iPad 3 - SGX 543MP2 or 600 series?

What is in the Sona vita New handheld..?

For me, I'd like to see Apple put the boot into Sony.

The Rogue sounds good. As good as a PS3..? That would be cool.

Lemon Bob Bon.

A base processor for handhelds and a more powerful processor for tablets.

What they could or will contain is an open question. At this point I suspect Apple will focus on the retina displays performance and do so with a far more powerful GPU. With only two weeks to go I'm hopeful for a major update.

From what I've seen of pictures of the PSP Vita, a quad 543MP4 is pretty badass. I think Apple will use a quad 543MP4, and save the more fancy PowerVR stuff for the next iteration.

I'm predicting the iPad 2X will need this quad GPU for Retina Display in 2D, but it will deliver better 3D graphics than iPad 2 because it will still be running at 1024x768 but be ~upscaled ala Xbox360 Lanczos~ to 2048x1536. Everybody wins.

If they can't drive the screen at full resolution for 3D I don't see many accepting the platform as a next generation device.

About a week-ish to find out?

We'll soon get to see.

Lemon Bon Bon.

While I'm no fan of anandtech I'm not surprised at the numbers there. I do wonder how much Apples drivers are impacting things in the tests. In the end though this is my whole point, if graphics performance regresses iPad 3 will not be seen as a new generation device. Instead it will be seen as a half step in the general direction.

So to state it another way, in order for iPad3 to be well accepted it needs to not regress performance wise at full resolution. It actuall needs to perform better. Is that a tall order? I don't really think so, it will require a state of the art processor though.

I really believe that is a mistake. It will depend upon how noticeable artifacts are, but I expect very noticeable differences between apps running at the old res vs apps running the new res.

You are talking about an entirely different class of performance. I believe Apple can easily get 4x better graphics performance just via the current A5 layout. How, through process shrinks that would allow them to more than double clock rate and cores. Apple could potentially jump two or more process nodes, that would allow doubling of clock rate without significant thermal issues. As I've mentioned before Cortex A9 cores are already running much faster than Apples old tech on the sub 32nm processes. Like wise Intels new ATOMs have their GPUs running extremely fast, while the overall power profile has dropped.

Yes I'm optimistic. The question is am I out in left field or a little more rational. To put it simply I think Apple can maintain performance parity at native resolution if they are will to be aggressive. In any event only a few days left before we are all cheering or sobbing in our Wheaties. Maintaining parity in GPU performance across all those extra pixels would make iPad3 very much a respected upgrade. Going beyond that is a more interesting discussion, I'd be very surprised if they have performance that is significantly faster with native resolution.

Mind you that is with current generation GPU cores of the 545 vain. Actually gaining at native resolution might be a bit more difficult because that would require more than doubling the curt cores and clock rate.


Yeah I'm excited, but sadly have no budget for such a device. I suspect I will be frustrated!

After the big roll out I have to wonder how bad the backlog will be. If they can deliver what I think they can, Apple may be out of stock most of the years.

This makes the most sense to me! It would also be the best explanation for the A5X designation. The only potential problem would be memory bandwidth.

My original understanding was that the 543 could go beyond four cores.

Why not native? If you get the same basic performance why not enjoy it.

tipoo, I've thinking about the 600 series (Rogue) in iPad 3, too. I'm currently inclined to agree with your reluctant conclusion that they'll settle for x2 cores (MP4) at x2 clock, to handle the x4 pixels. This is because only one license has a SoC for Rogue, but it's expected to be a year til it's available in products. However, Apple might be faster because (i) they can integrate SoC and product development because they are both in-house; (ii) Apple own 9-10% of Imagination Technologies, the GPU designer, so they might get early versions, work closely with them etc. Hope springs eternal...

Also, if they went with a dual-core version of this GPU, it would end consoles.

BTW: That SoC with this GPU is from ST-Ericsson:

Nova A9600, 210G FLOPs, 350M polygons/s, fill rates in excess of 13Gpixels/sec, sampling in 2011

From wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...oducts#Series6
This has been "released to licensees" just this Jan 2012. But I read elsewhere that it's not due in products til 2013.

Apple could very well have an A6 SoC using this chip ready for iPad 3, but I see it as unlikely. Contrardictory, maybe but I have no doubt that Apple partners with Imagination in the development of these cores so they would have early access. Work on the cores would have been started years ago to integrate it into a new SoC. However the GPU core isn't the big issue here as you still need to team it to a suitable CPU and system architecture to support that GPU. This would be the big difference between A5X and A6, A6 would have the system architecture to support the bus performance required to feed the GPU.

Wouldn't "integration" into the SoC include system architecture to support it? Years in the pipeline seems enough time to do that...

On your first point, you're saying the current dual-core CPU isn't suitable to feed this GPU? Bus bandwidth to memory seems more a system architecture issue, esp. considering that licensees have great leeway to tweak ARM designs, maybe that SoC design firm that Apple bought could handle it...

OTOH... Of course, Apple could also go for a Cortex A15 upgrade (as the Nova above does), which would seem to address that issue. And, if we're thinking that they could get a Rogue into the iPad 3 one year ahead of competitors, why not get A15 a year ahead too? (Apple isn't as cosy with ARM as they are with IT, though they helped found it, so they mightn't get the needed early-access).

It seems highly unrealistic to expect both upgrades (esp if the A5X photo is real); yet it also seem neatest and simplest to have them go together. So... they both wait for iPad 4, and we get a half-hacked (aka tuned) version of the iPad 2 SoC in iPad 3.

Well this would likely be why Apple has a rumored two track development process. That is to have the time to engineer a major new design every two years. So yeah they have to design the SoC to cover the memory bandwidth requirements of the GPU. At the same time that means an all new SoC.

That is system architecture and is exactly what I'm talking about. Frankly the CPU plays a small part here. The GPU on the other hand may require a new memory bus design, caches or other features. There are many ways for Apple to solve these issues but it does involve a bit of engineering to come up with the new architecture.

I have no doubt they can handle it. The question is could they have this new architecture ready for launch next week. That is really hard to say, if the debut what could be called A6 next week they would effectively be six to nine months ahead of the industry.

Cortex A15 doesn't have a lot to offer Apple, I believe the GPU would be the imperative. Let's face it with the right process shrink Apple could manage a 2-4X performance jump with the current Cortex A9's.

I suspect it will be more like six months or so. The problem is the new processor is a big initiative, with all of the associated risks, so why not focus on the absolute must haves. That would be the GPU and system architecture.

Half-hacked? Wow I bet a few Apple engineers just lined up to tell you a thing or two. A SoC fast enough to really drive that high resolution screen well is a major engineering effort even if it derives from the old. In any event it will be most interesting to see what Apple delivers.

I think that sums it up: can Apple be so far ahead of the industry, not just in design, concept etc, but even in designing the chips themselves? I gave some factors above supporting this; but their past performance is a guide: they had a new SoC for iPad 1, and a year later, another new SoC for iPad 2.

Now, that's just two data points, and there could be other factors (e.g. maybe both chips were in the pipeline for years). Crucially, and the point, I haven't compared that with the industry - maybe everyone managed that too.


The A15 seems a significant upgrade, at least doubling the performance without doubling power consumption. ARM know what they are doing. Can you expand on why you think that?

I do agree that a CPU upgrade isn't crucial for the iPad (for this generation); but GPU absolutely is. This is true for the x4 pixels; but also in general.


Agreed. And the "A5X", and dual-track rumour etc all support this. Plus, just a retina display is enough to wow everyone. I was musing that it might be workable if the risks could be self-contained within the SoC group (and it has the massive resources of Apple behind it) - but risks like "delays" can't be self-contained.


Hey, it wasn't meant as an insult. I was speaking in sympathy with them - to modify an existing design, when there's a new architecture available that solves all the problems you're facing... that was be frustrating to me. As a developer, I find that at some point, it's easier to start fresh than modify the existing design. Anyway, that's how I'd experience it - maybe they have a different attitude; and/or the technical issues are interesting in themselves and can inform and be used in the next architecture. Maybe I should keep my mouth shut instead of offending people

Wouldn't it be amazing if Apple was ahead of everybody in every aspect? I think it's possible but unlikely; but most of all, it's not needed for this generation of the iPad. And think that's one of the secrets of Apple: they *have* the technical chops, but they only use them in service of a user outcome, instead of an end in themselves. That's tricky. Most companies seem go one way or the other (i.e. all technical; or all user outcome).

Thanks, great points. HD game textures need massive textures. Could put them in the cloud but... bandwidth. I was thinking that mystery extra component (part number) could be a game controller.


Yes, consoles are long overdue for an upgrade, but they've been making so much money they've grown complacent... which creates an opportunity for a new entrant. Also, there's a shift towards casual games, where iPhone/iPad are strong.

Alternatives: Apple could include console features in their TV, circumventing the storage and bandwidth issues.


I think a quad-core GPU, but not a quad-core CPU. Because (1) Doubling CPU doesn't double performance, but doubling GPU does. So quad-core GPU is a more efficient use of silicon and power consumption. (2) CPU performance isn't needed as much as GPU performance on tablets in general, and especially for the iPad 3's retina display.


Why be terse if there's nothing to say - it sort of screams that they're working closely, doesn't it?

It would be a very pleasant shock if they delivered any sort of SoC with a 600 series GPU. It would very much put them way out in front of the competition. That would be six months silicon wise and probably a year software wise.

If they can't I'm not extremely worried as Apple should be able to tweak the A5 into something powerful enough to drive iPad 3.

Well an A5 tweaked to do the iPad 3 i still a major new chip in my mind even if it is mostly a die shrink with a beefed up GPU. A5X sounds more like an iPhone chip than anything though.

Mostly because Apple can get close to 4X improvements out of the Cortex A9 cores it is currently using. The can do that by adding two cores and doubling the clock rate. Demos of Cortex A9 cores running at 2GHz where made years ago. Notably this can be implemented without a lot of reworking of the system software. A15 is targeted more at the server market anyway.

by the time Apple needs a new core ARM might have a 64 bit implementation going. If Apple where to make a major change t the system architecture this would be a better path to follow.

I'm not sure if crucial is the word or not. I just don't think it is a big deal as they can get faster cores from a simple process shrink while enhancing the GPU. In effect the CPU improvements come for free with a faster GPU.

I suspect that just getting enough displays will be a major consideration for the iPad3 introduction. So I can sees where an A5X would be safe bet. Still it will be a very pleasant surprise to see a A6 class processor in the iPad.

I just had this image of an Apple engineer sitting at a bar talking to somebody who is calling his processor half-hacked. I can see a stein of beer being poured over somebodies head because of that.

No keep talking, it is good to have reasoned conversation about something that will be here in about 6 days.

Not needed? Personally I will take all the improvement the can throw at the thing. Seriously the iPad impresses me almost daily but at times it is performance limited to say the least. So yeah more power is welcomed. More importantly I want the machine to have far more RAM. Given that this happens the iPad could effectively replace my MBP for almost all of my portable needs.

Apple has a long history of Engineering triumphs, they just are understated about celebrating those triumphs. Even though I don't like the machine, the iMac is a good example of an engineering success. Many don't see it that way but the whole series of iMacs where an impressive display of thinking with an open mind.

A good point but there are ways for Apple to address bandwidth issues. For example a process shrink could free up space for a much larger cache. Or they could implement a frame buffer on chip. The question is which would be more valuable 2 more ARM cores or a 32 or 64 MB, buffer or RAM array on chip?

I realize that the processes used to build processors don't lead to efficient RAM arrays but the idea here is that if one can keep the GPU from going off chip as much as possible you not only gain in speed but save a considerable amount of power. I actually believe the power savings would be ver significant as the chip would other wise be moving a great deal of data over the memory bus just to drive the display.

There are just so many options for Apple that I'm not convinced that getting exceptional performance at an extremely low power point is impossible these days. The current chips are at 45nm and Apple could potentially jump two nodes or more which would free up a lot of die space.

For us old guys this is astonishing. I can remember the days when CRAYs where a thing of wonder, now I can do everything a Cray 1 did on my desktop and frankly my iPhone is darn close.

That won't be a issue for most. What iPad will really need is the GPU chops and far more RAM.

Yeah they would be far ahead if they debuted a 600 series GPU. I don't think it is totally impossible jet not likely. However if apple where to push hard this would be the place to push.

A few more days and all our talk will be forgotten.

Opps, I misread tipoo as meaning *network* bandwidth.

It's good to hear you say this despite the fact you don't like it.

I agonised between the Pro and iMac for far too many years. (Worried about the built in screen going, hard drive failure...how to get into the machine etc...gpu performance sucking etc.)

But I can say it's a beautiful machine, a work of art.

I could say the same of the Mac Pro though. It's an industrial masterpiece.

And the Mini makes me 'coo' whenever I see one in the flesh.

...the iOS devices themselves are 'Star Trek' technology to me. They completely turned their markets on their heads. Real paradigm shifts.

I don't like laptops. But I almost take a step back in amazement when I see the Airs side ways on...razor sharp design.

But back to the main point. For me, Retina iPad3 would be amazing if they could get the 'Rogue' '600' gpu in their. With a Quad cpu, it would 'Blow the bloody doors off!'

I can't see Apple going backwards in performance. (I hope we don't see a situation like the iPhone 4 where the cpu really struggles with loading web pages on the web browser, choppy scrolling at times.) I'd wager a guess that the current gpu in the iPad is powerful enough for that not to happen in general.

I'm so getting an iPad 3.

Lemon Bon Bon.

In a video of a presentation where he said that [on iPhone RAGE engine], he stressed a factor was separation of gpu and cpu memory (i.e. video cards having their own RAM), and it's inefficient moving data from system RAM to gpu RAM. Consoles use the same RAM for both. Interestingly, Intel's integrated graphics also does - and he predicted great things from it as it becomes more powerful, due to this architectural difference. I believe the iPhone/iPad don't have separate cpu/gpu RAM, and so performance would be comparable to a special-purpose gaming machine with similar specs.

Thanks, I didn't know PS Vita has quad SGX 543 GPU (and quad CPU). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_Vita

Ah, I was generalizing from the xbox, which you note is a special case. But I do think that squeezing graphics performance for iProducts was a absolute priority - especially with the first iPhone - or else the touch interface wouldn't seem intuitive. And so I would guess apple would use all the low-level tricks available from dedicated game hardware that they could.

The overhead of OS calls can be overcome, e.g. directX

Agreed, matching current high-end cards is a long way off; but beating the xbox360 (that uses tech from a few generations back) seems on the cusp of being within reach.

Conservatively, it'll be the same SGX543MP2, but maybe 50% more clock rate for a 1.5x increase in performance.

Optimistically, a SGX543MP4 or a SGX554MP2 and a 50% clock rate increase for about 2.5x to 4x increase in performance.

The 600 Rogue series is still a year early.

'Many'? How many? You? Hard core tower buyers? PS3 buyers trampled over in teh stampede to get one? But not the 50 million+ buyers who will storm the gates of Redmond to get one. 'Move out the way, Ballmer!' ebay is probably lighting up with people dumping their iPad2s for a pending iPad3. £395 for a retina screen on a ten inch pad? iPad is nowhere near it's critical mass and it's % sales improvement is near vertical.

Sure, I'd like the Rogue class. But this iteration of the iPad 3 will smash the 2 in terms of sales. My guess. *Places a wager.

I think if we look at the current iPad2. You have a x4-x9 increase in GPU over the iPad. Any nominal improvement in the gpu should see the retina screen more than ably handled. The iPhone4S is more than comfortable. There maybe a case that the current GPU could certainly handle it. (Better than the gpu in my iPhone 4 handles the retina screen for sure.)

Given ram (Surely!!!), cpu AND GPU updates one would expect the iPad 3 handles 2d superbly well and 3D more than acceptably. (Given that the current gen of consoles only offer half def in 3D at 720p and that the graphics look very smooth at high framerates...and should do on a smaller screen vs a 50 inch plasma I don't see any reason why 720p would be a problem on an iPad3. It wasn't for PS3 or X-Box players..?)

I guess that would be upto developers. The x5 chipset sounds more than ample for the job especially if it's a quad core (I'd be surprised if it wasn't.)

Lemon Bon Bon.

x5. I guess we don't know what that really means yet. I think even a 50% clock speed increae to give a 2x performance increase will make it more than comfortable. If it's x4 even better.

'Rogue' sounds optimistic from what I've read on here and elsewhere. They have to have something to make the iPad 4 a worthy purchase. I'm guessing 'Rogue' will be a signature piece of technology for iPad 4.

I'm still primarily a 'Mac' guy. But I have an iPhone 4. I know some people who have iPod touches, iPhone 4 then upgraded to iPhone4S and also bought an iPad2 and don't even have a Mac! (you know the people who swore they'd never go apple or use those 'weird' touch screens..?)

I guess my evangelical zeal must have persuaded them. I also know a work colleague, who after an iPod touch, iPhone3GS...went to Crapberry, then back to an iPhone4...and...finally caved! She bought a 2010 Macbook Air in mint condition (13 inch.) She's thrilled by it. She 'just had to tell me...' Sent me a picture of it. Looks realllll nice. And those are the people who are getting into Apple.

Lemon Bon Bon.

I sad if there! I really don't expect a performance regression, at least not a major one, because as I said it would not be accepted. It is no different than if Apple where to introduce a new laptop with a huge performance regression sales would tank. Think about it would you jump at the chance to buy an iPad 3 if it graphically performed worst than iPd ?

I think not.

Sales are never guaranteed. I'm not that concerned as I think it would be easy for Apple to get the performance they need from an A5 derived chip at a smaller process, probably 28nm. They might need to add cache/ memory and a couple of GPU units but this is no big deal. We would end up with a slightly faster machine with parity graphical performance.

You have 4 times the pixels to fill. That is a lot of data to transfer, thus they will need some modification to A5. I actually see the proble admire of a data transfer issue than anything.

RAN isn't a given. In fact there have been very few rumors in that regard. Frankly I agree that it is a requirement but little has been stupid in that regard.

It is a handheld device that is much closer to your eyes. It will depend upon the software but some apps will be noticeably compromised. Notice I said apps here, not every app using the 3D capability is a game.

If such a chip is real it would be a marginal bump above current performance, due simply to all of those pixels. That really isn't bad though considering what you are getting.

In any event two days or so till the debut. I suspect we will get dual core myself with GPU and data handling enhancements. Mind you with everything running at double today's clock rates maybe even more for the GPUs.