No, no. Trolls are trying to mess up as much nonsense as they can to divert the attention from few reasonable comments in the topic.
As for what A4 processor really is, it's reasonable to wait for some reliable evidence and trustful explanations from processor's maker.
We likely will not get that info, as it's a trade secret if the companies want to handle it that way. But once it's here, people will put it through its paces and determine what's going on inside.
Well, I have no access to the SDK, but I believe that they found an temporary solution by writing iPhone OS 3.2 for the iPad, because they will add a lot of new features in iOS 4 (which will probably be rebranded to cover both iPad and iPhone OS), which could handle the difference between the two devices correctly.
If they wanted an OS of its own for the iPad, my guess is they would already have announced it, but I might be wrong about this.
[edit]
To sum it up, I think they had some timing issues between iOS 4.0 and the iPad, and the current situation is only a temporary solution. It's like the multitasking stuff: it seems weird that the iPad is limited like the iPhone, because it has clearly more screen real estate and horse power, and a different purpose. (I'm not sure that this last sentence really make sense ...)
[/edit]
I agree with all that. The event seems unrehearsed and sloppy. They are clearly not trying to reveal any aspects to v4.0 before its time. I also wouldn't be surprised if they eventually do a spit and create an iPad OS or rename the streamlined version of OS X to something more universal, like Mobile OS X or OS X Mobile, especially if other products come along like a new ARM-based AppleTV or Home Server.
It's odd that they call them both iPhone OS because they are significantly different. Not just the UI but core technologies that make it very unique. That is why iPad apps can't run on the iPhone/Touch and why you can't use iPhone OS 3.2 SDK to make iPhone or Touch apps. They really are quit different in spite of the nomenclature.
I don't think they're that different from what I've been reading. The main difference in the resolution of the devices. The GUI seems to be about the same, which surprised me. I thought Apple would have made more concessions given the much larger screen size. And that's more than the resolution difference. The size alone makes a big (heh heh, unintended pun) difference in the way it will be handled.
A bunch of what we're seeing in the 3.2 OS looks as though it could be used in the iP/T as well.
It's not likely Apple spent anywhere near $1 billion to work on this chip. But they did spend $275 million to buy PA Semi, which was not unreasonable.
Jobs is quoted as saying the company has invested > $1 Billion on R&D for the A4.
Whether or not that includes $275 Million means anywhere from $725 Million+ in R&D plus ARM IP licensing on a CPU/GPU IC solution for old IP makes no sense.
I agree with all that. The event seems unrehearsed and sloppy. They are clearly not trying to reveal any aspects to v4.0 before its time. I also wouldn't be surprised if they eventually do a spit and create an iPad OS or rename the streamlined version of OS X to something more universal, like Mobile OS X or OS X Mobile, especially if other products come along like a new ARM-based AppleTV or Home Server.
I don't think they're that different from what I've been reading. The main difference in the resolution of the devices. The GUI seems to be about the same, which surprised me. I thought Apple would have made more concessions given the much larger screen size. And that's more than the resolution difference. The size alone makes a big (heh heh, unintended pun) difference in the way it will be handled.
A bunch of what we're seeing in the 3.2 OS looks as though it could be used in the iP/T as well.
There is a lot changed. Even the GUI, it's not just the resolution but how much is being displayed. If it was just the resolution then they'd have devs just make apps work with the higher resolution (and ratio), but they didn't, they have a UI that is idealized for a 9.7" display with a 4:3 ratio. The base elements look similar to the iPhone/Touch UI as it effective and familiar, but they use a dual column format in most views which the iPhone and Touch's OS is not capable of. They also add popover menus which give plenty of options that once weren't feasible. There are deeper changes too, which are partly responsible why SDK 3.2 was not able to compile for the iPhone or Touch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Oh, I don't think they would want to do that.
Which part? Renaming it, again, or creating non-mobile ARM-based products?
The main difference in the resolution of the devices. The GUI seems to be about the same, which surprised me.
I agree with that. The home screen of the iPad looks kind of bizarre right now, so I would not be surprised to a major UI overhaul in the next iteration of iOS. They need to change the SpringBoard, because with all these apps it looks like it is becoming inefficient. I mean, when they first introduced the iPhone, you barely had any applications, so I guess they never designed springboard to have hundreds of apps.
It is like the PNS, with the only difference that they became aware of the shortcomings before it was released.
Jobs is quoted as saying the company has invested > $1 Billion on R&D for the A4.
Whether or not that includes $275 Million means anywhere from $725 Million+ in R&D plus ARM IP licensing on a CPU/GPU IC solution for old IP makes no sense.
I don't believe it. It's just not possible. I'd like to see an explanation for that statement, which I don't remember seeing, though I'm not saying he didn't make it. But he would have to b referring to much more than work on the chip itself.
[QUOTE=solipsism;1581788]There is a lot changed. Even the GUI, it's not just the resolution but how much is being displayed. If it was just the resolution then they'd have devs just make apps work with the higher resolution (and ratio), but they didn't, they have a UI that is idealized for a 9.7" display with a 4:3 ratio. The base elements look similar to the iPhone/Touch UI as it effective and familiar, but they use a dual column format in most views which the iPhone and Touch's OS is not capable of. They also add popover menus which give plenty of options that once weren't feasible. There are deeper changes too, which are partly responsible why SDK 3.2 was not able to compile for the iPhone or Touch.
What I see in the GUI, and what I read, shows that the home screen looks almost exactly like the original, without a couple of the programs on the front. Even the number of program icons is the same. They are having developers work on apps that are the same except for the resolution.
There are additional features in 3.2 to be sure, but can you show that none will be used in the iP/T? I don't think so. Most of what you're talking about has to do with what I mentioned. higher resolution, and a larger screen.
Quote:
Which part? Renaming it, again, or creating non-mobile ARM-based products?
Bifurcating the OS's. While the iPad Version will be an upgrade, because of size and therefore additional features, they will remain the same otherwise. That's why Apple will give a Universal (I thought we'd never see that word again) wrapper for programs.
But, what if the A+ upgrade to the iP/T that Jobs was supposed to have mentioned includes an 800 x 480 screen? Then a bunch of stuff that works on the iPad may also work on those as well, even thought the screen is so small.
Perhaps it's just a number too big for my brain to comprehend, but a billion dollars to essentially rejigger existing chips seems excessive.
Now that Apple owns PA Semi, they can claim that all the money PA Semi has ever spent developing the A4/A8/A9/everything else they did that preceded this chip was spent by Apple. I really don't think they've spent $1 billion on this chip alone since they bought PA Semi, but I'm sure from the inception of Arm until now, $1 billion has been spent developing products...
Kind of like how Apple can claim being responsible for Logic, even though eMagic conceived and developed basically the platform, and Apple basically just bought and rebranded them and financed eMagic's continuing work (and forced it OSX exclusive and designed the shipping box).
See also Avid buying Protools and Sibelius, Microsoft buying DOS, Adobe buying Macromedia, etc. etc.
It would be ridiculous for Apple to give any credit to eMagic, PA Semi, Randy Ubillos/Keygrip or anybody else for products they've rebranded - they bought the company and therefore that company's history is Apple's to rebrand and manipulate.
Heck, Apple's actual contribution since buying ARM could be less than a million thus far (besides costs of buying the company) if the chip is basically just a slightly altered A8, which was maybe already in prototype before the sale in 2008...
...Then Apple would just need to tweak it a bit, slap on a logo, and voila! A4! Then they'll stick in in the iPad and let the early adopters troubleshoot and test it just like they did with S***Leopard, Aperture 3, iMac 27, AirPort extreme, Time Capsule, MacBook pro batteries, MacBook hard drives, etc. etc.
I agree with that. The home screen of the iPad looks kind of bizarre right now, so I would not be surprised to a major UI overhaul in the next iteration of iOS. They need to change the SpringBoard, because with all these apps it looks like it is becoming inefficient. I mean, when they first introduced the iPhone, you barely had any applications, so I guess they never designed springboard to have hundreds of apps.
It is like the PNS, with the only difference that they became aware of the shortcomings before it was released.
I don't know whether you or I first used the name "iOS" But I like it, even though it would get ripped if Apple used it.
I just don't see the iPad using the iPhone OS, and even the Touch seems silly using it. If Apple is going to move this to other product lines, then that name has gotta go!
What we have here, if this aticle is correct, is an OS and software that can operate amazingly well on this hardware, and that says something important.
Sure. But an A9 design is more future proof. The 1st gen iPhone is not da snappy and it really isn't THAT old. As more features are added to the iPhone OS the more headroom the better.
Given that competitors are going to be running A9 based solutions this year it's hard to justify getting an A8 device. It's like paying top dollar for a Core2Duo laptop today. Nobody is jumping up and down to do that and we're all waiting for the Core i3/i5/i7 MBPs.
Personally, if it contains an reference A8 design I'll likely skip the 1st gen. In a year's time A9 solutions will make pretty much any 1Ghz A8 solution look anemic.
Besides, there's no indication that Stokes' sources are any different from the VentureBeats' sources...a former Apple engineer who supposedly heard it from someone still inside.
Me, I dunno why you'd pair PA Semi's power saving tech with the A8 when the A9 is 40-45nm vs 65nm and ARM claims it's more power efficient out of the box. So at best you're trading away a good part of your competitive advantage to someone like the Tegra 250 (40 nm process).
Until we see some hard info I still believe A9 design. Possibye single core so it actually clocks at 1 Ghz as opposed to "up to 1Ghz dual core but we clock it at 600Mhz for battery and heat reasons".
LOL, so you think there is going to be true multitasking when:
-the iPad will be running the same OS as the iPhone so there will be no significant differences between the two devices
-the iPad has to power a higher res display
-the iPad will introduce more powerful apps that will be more resource intensive
If that was your argument then you are making a lousy one. The 3GS is a meaningless argument. There will not be a situation where the iPhone will have multitasking and the iPad won't. Chances are it will 've some kind of gimped, widget based where certain kinds of apps can be run in the background without the full UI being launched.
BTW, don't go off immediately saying that I don't what's inside the chip when the first two words I posted were "if true".
Not even sure what you're trying to say. The current generation of iPhone and iPad hardware and software are more than capable of running 2 third party apps simultaneously, it is just not a feature. Enter jailbreak. It becomes capable through a simple and rudimentary customization.
Something Apple could enable, but won't. Instead, they will build it in using a different methodology and future hardware. I believe the Apple A4 will be the first to do it, and it has nothing to do with it being dual core or not.
Dual core iPads/iPhones when/if they appear are as relevant to "multi tasking" as they are to the type of "single tasking" the iPhone OS does.
We likely will not get that info, as it's a trade secret if the companies want to handle it that way. But once it's here, people will put it through its paces and determine what's going on inside.
You should be able to tell from the app builds. Both gcc and RVCT has A9 compile switches. Looking at the resulting assembly will likely tell you if the -mcpu=cortex-a8 or -mcpu=cortex-a9 was used by XCode.
No reason for Apple to be that secretive once the product actually launches.
Sure. But an A9 design is more future proof. The 1st gen iPhone is not da snappy and it really isn't THAT old. As more features are added to the iPhone OS the more headroom the better.
Given that competitors are going to be running A9 based solutions this year it's hard to justify getting an A8 device. It's like paying top dollar for a Core2Duo laptop today. Nobody is jumping up and down to do that and we're all waiting for the Core i3/i5/i7 MBPs.
Personally, if it contains an reference A8 design I'll likely skip the 1st gen. In a year's time A9 solutions will make pretty much any 1Ghz A8 solution look anemic.
Besides, there's no indication that Stokes' sources are any different from the VentureBeats' sources...a former Apple engineer who supposedly heard it from someone still inside.
Me, I dunno why you'd pair PA Semi's power saving tech with the A8 when the A9 is 40-45nm vs 65nm and ARM claims it's more power efficient out of the box. So at best you're trading away a good part of your competitive advantage to someone like the Tegra 250 (40 nm process).
Until we see some hard info I still believe A9 design. Possibye single core so it actually clocks at 1 Ghz as opposed to "up to 1Ghz dual core but we clock it at 600Mhz for battery and heat reasons".
I'm not saying I prefer the older chip. I'm saying that with this performing as well as it does on the chip, it will perform much better on a faster two core version next year. Hey, I'm as entranced by the new stuff as anyone else here. But I'd rather see Apple make their stuff less dependent on faster hardware. Then the faster hardware will allow for better software than otherwise.
You should be able to tell from the app builds. Both gcc and RVCT has A9 compile switches. Looking at the resulting assembly will likely tell you if the -mcpu=cortex-a8 or -mcpu=cortex-a9 was used by XCode.
No reason for Apple to be that secretive once the product actually launches.
I'm not a developer, so I don't see that information, and I imagine that most will keep the info to themselves. So far thy have. After it's out, we'll learn more.
Why do they think the A4 would strip out camera functionality? Would Apple really design a chip just for the iPad 1.0 with anticipated sales numbers somewhere south of 12MM units? I would think that they need to sell at least 40MM A4 processors to recoup any investment they made in the design, if the $1B number is accurate within an order of magnitude. It might make sense if they just invested $100MM, but then it is still an expensive exercise.
What unit of measure does your acronym MM stand for?
Comments
No, no. Trolls are trying to mess up as much nonsense as they can to divert the attention from few reasonable comments in the topic.
As for what A4 processor really is, it's reasonable to wait for some reliable evidence and trustful explanations from processor's maker.
We likely will not get that info, as it's a trade secret if the companies want to handle it that way. But once it's here, people will put it through its paces and determine what's going on inside.
PA Risc?
PA Semi.
PA RISC is HP's RISC processor family.
Secondly, you don't invest $1 Billion in R&D on legacy ARM CPUs.
Oops! Sorry. Yeah. I knew that. Reflexive trying.
It's not likely Apple spent anywhere near $1 billion to work on this chip. But they did spend $275 million to buy PA Semi, which was not unreasonable.
Well, I have no access to the SDK, but I believe that they found an temporary solution by writing iPhone OS 3.2 for the iPad, because they will add a lot of new features in iOS 4 (which will probably be rebranded to cover both iPad and iPhone OS), which could handle the difference between the two devices correctly.
If they wanted an OS of its own for the iPad, my guess is they would already have announced it, but I might be wrong about this.
[edit]
To sum it up, I think they had some timing issues between iOS 4.0 and the iPad, and the current situation is only a temporary solution. It's like the multitasking stuff: it seems weird that the iPad is limited like the iPhone, because it has clearly more screen real estate and horse power, and a different purpose. (I'm not sure that this last sentence really make sense ...)
[/edit]
I agree with all that. The event seems unrehearsed and sloppy. They are clearly not trying to reveal any aspects to v4.0 before its time. I also wouldn't be surprised if they eventually do a spit and create an iPad OS or rename the streamlined version of OS X to something more universal, like Mobile OS X or OS X Mobile, especially if other products come along like a new ARM-based AppleTV or Home Server.
It's odd that they call them both iPhone OS because they are significantly different. Not just the UI but core technologies that make it very unique. That is why iPad apps can't run on the iPhone/Touch and why you can't use iPhone OS 3.2 SDK to make iPhone or Touch apps. They really are quit different in spite of the nomenclature.
I don't think they're that different from what I've been reading. The main difference in the resolution of the devices. The GUI seems to be about the same, which surprised me. I thought Apple would have made more concessions given the much larger screen size. And that's more than the resolution difference. The size alone makes a big (heh heh, unintended pun) difference in the way it will be handled.
A bunch of what we're seeing in the 3.2 OS looks as though it could be used in the iP/T as well.
Oops! Sorry. Yeah. I knew that. Reflexive trying.
It's not likely Apple spent anywhere near $1 billion to work on this chip. But they did spend $275 million to buy PA Semi, which was not unreasonable.
Jobs is quoted as saying the company has invested > $1 Billion on R&D for the A4.
Whether or not that includes $275 Million means anywhere from $725 Million+ in R&D plus ARM IP licensing on a CPU/GPU IC solution for old IP makes no sense.
I agree with all that. The event seems unrehearsed and sloppy. They are clearly not trying to reveal any aspects to v4.0 before its time. I also wouldn't be surprised if they eventually do a spit and create an iPad OS or rename the streamlined version of OS X to something more universal, like Mobile OS X or OS X Mobile, especially if other products come along like a new ARM-based AppleTV or Home Server.
Oh, I don't think they would want to do that.
I don't think they're that different from what I've been reading. The main difference in the resolution of the devices. The GUI seems to be about the same, which surprised me. I thought Apple would have made more concessions given the much larger screen size. And that's more than the resolution difference. The size alone makes a big (heh heh, unintended pun) difference in the way it will be handled.
A bunch of what we're seeing in the 3.2 OS looks as though it could be used in the iP/T as well.
There is a lot changed. Even the GUI, it's not just the resolution but how much is being displayed. If it was just the resolution then they'd have devs just make apps work with the higher resolution (and ratio), but they didn't, they have a UI that is idealized for a 9.7" display with a 4:3 ratio. The base elements look similar to the iPhone/Touch UI as it effective and familiar, but they use a dual column format in most views which the iPhone and Touch's OS is not capable of. They also add popover menus which give plenty of options that once weren't feasible. There are deeper changes too, which are partly responsible why SDK 3.2 was not able to compile for the iPhone or Touch.
Oh, I don't think they would want to do that.
Which part? Renaming it, again, or creating non-mobile ARM-based products?
The main difference in the resolution of the devices. The GUI seems to be about the same, which surprised me.
I agree with that. The home screen of the iPad looks kind of bizarre right now, so I would not be surprised to a major UI overhaul in the next iteration of iOS. They need to change the SpringBoard, because with all these apps it looks like it is becoming inefficient. I mean, when they first introduced the iPhone, you barely had any applications, so I guess they never designed springboard to have hundreds of apps.
It is like the PNS, with the only difference that they became aware of the shortcomings before it was released.
Jobs is quoted as saying the company has invested > $1 Billion on R&D for the A4.
Whether or not that includes $275 Million means anywhere from $725 Million+ in R&D plus ARM IP licensing on a CPU/GPU IC solution for old IP makes no sense.
I don't believe it. It's just not possible. I'd like to see an explanation for that statement, which I don't remember seeing, though I'm not saying he didn't make it. But he would have to b referring to much more than work on the chip itself.
What I see in the GUI, and what I read, shows that the home screen looks almost exactly like the original, without a couple of the programs on the front. Even the number of program icons is the same. They are having developers work on apps that are the same except for the resolution.
There are additional features in 3.2 to be sure, but can you show that none will be used in the iP/T? I don't think so. Most of what you're talking about has to do with what I mentioned. higher resolution, and a larger screen.
Which part? Renaming it, again, or creating non-mobile ARM-based products?
Bifurcating the OS's. While the iPad Version will be an upgrade, because of size and therefore additional features, they will remain the same otherwise. That's why Apple will give a Universal (I thought we'd never see that word again) wrapper for programs.
But, what if the A+ upgrade to the iP/T that Jobs was supposed to have mentioned includes an 800 x 480 screen? Then a bunch of stuff that works on the iPad may also work on those as well, even thought the screen is so small.
Perhaps it's just a number too big for my brain to comprehend, but a billion dollars to essentially rejigger existing chips seems excessive.
Now that Apple owns PA Semi, they can claim that all the money PA Semi has ever spent developing the A4/A8/A9/everything else they did that preceded this chip was spent by Apple. I really don't think they've spent $1 billion on this chip alone since they bought PA Semi, but I'm sure from the inception of Arm until now, $1 billion has been spent developing products...
Kind of like how Apple can claim being responsible for Logic, even though eMagic conceived and developed basically the platform, and Apple basically just bought and rebranded them and financed eMagic's continuing work (and forced it OSX exclusive and designed the shipping box).
See also Avid buying Protools and Sibelius, Microsoft buying DOS, Adobe buying Macromedia, etc. etc.
It would be ridiculous for Apple to give any credit to eMagic, PA Semi, Randy Ubillos/Keygrip or anybody else for products they've rebranded - they bought the company and therefore that company's history is Apple's to rebrand and manipulate.
Heck, Apple's actual contribution since buying ARM could be less than a million thus far (besides costs of buying the company) if the chip is basically just a slightly altered A8, which was maybe already in prototype before the sale in 2008...
...Then Apple would just need to tweak it a bit, slap on a logo, and voila! A4! Then they'll stick in in the iPad and let the early adopters troubleshoot and test it just like they did with S***Leopard, Aperture 3, iMac 27, AirPort extreme, Time Capsule, MacBook pro batteries, MacBook hard drives, etc. etc.
I agree with that. The home screen of the iPad looks kind of bizarre right now, so I would not be surprised to a major UI overhaul in the next iteration of iOS. They need to change the SpringBoard, because with all these apps it looks like it is becoming inefficient. I mean, when they first introduced the iPhone, you barely had any applications, so I guess they never designed springboard to have hundreds of apps.
It is like the PNS, with the only difference that they became aware of the shortcomings before it was released.
I don't know whether you or I first used the name "iOS" But I like it, even though it would get ripped if Apple used it.
I just don't see the iPad using the iPhone OS, and even the Touch seems silly using it. If Apple is going to move this to other product lines, then that name has gotta go!
I was even thinking of trademarking it!
What we have here, if this aticle is correct, is an OS and software that can operate amazingly well on this hardware, and that says something important.
Sure. But an A9 design is more future proof. The 1st gen iPhone is not da snappy and it really isn't THAT old. As more features are added to the iPhone OS the more headroom the better.
Given that competitors are going to be running A9 based solutions this year it's hard to justify getting an A8 device. It's like paying top dollar for a Core2Duo laptop today. Nobody is jumping up and down to do that and we're all waiting for the Core i3/i5/i7 MBPs.
Personally, if it contains an reference A8 design I'll likely skip the 1st gen. In a year's time A9 solutions will make pretty much any 1Ghz A8 solution look anemic.
Besides, there's no indication that Stokes' sources are any different from the VentureBeats' sources...a former Apple engineer who supposedly heard it from someone still inside.
Me, I dunno why you'd pair PA Semi's power saving tech with the A8 when the A9 is 40-45nm vs 65nm and ARM claims it's more power efficient out of the box. So at best you're trading away a good part of your competitive advantage to someone like the Tegra 250 (40 nm process).
Until we see some hard info I still believe A9 design. Possibye single core so it actually clocks at 1 Ghz as opposed to "up to 1Ghz dual core but we clock it at 600Mhz for battery and heat reasons".
LOL, so you think there is going to be true multitasking when:
-the iPad will be running the same OS as the iPhone so there will be no significant differences between the two devices
-the iPad has to power a higher res display
-the iPad will introduce more powerful apps that will be more resource intensive
If that was your argument then you are making a lousy one. The 3GS is a meaningless argument. There will not be a situation where the iPhone will have multitasking and the iPad won't. Chances are it will 've some kind of gimped, widget based where certain kinds of apps can be run in the background without the full UI being launched.
BTW, don't go off immediately saying that I don't what's inside the chip when the first two words I posted were "if true".
Not even sure what you're trying to say. The current generation of iPhone and iPad hardware and software are more than capable of running 2 third party apps simultaneously, it is just not a feature. Enter jailbreak. It becomes capable through a simple and rudimentary customization.
Something Apple could enable, but won't. Instead, they will build it in using a different methodology and future hardware. I believe the Apple A4 will be the first to do it, and it has nothing to do with it being dual core or not.
Dual core iPads/iPhones when/if they appear are as relevant to "multi tasking" as they are to the type of "single tasking" the iPhone OS does.
We likely will not get that info, as it's a trade secret if the companies want to handle it that way. But once it's here, people will put it through its paces and determine what's going on inside.
You should be able to tell from the app builds. Both gcc and RVCT has A9 compile switches. Looking at the resulting assembly will likely tell you if the -mcpu=cortex-a8 or -mcpu=cortex-a9 was used by XCode.
No reason for Apple to be that secretive once the product actually launches.
Sure. But an A9 design is more future proof. The 1st gen iPhone is not da snappy and it really isn't THAT old. As more features are added to the iPhone OS the more headroom the better.
Given that competitors are going to be running A9 based solutions this year it's hard to justify getting an A8 device. It's like paying top dollar for a Core2Duo laptop today. Nobody is jumping up and down to do that and we're all waiting for the Core i3/i5/i7 MBPs.
Personally, if it contains an reference A8 design I'll likely skip the 1st gen. In a year's time A9 solutions will make pretty much any 1Ghz A8 solution look anemic.
Besides, there's no indication that Stokes' sources are any different from the VentureBeats' sources...a former Apple engineer who supposedly heard it from someone still inside.
Me, I dunno why you'd pair PA Semi's power saving tech with the A8 when the A9 is 40-45nm vs 65nm and ARM claims it's more power efficient out of the box. So at best you're trading away a good part of your competitive advantage to someone like the Tegra 250 (40 nm process).
Until we see some hard info I still believe A9 design. Possibye single core so it actually clocks at 1 Ghz as opposed to "up to 1Ghz dual core but we clock it at 600Mhz for battery and heat reasons".
I'm not saying I prefer the older chip. I'm saying that with this performing as well as it does on the chip, it will perform much better on a faster two core version next year. Hey, I'm as entranced by the new stuff as anyone else here. But I'd rather see Apple make their stuff less dependent on faster hardware. Then the faster hardware will allow for better software than otherwise.
Until we know more about this, we can't say much.
You should be able to tell from the app builds. Both gcc and RVCT has A9 compile switches. Looking at the resulting assembly will likely tell you if the -mcpu=cortex-a8 or -mcpu=cortex-a9 was used by XCode.
No reason for Apple to be that secretive once the product actually launches.
I'm not a developer, so I don't see that information, and I imagine that most will keep the info to themselves. So far thy have. After it's out, we'll learn more.
Why do they think the A4 would strip out camera functionality? Would Apple really design a chip just for the iPad 1.0 with anticipated sales numbers somewhere south of 12MM units? I would think that they need to sell at least 40MM A4 processors to recoup any investment they made in the design, if the $1B number is accurate within an order of magnitude. It might make sense if they just invested $100MM, but then it is still an expensive exercise.
What unit of measure does your acronym MM stand for?
What unit of measure does your acronym MM stand for?
Mega Million?