Rumor: Fifth-gen iPad to debut in March with iPad mini design cues - Page 5

The physical panel is thinner in the 5 vs 4. If you use the new panel with 1 less layer you save space but it may cost more. Either way the panel is a nonissue since the iPad mini can use either to get retina vs the 3GS screen in the current mini.

No. Just that the benchmarks suggest that the A6 with the 3 GPU cores is sufficent vice the A5X based on the GPU 1080p benchmarks.

To quote Anand:

"Take resolution into account and the iPhone 5 is actually faster than the new iPad, but normalize for resolution using GLBenchmark's offscreen mode and the A5X and A6 look identical"

http://www.anandtech.com/print/6324

No. Just that the a6 performs as well as the a5x on gpu benchmarks.

I can claim that the two perform comparably on benchmarks and the new 554 performs faster and the 554MP2 is equivalent to the 543MP4.

As can be seen the 554MP2 has the same number of SMIDs and GFLOPs as the 543MP4 and should use around half the power of the 554MP4 since it has half the number of cores.

The A6's 543MP3 is short a core but can be clocked higher for less power since it has a process shrink advantage over the older A5X.

Again, the benchmarks indicate that the A6 GPU is on par with the A5X GPU.

One tweak that Apple might want to perform is to move to 128 bit wide memory for the A6. Whether that's worth the effort vs just dropping two 554 cores from the A6X design is debatable.

Again the 554MP2 is equivalent to the 543MP4 according to specs and the 543MP3 very similar to the 543MP4 in benchmarks.

What makes it cheaper is 6-9 months and the use of either the stock A6 clocked higher or a new A6 variant with the 554MP2...possibly A6X culls with 1-2 bad GPUs.

Which isn't important. What is important is maintaining the current price point and margins.

Get over yourself with the "this is science" BS. Of course were talking 2048x1536 aka retina for the iPad and we always have been.

Your problem is you refuse to accept that the 554MP2 is rated as fast as the 543MP4 and that the 32nm 543MP3 @ 266mhz can be further bumped up in speed in comparison to the 45nm 543MP4 @ 250mhz to further make up any performance difference. Especially since iPads traditionally are clocked a little higher than their iPhone equivalent anyway.

Yes the screen is much larger. So what? So is the battery. The A6 is presumed more power efficient than the A5 overall.

It is more than reasonable to state that a retina iPad mini is possible, even probable, in SIX to NINE months in the FUTURE based entirely on what is shipping today. The only question is whether the price point can be achieved, not whether it is technically feasible to build it at the same thickness and weight as the current iPad mini.
Edited by nht - 12/29/12 at 7:52pm

nht brings up completely perfect and real points. Why can't that just be admitted? Why must everything still be an argument even when proven otherwise?

No, his points are not valid. You can not put a 326 PPI display cut to 7.85" and get the same performance and duration of use from that device simply by using the A6 chip. It's physically impossible. You need to consider all parts of the device. Changing out one component will not resolve all the issues with making the iPad mini Retina while keeping it as fast (or faster), keeping it as thin, as light, and last 10 hours or more.
Edited by SolipsismX - 12/30/12 at 12:07pm

That is what I've stated many times. A point you've disagreed with but now are concluding your comment with?

No, you keep saying it is physically impossible. It has been shown that the A6 GPU is as fast as the A5X and the iPhone 5 despite a much smaller battery lasts 10 hours.

So the delta between the iPhone 5 and a retina iPad Mini power usage wise is a larger panel and perhaps a speed bump. It should run as fast as the iPad 3 and maintain the same dimensions and weight.

How do I know this? Because the iPhone 5 is powerful, thin, light and has good battery life.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Fact: the iPhone 5 lasts 10 hours.
Fact: the iPhone 5 is thin and light.
Fact: the iPhone 5 CPU is faster than the one in the iPad 3
Fact: the iPhone 5 GPU is as fast as the one in the iPad 3 according to Anand

Conclusion: an A6 based mini will be as fast as the iPad 3 with the same power requirements as the iPhone 5 scaled to the larger 7.85" display. The increase in display size is offset by the larger space for the battery resulting in a similar 10 hour run time and size and weight as the current mini.

 

A6 can't handle 2048x1536. It would need to be A6X, which tears through any facts here.

Your conclusion is erroneous. You've noted that the A6 has the same GPU performance as the A5X once it's been adjusted. This has no barring on the power consumption needed for all the components to power a 2048x1536 display on the iPad mini. You simply can't scale it the way you are attempting to by looking at one adjusted benchmark.

Did you even look at the memory bandwidth differences between the A6 and A6X chips? Did you consider the power saving from the 45nm A5 to the 32nm A6?

There is a reason Apple isn't using the A6 in the iPad 4 and it's the same reason why the iPad mini with a 2048x1536 display can't use the A6 chip and have the same performance as the iPad 4.... and that's before even considering the power usage and cost for those miniaturized display components and GPU.

Let me come at this another way. You have only considered a single adjusted GPU benchmark in your argument. Look at the GPU in the iPad 2 and iPad 3. Note that the GPU in the iPad 3 is much better than the GPU in the iPad 2. Yet, you're argument states that because it's better it should not have only not gotten a much larger battery that is heavier and caused the casing to be thicker, but made that overall device smaller. Why didn't that happen with a more power efficient GPU? Simple, the GPU had to push 4x as many pixels 'and the GPU was not the only component that was affected by YoY change. Per pixel power usage was reduced, but we're talking about 4x as many so unless the device as a whole has advanced to a point that it's using 1/4th the amount of power to push each pixel then you're going to use more more for a given duration and use.

Yet the benchmarks indicates it can and Anandtech states the performance of the two GPUs are "identical" when normalized for resolution.

So you are once again ignoring facts because they disagree with your opinion.

Show evidence that the A6 can't handle 2047x1536.

From AnandTech's detaild review of the iPad mini from the page titled A Retina mini? which was completed 3 months after the iPhone 5 review:

Note: This does not contradict what you previously quoted.

 

I'm s… what? You're saying that this:

 

will work identically at the same resolution. Despite Anandtech's benchmarks showing the A6X outperforming the A6 in every single category, since it has a better GPU, despite the higher resolution. Where in your world the A6 would have to be doing better in every single category to then be able to bench identically at a higher resolution. 

Look at the Egypt benchmarks in the review you linked and you'll see that the A6 is comparable to the A5X.

To get iPad 4 performance you need the A6X. To get iPad 3 performance you don't.

Some will argue that the iPad 3 was a little underpowered but that's neither here nor there. The benchmarks clearly show that the A6 is capable enough when compared to the iPad 3 as a baseline.

This is clearly intuitive given its a generation newer with a process node advantage, a higher clock and faster memory subsystem.

The primary architectural advantage that the A5X enjoys is wider (but slower) memory bandwidth and an extra GPU core.

Something the faster clock rate and better memory controller makes up for...again AS CAN BE SEEN IN THE BENCHMARK RESULTS. The A6 and A5X are within 10% of each other whether the A6 is ahead or the A5X is ahead. In the CPU benchmarks there's no contest. Plus the A6 can likely be clocked a little higher in a mini vs the phone.

An A6 iPad Mini would be on par with the iPad 3 in 3D performance and way better everywhere else.

Not the A6 and A6X but the A6 and A5X as is clearly stated in each post I've made.

But you aren't actually reading to understand but reading to "gotcha" so I guess that's par for the course.

 

Except the one where you replied to my reference to A6 and A6X without correcting me, meaning that's exactly what you meant.

Again, you are only looking at adjusted performance, not what is needed to push 4x as many pixels. As the the Anand review notes you will need a the X chip. You need the increased memory bandwidth. There is really no way to get around this.

Again, you haven't once considered power usage. Anand's review did.

I don't get why you insist on interpreting a clear comment from AnandTech incorrectly but then ignore a very clear comment on the iPad mini review from AnandTech.

I'm not sure what your agenda here is. I get it that you want the iPad mini to be Retina sooner rather than later. Everyone except Apple's competitors want that to happen but it's simply not going to unless there are other technological changes that take place. Rogue 6 and IGZO look to be the most promising solutions on the horizon to allow that to happen, which means a 2013 release unless they still keep the iPad mini a year behind with the tech which then would mean 2014 at the earliest.

 

I was on my iPhone so I missed that.  If you wish to use that lame excuse then whatever but clearly, if you read my posts it's very clear.

 

Adjusted performance levels the playing field to show what the GPUs can do relative to each other.  The indications is that 3 cores running at higher speeds leads to a similar fill rate and 3D performance as 4 slower cores.  Yes, ideally you want to bench the 543MP3 driving a 2048x1536 but you can't so the normalized benchmarks are the best you can do.  Fill rate and triangle texture rate are very similar.  The GLBenchmark show that the A6 as faster than the A5X.

 

While the memory interface is wider on the A5X I believe it is slower.  In any case, the changes made for the A6X to be 128 bits wide can be back ported to the A6 but I covered all that already.  It's probably easier just to move to the 554MP2 which will have a similar die size based on what I remember of the A6X if that is required.  Again this is existing 2012 technology.

 

So there are at least three ways to get around this: increase (memory) clock speed or make the A6 128 bits wide or move to a A6X with two graphic cores designed out for lower power and footprint

 

 

I don't see how that's misinterpreted.  The two GPUs perform very similarly to each other.  The other "clear comment" doesn't have much in the way of actual data behind it unlike the one where the benchmarks clearly show similar performance between the two GPUs.

 

Since TS seems to like this kind of chart:

 

 

Mobile SoC GPU Comparison
	PowerVR SGX 543MP3	PowerVR SGX 543MP4
SIMD Name	USSE2	USSE2
# of SIMDs	12	16
MADs per SIMD	4	4
Total MADs	48	64
GFLOPS @ 200MHz	19.2 GFLOPS	25.6 GFLOPS
GFLOPS As Shipped by Apple/ASUS	25.5 GFLOPS	25.6 GFLOPS

 

The agenda is you're attempting to browbeat people into your position with incorrect assertions that the iPad mini can't go retina until the next gen GPUs arrive because the last and current gen lacks sufficient power.  As seen here (25.5 GFLOPS vs 25.6GFLOPS) the iPhone 5 GPU is sufficiently capable.  The 554MP2 even more so.

 

As far as power requirements go, yes it's going to be under higher load and draw more power and yes there's more panel to power and so forth but the Mini's battery is 3 times the capacity as the iPhone 5 at 16.7 Whr vs 5.45 Whr.  That's not 4 times but given that the CPU, RAM, Flash, WiFi, 4G, GPS etc power load doesn't increase over the iPhone 5 it's probably a wash in terms of getting to that 10 hour mark.  Especially with the die shrink and more advanced CPU architecture the power per watt numbers favor the A6 over the A5X in terms of achieving iPad 3 levels of user experience.

 

Neither Rogue 6 nor IGZO is required.  What was required was sufficient iPhone 5 panels and A6 processors, which given that the iPhone 5 has been supply constrained until recently were clearly NOT available for the iPad Mini launch.

 

Apple will indeed keep the iPad Mini a year or more behind because the newest 2013 technology will go into the iPhone 6 and iPad 5.  Given that iPhone 5 technology is sufficient to built a retina Mini this falls into line with expectations with a 2013 retina iPad Mini using 2011/2012 technology (2011 if they opt for the 4S panels vs the 5).

 

Whether iPad 3 level performance is sufficient for Apple or if the A6 drops sufficiently in price could be debated BUT it is clear that it's not IMPOSSIBLE as you keep claiming.  It is certainly possible and perhaps even likely.  What's your agenda for insisting it can't happen despite data indicating it can?

This is tiring. I can't be more clear. AnandTech can't be more clear. Good luck with your Retina iPad mini with an A6 sans X in March. I truly hope both AnandTech and I are wrong.

 

In case we're not clear this is the statement discussed.  As I've shown the A6 is capable IF you are willing to settle for iPad 3 level GPU performance.  The iPad Mini does NOT require a A6X class GPU in the iPad 4 to go retina.  it needs a A5X class GPU to go retina.

Will quote AnandTech one last time...

I am absolutely done with this conversation. I can lead a horse to water but I can't make it drink. Keep ignoring the facts and cling to the one misinterpretation that suits your wishes. I really do hope this comes this year but it won't be based on your conclusion if it does.

Uhh... Reach much? I've been following the debate and I think solip and nht both make valid points- and I'm learning a great deal from both. And both actually have pretty solid evidence- from the same source no less. One thing I have definitely read is that nht has said 5X the entire time. You quoted the A6 vs the A6X. You were wrong. End of conversation. You seriously are going to say "because you didn't correct me once in one of my posts means everything else you've said in every post is null". Dude...

I mean really- the A6X is better at graphics rendering than the A6? Wow TS- thanks for the enlightenment!
Edited by Andysol - 12/30/12 at 9:00pm

 

NO. He said this:

 

And from there I began my string. So even just before this when I offered him a chance to correct if he had actually meant A5X-A6 the entire time and he didn't, it wouldn't have mattered, as that's NOT what he was saying.

 

If the A6 could have handled 2048x1536 to Apple's taste, there would not be an A6X.

 

The fact is that your initial assertion is incorrect.  You do not need an A6X.  Period.  If this statement was not true then the iPad 3 would not exist.  No other data is required to show this premise to be incorrect.  If the premise is incorrect then the conclusion is always suspect even if all the other logic is correct.

 

March is debatable given there's no strong indication of a 6 month product cycle but a/the 2013 Mini being retina is a reasonable bet.  It might be a tweaked current A6.  It might be an A6 with 554MP2.  It might even be a 32nm (Samsung) or even 28nm (TSMC) A5X which are also valid possibilities.

 

It's tiresome to you because you simply wont accept you were wrong and I didn't just roll over.

 

Hell, you still haven't even accepted that either the 543MP3 or the 554MP2 are sufficient to drive a 2048x1536 display.

 

 

You did nothing of the sort (offered a chance).  It has ALWAYS been my position that the A6 is equivalent to the A5X and NEVER my position that the A6 and A6X are equivalent.

 

Anyone actually reading my posts would see that very clearly and you caught me in a "gotcha".  Kudos since you seem to like that sort of thing.  Oooh...I said something incorrect because I misread your post.

 

 

The A6 offers iPad 3 level performance which was to Apple's taste in early 2012 and arguably could be Apple's taste again in 2013 for the iPad Mini.  Nice movement of the goal posts though from Solipsism's "impossible" to merely "Apple's taste".

 

You know what I mean.

 

Hardly.

Ah, there's the problem. You think by answering my questions and responding to the comments I quoted from AT that it would mean you'd be rolling over. I gave you the benefit of the doubt in thinking you were being sincere, rational, and scientific in your approach to commenting on this forum. It certainly makes sense now why you've ignored all the various aspects I and AT have clearly laid out in this thread but I am honestly disappointed you'd let your hubris of admitting you didn't consider all aspects of the device get in the way of knowledge. But hey, you didn't "roll over" when the facts conflicted with your preconceived notions . Well done¡

 

Which fact am I ignoring?  The one where a A5X is sufficient and not an A6X?  You also skipped over the possibility of a 32nm or 28nm A5X if you believe the stock A6 cannot work.

 

Yes, the X series is architected to favor memory bandwidth the GPU over the CPU.  The question isn't whether the A6 can keep up with the A6X but whether it can keep up with the A5X and how much tweaking must be done to do so.  With 8.5GB/s raw the memory bandwidth in the A6 that's significantly higher than in the A5 but still shy of the 12.8GB/s for the A5X.  Is that fast enough?  Eh.  If not then move to 128 bit wide on the A6 with the 543MP3.  Done.

 

We already know that the A6X has been laid out this way...so your primary objection is that the A6X in the iPad 4 requires too much power.  That's probably true but there are still many possible options.  Such as a A6X with 543MP3 or a 554MP2.  So rather than the A6X used in the iPad 4 it's one scaled down to A5X level GPU performance and much lower power requirements for the GPU.

 

Whether you want to call this a scaled down A6X or a scaled up A6 is up to you.  Either way the fact remains it's a viable option for a 2013 iPad Mini and not "impossible" as you keep asserting. 

 

Tell you what, I'll accept your belief that the A6 will not perform adequately for 3D games because under heavy load the GPU will be memory starved so Apple won't go that route for the Mini even though I believe that for most things it'll be fine.

 

That still leaves 3 other options on the table:  32nm A6X with 543MP3, 32nm A6X with 554MP2, 28nm A5X all with equal or better performance to the 45nm A5X in the iPad 3 with reduced power requirements.  

 

Also note that while the iPad Mini is rated at 10 hours it seem to last 13 hours in battery life tests.  Apple can still claim 10 hours for the retina mini but with less headroom or even, horrors, come in a little shy at 9.8 hours like the iPad 2.  So going from the current 783 minutes (iPad Mini) to 590 minutes (iPad 2) give quite a bit of wiggle room for reaching that 10 hour marketing goal.

 

http://www.tuaw.com/2012/12/05/ipad-ipad-mini-win-battery-life-shootout-among-tablets/

 

As I said, for part of this I was on the iPhone so I think there was 1 posts that went unanswered.  Plus quoting using the mobile editor simply sucks.

 

As to my not responding to your comments...well I'm nothing if not verbose so that's a highly amusing statement.  Especially since I conceded your point on memory while you were writing this post.  I don't believe that the A6 would be memory starved for most things but under heavy load the performance probably would drop low enough that it would suffer vs the iPad 3.  That might be deemed unacceptable but honestly, with the way the iPod Touches have been gaming slackers I doubt that Apple would be all that perturbed.  For 2D + CoreGraphics you wouldn't notice at all.

 

Hubris eh?  Pot, kettle, black.  Where in this post have you addressed the possibility of a 28nm A5X working?  Or a downscaled A6X?  Or even that the assertion that an A6X class GPU is a requirement for an iPad Mini is wrong. 

 

I guess you're miffed I called you a zealot.

 

/shrug  

 

Just strikes me that way and I've been reading what you write for a long long time and you didn't used to seem that way to me.

Umm- when I sarcastically said thanks for enlightening us the A6X is a better GPU than the A6- I was basing it off of your response. Obviously both nht and Solip are educated- and nht (or Anyone on the forum) would know that already. I was just mentioning your post was not enlightening- and it was obvious.

As for the quote you say he said- that just proves your stubbornness further. He clearly, in that quote, mentions the A6 and the iPad 3- which has the A5X. How could he be any clearer?

Look- this isnt about me or you or if you are relentless in your "gotchas" or stubborn as a mule even when you have egg on your face. Every educated person can make their own opinion of you. It's just the more you post, the more evident that opinion gets.