or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Rumor: Sharp's IGZO display didn't make the cut for Apple's third-gen iPad
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rumor: Sharp's IGZO display didn't make the cut for Apple's third-gen iPad - Page 2

post #41 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by shompa View Post

*hint* Apple gave Sharp over 500 million last year to build displays to them. Apple would not have given Sharp the money if they failed the approval process.

They would if they were building their Apple TV screens.
post #42 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnjnjn View Post

The point is of course that the most demanding 3D environments like Infinitiblade must run at equal or better speed on the new iPad. And this demands 4 times the calculation speed.
It isn't a good observation that some tasks require less GPU power, the device maker (Apple) needs to take peak performance into account because that's what counts.
And I assumed ofcourse that all pixels are used. Nobody will buy the device if the software isn't using the high resolution.

J.

And you are forgetting that in all but the most extreme spec-whore cases, 3D games are almost always run by their users at lower resolutions than the max available on the monitor.

C game producers leave the choices of settings and such to the users because there is so much variation in the hardware space. But on an iPad Rage engine games can be rendered at the same current resolutions until the devs are happy with the rest of the performance envelope. Since iPad is a very controlled environment, the devs can be very specific in the settings they choose, and enforce them in non-user adjustable ways, ensuring the experience the dev wants without all the negatives you list.

As for nobody will buy it if it isn't using the high resolution (for games), that's just plain bunk trying to paper over your weak argument. It was not true in the phone space, it wasn't true in the PC space, it won't be true in the tablet space.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #43 of 65
But what do most of poeple here agree on ? Would the IGZO Display Technology developed by Sharp would have been better or the current IPS LED Backlit Display used in iPad-2 which in iPad-3 will be used with Dual LED Bar be better. I personally think the latter should be better. Because of the simple fact that the currently we already have a proto-type in the form of iPad-2 screen in front of us which is just fantastic, imagine more pixels added to it with equally brighter screen, I think its gonna look mind- blowing whereas Nobody has seen the IGZO displays who knows if they would have matched the expectations of users like me for whom a screen dislpay, in a visual experience thing matters on top than anything else ?

But what if still Apple comes with the IGZO displays by Sharp? is it truly confirmed that Apple is not gonna use the IGZO displays by Sharp in the iPad-3 ?
post #44 of 65
My more important question is, if it does not have a 330 PPI which is the minimum parameter to be called a Retina Display but if it has a resolution of 2048x1536 will the display be anywhere close to the Retina Display will it be worth noticing and close to be called a spectacular display ?
post #45 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by augustya View Post

My more important question is, if it does not have a 330 PPI which is the minimum parameter to be called a Retina Display but if it has a resolution of 2048x1536 will the display be anywhere close to the Retina Display will it be worth noticing and close to be called a spectacular display ?

300 PPI is not the definition of Retina Display. Apple made one reference to 300 PPI on one slide during the iPhone 4 presentation. It was simply a general benchmark of the limit of the human eye without any qualifiers. For a tablet that is held 13" or more away from the face and viewed by a person with 20/20 vision or worse the 265 PPI of 2048x1536 on a 9.7" display meets the minimum measurements of not being discernible by the human eye. Of course, tablets are typically held farther away than 13" inches. For comparison, at 12" away with 20/20 vision you need 285" PPI.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #46 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

300 PPI is not the definition of Retina Display. Apple made one reference to 300 PPI on one slide during the iPhone 4 presentation. It was simply a general benchmark of the limit of the human eye without any qualifiers. For a tablet that is held 13" or more away from the face and viewed by a person with 20/20 vision or worse the 265 PPI of 208x1536 on a 9.7" display meets the minimum measurements of not being discernible by the human eye. Of course, tablets are typically held farther away than 13" inches. For comparison, at 12" away with 20/20 vision you need 285" PPI.

So r u suggesting at 265 PPI, with a 2048 x 1356 it can still be called a Retina Display ?
post #47 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by augustya View Post

So r u suggesting at 265 PPI, with a 2048 x 1356 it can still be called a Retina Display ?

He's not suggesting that, he's outright stating it. For the purposes of the definition of 'retina device', it's true.

That's not the actual resolvable power of the human eye, but it's nearly unappreciably different.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #48 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by augustya View Post

So r u suggesting at 265 PPI, with a 2048 x 1356 it can still be called a Retina Display ?

Not just suggesting it, I'm stating it outright. Retina Display can be any definition Apple wishes but the most rational definition should be based on "perfect"* vision and distance one would view such a display. Consider an HDTV, they have very large pixels compared to any handheld device but you view the display so much farther back than a handheld device that they can get away with it. You don't think that a 60" 16:9 HDTV would have to have 300 PPI or more to be considered Retina Display, do you? That's a 15700x8820 display or 138,474,000 pixels being pushed compared to even a 1080p HDTV which is only 1920x1080 or 2,073,600 pixels.

* 20/20 vision is considered perfect vision but it's not neither the best vision nor most common for adults. There is technically no such thing as perfect vision.


edit: LOL I see TS beat me to it when I was doing my math.

edit2: More math... They can make this up as they see fit, but they do have to be able to justify it or risk irrevocably weakening said marketing term. I’d say about 16-22” seems about right for a tablet. Based on that criteria the PPI would need to be 156 to 215. Very doable since even 7” tablets are exceeding that lower measure.
  • 3438 * (1/12") = 287 ppi
  • 3438 * (1/13") = 264 ppi
  • 3438 * (1/14") = 246 ppi
  • 3438 * (1/15") = 229 ppi
  • 3438 * (1/16") = 215 ppi
  • 3438 * (1/18") = 191 ppi
  • 3438 * (1/20") = 172 ppi
  • 3438 * (1/22") = 156 ppi
(Where 3438 is the scaling factor derived from a 1 arc minute visual acuity for 20/20 vision.)


Now that we have that squared away we can easily use a PPI calculator to see what difference displays would be. Here’s a simple site I like to use: http://thirdculture.com/joel/shumi/c...e/ppicalc.html
  • XGA: 1024 x 768 = 786,432 pixels = 132 ppi*
  • SXGA: 1280 x 960 = 1,228,800 pixels = 165 ppi*
  • SXGA+: 1400 × 1050 = 1,470,000 pixels = 180 ppi*
  • UXGA: 1600 × 1200 = 1,920,000 pixels = 206 ppi*
  • QXGA: 2048 x 1536 = 3,145,728 pixels = 264 ppi*
That’s a lot more pixels to render even going the minimum Retina Disaply classification outlined above based on about 22” away from eyes. Still, I think the SXGA+ is actually doable on the newer Imagination Tech GPUs. It’s almost 2x as many pixels of the current iPad, but Apple isn’t close to using the most powerful GPU they offer. Whether that is viable for power efficiency reasons, if they can even source these displays when the current IPS displays seem to be holding the iPad production up already, or if they need to wait a year (or more) for other reasons is obviously unknown.


PS: For comparison, the iPhone 4S’s GPU is only working for a 614,400 pixels.


* Assuming a 9.7” display.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #49 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

He's not suggesting that, he's outright stating it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Not just suggesting it, I'm stating it outright.

edit: LOL I see TS beat me to it when I was doing my math.

Well, you know what they say about great minds

" they're the only ones who get why a 6th generation device won't have a 5 in the name?"

yeah.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #50 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Not just suggesting it, I'm stating it outright. Retina Display can be any definition Apple wishes but the most rational definition should be based on "perfect"* vision and distance one would view such a display. Consider an HDTV, they have very large pixels compared to any handheld device but you view the display so much farther back than a handheld device that they can get away with it. You don't think that a 60" 16:9 HDTV would have to have 300 PPI or more to be considered Retina Display, do you? That's a 15700x8820 display or 138,474,000 pixels being pushed compared to even a 1080p HDTV which is only 1920x1080 or 2,073,600 pixels.

* 20/20 vision is considered perfect vision but it's not neither the best vision nor most common for adults. There is technically no such thing as perfect vision.


edit: LOL I see TS beat me to it when I was doing my math.

edit2: More math... They can make this up as they see fit, but they do have to be able to justify it or risk irrevocably weakening said marketing term. Id say about 16-22 seems about right for a tablet. Based on that criteria the PPI would need to be 156 to 215. Very doable since even 7 tablets are exceeding that lower measure.
  • 3438 * (1/12") = 287 ppi
  • 3438 * (1/13") = 264 ppi
  • 3438 * (1/14") = 246 ppi
  • 3438 * (1/15") = 229 ppi
  • 3438 * (1/16") = 215 ppi
  • 3438 * (1/18") = 191 ppi
  • 3438 * (1/20") = 172 ppi
  • 3438 * (1/22") = 156 ppi
(Where 3438 is the scaling factor derived from a 1 arc minute visual acuity for 20/20 vision.)


Now that we have that squared away we can easily use a PPI calculator to see what difference displays would be. Heres a simple site I like to use: http://thirdculture.com/joel/shumi/c...e/ppicalc.html
  • XGA: 1024 x 768 = 786,432 pixels = 132 ppi*
  • SXGA: 1280 x 960 = 1,228,800 pixels = 165 ppi*
  • SXGA+: 1400 × 1050 = 1,470,000 pixels = 180 ppi*
  • UXGA: 1600 × 1200 = 1,920,000 pixels = 206 ppi*
  • QXGA: 2048 x 1536 = 3,145,728 pixels = 264 ppi*
Thats a lot more pixels to render even going the minimum Retina Disaply classification outlined above based on about 22 away from eyes. Still, I think the SXGA+ is actually doable on the newer Imagination Tech GPUs. Its almost 2x as many pixels of the current iPad, but Apple isnt close to using the most powerful GPU they offer. Whether that is viable for power efficiency reasons, if they can even source these displays when the current IPS displays seem to be holding the iPad production up already, or if they need to wait a year (or more) for other reasons is obviously unknown.


PS: For comparison, the iPhone 4Ss GPU is only working for a 614,400 pixels.


* Assuming a 9.7 display.

Woah ! That was lot of R&D that you did Ok let me now, ask you this straight up since you have delved so much into displays 2 straight questions to you.

1. I am sure even you have been doing a lot of reading and simultaneously doing some research on what displays is Apple gonna come out in their next iPad-3 (I would imagine so...if you are a iPad enthusiast) so do you think will they come out with the IGZO Displays or will they stick to IPS Dual LED Backlit Displays. Will IGZO be better in displays or is the IPS technology more better in displays.

My personal take on this is they should stick to the IPS Dual LED Backlit displays as we have some prototype in the form of the displays that are being used in iPad-2 so imagine more pixel and brighter display to the current iPad-2, it will be much more effective than god knows how good this IGZO technology displays are ?

2. With a Picture Resolution of 2048 x 1536 and say with a PPI of 256 do you think it would be a dislpay as better if not better like the iPhone-4 one's ? Will it be something to be called as a spectacular display ?
post #51 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by augustya View Post

Woah ! That was lot of R&D that you did Ok let me now, ask you this straight up since you have delved so much into displays 2 straight questions to you.

1. I am sure even you have been doing a lot of reading and simultaneously doing some research on what displays is Apple gonna come out in their next iPad-3 (I would imagine so...if you are a iPad enthusiast) so do you think will they come out with the IGZO Displays or will they stick to IPS Dual LED Backlit Displays. Will IGZO be better in displays or is the IPS technology more better in displays.

My personal take on this is they should stick to the IPS Dual LED Backlit displays as we have some prototype in the form of the displays that are being used in iPad-2 so imagine more pixel and brighter display to the current iPad-2, it will be much more effective than god knows how good this IGZO technology displays are ?

2. With a Picture Resolution of 2048 x 1536 and say with a PPI of 256 do you think it would be a dislpay as better if not better like the iPhone-4 one's ? Will it be something to be called as a spectacular display ?

I'll make an answer and @ SolipsismX can agree or post otherwise.

1. Who knows. Depends more on manufacturing yield of IZGO than anything else.

2. Once you get past the threshold of indistinguishable pixels at normal visual acuity it doesn't look much different until you get a ridiculously higher resolution of at least 2x better than that. Even then it will be like the audiophile world with image "experts" claiming they can see things that are either physically impossible at normal viewing ranges. Or they will talk about things like the qualia which is an actual term but almost always used by idiots unless you are in the presence of PhD philosophers talking about life and sensation philosophically.

To get back on you topic question, at a standard iPad use range it will look just as nice as an iPhone with a slightly higher absolute resolution that is normally held closer.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #52 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

I'll make an answer and @ SolipsismX can agree or post otherwise.

1. Who knows. Depends more on manufacturing yield of IZGO than anything else.

No but, what has manufacturing yield got with the Quality of how the IGZO technology is in essence. I mean if it is a sub-standard technology producing sub-standard quality what will manufacturing yield got to do with it. I didn't quite understand what r u trying to say here

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

2. Once you get past the threshold of indistinguishable pixels at normal visual acuity it doesn't look much different until you get a ridiculously higher resolution of at least 2x better than that. Even then it will be like the audiophile world with image "experts" claiming they can see things that are either physically impossible at normal viewing ranges. Or they will talk about things like the qualia which is an actual term but almost always used by idiots unless you are in the presence of PhD philosophers talking about life and sensation philosophically.

So r u saying be it IGOZ or be it the IPS Dual Led Backlit display, it doesnt matters the quality will not be very different between each other

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

To get back on you topic question, at a standard iPad use range it will look just as nice as an iPhone with a slightly higher absolute resolution that is normally held closer.

So u r saying IGZO can also produce the same quality ?? But where are the Lab tests, Results, Proto-Types to prove it, to back it? What if it is a Display Blunder. I would not like my iPad if I were to buy, to have a inferior quality display. If I am paying a premium price, I expect a top notch product in every department !
post #53 of 65
More Sad news coming (Atleast for me) I am deeply saddened to read all this. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-57372317-64/sharp-igzo-display-possible-for-ipad-3-says-analyst I wonder if any of the iPad enthusiast here or in the Internet world has a comparison between the IPS LED Backlit Display and IGZO displays, on which gives a more better picture quality and colour reproduction?

This is, will be my first ever iPad, and unfortunately it had to be the one where they ended up doing experiements that too with the most crucial part of a entertainment gadget "The Display "
post #54 of 65
Hi,
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-57372317-64/sharp-igzo-display-possible-for-ipad-3-says-analyst/

And what are the similarities?
Annis: Actually, in a lot of other respects, the amorphous silicon panels from Korea and the IGZO panels from Sharp are pretty similar. They both use IPS [in-plane switching]...they have kind of the same liquid crystal technologies. So, they're both going to have a really wide viewing angle and good color off-axis.

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-57...#ixzz1ni3AviWY

As you see, IGZO is the TFT (thin film transistor) technology to switch the crystals in the subpixels (RGB). It's not determine the liquid crystal style, be it TN, PVA, SVA or IPS.

EDIT: Well, maybe it won't be IPS, who knows? I'm confident though that Apple wont ship junk, especially considering that an iPad display will be rotated by the user for reading etc. where picture uniformity counts.
I like Apples.
Reply
I like Apples.
Reply
post #55 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by augustya View Post

No but, what has manufacturing yield got with the Quality of how the IGZO technology is in essence. I mean if it is a sub-standard technology producing sub-standard quality what will manufacturing yield got to do with it. I didn't quite understand what r u trying to say here

Don't confuse your questions. I said who knows (quality), and the rest of my answer about yeild was quite obviously in response to the other part of your first question which was ~~will Apple come out with IZGO or IPS for iPad 3~~. Assuming quality is comparable yield will drive the answer, given many say IZGO is higher quality, yield is even more germane. But I've never seen IZGO myself so I cannot say anything about it's quality yet.

Quote:
So r u saying be it IGOZ or be it the IPS Dual Led Backlit display, it doesnt matters the quality will not be very different between each other

From a resolution perspective -- math is math. IPS/IZGO/Whackadoodle doesn't matter, dots is dots and same size dots give the same resolution up to the point that a marketer starts counting sub-pixels as dots (which has happened unfortunately on some smartphone marketing materials, but not here.) Remember I was responding to your original second question which was about resolution.

Quote:
So u r saying IGZO can also produce the same quality ?? But where are the Lab tests, Results, Proto-Types to prove it, to back it? What if it is a Display Blunder. I would not like my iPad if I were to buy, to have a inferior quality display. If I am paying a premium price, I expect a top notch product in every department !

I was only talking about the resolution which was in direct response to your original second question. I already stated "I don't know" about the other quality issues. Again, math is math. Please remember what you asked and don't try to make my answers anything more than exactly what they are and in response to.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #56 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by augustya View Post

More Sad news coming (Atleast for me) I am deeply saddened to read all this. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-57372317-64/sharp-igzo-display-possible-for-ipad-3-says-analyst I wonder if any of the iPad enthusiast here or in the Internet world has a comparison between the IPS LED Backlit Display and IGZO displays, on which gives a more better picture quality and colour reproduction?

This is, will be my first ever iPad, and unfortunately it had to be the one where they ended up doing experiements that too with the most crucial part of a entertainment gadget "The Display "

First -- never believe investment analysts. They all suck at predicting reality, their sole purpose is to help drive stock sales.

Second. it's not an experiment. If the tech sucks Apple won't use it, it the tech is better Apple will. Either way you will get to see one before you order/buy it so it will no longer be an experiment but it will be tangible reality in your hands.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #57 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

First -- never believe investment analysts. They all suck at predicting reality, their sole purpose is to help drive stock sales.

Second. it's not an experiment. If the tech sucks Apple won't use it, it the tech is better Apple will. Either way you will get to see one before you order/buy it so it will no longer be an experiment but it will be tangible reality in your hands.

Tell me Man iPad-3 will have a better Resolution than iPad-2 That is all I wanna hear !! I give a damn about if it is IPS or IGZO (Actually I do ) All that matters to me is the iPad-3 has to have out of the world Display, definitely better than iPad-2. That is what I care about !!
post #58 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Regarding dual-core Cortex-A15:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5406/t...tex-a15-at-ces

The Qualcomm S4 chip (which will be shipping in the HTC One S pretty much right away, and was shown at MWC) uses the A15 architecture.
post #59 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeb85 View Post

The Qualcomm S4 chip (which will be shipping in the HTC One S pretty much right away, and was shown at MWC) uses the A15 architecture.

Correct me if I'm wrong but as I understand it Qualcomm doesn't buy the CPU cores architecture licenses from ARM but create their own. This has given them an intermediary advantage as Krait does have many aspects and similarities of the upcoming Cortex-A15 but it's more aptly defined as a Cortex-A9 on steroids. It might even best the Cortex-A15 when it finally arrives but based on passed experience and the fact that Crotex-A15 has a longer dev cycle Krait will likely be inferior to Cortex-A15. One thing is for certain, dual-core Krait will best quad-core Cortex-A9 in every relevant way.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #60 of 65
So looks like IGZO didnt make through to iPad-3 right ? From the Images that were published of the so-calld iPad-3 the back of the iPad-3 panel was 0.8 mm thicker which would have not been the case if IGZO had been adopted and with Digitimes reporting the iPad-3 is gonna use a Dual Led Backlit Display. I highly doubt if IGZO has been used in the High Resolution display of the iPad-3. I still think it is the IPS Dual Led Technology !
post #61 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Correct me if I'm wrong but as I understand it Qualcomm doesn't buy the CPU cores architecture licenses from ARM but create their own. This has given them an intermediary advantage as Krait does have many aspects and similarities of the upcoming Cortex-A15 but it's more aptly defined as a Cortex-A9 on steroids. It might even best the Cortex-A15 when it finally arrives but based on passed experience and the fact that Crotex-A15 has a longer dev cycle Krait will likely be inferior to Cortex-A15. One thing is for certain, dual-core Krait will best quad-core Cortex-A9 in every relevant way.

Maybe your missing a terminology thing. The architecture of an ARM CPU is the set of instructions and basic circuit requirements for each instruction. I believe there is probably some form of generic core functionality layout available too. Having an architectural level license allows the holder to make changes and modifications to that core, both because it's legal and because the have the tools and documentation to do so. I'm pretty sure Qualcomm is one of the published ARM architectural licensees, Apple is only rumored to be (but I think they are).

That is different from just licensing a chip design for fabrication, which can also be done through ARM and then pick the fab to contract the actual production of the ready-made design. Or you could operate like many of the SoC operators and license the ARM CPU design, plop it on your SoC layout and then design the rest of the system to fit on the remainder the same silicon die. I believe the A4 was very much this latter type of chip, A5 and follow on more like the previous paragraphs version.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #62 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Maybe your missing a terminology thing. The architecture of an ARM CPU is the set of instructions and basic circuit requirements for each instruction. I believe there is probably some form of generic core functionality layout available too. Having an architectural level license allows the holder to make changes and modifications to that core, both because it's legal and because the have the tools and documentation to do so. I'm pretty sure Qualcomm is one of the published ARM architectural licensees, Apple is only rumored to be (but I think they are).

That is different from just licensing a chip design for fabrication, which can also be done through ARM and then pick the fab to contract the actual production of the ready-made design. Or you could operate like many of the SoC operators and license the ARM CPU design, plop it on your SoC layout and then design the rest of the system to fit on the remainder the same silicon die. I believe the A4 was very much this latter type of chip, A5 and follow on more like the previous paragraphs version.

From what I understand Apple's chips aren't Cortex either but similar to what Qualcomm licenses from ARM but the results so far seem to be more inline with the standard Cortex than the Snapdragon SoCs that Qualcomm builds.


edit: I found this...
Quote:
Whereas chip designers like Samsung and Texas Instruments (TI) license the architecture for ARM’s Cortex cores, Qualcomm designed their own ARM-compatible cores.

In current generation SoCs, Qualcomm uses the Scorpion core instead of Cortex-A8. They license the ARM instruction set, so the chips remain compatible at the user level, but running the enhanced Scorpion core means more bang-for-the-buck when actually using a phone.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #63 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

From what I understand Apple's chips aren't Cortex either but similar to what Qualcomm licenses from ARM but the results so far seem to be more inline with the standard Cortex than the Snapdragon SoCs that Qualcomm builds.


edit: I found this...

That's the impression that I get is that you have off the shelf ARM products from a lot of companies and then you have custom designed chips from Texas Ins (OMAP) , Qualcomm Snapdragon and Apple Ax series.

Apple likely acquired Intrinsity and PA Semi for their expertise in power management and other areas. The Ax series has a bright future.
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 #64 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Correct me if I'm wrong but as I understand it Qualcomm doesn't buy the CPU cores architecture licenses from ARM but create their own. This has given them an intermediary advantage as Krait does have many aspects and similarities of the upcoming Cortex-A15 but it's more aptly defined as a Cortex-A9 on steroids. It might even best the Cortex-A15 when it finally arrives but based on passed experience and the fact that Crotex-A15 has a longer dev cycle Krait will likely be inferior to Cortex-A15. One thing is for certain, dual-core Krait will best quad-core Cortex-A9 in every relevant way.

Yeah, you're right. I read from a few sources that the S4 was indeed the same design as the A15, but looking a little more into it, it seems it isn't.

Qualcomm is touting the same specs as ARM is for the Cortex-A15, so as far as which is quickest we'll have to wait and see. Either way, next-generation chips are beginning to roll out right now. Can't wait to see the new Exynos chipset, what Apple comes up with, and of course the A15.
post #65 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeb85 View Post

Yeah, you're right. I read from a few sources that the S4 was indeed the same design as the A15, but looking a little more into it, it seems it isn't.

Qualcomm is touting the same specs as ARM is for the Cortex-A15, so as far as which is quickest we'll have to wait and see. Either way, next-generation chips are beginning to roll out right now. Can't wait to see the new Exynos chipset, what Apple comes up with, and of course the A15.

The S4 isn't a Cortex A15 from what i've seen. I saw a breakdown of the chipsets on Anandtech and what stood out was the S4 had roughly 8 or 9 pipeline stages. The Cortex A15 is supposed to have 15 or so pipeline stages allowing it to clock up to 2.5Ghz. It also has up to 4MB of L2 cache.
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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Rumor: Sharp's IGZO display didn't make the cut for Apple's third-gen iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Rumor: Sharp's IGZO display didn't make the cut for Apple's third-gen iPad