What does that have to do with what Apple and Samsung are doing?
.
Qualcomm and Marvell sells chips that have cores that they designed themselves. They don't use the cortex cores. And it generally takes 4-5 years to design your own compatible core and add another year for actual phones to show up with those cores.
If you don't know what a compatible core means --- why are you arguing with me in the first place.
No, he hasn't --- because he kept changing his arguments (while my arguments have been the same).
He was originally talking about Apple releasing their own dual core "compatible" core for ipad2/iphone5. I showed him how unreasonable his timeline was --- then he changed his argument by saying that Apple is going to process shrink the A4 and even dual core A4. You can't dual-core an A4 because Cortex A8 is designed to be single core only.
I don't know anything about PA Semi --- except that most of the top people left after Apple bought them, because Apple didn't price their stock options to their liking.
I've changed nothing. I also haven't said you could dual core an A4.
You continue to poorly read the phrase, "follow on to the A4". I have used those specific words several times because I don't know if there ever will be an A5, or if Apple will pick up some other marketing term for the technology it wields as a follow on. A dual core follow on would obviously be, to anyone not trying to twist things, a CortexA9 design, but it could even be a CortexA15 (but I would bet on the A9 due to power considerations in the mobile space). Maybe Apple will shrink the A4 and call it an A5? If they do it's still one of the possible follow ons, but not a dual core follow on.
See, I'm using very precise language and terminology to delineate what I think and not say anything else. Yes, I believe Apple is working hard to power optimize an ARM design like the CortexA8 and/or CortexA9, lots of folks here think so too. Nothing new and hardly scandalous except in your world where somehow your personal view of "The Timeline" is being violated. So far the only timeline thats unacceptable to the larger audience seems to be yours.
My view of the timeline is that I don't know when it started, but I'm sure it's before your timeline says it does. And that the timeline is shorter than you say it is -- for everyone -- because you only picked isolated PR release dates to use as data-in. I'll take those and raise them by adding the context of business process and engineering spool-up time before the "start" decision of any timeline gets made.
And when you don't twist other folks context, you still fall into the trap of not analyzing what you read before you retort. You make the same error of superficial analysis many stock analysts made upon the announcement of more PA Semi management leaving. To wit
You: "I don't know anything about PA Semi --- except that most of the top people left after Apple bought them, because Apple didn't price their stock options to their liking."
Me: "just needed access to the IP and a few select PA Semi engineers to really get a project completed"
Notice I said nothing about the Founders/Senior Managers who left, or even the lions share of the engineering pool. Not because I didn't know about them, but because they weren't the talent Apple was after! The departed founders are successful entrepreneurs and idea men. The founders were very successful as engineers in the day, but their work at PA Semi had moved on to building business, not tinkering with chips on a daily basis anymore. Apple didn't purchase the businessman, it has plenty of it's own personnel to do that. Apple purchased the team of engineers they put together. And I'm sure when it gets all the way to brass tacks Apple found the critical core in that team that was the real target.
That half dozen to dozen engineers ARE the technical prowess of PA Semi, and everyone else was just operational support and overhead. Just the way it is for the rest of the ~150 engineers.
So sure, ton's of PA Semi folks left, but the thing we won't know for sure is did the right ones stay? My guess is those few folks DID get treated right and did stay.
Qualcomm and Marvell sells chips that have cores that they designed themselves. They don't use the cortex cores. And it generally takes 4-5 years to design your own compatible core and add another year for actual phones to show up with those cores.
If you don't know what a compatible core means --- why are you arguing with me in the first place.
I checked all the posts on this thread.
You are the only one talking about Apple building a compatible core.
You raised an argument to a point that no one was making -- a strawman...
It is all but proven that Apple uses ARM architecture in the A4.
It is assumed that Apple will continue to use ARM architecture in follow-on custom cpus for iOS and iDevices.
... You are right though -- it is stupid of me to try to engage in a reasoned discussion with you.
If you mean a dual-core cortex a9-based A5, then say it that way --- because that's how I would say it because I am precise.
There is NOTHING spectacular about Intrinsity's tweak --- we ain't seeing the Hummingbird capturing massive amount of market share. We ain't seeing news reports saying that Hummingbird is giving a massive battery life edge over its competitors.
If you mean a dual-core cortex a9-based A5, then say it that way --- because that's how I would say it because I am precise.
There is NOTHING spectacular about Intrinsity's tweak --- we ain't seeing the Hummingbird capturing massive amount of market share. We ain't seeing news reports saying that Hummingbird is giving a massive battery life edge over its competitors.
A custom processor for an embedded device better not be your selling point to own a market. If so, you're dead on arrival.
It's and end-to-end solution that wins the market.
Intrinsity was dead the day it started, until Apple bought it.
Qualcomm and Marvell sells chips that have cores that they designed themselves. They don't use the cortex cores. And it generally takes 4-5 years to design your own compatible core and add another year for actual phones to show up with those cores.
If you don't know what a compatible core means --- why are you arguing with me in the first place.
Maybe if you stopped making up terminology others would be able to follow you. There is nothing "compatible" in a Snapdragon or a Marvell core. Compatible coloquially boils down to "different but works with". The Qualcomm and Marvel cores adhere explicitly to the target ARM architecture, not something different that is only compatible.
Qualcomm integrated their baseband processor and the I/O connects to a CortexA9 core to maximize efficiency in CPU-baseband processing. Then they put it into a SoC. When they were done it was no longer a technically a CortexA9 core, but for all intents and purposes to an application programmer that's what it looks like. To a systems programmer it looks a bit different. Simply it is a ARMv7-A ISA processor, not a different ISA that is compatible.
I don't know enough about Marvell to comment farther than the basic terminology.
A custom processor for an embedded device better not be your selling point to own a market. If so, you're dead on arrival.
It's and end-to-end solution that wins the market.
Intrinsity was dead the day it started, until Apple bought it.
A lot of what the A4 was for cost reduction. If you are not making a flip phone, then you don't need a second LCD output in the SoC. If you aren't planning to make an iphone with a HDMI output, then you can take that out as well.
OK, given all that, why do you continue to assert:
"EVERYBODY" ... "takes about 6 years"?
By the dates you provided, Samsung/Intrinsity took a little over 2 years for the Hummingbird.
I suspect, in actuality, it took a little longer (even 3 years) if they began work in 2007.
But that's a far cry from 6 years.
.
What Intrinsity brought to Apple:
Quote:
Intrinsity's main selling point is its Fast14 technology, which is a set of design tools, implemented in custom EDA software, for using dynamic logic and novel signal encodings to permit greater processor speeds in a given process than naive static design can offer.
They are just a tool that when combined with the IP from PA-Semi and Apple's massive own IP in PowerPC, ARM, X86, etc., not to mention ImgTec and Apple's own extensove GPU background, created A4.
My arguments with Hiro went back several weeks over several different threads.
Right, and even then you were the only one with your viewpoint. And it wasn't just me, I'm just the one who didn't give up in exasperation. I remember something about you likening yourself to Neo from the Matrix and that you would never give in to the Agent Smith's.
That was your last post in that thread, you never had an answer to my reply. Some Neo.
Maybe if you stopped making up terminology others would be able to follow you. There is nothing "compatible" in a Snapdragon or a Marvell core. Compatible coloquially boils down to "different but works with". The Qualcomm and Marvel cores adhere explicitly to the target ARM architecture, not something different that is only compatible.
Qualcomm integrated their baseband processor and the I/O connects to a CortexA9 core to maximize efficiency in CPU-baseband processing. Then they put it into a SoC. When they were done it was no longer a technically a CortexA9 core, but for all intents and purposes to an application programmer that's what it looks like. To a systems programmer it looks a bit different. Simply it is a ARMv7-A ISA processor, not a different ISA that is compatible.
I don't know enough about Marvell to comment farther than the basic terminology.
Qualcomm designed its own ARMv7A ISA compatible core name "scorpion". It is a core that has performance in between the A8 and A9 core. The scorpion core has some limited out-of-order execution --- which A8 doesn't have (but not to the extent as the Cortex A9 has). The scorpion core has deeper pipeline than the A8 --- which allows Qualcomm to make CPU with higher frequencies.
A lot of what the A4 was for cost reduction. If you are not making a flip phone, then you don't need a second LCD output in the SoC. If you aren't planning to make an iphone with a HDMI output, then you can take that out as well.
And what did that have to do with any of the posts in this thread? It sure didn't fit as an answer to mdriftmeyer.
Qualcomm designed its own ARMv7A ISA compatible core name "scorpion". It is a core that has performance in between the A8 and A9 core. The scorpion core has some limited out-of-order execution --- which A8 doesn't have (but not to the extent as the Cortex A9 has). The scorpion core has deeper pipeline than the A8 --- which allows Qualcomm to make CPU with higher frequencies.
That has nothing to do with ISA or "compatability". It is implementation. Try again.
Right, and even then you were the only one with your viewpoint. And it wasn't just me, I'm just the one who didn't give up in exasperation. I remember something about you likening yourself to Neo from the Matrix and that you would never give in to the Agent Smith's.
That was your last post in that thread, you never had an answer to my reply. Some Neo.
I want intelligent arguments --- and I don't mind me arguing against a dozen people who understand what the arguments are all about.
And what did that have to do with any of the posts in this thread? It sure didn't fit as an answer to mdriftmeyer.
Oh well, off to dinner.
No it fits with the argument because all people talk about "custom" being faster and better features. But the A4 is mainly a cost reduction customization.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
That has nothing to do with ISA or "compatability". It is implementation. Try again.
Why don't you try again? You don't even know what Qualcomm uses in their CPU.
Again this comparison is not good. The Apple H.264 decoder is highly optimised for the hardware. The codecs built into VLC mostly do not have hand crafted NEON optimisations and are using C fall-back routines running on the integer core.
On many of the iOS devices it is a hardware decoder.
Quote:
Optimising software *first* before throwing hardware at the problem is always a power win.
We could debate that for a long time but the fact remains that VLC decoders do work well on other hardware. Besides that supporting old, or marginally used codecs should be one with solid stable code that minimizes support needs. Highly optimizing is not the smart thing if it takes development time away from codecs that get used in volume.
Quote:
I don't doubt that future iPads will have faster processors in them however it will be driven by things that physically can't be done by the current processor, 1080p H.264 decode for example.
Are you really sure they can't do that now? but lets say the A4 can't do 1080P, doesn't that just support what I'm saying. You seem to be running in circles here.
I'm not sure why people get so tangled in their underwear when I state the obvious about the A4's CPU. The A4 falls flat on its face when ever an app becomes CPU bound just like the Intel processor on the new AIRs. That doesn't make the AIRs or the iPads bad machines it is just a statement of a characteristic of the machine.
Now if somebody wants to continue to argue against this point you are really going to have to come back with a lot more than just buts and ifs. I know all about the fast GP??U's and the flash memory making things appear fast but it isn't the type of fast usable buy all Mac users nor iPad users.
Does DivX even have HWA? HandBrake doesn’t even support AVI/DivX anymore. MKV containers often seem to use HD content and therefore use the H.264 codec, but those apps can’t accelerate it as far a I know. Maybe in iOS 5.0, but I doubt it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
From what I've read it does not.
Nope, no hardware acceleration for Divx/Xvid on iOS devices. But like I said, you can still play these files smoothly on iPad and iPhone4 even though it's using standard CPU. I haven't tested 720p files yet, will do soon.
That's pretty interesting that Handbrake dropped Xvid, it's definitely an old codec now that is losing favour to H.264. Although Xvid is still de facto for pirated releases.
Nope, no hardware acceleration for Divx/Xvid on iOS devices. But like I said, you can still play these files smoothly on iPad and iPhone4 even though it's using standard CPU. I haven't tested 720p files yet, will do soon.
I?ve tried HD files. Neither VLC nor CineXPlayer will play them. I haven?t tried in a few app updates so maybe it?s changed.
Quote:
That's pretty interesting that Handbrake dropped Xvid, it's definitely an old codec now that is losing favour to H.264. Although Xvid is still de facto for pirated releases.
They did it awhile ago, and yet the commonality of free encoders for x264, the better compression of x264 with more options for containers, that x264 is used for HD in MKV containers, and that PCs to tablets to smartphones to PMPs all have HW decoders for H.264 it?s still the most common for pirated SD video, as you say.
Can you link to anyone else of significance making this complaint about the iPad?
I really don't care one bit about what everybody else thinks, I only report on what is obvious to me from using the iPad. However if you read forums regularly you will see issues pop up that trace back to a lack of performance.
Quote:
The only video codec the iPad can play is H.264. At most 720P, 30FPS, main profile. The A4 handles that with no problem.
This thread is totally unbelievable, ask yourself why iPad plays back those H.264 files so well. Please!
Quote:
It cannot play any other video codec at all. I'm confused as to what are you talking about?
You are confused, unbelievably so. We are talking about what happens when the CPU has to do the heavy lifting in iOS devices instead of optimized hardware. When that happens the CPU falls flat on its face. One example here that i've been using is VLC.
Quote:
Can you link to anyone else of significance making this complaint about the iPad?
Do you not read the forums in a regular manner? Beyond that the problem with CPU performance doesn't need any supporting characters as it isn't something you can argue about if you have any knowledge at all about what is going on in iOS devices.
Quote:
So now you are making the argument that Apple should not increase the RAM in newer devices to prove their was enough RAM in the previous device?
And who in the hell said anything like that? What I'm saying is that the fact that iPhone 4 has more RAM than the iPad should tell you something about what iOS really needs to perform well. It is rather disgusting of Apple to let the iPad continue to be sold with minimal RAM after it has become obvious that they have the technology to do better. That is iPhone 4 what is even worst is that iPad has even less RAM available to user apps than the 3GS, or it did a few iOS releases ago.
Again RAM is a side issue to the problem raised which is that the CPU in the iPad basically sucks. Arguing against this point is futile. It looks especially bad when people cough up examples that don't use the CPU as examples of good CPU performance.
In any event another way to look at this is benchmarks which are of course of debatable value also. For example:
Comments
6 years in what it takes for designing a COMPATIBLE core and shipping a cell phone with that compatible core.
Hummingbird and the A4 are using cortex A8 core --- not a compatible core.
What is a "COMPATIBLE core"?
What does that have to do with what Apple and Samsung are doing?
.
What is a "COMPATIBLE core"?
What does that have to do with what Apple and Samsung are doing?
.
Qualcomm and Marvell sells chips that have cores that they designed themselves. They don't use the cortex cores. And it generally takes 4-5 years to design your own compatible core and add another year for actual phones to show up with those cores.
If you don't know what a compatible core means --- why are you arguing with me in the first place.
No, he hasn't --- because he kept changing his arguments (while my arguments have been the same).
He was originally talking about Apple releasing their own dual core "compatible" core for ipad2/iphone5. I showed him how unreasonable his timeline was --- then he changed his argument by saying that Apple is going to process shrink the A4 and even dual core A4. You can't dual-core an A4 because Cortex A8 is designed to be single core only.
I don't know anything about PA Semi --- except that most of the top people left after Apple bought them, because Apple didn't price their stock options to their liking.
I've changed nothing. I also haven't said you could dual core an A4.
You continue to poorly read the phrase, "follow on to the A4". I have used those specific words several times because I don't know if there ever will be an A5, or if Apple will pick up some other marketing term for the technology it wields as a follow on. A dual core follow on would obviously be, to anyone not trying to twist things, a CortexA9 design, but it could even be a CortexA15 (but I would bet on the A9 due to power considerations in the mobile space). Maybe Apple will shrink the A4 and call it an A5? If they do it's still one of the possible follow ons, but not a dual core follow on.
See, I'm using very precise language and terminology to delineate what I think and not say anything else. Yes, I believe Apple is working hard to power optimize an ARM design like the CortexA8 and/or CortexA9, lots of folks here think so too. Nothing new and hardly scandalous except in your world where somehow your personal view of "The Timeline" is being violated. So far the only timeline thats unacceptable to the larger audience seems to be yours.
My view of the timeline is that I don't know when it started, but I'm sure it's before your timeline says it does. And that the timeline is shorter than you say it is -- for everyone -- because you only picked isolated PR release dates to use as data-in. I'll take those and raise them by adding the context of business process and engineering spool-up time before the "start" decision of any timeline gets made.
And when you don't twist other folks context, you still fall into the trap of not analyzing what you read before you retort. You make the same error of superficial analysis many stock analysts made upon the announcement of more PA Semi management leaving. To wit
You: "I don't know anything about PA Semi --- except that most of the top people left after Apple bought them, because Apple didn't price their stock options to their liking."
Me: "just needed access to the IP and a few select PA Semi engineers to really get a project completed"
Notice I said nothing about the Founders/Senior Managers who left, or even the lions share of the engineering pool. Not because I didn't know about them, but because they weren't the talent Apple was after! The departed founders are successful entrepreneurs and idea men. The founders were very successful as engineers in the day, but their work at PA Semi had moved on to building business, not tinkering with chips on a daily basis anymore. Apple didn't purchase the businessman, it has plenty of it's own personnel to do that. Apple purchased the team of engineers they put together. And I'm sure when it gets all the way to brass tacks Apple found the critical core in that team that was the real target.
That half dozen to dozen engineers ARE the technical prowess of PA Semi, and everyone else was just operational support and overhead. Just the way it is for the rest of the ~150 engineers.
So sure, ton's of PA Semi folks left, but the thing we won't know for sure is did the right ones stay? My guess is those few folks DID get treated right and did stay.
Qualcomm and Marvell sells chips that have cores that they designed themselves. They don't use the cortex cores. And it generally takes 4-5 years to design your own compatible core and add another year for actual phones to show up with those cores.
If you don't know what a compatible core means --- why are you arguing with me in the first place.
I checked all the posts on this thread.
You are the only one talking about Apple building a compatible core.
You raised an argument to a point that no one was making -- a strawman...
It is all but proven that Apple uses ARM architecture in the A4.
It is assumed that Apple will continue to use ARM architecture in follow-on custom cpus for iOS and iDevices.
... You are right though -- it is stupid of me to try to engage in a reasoned discussion with you.
There is NOTHING spectacular about Intrinsity's tweak --- we ain't seeing the Hummingbird capturing massive amount of market share. We ain't seeing news reports saying that Hummingbird is giving a massive battery life edge over its competitors.
I checked all the posts on this thread.
You are the only one talking about Apple building a compatible core.
You raised an argument to a point that no one was making -- a strawman...
It is all but proven that Apple uses ARM architecture in the A4.
It is assumed that Apple will continue to use ARM architecture in follow-on custom cpus for iOS and iDevices.
... You are right though -- it is stupid of me to try to engage in a reasoned discussion with you.
My arguments with Hiro went back several weeks over several different threads.
If you mean a dual-core cortex a9-based A5, then say it that way --- because that's how I would say it because I am precise.
There is NOTHING spectacular about Intrinsity's tweak --- we ain't seeing the Hummingbird capturing massive amount of market share. We ain't seeing news reports saying that Hummingbird is giving a massive battery life edge over its competitors.
A custom processor for an embedded device better not be your selling point to own a market. If so, you're dead on arrival.
It's and end-to-end solution that wins the market.
Intrinsity was dead the day it started, until Apple bought it.
Qualcomm and Marvell sells chips that have cores that they designed themselves. They don't use the cortex cores. And it generally takes 4-5 years to design your own compatible core and add another year for actual phones to show up with those cores.
If you don't know what a compatible core means --- why are you arguing with me in the first place.
Maybe if you stopped making up terminology others would be able to follow you. There is nothing "compatible" in a Snapdragon or a Marvell core. Compatible coloquially boils down to "different but works with". The Qualcomm and Marvel cores adhere explicitly to the target ARM architecture, not something different that is only compatible.
Qualcomm integrated their baseband processor and the I/O connects to a CortexA9 core to maximize efficiency in CPU-baseband processing. Then they put it into a SoC. When they were done it was no longer a technically a CortexA9 core, but for all intents and purposes to an application programmer that's what it looks like. To a systems programmer it looks a bit different. Simply it is a ARMv7-A ISA processor, not a different ISA that is compatible.
I don't know enough about Marvell to comment farther than the basic terminology.
A custom processor for an embedded device better not be your selling point to own a market. If so, you're dead on arrival.
It's and end-to-end solution that wins the market.
Intrinsity was dead the day it started, until Apple bought it.
A lot of what the A4 was for cost reduction. If you are not making a flip phone, then you don't need a second LCD output in the SoC. If you aren't planning to make an iphone with a HDMI output, then you can take that out as well.
OK the way I read the timeline:
XXX 200-: Samsung/Intrinsity begin work on Hummingbird
Sep 2008: Samsung/Intrinsity Announce Hummingbird (your link)
http://www.redorbit.com/news/technol...wer/index.html
Jul 2009: Hummingbird Silicon Available
http://www.samsung.com/global/busine...o?news_id=1030
Oct 2010: Products with Hummingbird ship
http://www.fudzilla.com/mobiles/item...-a-porn-button
When do you think that they, Samsung/Intrinsity, began working on this?
Do you think that Apple was working with Intrinsity at the same time?
Recall that Apple bought Intrinsity in Apr 2010 -- and was rumored to worked with Intrinsity on the A4.
http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/2...ys-intrinsity/
OK, given all that, why do you continue to assert:
"EVERYBODY" ... "takes about 6 years"?
By the dates you provided, Samsung/Intrinsity took a little over 2 years for the Hummingbird.
I suspect, in actuality, it took a little longer (even 3 years) if they began work in 2007.
But that's a far cry from 6 years.
.
What Intrinsity brought to Apple:
Intrinsity's main selling point is its Fast14 technology, which is a set of design tools, implemented in custom EDA software, for using dynamic logic and novel signal encodings to permit greater processor speeds in a given process than naive static design can offer.
They are just a tool that when combined with the IP from PA-Semi and Apple's massive own IP in PowerPC, ARM, X86, etc., not to mention ImgTec and Apple's own extensove GPU background, created A4.
My arguments with Hiro went back several weeks over several different threads.
Right, and even then you were the only one with your viewpoint. And it wasn't just me, I'm just the one who didn't give up in exasperation. I remember something about you likening yourself to Neo from the Matrix and that you would never give in to the Agent Smith's.
That was your last post in that thread, you never had an answer to my reply. Some Neo.
Maybe if you stopped making up terminology others would be able to follow you. There is nothing "compatible" in a Snapdragon or a Marvell core. Compatible coloquially boils down to "different but works with". The Qualcomm and Marvel cores adhere explicitly to the target ARM architecture, not something different that is only compatible.
Qualcomm integrated their baseband processor and the I/O connects to a CortexA9 core to maximize efficiency in CPU-baseband processing. Then they put it into a SoC. When they were done it was no longer a technically a CortexA9 core, but for all intents and purposes to an application programmer that's what it looks like. To a systems programmer it looks a bit different. Simply it is a ARMv7-A ISA processor, not a different ISA that is compatible.
I don't know enough about Marvell to comment farther than the basic terminology.
Qualcomm designed its own ARMv7A ISA compatible core name "scorpion". It is a core that has performance in between the A8 and A9 core. The scorpion core has some limited out-of-order execution --- which A8 doesn't have (but not to the extent as the Cortex A9 has). The scorpion core has deeper pipeline than the A8 --- which allows Qualcomm to make CPU with higher frequencies.
A lot of what the A4 was for cost reduction. If you are not making a flip phone, then you don't need a second LCD output in the SoC. If you aren't planning to make an iphone with a HDMI output, then you can take that out as well.
And what did that have to do with any of the posts in this thread? It sure didn't fit as an answer to mdriftmeyer.
Oh well, off to dinner.
Qualcomm designed its own ARMv7A ISA compatible core name "scorpion". It is a core that has performance in between the A8 and A9 core. The scorpion core has some limited out-of-order execution --- which A8 doesn't have (but not to the extent as the Cortex A9 has). The scorpion core has deeper pipeline than the A8 --- which allows Qualcomm to make CPU with higher frequencies.
That has nothing to do with ISA or "compatability". It is implementation. Try again.
Right, and even then you were the only one with your viewpoint. And it wasn't just me, I'm just the one who didn't give up in exasperation. I remember something about you likening yourself to Neo from the Matrix and that you would never give in to the Agent Smith's.
That was your last post in that thread, you never had an answer to my reply. Some Neo.
I want intelligent arguments --- and I don't mind me arguing against a dozen people who understand what the arguments are all about.
And what did that have to do with any of the posts in this thread? It sure didn't fit as an answer to mdriftmeyer.
Oh well, off to dinner.
No it fits with the argument because all people talk about "custom" being faster and better features. But the A4 is mainly a cost reduction customization.
That has nothing to do with ISA or "compatability". It is implementation. Try again.
Why don't you try again? You don't even know what Qualcomm uses in their CPU.
Again this comparison is not good. The Apple H.264 decoder is highly optimised for the hardware. The codecs built into VLC mostly do not have hand crafted NEON optimisations and are using C fall-back routines running on the integer core.
On many of the iOS devices it is a hardware decoder.
Optimising software *first* before throwing hardware at the problem is always a power win.
We could debate that for a long time but the fact remains that VLC decoders do work well on other hardware. Besides that supporting old, or marginally used codecs should be one with solid stable code that minimizes support needs. Highly optimizing is not the smart thing if it takes development time away from codecs that get used in volume.
I don't doubt that future iPads will have faster processors in them however it will be driven by things that physically can't be done by the current processor, 1080p H.264 decode for example.
Are you really sure they can't do that now? but lets say the A4 can't do 1080P, doesn't that just support what I'm saying. You seem to be running in circles here.
I'm not sure why people get so tangled in their underwear when I state the obvious about the A4's CPU. The A4 falls flat on its face when ever an app becomes CPU bound just like the Intel processor on the new AIRs. That doesn't make the AIRs or the iPads bad machines it is just a statement of a characteristic of the machine.
Now if somebody wants to continue to argue against this point you are really going to have to come back with a lot more than just buts and ifs. I know all about the fast GP??U's and the flash memory making things appear fast but it isn't the type of fast usable buy all Mac users nor iPad users.
Does DivX even have HWA? HandBrake doesn’t even support AVI/DivX anymore. MKV containers often seem to use HD content and therefore use the H.264 codec, but those apps can’t accelerate it as far a I know. Maybe in iOS 5.0, but I doubt it.
From what I've read it does not.
Nope, no hardware acceleration for Divx/Xvid on iOS devices. But like I said, you can still play these files smoothly on iPad and iPhone4 even though it's using standard CPU. I haven't tested 720p files yet, will do soon.
That's pretty interesting that Handbrake dropped Xvid, it's definitely an old codec now that is losing favour to H.264. Although Xvid is still de facto for pirated releases.
Nope, no hardware acceleration for Divx/Xvid on iOS devices. But like I said, you can still play these files smoothly on iPad and iPhone4 even though it's using standard CPU. I haven't tested 720p files yet, will do soon.
I?ve tried HD files. Neither VLC nor CineXPlayer will play them. I haven?t tried in a few app updates so maybe it?s changed.
That's pretty interesting that Handbrake dropped Xvid, it's definitely an old codec now that is losing favour to H.264. Although Xvid is still de facto for pirated releases.
They did it awhile ago, and yet the commonality of free encoders for x264, the better compression of x264 with more options for containers, that x264 is used for HD in MKV containers, and that PCs to tablets to smartphones to PMPs all have HW decoders for H.264 it?s still the most common for pirated SD video, as you say.
Can you link to anyone else of significance making this complaint about the iPad?
I really don't care one bit about what everybody else thinks, I only report on what is obvious to me from using the iPad. However if you read forums regularly you will see issues pop up that trace back to a lack of performance.
The only video codec the iPad can play is H.264. At most 720P, 30FPS, main profile. The A4 handles that with no problem.
This thread is totally unbelievable, ask yourself why iPad plays back those H.264 files so well. Please!
It cannot play any other video codec at all. I'm confused as to what are you talking about?
You are confused, unbelievably so. We are talking about what happens when the CPU has to do the heavy lifting in iOS devices instead of optimized hardware. When that happens the CPU falls flat on its face. One example here that i've been using is VLC.
Can you link to anyone else of significance making this complaint about the iPad?
Do you not read the forums in a regular manner? Beyond that the problem with CPU performance doesn't need any supporting characters as it isn't something you can argue about if you have any knowledge at all about what is going on in iOS devices.
So now you are making the argument that Apple should not increase the RAM in newer devices to prove their was enough RAM in the previous device?
And who in the hell said anything like that? What I'm saying is that the fact that iPhone 4 has more RAM than the iPad should tell you something about what iOS really needs to perform well. It is rather disgusting of Apple to let the iPad continue to be sold with minimal RAM after it has become obvious that they have the technology to do better. That is iPhone 4 what is even worst is that iPad has even less RAM available to user apps than the 3GS, or it did a few iOS releases ago.
Again RAM is a side issue to the problem raised which is that the CPU in the iPad basically sucks. Arguing against this point is futile. It looks especially bad when people cough up examples that don't use the CPU as examples of good CPU performance.
In any event another way to look at this is benchmarks which are of course of debatable value also. For example:
- http://www.eeejournal.com/2010/05/be...vs-iphone.html
- http://blog.gsmarena.com/apple-ipad-...ls-to-impress/
- http://vanshardware.com/2010/08/mirr...rm-versus-x86/
Since benchmarking is of limited us I still go back to the overriding issue with iPad is in hand performance. It simply needs to be better.