or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Intrinsity likely powers Apple's A4 iPad processor
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Intrinsity likely powers Apple's A4 iPad processor

post #1 of 32
Thread Starter 
Additional evidence has surfaced which indicates Apple purchased privately held chip designer Intrinsity in order to deliver iPad's fast A4 processor.

Corroborating the findings Appleinsider published at the beginning of April, a new report by IEEE's Spectrum indicates that Apple did indeed buy Intrinsity to speed up the design of ARM chips used in its mobile devices.

While there has been speculation that Apple designed the A4 in-house using either its own ASIC design team or the expertise it acquired from PA Semi, the report notes that "designing a CPU usually takes two to three yearsmaking it unlikely that the PA Semi engineers created the iPad chip in the time theyve been with Apple."

Additionally, the report cited market analyst Will Strauss of Forward Concepts in Tempe, Arizona as pointing out that Qualcomm spent three years and $300 million developing "Snapdragon," an ARM Cortex A8 processor design capable of running at 1GHz. The standard Cortex A8 design can only be clocked up to 650MHz.

"Theres nothing in the quarterly statements from Apple indicating they spent that kind of money or time" to develop a similarly fast, independent version of the Cortex A8 design.

The only other company with chip acceleration technology similar to Qualcomm's was Intrinsity, which dubbed its version of the Cortex A8 capable of running at 1GHz "Hummingbird." While Apple could have simply bought up a large number of Hummingbird devices (which are designed by Intrinsity and built by Samsung), the fact that Apple referred to the iPad's chip as being "the A4" and an Apple design leaves little doubt that Apple simply acquired Intrinsity and its Hummingbird chip technology.

Actually, theres no speculation, Strauss said in the report. Its only the Intrinsity folks who could have taken it up to a gigahertz. Period.

While Apple isn't talking about the acquisition, Intrinsity employees are now listed as Apple employees, and Spectrum reported that Intrinsity officials referred it to a press spokesman at Apple for additional comment. Apple declined to comment.

From Exponential to Intrinsity

Apple's acquisition of Intrinsity would be an interesting turn of events, as the company was founded in 1997 from remnants of the implosion of Exponential Technology. Exponential spent the mid 1990s working to develop a blazing fast version of the PowerPC processor for Apple's Macs, an experiment that ultimately could not deliver all of its expected results.

Once Motorola convinced Apple to stick with its roadmap for PowerPC, Exponential focused on selling its fast PowerPC chips to cloners Power Computing and UMAX. When Apple terminated its Mac cloning program, Exponential ran out of potential customers and closed in 1997. The Exponential design team began working under the name EVSX, and then changed its name to Intrinsity in 2000.

Since then, the Austin, Texas firm has developed a suite of design tools called "Fast14" to design dynamic logic that can accelerate clock speeds greater than is possible with static designs. Intrinsity has developed a series of accelerated ARM, MIPS and Power Architecture cores under the brand "FastCores." Last summer, Intrinsity announced its collaboration with Samsung to deliver its 1GHz implementation of the ARM Coretex A8. Apple appears to have officially acquired the company at the start of April 2010, just weeks before releasing iPad.

PA Semi plus Intrinsity

An acquisition of Intensity would also mirror the history of Apple's purchase of PA Semi. That company similarly invested significant efforts into speeding up PowerPC chips in the early 2000s, with the expectation of earning Apple as a key customer. However, Apple subsequently announced a transition to Intel in 2005, leaving PA Semi without a primary customer for its fast new PWRficient processors.

After PA Semi developed a new market for its efficient, high speed processors, Apple returned to acquire PA Semi in April 2008, expressly for the purpose of accelerating ARM chips for its mobile devices. Despite some speculation that it might return to using PowerPC chips in its Macs, Apple subsequently dismantled PA Semi's PWRficient business.

The fruits of Apple's new developments with PA Semi are not likely to ripen until 2011, leaving Apple with an urgent need for short term acceleration of ARM processor cores that could make its iPad and fourth generation iPhone fast enough to be compelling to users. It appears the company solved that problem by buying up Intrinsity.
post #2 of 32
"Collaborating the findings Appleinsider..."

I think you meant "Corroborating the findings Appleinsider..."
post #3 of 32
"GrammarCop"... heh, heh. Love it.

In other news, Apple is seriously beefing up their IP warchest in the chip design area. Although as we've seen some of the ex-PA Semi guys leave to start-up their own new business, Apple's Borg-like absorption of the best and brightest continues. Keep it up, Team Apple!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #4 of 32
Good to see another Austin based tech firm succeed. Austin, TX - little Silicon Valley.
post #5 of 32
Thanks GrammarCop; just beat me to it!
post #6 of 32
So, is my first iPhone going to have this type of processor??? Please!!!

A couple more months and I'll know...
post #7 of 32
O, wood luv 2 c aapl buy ARM as well and dominate in this area.

(take that GrammarCop)
post #8 of 32
OK, that's all well and good, it's a great combo, the A4 coupled with a PowerVR SGX GPU runs at 1.0GHz.

How the hell do they get 10 hrs outta this thing, it's amazing

it's Magical
May the Blue Bird of Happiness leave a deposit with you and yours.
Reply
May the Blue Bird of Happiness leave a deposit with you and yours.
Reply
post #9 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

"GrammarCop"... heh, heh. Love it.

In other news, Apple is seriously beefing up their IP warchest in the chip design area. Although as we've seen some of the ex-PA Semi guys leave to start-up their own new business, Apple's Borg-like absorption of the best and brightest continues. Keep it up, Team Apple!

hehe, gotta love those Borg
May the Blue Bird of Happiness leave a deposit with you and yours.
Reply
May the Blue Bird of Happiness leave a deposit with you and yours.
Reply
post #10 of 32
Well Apple certainly is developing a dream team of
engineers to work on mobile processing design.

Kind of makes you think they are going to buy ARM themselves.
Oh wait
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #11 of 32
"An acquisition of Intensity would"

typo. Intensity not acquired. Intrinsity.

Although, maybe their name meant intensive intrinsics.
post #12 of 32
This is now old news. Still, it's good news. Coupled with ARM, which Apple was an original partner, with Acorn(?). It's back in the fold.

So, over to the next thread.
post #13 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

"GrammarCop"... heh, heh. Love it.

It is not grammar - it is simply the wrong word.
post #14 of 32
There is talk that the A4 is actually a PPC dual core, not ARM at all. If that is the case, then they could have used existing PA Semi designs with modifications.

One thing is clear - Apple wants to differentiate itself on hardware speed + efficiency.
post #15 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmmx View Post

There is talk that the A4 is actually a PPC dual core, not ARM at all. If that is the case, then they could have used existing PA Semi designs with modifications.

One thing is clear - Apple wants to differentiate itself on hardware speed + efficiency.


http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconduct...ty-in-the-ipad

Quote:
Actually, theres no speculation, market analyst Will Strauss, from Tempe, Ariz.based Forward Concepts, says of the Hummingbird-iPad claim. Its only the Intrinsity folks who could have taken it up to a gigahertz. Period.


Strauss, one of a number of industry analysts who have made the case that Hummingbird powers the iPad, points to the fact that X-ray photography and analysis by reverse-engineering firm Chipworks have confirmed that the iPad runs on some version of the single-core A8 processor.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #16 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmmx View Post

There is talk that the A4 is actually a PPC dual core, not ARM at all. If that is the case, then they could have used existing PA Semi designs with modifications.

One thing is clear - Apple wants to differentiate itself on hardware speed + efficiency.

No there isn't any talk about that. One person speculated about that tongue in cheek. Nothing serious.
post #17 of 32
gotta love these late night posts, troll free! wooo!
post #18 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

No there isn't any talk about that. One person speculated about that tongue in cheek. Nothing serious.

Technomicon made a decent case to say it wasn't ARM. vs e.g. John Stokes Ars Technica article - the A4 isn't a Cortex A9, but simply a single core A8 - http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...pads-brain.ars

I don't see this AI article as really describing how you have to rule out the PA6T being the basis of the A4 (and likely other family member for the 4th gen iPhone). There seems to be a clinging of the notion by Eran, and others that the A4 is ARM-based. Why? Has this been proven?
http://www.technomicon.com/iPad_Saga..._6_p_2I42.html

Why not Power Architecture? As noted in the above article:

Quote:
In September 2009, IBM announced a PPC 476 32 bit core for embedded SOC applications that dissipates just 1.6 W at 1.6 GHz, so I have to believe that the PA semi design would perform even better using the 45 nm process

So Apple's had PowerPC experience, nearly went with PA Semi over Intel before, has now bought PA Semi, and has also bought Intrinsity, which has dealt with amongst other things, Power Architecture...
So now they're going to go with ARM Cortex?

Even if you look at the chip, isn't there a discrepancy about transistor numbers when comparing to Cortex A8/A9?
Can we rule out it's an A8 first? And are there any other Cortex A9 chips in production yet? OMAP-44X? Next Gen Tegra? EMMA Movile EV? Is the assumption it's A9 just because people can't think it'd be otherwise?

What's to stop Apple using Power Architecture, and simulating ARM for now? Do we know the Snapdragon is even Cortex-A9 based (has ARM or Qualcomm said this)?

For a company that's done MOtorola 68000 to IBM PowerPC, then to Intel, then to ARM for the iPhone, is it that much of a stretch of the imagination WWDC 2010 will have an announcement on this?

As the article notes, the PA6T at 1GHz, is 2x performance of the current iPhone 3GS processor. We have an Intel iPhone emulator, right?
http://www.technomicon.com/iPad_Saga..._3_p_EG98.html

I think it's worth a bet that we'll see a dual core processor based on PA6T with Apple dealing with the graphics. Maybe Mark Hibben got it wrong - but he's put up a much better case than - "It just is an ARM Cortex A9 ok"
post #19 of 32
Looks like I was right on the money - sixteen days ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

Why do people keep insisting Apple designed this chip? Their contribution is probably tiny, Just enough to allow them to stick their logo on it. It doesn't even have a © symbol on it.

I think the A4 is really Just a repackaged Samsung Hummingbird processor.

There is a rumour that Apple has just bought another ARM chip design company - Intrinsity.

Intrinsity apparently designed the Hummingbird for Samsung. The A4 is manufactured by Samsung.

The Hummingbird is the chip that will be powering Samsung's new smart phones, the i9000 S Galaxy and the S8500 Wave, except the Hummingbird in these phones actually has 512mb of RAM.

Perhaps Apple's contribution to the A4 was to ask Samsung to drop half the RAM from the Hummingbird so they could put their logo on it and pretend it was a custom designed processor.
post #20 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mat0 View Post

Technomicon made a decent case to say it wasn't ARM. vs e.g. John Stokes Ars Technica article - the A4 isn't a Cortex A9, but simply a single core A8 - http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...pads-brain.ars

It wasn't a serious argument, and then everyone got on their case about it.
Quote:
I don't see this AI article as really describing how you have to rule out the PA6T being the basis of the A4 (and likely other family member for the 4th gen iPhone). There seems to be a clinging of the notion by Eran, and others that the A4 is ARM-based. Why? Has this been proven?
http://www.technomicon.com/iPad_Saga..._6_p_2I42.html

Why not Power Architecture? As noted in the above article:



So Apple's had PowerPC experience, nearly went with PA Semi over Intel before, has now bought PA Semi, and has also bought Intrinsity, which has dealt with amongst other things, Power Architecture...
So now they're going to go with ARM Cortex?

Even if you look at the chip, isn't there a discrepancy about transistor numbers when comparing to Cortex A8/A9?
Can we rule out it's an A8 first? And are there any other Cortex A9 chips in production yet? OMAP-44X? Next Gen Tegra? EMMA Movile EV? Is the assumption it's A9 just because people can't think it'd be otherwise?

What's to stop Apple using Power Architecture, and simulating ARM for now? Do we know the Snapdragon is even Cortex-A9 based (has ARM or Qualcomm said this)?

For a company that's done MOtorola 68000 to IBM PowerPC, then to Intel, then to ARM for the iPhone, is it that much of a stretch of the imagination WWDC 2010 will have an announcement on this?

As the article notes, the PA6T at 1GHz, is 2x performance of the current iPhone 3GS processor. We have an Intel iPhone emulator, right?
http://www.technomicon.com/iPad_Saga..._3_p_EG98.html

I think it's worth a bet that we'll see a dual core processor based on PA6T with Apple dealing with the graphics. Maybe Mark Hibben got it wrong - but he's put up a much better case than - "It just is an ARM Cortex A9 ok"

You're speculating way too much. Its ARM, there's no question about that.
post #21 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmmx View Post

It is not grammar - it is simply the wrong word.

GrammerCop was the name of the poster.
post #22 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It wasn't a serious argument, and then everyone got on their case about it.


You're speculating way too much. Its ARM, there's no question about that.

Why ARM? What's the proof? the chip tear down showed it was fabbed by Samsung, and it was likely 45nm. Chipworks didn't seem to say anything about it being ARM or Power Architecture.

If there are no questions it being ARM - where's the definitive proof? I agree it could be, but it seems it's nice to support the argument of "there's no question it's ARM"

E.g. If it's ARM A8 - They seem to have upgraded the on-chip memory controller to 64 bits wide.
Are there any other ARM A8's with this?
http://www.technomicon.com/iPad_Saga...10_p_IA49.html
http://www.edn.com/blog/400000040/post/1230053723.html

Does the die size and process width actually match up to be an ARM8? Why the delay to OS 4 coming to the iPad? Why Apple's spat with Flash, etc recently? They want all code developed in XCode - and they likely have their reasons.

A chip to chip comparison with a Hummingbird would really clear things up. Apple could been involved in a customisation of an A8 - but the A4 doesn't seem stock Cortex A8 - we agree on that, right? With all Apple's secrecy, it could well be that Samsung may have omitted in roadmaps, a chip it was developing with Apple, and that it is Cortex, just something we don't yet know about - is there more than just the Cortex-A9 MPCore?
post #23 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mat0 View Post

Why ARM? What's the proof? the chip tear down showed it was fabbed by Samsung, and it was likely 45nm. Chipworks didn't seem to say anything about it being ARM or Power Architecture.

If there are no questions it being ARM - where's the definitive proof?

Occam's razor, the balance of probabilities, all point to it being a Samsung ARM based Hummingbird with half the memory left out.
post #24 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

Occam's razor, the balance of probabilities, all point to it being a Samsung ARM based Dragonfly with half the memory left out.

So your hard proof, is a meta-theoretical principle that the simplest solution is usually the correct one? Wiki: "In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result."

Why would they drop half the memory? Any place Samsung is saying they're shipping this chip for products in Q2 2010?

What did Jobs say at WWDC once?

"Now, let's go to a big topic - Transitions. Let's talk about transitions. The Mac in it's history has had two major transitions so far.

I - 68k to Power PC. And that transition happened about 10 years ago in the mid 90s. I wasn't here then, but the team then did a great job, from everything I hear. And the Power PC set Apple up for the next decade. It was a good move.

The second major transition though has been even bigger, and that was from OS 9 to OS X that we just finished a few years ago, the early part of this decade. This was a brain transplant, and even though these OS vary in name only by one, they are worlds apart in their technology. OS X is the most advanced OS in the planet, and it has set Apple up for the next 20 years.

Today it's time to begin a 3rd transition. We want to constantly be making the best computers for you and the rest of our users, so it's time for a 3rd transition, and yes, it's true! We are going to begin the transition from the Power PC to Intel processors and we are going to begin it for you now, and for our customers next year.


Now, why are we going to do this, right? Didn't we just get through going from OS 9 to OS X? Isn't the business great right now? Why do we want another transition? Because we want to be making the best computers for our customers looking forward.

.... The most important reasons are that as we look ahead, though we have great products right now, and we've got some great Power PC products still yet to come, as we look ahead, we can envision some amazing products we want to build for you, and we don't know how to build them with the future Power PC roadmap, and that's why we're going to do this.

When we look at Intel, they've got great performance yes, but they've got something else that's very important for us - just as important as performance, is power consumption. And the way we look at it, is performance per Watt. For 1 Watt of power, how much performance do you get. And when we look at the future roadmaps projected out mid-2006 and beyond, what we see is that the Power PC gives us sort of 15 units of performance per Watt, but the Intel Roadmap for the future gives us 70.

And so this tells us what we have to do. Now, this is not going to be a transition that happens overnight.It's going to happen over a period of a few years. "

...
"Two major challenges -The 1st one - making Mac OS X sing on Intel processors. Now, i have something to tell you today, Mac OS X has been leading a secret double life - for the past 5 years.

There have been rumours to this effect...we've had teams doing the Just In Case Scenario

Our rules have been, that our designs for OS X must be processor independent, and that every project must be built for both the Power PC and Intel processors. So for today for the first time, I can confirm the rumours that every release of Mac OS X has been compiled for both Power PC and Intel. This has been going on for the last 5 years. Just In Case. So Mac OS X is cross platform by design.



So Jobs', Apple's main criteria were roadmap, performance, power consumption - Performance per Watt.
post #25 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmmx View Post

There is talk that the A4 is actually a PPC dual core, not ARM at all. If that is the case, then they could have used existing PA Semi designs with modifications.

One thing is clear - Apple wants to differentiate itself on hardware speed + efficiency.

This would have come out in the SDK by now. This would mean from a software perspective supporting both ARM (iPhone/iPod) and iPad (PPC), would be extremely challenging and Apple would need to do something similar to what Apple did with the Mac PPC to Intel change.
post #26 of 32
Apple are cheap, they got Samsung to drop half the memory to save money and to allow the nonsense that is being promulgated all over the place that the A4 has a significant amount of Apple intellectual property in it. I doubt it has Any Apple IP in it. All it is, is a custom, lower spec version of the hummingbird.

I am not interested in supplying you with the 'proof' you keep demanding. I didn't say I had hard proof, I just think I am more likely to be right than you.

As for Samsung shipping the chip, I am not sure about that but they will be using millions of them in their S8500 Wave and i9000 S Galaxy smart phones which are due for release very shortly. They will probably be using the chip in the BADA S8200 phone as well.

I think this all points to Apple having wasted an awful lot of money buying PA Semi. I think they bought the company, most of the talent left, leaving a portfolio of outdated IP that was soon superseded in performance by the work Intensity did for Samsung. Oops!
post #27 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin.mcintyre View Post

This would have come out in the SDK by now. This would mean from a software perspective supporting both ARM (iPhone/iPod) and iPad (PPC), would be extremely challenging and Apple would need to do something similar to what Apple did with the Mac PPC to Intel change.

Is there a way to check the SDK for the iPad, to rule this out?
Guessing Apple moved to LPDDR2 to boost the memory bandwidth? (something other SoC makers have yet to do?
Agree it's cheap to drop the memory - Safari will suffer on the iPad as a result for starters.

Fair enough - You're likely right - just seeing if you could rule out Power Architecture.

ARM/Samsung's roadmap? http://www.slashgear.com/arm-cpu-roa...-2012-2282728/
post #28 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

I think this all points to Apple having wasted an awful lot of money buying PA Semi. I think they bought the company, most of the talent left, leaving a portfolio of outdated IP that was soon superseded in performance by the work Intensity did for Samsung. Oops!

It's two years since Apple bought PA Semi, and the article says it takes three years for a new product to be designed and produced, so PA Semi designs will hit the streets next year most likely.

Intrinsity will bring in a lot of experience to complement the PA Semi designs, so maybe PA Semi identified the technology as being useful to their designs, and Apple bought it. Expect to see PA Semi + Intrinsity efforts in two or three years from now.

The A4 is just a variant of an Intrinsity design, so that was a bonus. Also because that design was an evolution of the existing iPhone 3GS processor, so software changes were minimal. Higher L2 cache and a wider memory bus provide good performance boosts.

PA Semi are most likely working on the dual-core Cortex A9 based System-on-Chip with SGX 543 graphics for next year's iPad, AppleTV, etc.
post #29 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

Apple are cheap, they got Samsung to drop half the memory to save money and to allow the nonsense that is being promulgated all over the place that the A4 has a significant amount of Apple intellectual property in it. I doubt it has Any Apple IP in it. All it is, is a custom, lower spec version of the hummingbird.

I am not interested in supplying you with the 'proof' you keep demanding. I didn't say I had hard proof, I just think I am more likely to be right than you.

As for Samsung shipping the chip, I am not sure about that but they will be using millions of them in their S8500 Wave and i9000 S Galaxy smart phones which are due for release very shortly. They will probably be using the chip in the BADA S8200 phone as well.

I think this all points to Apple having wasted an awful lot of money buying PA Semi. I think they bought the company, most of the talent left, leaving a portfolio of outdated IP that was soon superseded in performance by the work Intensity did for Samsung. Oops!

What is to say they bought PASemi for the talent? PASemi had a nice portfolio of IP to leverage. Anyone who has done A&M knows that staffing bleed is a natural part of the process - and plan for it. There are synergies involved with the acquisition of PASemi with the existing in-house ASIC team. And with the addition of Intrinsity they can produce some very interesting road-maps.
post #30 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerARSgm View Post

Good to see another Austin based tech firm succeed. Austin, TX - little Silicon Valley.

Don't move to Austin. It's hot. The food is terrible. It's a bunch of rednecks. It's expensive. The music scene sucks and there are no hills, lakes, or water anywhere around. Please just stay where you are.

Seriously how cool is it that Intrinsity's HQ is listed on Google as being on "Farm to Market Road 2244"...only in Austin...Hook 'Em Horns!


http://www.google.com/search?client=...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
post #31 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mat0 View Post

Why ARM? What's the proof? the chip tear down showed it was fabbed by Samsung, and it was likely 45nm. Chipworks didn't seem to say anything about it being ARM or Power Architecture.

If there are no questions it being ARM - where's the definitive proof? I agree it could be, but it seems it's nice to support the argument of "there's no question it's ARM"

E.g. If it's ARM A8 - They seem to have upgraded the on-chip memory controller to 64 bits wide.
Are there any other ARM A8's with this?
http://www.technomicon.com/iPad_Saga...10_p_IA49.html
http://www.edn.com/blog/400000040/post/1230053723.html

First of all, Technomicon isn't known as being reliable. I tend to dismiss anything they have to say. His speculation was gobblygook.

As far as edn.com goes, he didn't even get the other memory supplier correct. In addition to Samsung, it's Toshiba. He's not even sure that there's a compass chipset inside (yes, there is), which is well known.

If these are the two sources, I think you'd better drop them.

9quote0
Does the die size and process width actually match up to be an ARM8? Why the delay to OS 4 coming to the iPad? Why Apple's spat with Flash, etc recently? They want all code developed in XCode - and they likely have their reasons.[/quote]

Die size doesn't have to be the same if there's a difference on the chip itself. If word is correct, and Apple removed unnecessary parts, then they could be going for better wafer and die yield with smaller dies.

Process width? Do you understand what you just asked? You've already stated that it was probably 45nm. From the x-rays, it IS 45nm. It wouldn't be 65 at that speed and power draw. And is surely isn't less.

Quote:
A chip to chip comparison with a Hummingbird would really clear things up. Apple could been involved in a customisation of an A8 - but the A4 doesn't seem stock Cortex A8 - we agree on that, right? With all Apple's secrecy, it could well be that Samsung may have omitted in roadmaps, a chip it was developing with Apple, and that it is Cortex, just something we don't yet know about - is there more than just the Cortex-A9 MPCore?

It certainly seems to be a Hummingbird. That's the only thing that makes sense. Intrinsity and Samsung have the Hummingbird. Apple's chip supplier is Samsung. Apple bought Intrinsity.

If they were using a PPC, they would have to have the entire OS run in emulation. Really, its not likely they've got another secret program to run their OS's back on PPC. When Apple went to Intel, he said that "Power was over". I believe that. I can't think of a single reason to resurrect it.
post #32 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mat0 View Post

So your hard proof, is a meta-theoretical principle that the simplest solution is usually the correct one? Wiki: "In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result."

Why would they drop half the memory? Any place Samsung is saying they're shipping this chip for products in Q2 2010?

What did Jobs say at WWDC once?

"Now, let's go to a big topic - Transitions. Let's talk about transitions. The Mac in it's history has had two major transitions so far.

I - 68k to Power PC. And that transition happened about 10 years ago in the mid 90s. I wasn't here then, but the team then did a great job, from everything I hear. And the Power PC set Apple up for the next decade. It was a good move.

The second major transition though has been even bigger, and that was from OS 9 to OS X that we just finished a few years ago, the early part of this decade. This was a brain transplant, and even though these OS vary in name only by one, they are worlds apart in their technology. OS X is the most advanced OS in the planet, and it has set Apple up for the next 20 years.

Today it's time to begin a 3rd transition. We want to constantly be making the best computers for you and the rest of our users, so it's time for a 3rd transition, and yes, it's true! We are going to begin the transition from the Power PC to Intel processors and we are going to begin it for you now, and for our customers next year.


Now, why are we going to do this, right? Didn't we just get through going from OS 9 to OS X? Isn't the business great right now? Why do we want another transition? Because we want to be making the best computers for our customers looking forward.

.... The most important reasons are that as we look ahead, though we have great products right now, and we've got some great Power PC products still yet to come, as we look ahead, we can envision some amazing products we want to build for you, and we don't know how to build them with the future Power PC roadmap, and that's why we're going to do this.

When we look at Intel, they've got great performance yes, but they've got something else that's very important for us - just as important as performance, is power consumption. And the way we look at it, is performance per Watt. For 1 Watt of power, how much performance do you get. And when we look at the future roadmaps projected out mid-2006 and beyond, what we see is that the Power PC gives us sort of 15 units of performance per Watt, but the Intel Roadmap for the future gives us 70.

And so this tells us what we have to do. Now, this is not going to be a transition that happens overnight.It's going to happen over a period of a few years. "

...
"Two major challenges -The 1st one - making Mac OS X sing on Intel processors. Now, i have something to tell you today, Mac OS X has been leading a secret double life - for the past 5 years.

There have been rumours to this effect...we've had teams doing the Just In Case Scenario

Our rules have been, that our designs for OS X must be processor independent, and that every project must be built for both the Power PC and Intel processors. So for today for the first time, I can confirm the rumours that every release of Mac OS X has been compiled for both Power PC and Intel. This has been going on for the last 5 years. Just In Case. So Mac OS X is cross platform by design.



So Jobs', Apple's main criteria were roadmap, performance, power consumption - Performance per Watt.

You didn't give a single reason why it wouldn't be an ARM chip in all of that. You thought that his argument was just inference, but yours was much more so.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Intrinsity likely powers Apple's A4 iPad processor