or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple partner Qualcomm pans iPhone 5s A7 CPU as 'gimmick,' yet hints at own 64-bit chip
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple partner Qualcomm pans iPhone 5s A7 CPU as 'gimmick,' yet hints at own 64-bit chip - Page 3

post #81 of 168
The A7 seems to perform well when tested and it is relatively power thrifty. These are the main points to consider as a buyer.
For Apple, moving to 64 bit early will pay off down the line and is one of the advantages of being vertically integrated.
post #82 of 168
So Qualcomm's Chief Marketing Officer spins self-serving BS. What else is new? Isn't that his job?

But it's Interesting to see he considers himself an engineering expert too. Perhaps in his next emission he'll explain why this mere "marketing gimmick" inspired such purple prose from Gizmodo, not usually considered an Apple fanboi site.

"We just ran benchmarks on Apple's new iPhone 5S, revealing that, yup, this is the dopest smartphone silicon ever made. This thing freaking churns, crushing every other smartphone out there on both computational power and graphics."

http://gizmodo.com/iphone-a7-chip-benchmarks-forget-the-specs-it-blows-e-1350717023
post #83 of 168
It seems that calling the A7 a "marketing gimmick" has itself become a marketing gimmick.
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #84 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by patpatpat View Post

Why do people get this wrong all the time! This is not the case in reality. Moving from 1GB DDR2 to 2GB DDR3 can actually result in lowered power consumption (A7 moved to DDR3 whereas A6 was DDR2).

Double the RAM does not have a major impact on battery life. Case in fact, IP4S and IP5 batteries were almost identical mah's but IP5 doubled the 4S 512MB to 1GB.

1) The original comment only mentioned additional RAM, and not differences in types of RAM.

2) Are you sure that 1GB of DDR3 uses less than half the power of 1GB of DDR2 RAM? I've read it's about a 30% difference. Perhaps Apple can tweak that more but do you really think Apple can improve the power savings by more than 160% to get it to a 50% power savings over the DDR2 they use in the iPhone 5/5C? i would bet against it.
post #85 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

I am  not sure I undersand why he says its a gimmick.  If the only benefit is for managing memory above 4gb, then why this:



You have to compare 64-bit processes to 32-bit on the same hardware. Comparing different hardware doesn't show the advantage of 64-bit instructions on their own. Anandtech tested this and found a small improvement in many cases but an improvement nonetheless in most of the tests.

Small improvements under 50% might seem like a gimmick to some (some who might even dope their own benchmarks to get an extra few %) but it's free performance and future-proof for memory expansion. There's no reason to be against 64-bit unless you'll have trouble implementing it or just playing catchup in which case the course of action is to dismiss people who got there before you.

The A7 would perform much the same for real-world tasks if everything was 32-bit but 64-bit is still better.
post #86 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post
 

 

Building a 6 lane highway is extremely beneficial.  In Los Angeles.  In rural Kansas there wouldn't be much need for it and it would probably leave quite a few people scratching their heads as to why someone built it there.

 

The guy wasn't saying there was zero benefit to 64 bit architecture- he was saying there was zero benefit to 64 bit architecture in Apple's current hardware (his words, not mine).

 

 

This analogy doesn't illustrate all the changes is imply with the new ARMv8 architecture, have you read Mike Ash article yet?

 

With slower clock speeds and fewer cores, Apples efficient design gets the least benefit from going to 64-bit than the busier architectures with more cores and higher speeds would.  A 32 bit bus can address four times the memory in iPhone.  So building a 64 bit bus with their architecture has left a lot of people scratching their heads as to why and from their view the biggest benefit Apple gets from shifting to 64 bit is their fans have something to cheer about and say 'first'

 

This illustrate how little your knowledge  of CPU architecture really is.  How could you sanely said that adding cores gives more benefits than having more powerful core? As for the whole memory addressing craziness, I'll point you to Mike Ash article on how important having 64 bit addressing for allocating object could be even with 1 Gb of ram.  Now if you could compare on power efficiency between Apple and Samsung/Qualcomm approach, It would be a lot easier for you to understand the core multiplication and frequency raising is a dead end avenue.  This is something Intel has learn in his previous Mhz war with AMD.

 

Samsung led the charge in 'more cores and higher clock speeds'  Apple is leading the charge in bus bits.  Either way, to build faster devices they are eventually both going to go with more cores and higher clock speeds, which will demand a bigger 64 bit bus to support the bit transfers.  I don't view any of those as particularly 'amazing'  Apple has gone the multi core route, and will eventually bump its clock speed up.  You won't find me crying that 'Apple copied Samsung!  The thieves!'  Similarly when Samsung or Qualcomm go 64 bit I'm not going to feel personally mortified that Samsung has stolen anything from Apple (Question:  Why is no one screaming Apple copied Intel by going 64 bit?  Answer: Its just not that big 'a deal).

 

LOL, first of all Intel is not the creator 64 bit computing (CRAY was one pioneer), they haven't even created the X86_64 arch, AMD did it first, forcing Intel to use compatible AMD64 ISA in their chips.  You know, adding core doesn't help the vast majority of Apps where most are single threaded, you can said apps needs to be optimize to get most of the benefit of a 64bit platform, this is also true when you add core. A very small fraction of Android apps are tweak for quad cores SoC, most Java apps run single threaded.

 

Him saying there was 'zero benefit' to it was a little extreme in my opinion.  Clearly there is a benefit- the 5s is one of the leading rocket ships in the phone speed category.  It is 'pretty amazing' in its current incarnation but I really think it is largely just setting things up for the next generation of phones.

 

Its strange how I've never heard someone downplaying 64 bit architecture in desktop PC, when AMD made its first Athlon 64 10 years ago, no one was saying in that time that Intel P4 was winning with their crazy Ghz against AMD64.  I you want my opinion, I mostly prefer having a processor with the best performance per cycle than a overclocked and overheating one.  Even Intel has come back to sense since and lower back frequency of all their processor below 3Ghz


Edited by BigMac2 - 10/2/13 at 11:14am
post #87 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

You have to compare 64-bit processes to 32-bit on the same hardware. Comparing different hardware doesn't show the advantage of 64-bit instructions on their own. Anandtech tested this and found a small improvement in many cases but an improvement nonetheless in most of the tests.

Small improvements under 50% might seem like a gimmick to some (some who might even dope their own benchmarks to get an extra few %) but it's free performance and future-proof for memory expansion. There's no reason to be against 64-bit unless you'll have trouble implementing it or just playing catchup in which case the course of action is to dismiss people who got there before you.

The A7 would perform much the same for real-world tasks if everything was 32-bit but 64-bit is still better.

The fact that the instruction set for 64-bit has been modernized and Obj-C can heavily benefit from it helps not only in performance but also in power consumption. Even if the benchmarks showed the same performance for a giving speed the power saving alone would still make this benefit for them and their customers.
post #88 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by cferry View Post

So Qualcomm's Chief Marketing Officer spins self-serving BS. What else is new? Isn't that his job?

But it's Interesting to see he considers himself an engineering expert too. Perhaps in his next emission he'll explain why this mere "marketing gimmick" inspired such purple prose from Gizmodo, not usually considered an Apple fanboi site.

"We just ran benchmarks on Apple's new iPhone 5S, revealing that, yup, this is the dopest smartphone silicon ever made. This thing freaking churns, crushing every other smartphone out there on both computational power and graphics."

http://gizmodo.com/iphone-a7-chip-benchmarks-forget-the-specs-it-blows-e-1350717023

 

Like they said lets forget the specs and look at the results: Apply came up with a 1.3ghz dual core with 1g ram that is almost 2 times faster than the qualcomm 1.9ghz quad core with 2g of ram.

post #89 of 168

To be fair, with only 1GB or RAM there is a limit as to how much of an advantage a 64 bit OS really is at this point....

 

However, it does sound like sour grapes at this point....

post #90 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

Building a 6 lane highway is extremely beneficial.  In Los Angeles.  In rural Kansas there wouldn't be much need for it and it would probably leave quite a few people scratching their heads as to why someone built it there.

The guy wasn't saying there was zero benefit to 64 bit architecture- he was saying there was zero benefit to 64 bit architecture in Apple's current hardware (his words, not mine).

With slower clock speeds and fewer cores, Apples efficient design gets the least benefit from going to 64-bit than the busier architectures with more cores and higher speeds would.  A 32 bit bus can address four times the memory in iPhone.  So building a 64 bit bus with their architecture has left a lot of people scratching their heads as to why and from their view the biggest benefit Apple gets from shifting to 64 bit is their fans have something to cheer about and say 'first'

That part of "faster with half as many cores and 30% lower clock speed" don't you understand?

The results are impressive. Whether Qualcomm understands them or not is irrelevant.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #91 of 168
Who are you going to listen to, Qualcomm who is competing with Apple's 64 bit CPUs with its 32 bit CPUs or me, an app developer who actually writes code for mobile apps?
64 bit is not just for addressing RAM over 4 GB. It is also for virtual address space which turns out to be essential when you have limited amounts of RAM and large data files stored on high speed flash memory. My apps address gigabytes of high resolution vector map data and can do so even on the original iPhone thanks to virtual addressing. Unfortunately the more RAM you have, the more difficult it is to use virtual address space since it quickly becomes fragmented and is limited to much less than 4 GB due to the needs of the operating system.
post #92 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by sranger View Post

To be fair, with only 1GB or RAM there is a limit as to how much of an advantage a 64 bit OS really is at this point....

However, it does sound like sour grapes at this point....

There are a lot of great comments in this thread about 64-bit and RAM that I think you should read.
post #93 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by akqies View Post


1) The original comment only mentioned additional RAM, and not differences in types of RAM.

2) Are you sure that 1GB of DDR3 uses less than half the power of 1GB of DDR2 RAM? I've read it's about a 30% difference. Perhaps Apple can tweak that more but do you really think Apple can improve the power savings by more than 160% to get it to a 50% power savings over the DDR2 they use in the iPhone 5/5C? i would bet against it.

 

Sure they can, by going to a new process and voltage (as they did from A6 to A7).

For example going from 50nm 1.5V 1GB to 20nm 1.35V 1GB  can save up to 67% power.

 

In any case you missed the point. RAM power consumption is not a "major" factor in battery life. Going from 1GB to 2GB is not going to halve your battery life. It will decrease surely but not by any noticeable level.

post #94 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by patpatpat View Post

For example going from 50nm 1.5V 1GB to 20nm 1.35V 1GB  can save up to 67% power.

Where is the evidence Apple was using 50nm RAM in the iPhone 5 but then jumped to 20nm RAM for the iPhone 5S?
Quote:
In any case you missed the point. RAM power consumption is not a "major" factor in battery life. Going from 1GB to 2GB is not going to halve your battery life. It will decrease surely but not by any noticeable level.

Again, even with a drop in power consumption for a smaller node or more efficient RAM you can't simply say Apple can double RAM and end up losing less power unless you have evidence to back it up.

You said, "Why do people get this wrong all the time! This is not the case in reality. Moving from 1GB DDR2 to 2GB DDR3 can actually result in lowered power consumption (A7 moved to DDR3 whereas A6 was DDR2)." If you only mentioned the last line where you say it can as opposed to it will you would be correct in that it can, but you prefaced your comment by saying people are getting it wrong, and they are not.
Edited by akqies - 10/2/13 at 11:43am
post #95 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by spacekid View Post

Does Flash memory not use the address space? Seems it is larger than 4GB so wouldn't it be able to take advantage of the 64 bits?

Flash memory is usually addressed as a kind of disk device (via file system). It is not directly addressable through the CPU memory bus.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #96 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by akqies View Post


Where is the evidence Apple was using 50nm RAM in the iPhone 5 but then jumped to 20nm RAM for the iPhone 5S?
Again, even with a drop in power consumption for a smaller node or more efficient RAM you can't simply say Apple can double RAM and end up losing less power unless you have evidence to back it up.

You said, "Why do people get this wrong all the time! This is not the case in reality. Moving from 1GB DDR2 to 2GB DDR3 can actually result in lowered power consumption (A7 moved to DDR3 whereas A6 was DDR2)." If you only mentioned the last line where you say it can as opposed to it will you would be correct in that it can, but you prefaced your comment by saying everyone is wrong, and they are not.

 

50 - 20 was an example of how it can be done. I didn't state anywhere that apple had actually done it.

Apple actually went from 32nm DDR2 internal DRAM to 28nm DDR3  DRAM between A6 and A7 so if they kept the memory speed the same likely there was a significant power saving while staying at 1G.

 

I responded to a wide-sweeping comment that more ram means horrible battery life. Sure any idiot could add some very power hungry RAM to a design and screw with battery life but why on earth would anyone do that. If apple decide to go 2GB+ they will do it in a way that has minimal affect on power consumption.

 

Reread my original reply. IP5 doubled ram from 4S with same battery specs yet only a small difference in battery life (most likely due to the IP5 screen). It can be done and it has been done. Using the lame argument that the reason the 5S doesn't have more memory is because of battery life is just that, lame. Apple had plenty of other reasons not to increase memory size.

post #97 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by patpatpat View Post

I responded to a wide-sweeping comment that more ram means horrible battery life. Sure any idiot could add some very power hungry RAM to a design and screw with battery life but why on earth would anyone do that. If apple decide to go 2GB+ they will do it in a way that has minimal affect on power consumption.

Reread my original reply. IP5 doubled ram from 4S with same battery specs yet only a small difference in battery life (most likely due to the IP5 screen). It can be done and it has been done. Using the lame argument that the reason the 5S doesn't have more memory is because of battery life is just that, lame. Apple had plenty of other reasons not to increase memory size.

That's all true, but your argument doesn't really address the issue, either.

You want to compare 2 GB of DDR2 to 1 GB of DDR2. That isn't a useful comparison. Apple decided to go with DDR3 on the A7. Once that decision was made, they would say "should we use 1 GB or 2 GB?" 2 GB will probably use more energy than 1 GB (although one could probably come up with unusual scenarios where the opposite is true). So Apple's use of 1 GB does save energy compared to 2 GB of the same RAM type.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #98 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by patpatpat View Post

Using the lame argument that the reason the 5S doesn't have more memory is because of battery life is just that, lame. Apple had plenty of other reasons not to increase memory size.

More of the exact same RAM requires more power. This cannot be debated This is a fact! This is physics!

I don't think anyone here said that the only reason the iPhone 5S didn't get 2GB was due to it eating up too much power. Apple has a long and impressive history of balancing power with performance. The bottom line is that adding more RAM wouldn't have increased the user experience to make it worthwhile for them.
post #99 of 168
I've said it on MacWorld and I'll say it here. Look at what the Camera app does and then tell me the iPhone 5s doesn't NEED 64bit processing power. A single panorama image is made up of around 10 photos stitched together. But Camera takes 10 images for every 1 so that's 100 photos it's processing before it gives you 1 awesome panoramic photo all within the time it takes to take and save the photo.

The very idea that a mobile device that is pushing deeper and deeper into desktop areas doesn't need more power and that the only advantage of going 64bit is to address more memory is laughable. You'd think someone who develops processors would actually understand this so it leads me to believe that Qualcomm are just visionless idiots who were broadsided by Apple.

If there is no advantage of going to 64bit then why do all Macs built since 2009 have 64bit processors but only come with 4GB RAM? Surely there is no advantage to those machines and yet look at what OS X is able to do with GrandCentral and the like.

Then take the advantage that Apple now only needs to concentrate on one architecture you quickly understand that this is Leopard and Snow Leopard all over again but on the mobile platform. This is a MASSIVE thing for the future of ALL devices of course no one can understand that because they are stuck in the past trying to tread water in the present.
post #100 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryn Lowe View Post

I've said it on MacWorld and I'll say it here. Look at what the Camera app does and then tell me the iPhone 5s doesn't NEED 64bit processing power. A single panorama image is made up of around 10 photos stitched together. But Camera takes 10 images for every 1 so that's 100 photos it's processing before it gives you 1 awesome panoramic photo all within the time it takes to take and save the photo.

The very idea that a mobile device that is pushing deeper and deeper into desktop areas doesn't need more power and that the only advantage of going 64bit is to address more memory is laughable. You'd think someone who develops processors would actually understand this so it leads me to believe that Qualcomm are just visionless idiots who were broadsided by Apple.

If there is no advantage of going to 64bit then why do all Macs built since 2009 have 64bit processors but only come with 4GB RAM? Surely there is no advantage to those machines and yet look at what OS X is able to do with GrandCentral and the like.

Then take the advantage that Apple now only needs to concentrate on one architecture you quickly understand that this is Leopard and Snow Leopard all over again but on the mobile platform. This is a MASSIVE thing for the future of ALL devices of course no one can understand that because they are stuck in the past trying to tread water in the present.

One thing I've mentioned but haven't seen any reporting on are the increased cryptographic aspects to ARM64 over ARM32. I haven't seen anything that would rule out Touch ID only being a reality now because Apple was able to get ARM64 into production. Not just for the security aspect of the secure enclave but perhaps also for the impressively fast processing of the data supplied by the Touch ID sensor.
post #101 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by akqies View Post


More of the exact same RAM requires more power. This cannot be debated This is a fact! This is physics!

I don't think anyone here said that the only reason the iPhone 5S didn't get 2GB was due to it eating up too much power. Apple has a long and impressive history of balancing power with performance. The bottom line is that adding more RAM wouldn't have increased the user experience to make it worthwhile for them.

 

Nor would it have reduced the battery life by any noticeable margin.

post #102 of 168

Apple you better start looking for a new partner.

post #103 of 168
64-bit is more ideal for the Objective-C runtime. It also means they can use the same runtime between OS X and iOS. Specifically, 64-bits allows for a technique called tagged pointers that can speed up dynamic programming languages that use boxed types. Objective-C is a hybrid language, so the impact will not but huge. Many people have speculated that Apple will release a new language someday that will sit on top of Objective-C. Most likely a smalltalk inspired language. 64-bit could be a big deal for this theoretical language and there is no way Apple will release a new programming language if it doesn't run well on iOS. Javascript can also benefit from tagged pointers and should be accelerated by a move to 64-bit.
post #104 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


That's all true, but your argument doesn't really address the issue, either.

So Apple's use of 1 GB does save energy compared to 2 GB of the same RAM type.

 

Of course it does. I have yet to see how doubling the same of any component will use less power....... I'm not arguing that, I'm saying that doubling memory can be done in a power efficient manner when moving to new architecture/process.

 

Again I'm responding to (debunking) the post that blanket states that more RAM kills battery life.

 

A5 (on 4S) was 45nm with 512MB DDR2, A6 (on 5) was 32nm with 1GB DDR2. Ram was doubled (same type) but no appreciable change in battery life for same capacity of battery.

 

A7 went to 28nm and DDR3 ram, there was probably room to improve, even double DRAM size to 2GB without any major impact on battery life, but Apple chose not to for a variety of reasons.

 

Note the 5S battery is 1570mah vs 1440mah on 5, so there was plenty of room to grow SDRAM size if Apple had of wanted to.

post #105 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by patpatpat View Post

Of course it does. I have yet to see how doubling the same of any component will use less power....... I'm not arguing that, I'm saying that doubling memory can be done in a power efficient manner when moving to new architecture/process.

Again I'm responding to (debunking) the post that blanket states that more RAM kills battery life.

A5 (on 4S) was 45nm with 512MB DDR2, A6 (on 5) was 32nm with 1GB DDR2. Ram was doubled (same type) but no appreciable change in battery life for same capacity of battery.

A7 went to 28nm and DDR3 ram, there was probably room to improve, even double DRAM size to 2GB without any major impact on battery life, but Apple chose not to for a variety of reasons.

Note the 5S battery is 1570mah vs 1440mah on 5, so there was plenty of room to grow SDRAM size if Apple had of wanted to.

Everything you wrote is complete rubbish. Your logic that Apple increased the battery size means they should have doubled the RAM is absolutely ridiculous. It's clear you have no concept of any of the tech they used.
post #106 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by akqies View Post


Everything you wrote is complete rubbish. Your logic that Apple increased the battery size means they should have doubled the RAM is absolutely ridiculous. It's clear you have no concept of any of the tech they used.

 

Man you really seem to have a hard time comprehending english. 

 

I said Apple "COULD" have doubled the ram if they had of "WANTED" to without "SERIOUSLY" affecting battery life.

 

It is clear that you are horribly confused.

post #107 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by patpatpat View Post

Man you really seem to have a hard time comprehending english. 

I said Apple "COULD" have doubled the ram if the had of "WANTED" to without "SERIOUSLY" affecting battery life.

It is clear that you are horribly confused.

What you said was that they could have doubled the RAM and it would would use less power. It was pointed out by me and others that it's impossible in this Universe to do that with everything else being the same.
post #108 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by akqies View Post


What you said was that they could have doubled the RAM and it would would use less power. It was pointed out by me and others that it's impossible in this Universe to do that with everything else being the same.

 

You're being just stupid now. I said that a process change can allow a doubling of memory capacity and result in less power being used. I even gave a practical example where Samsung reduced the power consumption (by 67%) of 1GB SDRAM modules by going from DDR2 50nm to DDR3 20nm.

 

I further pointed out the process change in A7 from 32 to 28nm along with the DDR2 to DDR3 dram change, along with increased battery capacity in 5S, which COULD have allowed apple to double the SDRAM size with NO APPRECIABLE change in battery life, IF they had wanted to.

 

What part of that do you not understand?

post #109 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by sranger View Post
 

To be fair, with only 1GB or RAM there is a limit as to how much of an advantage a 64 bit OS really is at this point....

 

However, it does sound like sour grapes at this point....

 

Sure, if you assume the only benefit of 64-bit is that you get to address more RAM, but it's not. Double-width general purpose registers is a huge boon. It mean's less data need be accessed from the CPU's cache or from RAM which means increased throughput.

post #110 of 168
Doesn't anyone recall when Apple installed an A-Series processor into a MacBook Air and achieved outstanding results...I believe that was an A5 or maybe an A6...don't recall...

Moving to a 64-bit processor could allow them to do so in the foreseeable future...move the manufacturing to TSMC and ditch Samsung and Intel in one fell-swoop...HOLY MOLY Batman!!!
post #111 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

He's lucky Steve isn't still around to hear him say that. With him, it'd be personal. Either he would lose his job or Apple would have a new supplier.
...

Unlikely.  See how Apple is still buying from Samsung.  Apple will still need Qualcomm for the foreseeable future.

post #112 of 168
It's a marketing gimmick right up to the second that Qualcomm can ship a 64-bit CPU for smartphones, then it will magically become a "must have feature that makes everything faster and better"
post #113 of 168
Originally Posted by Segaboy View Post
Doesn't anyone recall when Apple installed an A-Series processor into a MacBook Air and achieved outstanding results...I believe that was an A5 or maybe an A6...don't recall...


They’ve done no such thing, ever.

 
…ditch… …Intel…

 

Sounds like the GPU they commissioned was a waste of money, then.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #114 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by patpatpat View Post

You're being just stupid now. I said that a process change can allow a doubling of memory capacity and result in less power being used. I even gave a practical example where Samsung reduced the power consumption (by 67%) of 1GB SDRAM modules by going from DDR2 50nm to DDR3 20nm.

I further pointed out the process change in A7 from 32 to 28nm along with the DDR2 to DDR3 dram change, along with increased battery capacity in 5S, which COULD have allowed apple to double the SDRAM size with NO APPRECIABLE change in battery life, IF they had wanted to.

What part of that do you not understand?

You mentioned all these other things, including moving from 50nm to 20nm as PROOF that doubling their current RAM choice would lead to lower power use. You're either trolling or you didn't understand what you were writing and are now backtracking. Keep it up!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Segaboy View Post

Doesn't anyone recall when Apple installed an A-Series processor into a MacBook Air and achieved outstanding results...I believe that was an A5 or maybe an A6...don't recall...

Moving to a 64-bit processor could allow them to do so in the foreseeable future...move the manufacturing to TSMC and ditch Samsung and Intel in one fell-swoop...HOLY MOLY Batman!!!

I don't recall there ever being an Apple A chip in any MBA. It's been Intel Core from the start.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ipen View Post

Unlikely.  See how Apple is still buying from Samsung.  Apple will still need Qualcomm for the foreseeable future.

Qualcomm isn't just a fab plant the way Samsung is, they hold their chip patents and design the chips that are used. I don't think Apple has any intention of getting into that business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by whatisgoingon View Post

It's a marketing gimmick right up to the second that Qualcomm can ship a 64-bit CPU for smartphones, then it will magically become a "must have feature that makes everything faster and better"

LOL I will be very surprised if Android is fully 64-bit when it finally launches.
post #115 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

Apple tends to stay clear of hybrid technology, it's their refrigerator/toaster theory.

Sorry I wasn't very clear, I didn't mean hybrid in that sence, more hybrid like the way they have the A7 AND the new M chip. As in off loading tasks to an A chip while keeping the Intel for things the A chip can't do, such as run a VM with Windows as just one example.
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #116 of 168
So Qualcomm's chief marketing officer goes to the press and talks smack about Qualcomm's biggest customer Apple and their new flagship product? Wow.
If Qualcomm has a CEO worth his salt this dimwitted chief marketing officer will be looking for a new job come Monday. At the latest!
post #117 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Segaboy View Post

Doesn't anyone recall when Apple installed an A-Series processor into a MacBook Air and achieved outstanding results...I believe that was an A5 or maybe an A6...don't recall...

There's no official evidence of that. There are rumors that they've done that, but "outstanding results" is undoubtedly an exaggeration. Even the fastest A7 is dog slow compared to the MBA.

Maybe some day they'll be able to us an ARM chip that's fast enough to be competitive, but that's a long way in the future.

OTOH, I would not be the least bit surprised to see an iPad Pro which is a format like the MBA, but is essentially an iPad with a keyboard. But that would be in addition to the MBA - not a replacement.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #118 of 168
I'm tired of this 64-Bit is not useful unless you have 4GB of memory. This is not windows people, It's Unix. Less times needed to access the chip, lower heat, less battery being used. And using iMovie to compile the same trailer as an example between the iPhone 5 and iPhone 5s was done in half the time. I know this, because I did it.
And why, oh why if it's not useful is Qualcomm and everyone else now planning on making a 64-Bit processor also??? Oh, that's not good, but we will also make one of those no good processors????
What?????
I'm done.
post #119 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by patpatpat View Post
 

Sure any idiot could add some very power hungry RAM to a design and screw with battery life but why on earth would anyone do that.

 

 

Because they are making cheap junk, which makes up the bulk of Android "activations" and is usually hidden in "other".

 

Not much margin in a $49 phone or tablet.

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #120 of 168
Safari!!

You don't even need to leave Apple built in software to see a need for more RAM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJones View Post

The iPhone 5s only has 1GB of RAM because it isn't RAM hungry like Android phones and doesn't need the extra RAM. What exactly are you running on a 5s that truly needs more than the 1GB of RAM available? If you're running something on your 5s that needs more than 1 GB of RAM it's likely not really best run on a phone.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Apple partner Qualcomm pans iPhone 5s A7 CPU as 'gimmick,' yet hints at own 64-bit chip
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple partner Qualcomm pans iPhone 5s A7 CPU as 'gimmick,' yet hints at own 64-bit chip