Apple's A5 CPU in iPad 2 has 512MB of RAM, same as iPhone 4 - report

Posted:
in iPad edited January 2014
Though Apple has not officially disclosed how much RAM is found in the iPad 2, a Korean semiconductor analyst has claimed to know that the new A5 processor has 512MB of memory.



Responding to a query about the amount of RAM in the iPad 2, analyst Kakeun Lee claimed on Twitter (via Google Translate) that the new iPad will double the amount of RAM in last year's model. He also revealed that the new A5 processor features LPDDR2 memory, which is a speed boost from the LPDDR1 RAM in the first-generation iPad.



If true, the inclusion of 512MB of RAM confirms reports that the iPad 2 would pack the same amount of memory as the iPhone 4. Analyst Ming-Chi Kuo of Concord Securities also told AppleInsider that the RAM in the iPad 2 would run at a higher clock speed of 1,066MHz for greater memory bandwidth than the 800MHz memory in the iPhone 4.



Kuo also indicated back in January that the iPad 2 would have LPDDR2 RAM at a speed of 1,066MHz, corroborating Lee's more recent claims. Kuo said the memory would be supplied by both Samsung and Hynix.



512MB of RAM would be equal to the amount found in the iPhone 4, released last June. The amount of RAM supposedly in the new iPad is also half of the 1GB found in the Android-powered Motorola Xoom.



Apple prefers to avoid detailing technical specifications of its devices, instead focusing on features and usability. But the company did reveal on Wednesday that the new A5 processor is a custom-designed 1GHz dual-core chip with the same low power consumption as last year's A4.



The report also contradicts what a representative in London demoing the iPad 2 reportedly told Gizmodo: that the new iPad has the same 256MB of RAM as last year's model. However, the site was then told by another public relations person that they couldn't confirm how much RAM is in the new A5 processor.
«13456714

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 266
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Well BS that we need to get this info from a fourth party. Further it is BS in the sense that Apple does publish many specs for the iPads but prefers to screw over the consummer with respect to this one important parameter.



    RAM is very important, if Apple has stayed with 256MB the upgrade would be worthless. From the day it debuted iPad one has suffered from the lack of RAM.
  • Reply 2 of 266
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,520member
    That's an odd way to put it. Is this just strange wording, or is it really the case that the RAM is integrated with the CPU?
  • Reply 3 of 266
    Quote:

    That's an odd way to put it. Is this just strange wording, or is it really the case that the RAM is integrated with the CPU?



    Yes the RAM is integrated into the SOC, so its part of the CPU itself.



    Honestly 512 isn't enough. If I'm buying a new iPad less than a year later, I want it to be able to handle stuff thats more memory intensive than what my phone can do. 1 gig should be the minimum. I'm still buying the new iPad, but 256 isn't enough on the current model, and 512 will soon not be enough on the new one.
  • Reply 4 of 266
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    Well BS that we need to get this info from a fourth party. Further it is BS in the sense that Apple does publish many specs for the iPads but prefers to screw over the consummer with respect to this one important parameter.



    RAM is very important, if Apple has stayed with 256MB the upgrade would be worthless. From the day it debuted iPad one has suffered from the lack of RAM.



    Gosh, imagine how much more I could have used my iPad these past ten months if it only had 512 MBs of RAM, instead of 256.
  • Reply 5 of 266
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post


    That's an odd way to put it. Is this just strange wording, or is it really the case that the RAM is integrated with the CPU?



    Yes the A5 is a system on a chip which includes the high speed RAM.
  • Reply 6 of 266
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Iandanger View Post


    Yes the RAM is integrated into the SOC, so its part of the CPU itself.



    Honestly 512 isn't enough. If I'm buying a new iPad less than a year later, I want it to be able to handle stuff thats more memory intensive than what my phone can do. 1 gig should be the minimum. I'm still buying the new iPad, but 256 isn't enough on the current model, and 512 will soon not be enough on the new one.



    What do you mean - most apps use less than 128 MB when running - iOS is very memory friendly unlike some of these other OS's.
  • Reply 7 of 266
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    Well BS that we need to get this info from a fourth party. Further it is BS in the sense that Apple does publish many specs for the iPads but prefers to screw over the consummer with respect to this one important parameter.



    RAM is very important, if Apple has stayed with 256MB the upgrade would be worthless. From the day it debuted iPad one has suffered from the lack of RAM.



    You speak the BS.



    The iPad has not suffered from a 'lack of ram' - the only complaints I have heard about were Safari related and my understanding is that this was an application tuning issue.



    Otherwise the iPad was fine.
  • Reply 8 of 266
    tipootipoo Posts: 1,154member
    I hope its 1GB and not 512MB, it would be more than enough for today but might lead to quick obsolescence, look at the iPhone 3G running iOS 4.
  • Reply 9 of 266
    mobiusmobius Posts: 380member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Iandanger View Post


    ...Honestly 512 isn't enough. If I'm buying a new iPad less than a year later, I want it to be able to handle stuff thats more memory intensive than what my phone can do. 1 gig should be the minimum. I'm still buying the new iPad, but 256 isn't enough on the current model, and 512 will soon not be enough on the new one.



    What are you basing this statement on?



    Seems to me you're making an assumption about the memory based on what you think is enough. The iPad is far more efficient with memory allocation than PCs or Macs for that matter. There's no point paying for more memory if it won't be needed.
  • Reply 10 of 266
    superbasssuperbass Posts: 688member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Apple prefers to avoid detailing technical specifications of its devices, instead focusing on features and usability.



    Uh, they trumpet the new "dual core 1GHz" A5 chip on the front page of the iPad site, and list basically all of the tech specs under "Tech Specs", except RAM - probably because it's the one area from a hardware standpoint that another device (ie Xoom) clearly outdoes it. Plus the fact that Xoom can both play and output 1080p content while the iPad can digitally output 1080p but can only actually play 720p (cleverly presented by Apple, i must say).



    Anyways, Apple is all about the user experience, so until Android makes some serious improvements that get it up to the level of the iTunes ecosystem, hardware is something of a moot point...
  • Reply 11 of 266
    povilaspovilas Posts: 473member
    People should look more at how it performs and not at the numbers.
  • Reply 12 of 266
    superbasssuperbass Posts: 688member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mobius View Post


    The iPad is far more efficient with memory allocation than PCs or Macs for that matter. There's no point paying for more memory if it won't be needed.



    What are you basing these statements on?
  • Reply 13 of 266
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by markm49uk View Post


    You speak the BS.



    The iPad has not suffered from a 'lack of ram' - the only complaints I have heard about were Safari related and my understanding is that this was an application tuning issue.



    Otherwise the iPad was fine.



    Well, those complaints were pretty significant. I gave up on Safari for the iPad and only use iCab now. The constant reloading of tabs in Safari drove me crazy - and I would suspect that this is due to lack of RAM.
  • Reply 14 of 266
    superbasssuperbass Posts: 688member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RegurgitatedCoprolite View Post


    Gosh, imagine how much more I could have used my iPad these past ten months if it only had 512 MBs of RAM, instead of 256.



    It's more a question of whether you'll be able to use apps written/updated in 2 or 3 years that are designed to run on iOS 5 or 6 or 7.



    The iPhone3 and 3G are both noticeably slower when running iOS4 and extremely slow when running apps that were released for iPhone4. I borrowed a friend's 3G (running iOS4) the other day to send an SMS when my 4 ran out of battery, and it really surprised me; imagine if the Macbook you buy today slows to a crawl when you install Lion later this year or when Pages gets updated next year. I think the iPhone and iPad fall more into "computer" territory than "phone" territory in the way that I expect to be able to run whatever programs come out over the next 3-4 years without feeling that they're too old/too slow technology.



    I don't know if having 1GB vs. 512MB memory means anything right now within iOS4.3, but I'm almost positive it would make a difference when iOS5/6/7 are released.



    From Apple's perspective, it allows them to get under the $500 price point and keep their targeted profit margins, while we can see the Xoom is going to be more expensive, but maybe have more longevity on the per-user basis...
  • Reply 15 of 266
    lukeskymaclukeskymac Posts: 506member
    The Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 seem to do fine with "just" 512MB...
  • Reply 16 of 266
    carniphagecarniphage Posts: 1,984member
    On the iPad, there's RAM consumed by the system, and a larger amount used for frame buffers and OpenGL.



    So doubling the amount of physical RAM will more than double the amount available to applications.



    C.
  • Reply 17 of 266
    noirdesirnoirdesir Posts: 1,027member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Parkettpolitur View Post


    Well, those complaints were pretty significant. I gave up on Safari for the iPad and only use iCab now. The constant reloading of tabs in Safari drove me crazy - and I would suspect that this is due to lack of RAM.



    Yes, it is. And this is probably the most prominent area where you will notice the effect of insufficient RAM (insufficient for what you want to do at that moment, which is holding multiple web pages in RAM).

    But I am hard pressed to offer any other app where you notice this effect. Note that basically all apps are designed with the RAM limitation in mind, thus they are designed to operate well with the existing RAM amount. Web pages however are usually not designed with the RAM limitations of the iPad in mind, for sure some are, but most are not.
  • Reply 18 of 266
    kubekube Posts: 40member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Iandanger View Post


    Yes the RAM is integrated into the SOC, so its part of the CPU itself.



    Honestly 512 isn't enough. If I'm buying a new iPad less than a year later, I want it to be able to handle stuff thats more memory intensive than what my phone can do. 1 gig should be the minimum. I'm still buying the new iPad, but 256 isn't enough on the current model, and 512 will soon not be enough on the new one.



    Although I agree that the current iPad "seems" to need more RAM, its hard to know. My main gripe is in Safari, which, when I go pack a page, seems to waste a lot of time reloading the data. This seems to be more the case since 4.2.



    But two caveats:

    1. The real question is real-world usage. Are there stalls? or is it smooth?

    2. If certain actions slow down, its hard to know the bottleneck.



    It may turn out the the bump from 256 to 512 fixes most bottlenecks. Maybe not. We'll see.



    --

    I a related question. The keynote presentation made a big point about up to a 9x increase in graphics speed and 2x increase in general computation speed. Other than manipulating photogaphic images, where would the graphics speed increase show up?
  • Reply 19 of 266
    onhkaonhka Posts: 1,025member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Superbass View Post


    From Apple's perspective, it allows them to get under the $500 price point and keep their targeted profit margins, while we can see the Xoom is going to be more expensive, but maybe have more longevity on the per-user basis...



    As Steve has said many times, "They just don't get it."



    And neither do you.
  • Reply 20 of 266
    lukeskymaclukeskymac Posts: 506member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Superbass View Post


    Uh, they trumpet the new "dual core 1GHz" A5 chip on the front page of the iPad site, and list basically all of the tech specs under "Tech Specs", except RAM - probably because it's the one area from a hardware standpoint that another device (ie Xoom) clearly outdoes it. Plus the fact that Xoom can both play and output 1080p content while the iPad can digitally output 1080p but can only actually play 720p (cleverly presented by Apple, i must say).



    Anyways, Apple is all about the user experience, so until Android makes some serious improvements that get it up to the level of the iTunes ecosystem, hardware is something of a moot point...



    Apple has never stated the RAM of any of its iDevices on their webpage; not even the iPhone 5's





    And the Xoom doesn't have a 1080p screen, therefore, it doesn't "actually play" 1080p as well.
Sign In or Register to comment.