortex A9 vs Cortex A8 that big a deal? No, not as big as between Core2 and Core2Duo or ARM11 vs Cortex A8.

But it still does mean that Apple has left significant power savings on the table. Even the single core A9 at 45nm will be more efficient than an A8 at 65nm.

I'm not really arguing about the computer end except for those who just do basic things for which 64 bits, 4 cores, and an i7 isn't important. My wife does what the average person does with a computer. She prowls the internet, plays small games. Watches some Tv from iTunes or some sites that offer it. Writes letters, etc. Most people are in that category.

Yet, I bought her a 24" 3.06 GHz iMac with a full complement of RAM, the best video card, and a terabyte HDD. It will be good for her until it dies, though I'll replace it before then. She doesn't need 4 cores, or a 5800 board. She doesn't need 16 GM RAM, or a 2 TB drive. This is already overkill.

Most people are like that.

But with this device it's even more stark. There's one configuration other than Flash and 3G/GPS. While I would never say that a weaker processor is better than a stronger one, and I would always hope for the best, this is different.

This is a simpler device, with simpler needs. The majority of uses will do well enough with whatever is inside. Remember the people who used this at the unveiling. They were surprised at how fast it was.

My reaction was that if it's true that the cpu inside isn't that strong, and it flies the way it seems to, that's good news indeed! It means that Apple has got this worked out very well. Unlike Palm, which with strong hardware was slow, this is fast with what MIGHT (remember that we still don't know) be middle of the road hardware inside. That would give Apple a lot of leeway in their design.

That's a GOOD thing. Not a bad thing.

Of course, I'd like to see a dual core A9. but that would mean that Apple hasn't gotten the software as optimized as it would be with a slower device and the same performance.
post #163 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

...
I'm saying that for this type of device, if it works well now, then it will work well a year from now, and so buying it now is fine.

I agree with that mostly. Except that IF iPhone OS 4 adds multitasking as expected, then all bets are off. ( I assume you're referring to the iPad when you say 'this type of device')

What seems 'snappy' on the iPad with iPhone OS 3 might be a little pokey if you have a couple of apps running under IPOS4. That's why I'm taking a wait and see approach.

I agree with Vinea in that I would not want to replace an iPad every two years. I would want to keep this about 3-4 years.
post #164 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

I agree with that mostly. Except that IF iPhone OS 4 adds multitasking as expected, then all bets are off. ( I assume you're referring to the iPad when you say 'this type of device')

What seems 'snappy' on the iPad with iPhone OS 3 might be a little pokey if you have a couple of apps running under IPOS4. That's why I'm taking a wait and see approach.

I agree with Vinea in that I would not want to replace an iPad every two years. I would want to keep this about 3-4 years.

As the device seems to be at least as fast as the 3GS from the people reporting, and that's considered to be a good candidate for third party multitasking, this should be as well. The processor is faster. We know that. 1 GHz vs 600 MHz. It's not really likely that this is a weaker cpu than the one in the 3Gs.The only other thing is the GPU, which must also be faster to account for the rez differences, and which may also be used for compute tasks.

And yes, I'm referring to the iPad.

No device is going to be as "fast" after three years of development, let alone four. But for most of what's going to be done, this should be fine. Most tasks aren't going to get more difficult with time. Playing a movie won't require more resources later. Reading books won't either, nor will be cruising the internet, or using Pages. Or for hundreds of other programs.

For a few, it might be a problem. And those few might be better served waiting a year or three. Fine. Lose out on all the pleasure.
post #165 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

As the device seems to be at least as fast as the 3GS from the people reporting, and that's considered to be a good candidate for third party multitasking, this should be as well. The processor is faster. We know that. 1 GHz vs 600 MHz. It's not really likely that this is a weaker cpu than the one in the 3Gs.The only other thing is the GPU, which must also be faster to account for the rez differences, and which may also be used for compute tasks.

And yes, I'm referring to the iPad.

No device is going to be as "fast" after three years of development, let alone four. But for most of what's going to be done, this should be fine. Most tasks aren't going to get more difficult with time. Playing a movie won't require more resources later. Reading books won't either, nor will be cruising the internet, or using Pages. Or for hundreds of other programs.

For a few, it might be a problem. And those few might be better served waiting a year or three. Fine. Lose out on all the pleasure.

We'll know by June.
post #166 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

We'll know by June.

Very true.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › iPad's Apple A4 CPU is feature-stripped ARM Cortex-A8 - report