Apple to expand CPU design group beyond iPad A4 - Page 5

I really don't care one bit about what everybody else thinks, I only report on what is obvious to me from using the iPad. However if you read forums regularly you will see issues pop up that trace back to a lack of performance.

This thread is totally unbelievable, ask yourself why iPad plays back those H.264 files so well. Please!

You are confused, unbelievably so. We are talking about what happens when the CPU has to do the heavy lifting in iOS devices instead of optimized hardware. When that happens the CPU falls flat on its face. One example here that i've been using is VLC.

Do you not read the forums in a regular manner? Beyond that the problem with CPU performance doesn't need any supporting characters as it isn't something you can argue about if you have any knowledge at all about what is going on in iOS devices.

And who in the hell said anything like that? What I'm saying is that the fact that iPhone 4 has more RAM than the iPad should tell you something about what iOS really needs to perform well. It is rather disgusting of Apple to let the iPad continue to be sold with minimal RAM after it has become obvious that they have the technology to do better. That is iPhone 4 what is even worst is that iPad has even less RAM available to user apps than the 3GS, or it did a few iOS releases ago.

Again RAM is a side issue to the problem raised which is that the CPU in the iPad basically sucks. Arguing against this point is futile. It looks especially bad when people cough up examples that don't use the CPU as examples of good CPU performance.

In any event another way to look at this is benchmarks which are of course of debatable value also. For example:

1. http://www.eeejournal.com/2010/05/be...vs-iphone.html
2. http://blog.gsmarena.com/apple-ipad-...ls-to-impress/
3. http://vanshardware.com/2010/08/mirr...rm-versus-x86/

Since benchmarking is of limited us I still go back to the overriding issue with iPad is in hand performance. It simply needs to be better.

You get intelligent responses and continue to say the same broken ideas over and over. No matter how many different ways different people tell you otherwise. And for the past several posts you have descended to the rhetorical techniques of deflection and dismissiveness without actually providing any logical reasoning or new facts.

Your technique of debate is an utter train wreck.


And still your answer is straight politician "answer a question by only saying what you want to say", not actually answering the question and then attacking the debater with another distractive but non-factual and off topic statement.

What am I supposed to try? Getting you back on track and talking facts or at least proffered on topic opinion? I yield! That is an impossible task!!!


OT: So where are you going to school?

You are certainly free to your opinion. Your declaration about the iPad being too slow, sounded to be stated as fact and not opinion. I'm challenging the declaration not your opinion.


I just stated why the iPad plays back H.264 well. Understanding that should bring light to your next compliant.


At this point we've established that Apple designed the iPad to only play H.264 and its hardware accelerated.

Your complaint is about the CPU having trouble playing video that Apple did not design the iPad to play. Do you really believe a new Apple processor will do a better job of playing video that Apple did not design it to play? Do you really not see the flaws in the line of logic?


I do read the forums on a regular basis and regularly ignore much of what is written.


Sigh..............


I do believe you that in your universe arguing against this is futile. As I look around the web. Most tech sites are calling the iPad the top tech gadget of 2010. I don't see anyone else saying that the A4 sucks.

You keep touting VLC as your prime example that the A4 sucks. As though VLC is the perfect app with no problems. Xvid and all of the other codecs VLC plays are totally efficient with no problems. The only possible problem there could be is the processor.

On top of that Apple did not design the A4 to directly play video in the CPU.

Not sure how come you all didn't bring this up... Apparently Microsoft is going to announce Windows on ARM at CES. There goes your virtualisation/ legacy/ compatibility concerns.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-1...-ces-show.html

Microsoft is already an ARM licensee, of course.

Maybe it's thinking about alternatives to Atom on the lower-end quite seriously now?

As usual Microsoft can't innovate its way out of a paper bag, so Ballmer probaby thought Tablets Tablets Tablets... Er... okay put Windows Windows Windows on it. Done!

it is a fact the CPU is slow.

Exactly! The machine is not relying on the CPU to accelerate the video playback. It can't because - hear this now - the CP?U is slow.

There is no flaw in my logic as I expect a tablet to be able to play easily and commonly available video at reasonable speeds. If it can't do this due to a slow CPU then we have a problem.

Which explains your inability to grasp what is being said here. It isn't like this is a big secret or hasn't been discussed in the past.

The CPU performance has little to do with iPad getting all those top gadget kudos. As I've stated much of what makes iPad very usable is due to other hardware in the SoC.

If you reread what you have just said it is obvious that you agree with me. IT is the CPU that sucks.

I don't really give a hoot as to what Apple designed. What I'm saying very clearly is that the CPU is to slow and often falls flat on its face when faced with demanding work loads. In a nut shell it is a very fast cell phone processor but that isn't exactly an endorsement.

I hope you don't intend to emulate i86 on ARM. Legacy apps are always an issue, at least until development passes them by.

I would hope so. There is still a bit of a performance negative with A9 based processors but the delta is smaller than with A8 based Cortex implementations. The interesting thing here though is that ARM processors are already taping out on sub 32nm processes so Intel is no longer leading technology wise. This means either impressively small/thin devices or impressively long run times.

What people need to realize though is that buying such hardware does not mean Arrandale or Sandy Bridge class performance. Rather it means Intel ATOM class performance and that with the newest A9 Cortex based machines up against older ATOMs. Like wise we don't know where Bobcat based Fusion processors will slot in here either.

The trick will be to get developers to support native binaries on the platform. For some that is a big issue.

In a way I'm glad that MicroSoft is doing something on ARM. To be honest I think it is more to stymie the acceptance of the various Linux based platforms on ARM. Linux threatens MS on many more levels than Apple does and it would be very damaging to MS to see consumers migrating to and actually liking Linux platforms. iPad success fits into the equation of course but MS has a long history of dealing with Apple

I agree. Apple have done a lot of work with chip manufacturers over the years and all that happens is Apple's competitors also gain from the improvements. Far better to keep their genius in house. Who gives a flying frog if Apple's products are proprietary? What does that really mean anyway in this context?

A point worth pondering.


Actually, I see there to be an interesting possibility with your first observation: Apple's closing in on having enough cash to buy a 51% (controlling) interest in Intel, whose stock price has been pretty flat.

If Apple were to own the company who's selling the CPUs that goes into (almost) all of the PCs, this could invoke a re-write of "Microsoft Won the PC War" history.


-hh

Would they be allowed to buy a controlling share of Intel, hostile or otherwise? Would they need to, when they seem to get what they need from Imagination Technologies with only 9.5% ownership?

So we have 4 main options here should Apple be a PC CPU designer:

1. Build their own CPU that is not x86-compatible.
2. Build their own CPU that is x86-compatible.
3. Buy AMD, in part or whole.
4. Buy Intel, controlling or not.

The first two likely include buying some companies that design and build CPUs, like PA Semi, but that purchase has long been said to regard ARM and not the desktop.

I think you are right. I am running myself around in circles. What you say here tells me what I need to know. I'm debating with someone who chooses not to have a firm grasp of reality.