or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Rumor: Schematic suggests NFC chip in 'iPhone 6,' RAM remains unknown [u]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rumor: Schematic suggests NFC chip in 'iPhone 6,' RAM remains unknown [u]

post #1 of 144
Thread Starter 
While incorrect claims came on Monday from a document showing alleged details on a NAND flash chip for Apple's next iPhone, another questionable schematic from the same source suggests the "iPhone 6" may include a near-field communications chip [updated].




Chinese repair firm "GeekBar" shared a picture of the schematic on Monday via the social media site Weibo. It purports to show that a PN65V near-field communications chip from Semiconductors will be included on the "iPhone 6."

The details seem questionable, as Apple has to date only used Bluetooth and Wi-Fi for short-range wireless communications. Apple currently offers a combination of the two technologies for its own proprietary "iBeacon" standard.

The schematic was released on the heels of another document that was originally interpreted to suggest that Apple's next-generation "A8" processor would come with 1 gigabyte of RAM --?the same as the A7 chip found in the iPhone 5s. But observers were quick to note that the mention of 1 gigabyte on the schematic was actually in reference to a NAND flash module, representing internal storage instead of RAM.




The purported schematic was published on Weibo by GeekBar, and it initially --?and incorrectly?-- said it suggested that the "A8" processor will not expand the amount of RAM available. The document was first highlighted on Monday by GforGames.

Apple first began offering a gigabyte of RAM in its custom CPUs with the A5X chip that debuted in the third-generation iPad with Retina display in 2012. Later that same year, the A6 processor that powered the iPhone 5 also came with a gigabyte of RAM, marking the first time Apple had achieved that amount on a phone.

If Apple did stick with 1 gigabyte of RAM for this year's expected "A8" chip, the chief reason could be to improve battery life. RAM constantly consumes power, and more RAM available for programs will result in a faster battery drain, so less memory will actually improve battery life.

TSMC Fab
TSMC's 12-inch wafer fab


Of course, there's a cost as well: Less memory means that iOS must actively close background tasks and refresh tabs in Safari as well.

For its part, Apple does not focus on the amount of RAM available in the current A7 processor. The company's website only mentions that it has a 64-bit architecture, and the company played up the chip as "desktop-class" when the iPhone 5s was unveiled next September.

However much RAM it does end up having, the "A8" chip is expected to be unveiled at a media event Sept. 9 where the company is said to be planning to unveil its next-generation "iPhone 6." It's expected that Apple will launch two new iPhone models this year: One with a 4.7-inch display, and a jumbo-sized version with a 5.5-inch screen.

Some have speculated that the larger iPhone could be a so-called "iPhone Pro," speculating that Apple could add in more advanced features like a superior camera --?or even more RAM --?for those who want a more powerful handset. But thus far there has been little hard evidence to suggest that either model would be drastically different.
post #2 of 144
If true I am sure Apple know that is sufficient.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #3 of 144

I hope they've done something in software then, because I often seem to be bumping up against a lack of memory, especially with Safari tabs needing reloading.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #4 of 144
For the things that I am able to do with that form factor, why would would I need more?

I'd rather have the extra battery power from a sufficiently powerful chip than too little from a chip that offers bragging rights for geeks.

Add: Anyone else suffer from DED withdrawal this weekend?
post #5 of 144
Well, at this point I'd like to see 2GB. Maybe we don't really need it for the phone, but I hope we'll see it for the iPad where battery life and heat aren't as important. I do work on my iPad that I wouldn't do on my iPhone, and it's more needed there. We are bumping the limitations for the iPad at this time.
post #6 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Well, at this point I'd like to see 2GB. Maybe we don't really need it for the phone, but I hope we'll see it for the iPad where battery life and heat aren't as important. I do work on my iPad that I would t do on my iPhone, and it's more needed there. We are bumping the limitations for the iPad at this time.

This I agree with.
post #7 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

If true I am sure Apple know that is sufficient.
I'm not sure if you're serious, or being sarcastic.

Either way, I'd like to point out the arguments we had with people when RAM was 256MB, and some people were serious when they said that Apple knew best here, and as they didn't move to more RAM, we obviously didn't need it. They were wrong then too.
post #8 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Well, at this point I'd like to see 2GB. Maybe we don't really need it for the phone, but I hope we'll see it for the iPad where battery life and heat aren't as important. I do work on my iPad that I wouldn't do on my iPhone, and it's more needed there. We are bumping the limitations for the iPad at this time.

My sentiments exactly.
post #9 of 144

Could be that the iOS operating system has a smaller memory footprint than Android. 

 

Or perhaps they are using a sort of paging to fee up memory with little or no impact on performance - or maybe the chip is powerful enough to do compression. 

 

If only they could prefect carbon nanotube batteries - and get a 10x increase in the charge density of the battery - or maybe it is micro crystal batteries - whatever the next major breakthrough in batteries. 

post #10 of 144

ugg.

 

This is horrible.

 

How expensive is 1 extra GB of RAM?  $5?

 

I can't stand that Saffari has to constantly refresh after I switch to anther app, especially on my iPad

Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
post #11 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

For the things that I am able to do with that form factor, why would would I need more?

I'd rather have the extra battery power from a sufficiently powerful chip than too little from a chip that offers bragging rights for geeks.

Add: Anyone else suffer from DED withdrawal this weekend?

I'm really tired of reading him. I always feel as though I should be editing his work to make it more adult and less fanboyish.
post #12 of 144

Consider how well Apple does memory management, having less memory is less of an issue. Other what what others have pointed out about Safari tabs needing reloaded, I have not seen any downs side to have less memory then any of the Android alternatives. I will tell you this, the Androids with 2GB are not any fast, what you will notice with them is they just fill up the extra memory that much quicker, programs become memory hogs because they can. Kitkat has attempted to fix the memory management issues as well as the memory leaks, but in their attempt to fix apps are not working well. This is the problems when you do not control the hardware and software.

post #13 of 144

For the iPhone, I don't mind as much. I'm running iOS 8 with my iPhone 5 and am not having any issues.

 

But my Retina iPad mini, even running iOS 7, is a pain in the ass due to Safari tab refreshing. It's incredibly annoying and I was hoping for a RAM boost to help alleviate the problem.

post #14 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilgto64 View Post

Could be that the iOS operating system has a smaller memory footprint than Android. 

Or perhaps they are using a sort of paging to fee up memory with little or no impact on performance - or maybe the chip is powerful enough to do compression. 

If only they could prefect carbon nanotube batteries - and get a 10x increase in the charge density of the battery - or maybe it is micro crystal batteries - whatever the next major breakthrough in batteries. 

iOS is more efficient that Android. Android uses more of a Desktop model of memory management and multitasking. In theory, it looks better, but it really does such processor cycles and battery life.

I almost never find the need to "close" an app in iOS, but it's a requirement in Android. Except for a few apps that monitor and measure in the background, apps don't use RAM or battery when they are offscreen, except to finish some task. With Android, most apps are actually open, until they are explicitly closed. While Apple has been improving multitasking, and giving developers more leaway, the model is still much more power efficient.

But, I'm disappointed to see that the new battery for the 4.7" iPhone 6 looks to be about 1800milliamphere vs about 1560 in the current devices. I was excited with the rumor it would be over 2000. I'd really like to see the iPhone end this thinness race with Samsung, and give us a bigger battery. When you think about it, the battery can't be much more than a couple of mm thick. If they kept the iPhone just one mm thicker, they could increase capacity by almost 40%.

Observing Apple since the late '80's, I've noticed that with Steve, or without Steve, Apple has a mental problem. They get a new significant feature, or performance advantage—and then they sit on it, often for years, while competitors catch up and pass them. This has been true for iPhone and iPad battery life. When they reached 8 hours with the iPhone, and came out with 10 hours for the iPad, no one could tough them. But where are we today, years later? That's right, still at 8 and 10. That big advantage has been totally lost.
post #15 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

For the things that I am able to do with that form factor, why would would I need more?

I'd rather have the extra battery power from a sufficiently powerful chip than too little from a chip that offers bragging rights for geeks.

Add: Anyone else suffer from DED withdrawal this weekend?

 

Yes, I noticed Daniel hasn't posted anything in awhile. His writings are the best thing on AI.

post #16 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilgto64 View Post
 

Could be that the iOS operating system has a smaller memory footprint than Android. 

 

Or perhaps they are using a sort of paging to fee up memory with little or no impact on performance - or maybe the chip is powerful enough to do compression. 

 

If only they could prefect carbon nanotube batteries - and get a 10x increase in the charge density of the battery - or maybe it is micro crystal batteries - whatever the next major breakthrough in batteries. 

 

Likely, since Android is a Linux kernel running Java on-top of that as the base platform for everything.. Java isn't the most memory efficient beast in the world... It could be argued iOS is closer to hardware than Java.. Been a while, but I seem to remember Java was considered a 4th tier language, where C based languages were 3rd .. Assembly was considered even closer, 2nd if I remember.. thus more efficient in general.. but not nearly as easy or as quick to develop in.

 

Basically, the further from hardware level, the more you risk inefficiencies and loss of performance.. which is one reason Android has had that annoying stutter / lag for so many years. They've largely gotten it smooth now; but thats mostly due to faster, better hardware making up for the inefficient manner of Android. 

 

That old school though.. 

post #17 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


I'm really tired of reading him. I always feel as though I should be editing his work to make it more adult and less fanboyish.

I tend to focus on his substance, not style (which can be a tad breathless).
post #18 of 144

Doesn't matter how much or little RAM it has.  Doesn't matter how many cores it has.  Doesn't matter what clock speed it runs at.  Doesn't matter how many bits it uses.

 

It just matter how fast and well it runs the stuff you want it to.

 

 

I'm sure the 6 is going to be a beast performance-wise.  It will actually need to be to even 'break even' with the 5s since I assume it is going to be running at a much higher resolution.

post #19 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

I tend to focus on his substance, not style (which can be a tad breathless).

I try to do that too. But he's read by those who are not Apple users, and his style is pointed to as being typical of an Apple Fanboy. Unfortunately, while his style might thrill some here, it detracts from the usefulness of his writing. And he does exaggerate, and minimize facts, depending whether they're about Apple, or its competitors. I would prefer more objectively written articles.
post #20 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

Doesn't matter how much or little RAM it has.  Doesn't matter how many cores it has.  Doesn't matter what clock speed it runs at.  Doesn't matter how many bits it uses.

It just matter how fast and well it runs the stuff you want it to.


I'm sure the 6 is going to be a beast performance-wise.  It will actually need to be to even 'break even' with the 5s since I assume it is going to be running at a much higher resolution.

You're right, of course. But it's those things that impact performance, so they are important, and wondering about them is a legitimate topic of discussion.
post #21 of 144
lilgto64 mentioned a paging file. This to me seems the most logical. Neither iOS or Android use a paging file which is why you run into memory limits (and why Apps get suspended and closed when memory is low).

Paging files back in the days of hard disk drives sucked because of the speed compared to memory. Running Windows on a system with low memory was horribly slow. I'm sure we all remember the light for your hard drive blinking madly as Windows was constantly paging stuff to disk. This is the main reason people upgraded their RAM.

Now with Flash storage paging files are far more practical on systems with lower RAM.
post #22 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

You're right, of course. But it's those things that impact performance, so they are important, and wondering about them is a legitimate topic of discussion.

I said the same thing more succinctly at the start of the thread and got a strange response from you.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #23 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I try to do that too. But he's read by those who are not Apple users, and his style is pointed to as being typical of an Apple Fanboy. Unfortunately, while his style might thrill some here, it detracts from the usefulness of his writing. And he does exaggerate, and minimize facts, depending whether they're about Apple, or its competitors. I would prefer more objectively written articles.

There's a lot of pent up animosity, and redemption in his writing which makes it difficult to be objective.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #24 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Well, at this point I'd like to see 2GB. Maybe we don't really need it for the phone, but

No,  you really do need it to keep pace with the rest of the market. 1GB ram is a low end budget device spec at this point no matter how much so called optimization is going on. Maybe the 5.5 will come with 2gb? If not I'll be shocked, but not entirely surprised.

{2010 Mac Pro-6 core 3.33-12gb 1333 ram-ati5870-velociraptor 600's-SL/win7/64-Konnekt Live/Onkyo-Dell3007wfp}
{2008 Mac Pro-8 core 3.2's-16GB-evga285} {MBP17}{ipad}{iphone 4 blk16gb}
Reply
{2010 Mac Pro-6 core 3.33-12gb 1333 ram-ati5870-velociraptor 600's-SL/win7/64-Konnekt Live/Onkyo-Dell3007wfp}
{2008 Mac Pro-8 core 3.2's-16GB-evga285} {MBP17}{ipad}{iphone 4 blk16gb}
Reply
post #25 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

ugg.

This is horrible.

How expensive is 1 extra GB of RAM?  $5?

I can't stand that Saffari has to constantly refresh after I switch to anther app, especially on my iPad
I don't normally have memory problems with my 5s but the iPad is another story. The Safari experience on iPad is crap. When I go to diagnostics I always see low memory warnings. I'd love to know what Apple's reasons are for leaving it at 1GB. Hopefully this is a rumor that turns out not to be true.
post #26 of 144
Better battery life with no improvement in specs would be great for me. 1day of full scale phone usage should be the benchmark.

The elimination of battery anxiety is NECESSARY to make the phone experience great.

What use is an expensive device that you are afraid to use?

Why is the next phone going to be thinner instead of having vastly more battery life is beyond me. I HOPE that they made software and A8 optimization for making up the battery shortfall. Consumers are going to jump off the apple ship if this issue isn't improved. I just got back from India and that's exactly what heavy phone users are doing.

A thicker, larger battery version of the phone with 128gb minimum premium version would be fine. Apple needs an "executive" or "Pro" phone. As a doctor I can barely use any apps or bluetooth without worrying.
post #27 of 144

Given that the DRAM has always been stacked on top of the A series chip, why would this schematic mean one thing or the other for any particular device? There certainly isn't any reason why Apple couldn't go with 2GB on an iPad and 1GB on an iPhone.  This could even be a version for an iPod touch or an Apple TV for all we know.

post #28 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


I'm not sure if you're serious, or being sarcastic.

Either way, I'd like to point out the arguments we had with people when RAM was 256MB, and some people were serious when they said that Apple knew best here, and as they didn't move to more RAM, we obviously didn't need it. They were wrong then too.

I don't see how it's obvious that Apple was wrong to use 256 MB in the devices where that was used. The fact that Apple ultimately released devices with more RAM doesn't prove that Apple made the wrong choice in the devices that did have 256. The nature of the tradeoffs changes as technology improves. What doesn't make sense today in terms of any given spec -- RAM, clock speed, battery size -- might make sense in 2 years thanks to Moore's Law. 

 

I doubt that anyone would argue that, all else equal, more RAM isn't better. The issue is that all else isn't equal. It's a matter of striking the right balance of tradeoffs between cost, performance, battery life, and size. While any individual user might benefit from a different balance than what Apple picks, Apple really is in the best position to pick the balance that is the best for them and for most users. They can make mistakes, but they are less likely to be making a mistake in their assessments than any given person who posts comments here. 

post #29 of 144

It would seem to me that more RAM (within reason) would also improve battery life. 

post #30 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I said the same thing more succinctly at the start of the thread and got a strange response from you.

I'm not sure that what you said is quite the same thing. You also didn't respond to that post, so I never did find out what you meant. He's seems to be saying that we shouldn't be discussing this because performance is all that matters. You said that Apple knows best. Is that the same thing?
post #31 of 144

Does iOS use memory compression like Mavericks? If not, then perhaps the addition of that feature might allow Apple to stick with 1 GB of RAM for longer than they otherwise would have. 

post #32 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

There's a lot of pent up animosity, and redemption in his writing which makes it difficult to be objective.

It not difficult being objective, if you want to be. I've talked to him on his own site over the years, and it's pretty clear that he doesn't want to be. If you try to inform him of an error, he becomes very prickly about it. He's a fanboy, and he writes from that perspective. It doesn't mean he isn't informed, because he is, but he's subject to exaggeration, and his comments about competitors could easily be excised. Sometimes, it just embarrassing.
post #33 of 144
Speculate on more speculations, that we're speculated on prior speculations, speculatively
post #34 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by xgman View Post

No,  you really do need it to keep pace with the rest of the market. 1GB ram is a low end budget device spec at this point no matter how much so called optimization is going on. Maybe the 5.5 will come with 2gb? If not I'll be shocked, but not entirely surprised.

You're talking about marketing. I was talking about need.
post #35 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post


Now with Flash storage paging files are far more practical on systems with lower RAM.

Dont gorget that flash writes aren't really battery friendly. I think true RAM would outperform flash based page files battery-wise. (Meaning doubling RAM vs flash based page files)

The linked article of DED mentions RAM battery usage when the tablet sits unused on the coffee table - wonder if you can or iOS already supports hibernation to flash. I do think it should be possible to boot part of the kernel into say lower address space and turn off parts of the RAM when saved to flash (higher address space). On top of this with MMU built-in perhaps the system only refreshes allocated memory anyway ?

On top of this we all shouldn't forget that iOS8 comes out - and with it hopefully a new sleuth of updated apps that ship 64bit versions so the system doesn't need to load the 32 bit libraries anymore. If all your installed apps are 64 bit you save quite a bit of memory.

According to reports and my experience, battery life under iOS8 is improved (and it's still beta!) I have high expectations to iOS 8.
post #36 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post

I don't see how it's obvious that Apple was wrong to use 256 MB in the devices where that was used. The fact that Apple ultimately released devices with more RAM doesn't prove that Apple made the wrong choice in the devices that did have 256. The nature of the tradeoffs changes as technology improves. What doesn't make sense today in terms of any given spec -- RAM, clock speed, battery size -- might make sense in 2 years thanks to Moore's Law. 

I doubt that anyone would argue that, all else equal, more RAM isn't better. The issue is that all else isn't equal. It's a matter of striking the right balance of tradeoffs between cost, performance, battery life, and size. While any individual user might benefit from a different balance than what Apple picks, Apple really is in the best position to pick the balance that is the best for them and for most users. They can make mistakes, but they are less likely to be making a mistake in their assessments than any given person who posts comments here. 

Apple stayed with 256 a year too long. We were all having problems because of that. In addition, developers were complaining that they couldn't do what was needed because of it. They were right.

As I said, 1GB RAM might still be enough for the iPhone, though maybe not, what with some of the new features coming out this year, but for the iPad, 2GB is really required. I do photo editing, video editing, drawing and 3D CAD on my iPad Air, and developers tell me that a major reason why they don't support larger files is the lack of RAM. I think they know what they're talking about.

I have 32GB RAM in my Mac Pro, and I run out of RAM on some work. Another GB on my iPad would work wonders.
post #37 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

If true I am sure Apple know that is sufficient.

Well, at lest they differentiate themselves from other smartphones. And to differentiate is a good thing¡
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #38 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krawall View Post

Dont gorget that flash writes aren't really battery friendly. I think true RAM would outperform flash based page files battery-wise. (Meaning doubling RAM vs flash based page files)

The linked article of DED mentions RAM battery usage when the tablet sits unused on the coffee table - wonder if you can or iOS already supports hibernation to flash. I do think it should be possible to boot part of the kernel into say lower address space and turn off parts of the RAM when saved to flash (higher address space). On top of this with MMU built-in perhaps the system only refreshes allocated memory anyway ?

On top of this we all shouldn't forget that iOS8 comes out - and with it hopefully a new sleuth of updated apps that ship 64bit versions so the system doesn't need to load the 32 bit libraries anymore. If all your installed apps are 64 bit you save quite a bit of memory.

According to reports and my experience, battery life under iOS8 is improved (and it's still beta!) I have high expectations to iOS 8.

64 bit apps will require about 10- 25% more memory than the older 32 bit version. That's another reason why more memory is needed.
post #39 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

64 bit apps will require about 10- 25% more memory than the older 32 bit version. That's another reason why more memory is needed.

I am aware of this but hte situation is worse when you (as it is right now for many users)have to load 32 and 64 bit libraries at the same time. And guess what - memory was sufficient until now even under less than ideal conditions. Somebody also mentioned memory compression a la Mavericks. Again a reason to believe ios8 wil rock.
post #40 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

lilgto64 mentioned a paging file. This to me seems the most logical. Neither iOS or Android use a paging file which is why you run into memory limits (and why Apps get suspended and closed when memory is low).

Paging files back in the days of hard disk drives sucked because of the speed compared to memory. Running Windows on a system with low memory was horribly slow. I'm sure we all remember the light for your hard drive blinking madly as Windows was constantly paging stuff to disk. This is the main reason people upgraded their RAM.

Now with Flash storage paging files are far more practical on systems with lower RAM.

Paging would add a lot of wear to the Flash memory as the writes would be very frequent. They could however put something like 4GB dedicated NAND storage just for paging and that wouldn't use any power on standby. It would even allow them to flush RAM and power it off saving even more power. It's more needed in the iPad than iPhone. If that dedicated NAND wore out, it's no big deal, they'd just gradually eliminate bad blocks or worst case stop writing to it.

Safari really needs to get its memory management sorted out. Moving to individual process tabs was a good move because it means that when one tab shuts down, that memory can be wiped clean but it would be good if they compressed background tabs individually in memory and only decompressed them when they were made active. That way Safari's active RAM would only ever be as much as the foremost uncompressed tab plus the compressed background ones.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Rumor: Schematic suggests NFC chip in 'iPhone 6,' RAM remains unknown [u]
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Rumor: Schematic suggests NFC chip in 'iPhone 6,' RAM remains unknown [u]