I want intelligent arguments --- and I don't mind me arguing against a dozen people who understand what the arguments are all about.
You get intelligent responses and continue to say the same broken ideas over and over. No matter how many different ways different people tell you otherwise. And for the past several posts you have descended to the rhetorical techniques of deflection and dismissiveness without actually providing any logical reasoning or new facts.
Your technique of debate is an utter train wreck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
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.
Why don't you try again? You don't even know what Qualcomm uses in their CPU.
And still your answer is straight politician "answer a question by only saying what you want to say", not actually answering the question and then attacking the debater with another distractive but non-factual and off topic statement.
What am I supposed to try? Getting you back on track and talking facts or at least proffered on topic opinion? I yield! That is an impossible task!!!
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.
You are certainly free to your opinion. Your declaration about the iPad being too slow, sounded to be stated as fact and not opinion. I'm challenging the declaration not your opinion.
Quote:
This thread is totally unbelievable, ask yourself why iPad plays back those H.264 files so well. Please!
I just stated why the iPad plays back H.264 well. Understanding that should bring light to your next compliant.
Quote:
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.
At this point we've established that Apple designed the iPad to only play H.264 and its hardware accelerated.
Your complaint is about the CPU having trouble playing video that Apple did not design the iPad to play. Do you really believe a new Apple processor will do a better job of playing video that Apple did not design it to play? Do you really not see the flaws in the line of logic?
Quote:
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.
I do read the forums on a regular basis and regularly ignore much of what is written.
Quote:
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.
Sigh..............
Quote:
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.
I do believe you that in your universe arguing against this is futile. As I look around the web. Most tech sites are calling the iPad the top tech gadget of 2010. I don't see anyone else saying that the A4 sucks.
You keep touting VLC as your prime example that the A4 sucks. As though VLC is the perfect app with no problems. Xvid and all of the other codecs VLC plays are totally efficient with no problems. The only possible problem there could be is the processor.
On top of that Apple did not design the A4 to directly play video in the CPU.
Not sure how come you all didn't bring this up... Apparently Microsoft is going to announce Windows on ARM at CES. There goes your virtualisation/ legacy/ compatibility concerns.
Maybe it's thinking about alternatives to Atom on the lower-end quite seriously now?
As usual Microsoft can't innovate its way out of a paper bag, so Ballmer probaby thought Tablets Tablets Tablets... Er... okay put Windows Windows Windows on it. Done!
You are certainly free to your opinion. Your declaration about the iPad being too slow, sounded to be stated as fact and not opinion. I'm challenging the declaration not your opinion.
it is a fact the CPU is slow.
Quote:
I just stated why the iPad plays back H.264 well. Understanding that should bring light to your next compliant.
At this point we've established that Apple designed the iPad to only play H.264 and its hardware accelerated.
Exactly! The machine is not relying on the CPU to accelerate the video playback. It can't because - hear this now - the CP?U is slow.
Quote:
Your complaint is about the CPU having trouble playing video that Apple did not design the iPad to play. Do you really believe a new Apple processor will do a better job of playing video that Apple did not design it to play? Do you really not see the flaws in the line of logic?
There is no flaw in my logic as I expect a tablet to be able to play easily and commonly available video at reasonable speeds. If it can't do this due to a slow CPU then we have a problem.
Quote:
I do read the forums on a regular basis and regularly ignore much of what is written.
Which explains your inability to grasp what is being said here. It isn't like this is a big secret or hasn't been discussed in the past.
Quote:
Sigh..............
I do believe you that in your universe arguing against this is futile. As I look around the web. Most tech sites are calling the iPad the top tech gadget of 2010. I don't see anyone else saying that the A4 sucks.
The CPU performance has little to do with iPad getting all those top gadget kudos. As I've stated much of what makes iPad very usable is due to other hardware in the SoC.
Quote:
You keep touting VLC as your prime example that the A4 sucks. As though VLC is the perfect app with no problems. Xvid and all of the other codecs VLC plays are totally efficient with no problems. The only possible problem there could be is the processor.
If you reread what you have just said it is obvious that you agree with me. IT is the CPU that sucks.
Quote:
On top of that Apple did not design the A4 to directly play video in the CPU.
I don't really give a hoot as to what Apple designed. What I'm saying very clearly is that the CPU is to slow and often falls flat on its face when faced with demanding work loads. In a nut shell it is a very fast cell phone processor but that isn't exactly an endorsement.
Not sure how come you all didn't bring this up... Apparently Microsoft is going to announce Windows on ARM at CES. There goes your virtualisation/ legacy/ compatibility concerns.
I hope you don't intend to emulate i86 on ARM. Legacy apps are always an issue, at least until development passes them by.
Quote:
Microsoft is already an ARM licensee, of course.
Maybe it's thinking about alternatives to Atom on the lower-end quite seriously now?
I would hope so. There is still a bit of a performance negative with A9 based processors but the delta is smaller than with A8 based Cortex implementations. The interesting thing here though is that ARM processors are already taping out on sub 32nm processes so Intel is no longer leading technology wise. This means either impressively small/thin devices or impressively long run times.
What people need to realize though is that buying such hardware does not mean Arrandale or Sandy Bridge class performance. Rather it means Intel ATOM class performance and that with the newest A9 Cortex based machines up against older ATOMs. Like wise we don't know where Bobcat based Fusion processors will slot in here either.
Quote:
As usual Microsoft can't innovate its way out of a paper bag, so Ballmer probaby thought Tablets Tablets Tablets... Er... okay put Windows Windows Windows on it. Done!
The trick will be to get developers to support native binaries on the platform. For some that is a big issue.
In a way I'm glad that MicroSoft is doing something on ARM. To be honest I think it is more to stymie the acceptance of the various Linux based platforms on ARM. Linux threatens MS on many more levels than Apple does and it would be very damaging to MS to see consumers migrating to and actually liking Linux platforms. iPad success fits into the equation of course but MS has a long history of dealing with Apple
Personally, I would expect a new chip from Apple sooner rather than later.
The A4 is only a slightly optimised version of the stock item. Given the IP they purchased from PASemi, and the amount of time that's gone by since the acquisition of Intrinsity, it seems to me that the first seriously customised silicon might arrive with the very next iPhone.
Apple seems to have grasped the obvious, which is that when it comes to the design of tablets there isn't a lot to differentiate one product from another in terms of exterior hardware like the screen, the ports or the shape. It's the software experience, and the performance of the chip that's going to be key.
I agree. Apple have done a lot of work with chip manufacturers over the years and all that happens is Apple's competitors also gain from the improvements. Far better to keep their genius in house. Who gives a flying frog if Apple's products are proprietary? What does that really mean anyway in this context?
Apple is going to stick with Intel well into the foreseeable future for notebooks and desktop Macs. Intel is so far ahead of the competition for what best suits the Mac that there is simply no other choice today. Apple is a premium product company, and will always go with the best...
A point worth pondering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
...remember that Apple has both the money and the time to put toward long-term R&D.
To put into perspective Apple has about 9x as much cash as AMD?s market cap ($6B) and about 40% of Intel?s market cap ($117B).
If we consider a five or even a ten year time frame for Apple making an x86-compatible chips that leverages their OS and we use the average YoY average growth rate for the last five years how would that compare to the number of CPUs AMD currently sells? I couldn?t find how many CPUs they sell but they noted in October that they sold 25M DirectX11-capable GPUs over the past year, a number that Apple may match n 2011 in the number of Macs sold, so why couldn?t Apple also make a CPU?
It?s not like AMD or Intel are ?dedicated? to just making CPUs. Frankly, this is the kind of innovation I?d expect to see, even if it?s only to scare AMD and Intel into bending to Apple in negotiations.
Actually, I see there to be an interesting possibility with your first observation: Apple's closing in on having enough cash to buy a 51% (controlling) interest in Intel, whose stock price has been pretty flat.
If Apple were to own the company who's selling the CPUs that goes into (almost) all of the PCs, this could invoke a re-write of "Microsoft Won the PC War" history.
Actually, I see there to be an interesting possibility with your first observation: Apple's closing in on having enough cash to buy a 51% (controlling) interest in Intel, whose stock price has been pretty flat.
If Apple were to own the company who's selling the CPUs that goes into (almost) all of the PCs, this could invoke a re-write of "Microsoft Won the PC War? history.
Would they be allowed to buy a controlling share of Intel, hostile or otherwise? Would they need to, when they seem to get what they need from Imagination Technologies with only 9.5% ownership?
So we have 4 main options here should Apple be a PC CPU designer:
Build their own CPU that is not x86-compatible.
Build their own CPU that is x86-compatible.
Buy AMD, in part or whole.
Buy Intel, controlling or not.
The first two likely include buying some companies that design and build CPUs, like PA Semi, but that purchase has long been said to regard ARM and not the desktop.
I think you are right. I am running myself around in circles. What you say here tells me what I need to know. I'm debating with someone who chooses not to have a firm grasp of reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I don't really give a hoot as to what Apple designed. What I'm saying very clearly is that the CPU is to slow and often falls flat on its face when faced with demanding work loads. In a nut shell it is a very fast cell phone processor but that isn't exactly an endorsement.
Comments
I want intelligent arguments --- and I don't mind me arguing against a dozen people who understand what the arguments are all about.
You get intelligent responses and continue to say the same broken ideas over and over. No matter how many different ways different people tell you otherwise. And for the past several posts you have descended to the rhetorical techniques of deflection and dismissiveness without actually providing any logical reasoning or new facts.
Your technique of debate is an utter train wreck.
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.
Why don't you try again? You don't even know what Qualcomm uses in their CPU.
And still your answer is straight politician "answer a question by only saying what you want to say", not actually answering the question and then attacking the debater with another distractive but non-factual and off topic statement.
What am I supposed to try? Getting you back on track and talking facts or at least proffered on topic opinion? I yield! That is an impossible task!!!
OT: So where are you going to school?
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.
You are certainly free to your opinion. Your declaration about the iPad being too slow, sounded to be stated as fact and not opinion. I'm challenging the declaration not your opinion.
This thread is totally unbelievable, ask yourself why iPad plays back those H.264 files so well. Please!
I just stated why the iPad plays back H.264 well. Understanding that should bring light to your next compliant.
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.
At this point we've established that Apple designed the iPad to only play H.264 and its hardware accelerated.
Your complaint is about the CPU having trouble playing video that Apple did not design the iPad to play. Do you really believe a new Apple processor will do a better job of playing video that Apple did not design it to play? Do you really not see the flaws in the line of logic?
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.
I do read the forums on a regular basis and regularly ignore much of what is written.
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.
Sigh..............
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.
I do believe you that in your universe arguing against this is futile. As I look around the web. Most tech sites are calling the iPad the top tech gadget of 2010. I don't see anyone else saying that the A4 sucks.
You keep touting VLC as your prime example that the A4 sucks. As though VLC is the perfect app with no problems. Xvid and all of the other codecs VLC plays are totally efficient with no problems. The only possible problem there could be is the processor.
On top of that Apple did not design the A4 to directly play video in the CPU.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-1...-ces-show.html
Microsoft is already an ARM licensee, of course.
Maybe it's thinking about alternatives to Atom on the lower-end quite seriously now?
As usual Microsoft can't innovate its way out of a paper bag, so Ballmer probaby thought Tablets Tablets Tablets... Er... okay put Windows Windows Windows on it. Done!
You are certainly free to your opinion. Your declaration about the iPad being too slow, sounded to be stated as fact and not opinion. I'm challenging the declaration not your opinion.
it is a fact the CPU is slow.
I just stated why the iPad plays back H.264 well. Understanding that should bring light to your next compliant.
At this point we've established that Apple designed the iPad to only play H.264 and its hardware accelerated.
Exactly! The machine is not relying on the CPU to accelerate the video playback. It can't because - hear this now - the CP?U is slow.
Your complaint is about the CPU having trouble playing video that Apple did not design the iPad to play. Do you really believe a new Apple processor will do a better job of playing video that Apple did not design it to play? Do you really not see the flaws in the line of logic?
There is no flaw in my logic as I expect a tablet to be able to play easily and commonly available video at reasonable speeds. If it can't do this due to a slow CPU then we have a problem.
I do read the forums on a regular basis and regularly ignore much of what is written.
Which explains your inability to grasp what is being said here. It isn't like this is a big secret or hasn't been discussed in the past.
Sigh..............
I do believe you that in your universe arguing against this is futile. As I look around the web. Most tech sites are calling the iPad the top tech gadget of 2010. I don't see anyone else saying that the A4 sucks.
The CPU performance has little to do with iPad getting all those top gadget kudos. As I've stated much of what makes iPad very usable is due to other hardware in the SoC.
You keep touting VLC as your prime example that the A4 sucks. As though VLC is the perfect app with no problems. Xvid and all of the other codecs VLC plays are totally efficient with no problems. The only possible problem there could be is the processor.
If you reread what you have just said it is obvious that you agree with me. IT is the CPU that sucks.
On top of that Apple did not design the A4 to directly play video in the CPU.
I don't really give a hoot as to what Apple designed. What I'm saying very clearly is that the CPU is to slow and often falls flat on its face when faced with demanding work loads. In a nut shell it is a very fast cell phone processor but that isn't exactly an endorsement.
Not sure how come you all didn't bring this up... Apparently Microsoft is going to announce Windows on ARM at CES. There goes your virtualisation/ legacy/ compatibility concerns.
I hope you don't intend to emulate i86 on ARM. Legacy apps are always an issue, at least until development passes them by.
Microsoft is already an ARM licensee, of course.
Maybe it's thinking about alternatives to Atom on the lower-end quite seriously now?
I would hope so. There is still a bit of a performance negative with A9 based processors but the delta is smaller than with A8 based Cortex implementations. The interesting thing here though is that ARM processors are already taping out on sub 32nm processes so Intel is no longer leading technology wise. This means either impressively small/thin devices or impressively long run times.
What people need to realize though is that buying such hardware does not mean Arrandale or Sandy Bridge class performance. Rather it means Intel ATOM class performance and that with the newest A9 Cortex based machines up against older ATOMs. Like wise we don't know where Bobcat based Fusion processors will slot in here either.
As usual Microsoft can't innovate its way out of a paper bag, so Ballmer probaby thought Tablets Tablets Tablets... Er... okay put Windows Windows Windows on it. Done!
The trick will be to get developers to support native binaries on the platform. For some that is a big issue.
In a way I'm glad that MicroSoft is doing something on ARM. To be honest I think it is more to stymie the acceptance of the various Linux based platforms on ARM. Linux threatens MS on many more levels than Apple does and it would be very damaging to MS to see consumers migrating to and actually liking Linux platforms. iPad success fits into the equation of course but MS has a long history of dealing with Apple
Personally, I would expect a new chip from Apple sooner rather than later.
The A4 is only a slightly optimised version of the stock item. Given the IP they purchased from PASemi, and the amount of time that's gone by since the acquisition of Intrinsity, it seems to me that the first seriously customised silicon might arrive with the very next iPhone.
Apple seems to have grasped the obvious, which is that when it comes to the design of tablets there isn't a lot to differentiate one product from another in terms of exterior hardware like the screen, the ports or the shape. It's the software experience, and the performance of the chip that's going to be key.
I agree. Apple have done a lot of work with chip manufacturers over the years and all that happens is Apple's competitors also gain from the improvements. Far better to keep their genius in house. Who gives a flying frog if Apple's products are proprietary? What does that really mean anyway in this context?
Apple is going to stick with Intel well into the foreseeable future for notebooks and desktop Macs. Intel is so far ahead of the competition for what best suits the Mac that there is simply no other choice today. Apple is a premium product company, and will always go with the best...
A point worth pondering.
...remember that Apple has both the money and the time to put toward long-term R&D.
To put into perspective Apple has about 9x as much cash as AMD?s market cap ($6B) and about 40% of Intel?s market cap ($117B).
If we consider a five or even a ten year time frame for Apple making an x86-compatible chips that leverages their OS and we use the average YoY average growth rate for the last five years how would that compare to the number of CPUs AMD currently sells? I couldn?t find how many CPUs they sell but they noted in October that they sold 25M DirectX11-capable GPUs over the past year, a number that Apple may match n 2011 in the number of Macs sold, so why couldn?t Apple also make a CPU?
It?s not like AMD or Intel are ?dedicated? to just making CPUs. Frankly, this is the kind of innovation I?d expect to see, even if it?s only to scare AMD and Intel into bending to Apple in negotiations.
Actually, I see there to be an interesting possibility with your first observation: Apple's closing in on having enough cash to buy a 51% (controlling) interest in Intel, whose stock price has been pretty flat.
If Apple were to own the company who's selling the CPUs that goes into (almost) all of the PCs, this could invoke a re-write of "Microsoft Won the PC War" history.
-hh
Actually, I see there to be an interesting possibility with your first observation: Apple's closing in on having enough cash to buy a 51% (controlling) interest in Intel, whose stock price has been pretty flat.
If Apple were to own the company who's selling the CPUs that goes into (almost) all of the PCs, this could invoke a re-write of "Microsoft Won the PC War? history.
Would they be allowed to buy a controlling share of Intel, hostile or otherwise? Would they need to, when they seem to get what they need from Imagination Technologies with only 9.5% ownership?
So we have 4 main options here should Apple be a PC CPU designer:
- Build their own CPU that is not x86-compatible.
- Build their own CPU that is x86-compatible.
- Buy AMD, in part or whole.
- Buy Intel, controlling or not.
The first two likely include buying some companies that design and build CPUs, like PA Semi, but that purchase has long been said to regard ARM and not the desktop.I don't really give a hoot as to what Apple designed. What I'm saying very clearly is that the CPU is to slow and often falls flat on its face when faced with demanding work loads. In a nut shell it is a very fast cell phone processor but that isn't exactly an endorsement.