If the A6 is really quad core, then that must mean that Apple thinks they can make productive use of four cores. They wouldn't make it quad core just for marketing purposes.
So if it really does end up being quad core I'll be very interested to see how Apple ends up making use of all those cores. There's no doubt that iMovie could make use of them. But beyond iMovie, what else would really use quad cores? Would it be useful for a lower power way to play back video? (that is, use all four cores to play back video, but run them at a much lower clock speed?)
Of course, that's assuming we're talking about an iPad. How would four cores end up making sense in a phone? Or maybe Apple would split the line?
Frankly it would not surprise me at all if Apple decides to keep the A6 dual core but with the ability to hit higher clock speeds.
One word - AirPlay Gaming.
And I think the other two cores would not be in use unless a gaming app is turned on and it is trying to stream to tv.
If the A6 is really quad core, then that must mean that Apple thinks they can make productive use of four cores. They wouldn't make it quad core just for marketing purposes.
So if it really does end up being quad core I'll be very interested to see how Apple ends up making use of all those cores. There's no doubt that iMovie could make use of them. But beyond iMovie, what else would really use quad cores? Would it be useful for a lower power way to play back video? (that is, use all four cores to play back video, but run them at a much lower clock speed?)
Of course, that's assuming we're talking about an iPad. How would four cores end up making sense in a phone? Or maybe Apple would split the line?
Frankly it would not surprise me at all if Apple decides to keep the A6 dual core but with the ability to hit higher clock speeds.
They could make each core do different things rather than making use all 4 cores to do things better. Think it like multithreading independence. They could then achieve remote wireless streaming or extended display more efficiently. One core to handle the stream, two to do processing and one for the rest, for example mind.
This is getting very exciting. Imagine what Apple will be doing with chips in a few years... I can see Intel and AMD getting out of 'the unprofitable consumer market' soonand joining HP and IBM, specializing in only enterprise systems ...
If the A6 is really quad core, then that must mean that Apple thinks they can make productive use of four cores. They wouldn't make it quad core just for marketing purposes.
So if it really does end up being quad core I'll be very interested to see how Apple ends up making use of all those cores. There's no doubt that iMovie could make use of them. But beyond iMovie, what else would really use quad cores? Would it be useful for a lower power way to play back video? (that is, use all four cores to play back video, but run them at a much lower clock speed?)
Of course, that's assuming we're talking about an iPad. How would four cores end up making sense in a phone? Or maybe Apple would split the line?
Frankly it would not surprise me at all if Apple decides to keep the A6 dual core but with the ability to hit higher clock speeds.
I'm no programmer, but I think this depends on how the apps are coded and wether the infrastructure of the OS handles multiple cores automatically or not.
For instance I have an 8 Core Mac Pro that's three years old already and the only app (including Apple's built in apps) that uses more than one core is Handbrake, which uses all 7 of them. So the presence of multiple cores doesn't mean they will be used for anything at all if history is any judge.
seems like none of those things require a quad core CPU (better GPU perhaps, but not a quad core CPU).
One other thought occurred to me after my OP -- if Apple were to add high quality and pervasive voice recognition, that could certainly keep another core or two busy.
Yes! voice would do it.
In my response I was thinking displaying HD on the iPad screen while, at the same time, moving and syncing all those pixels to the ATV, or an iMac, another iPad....
I would think that this would be a natural for multiple CPU cores.
If they do provide some sort of FCPX, or FCPX-like apps on the iPad - they should exploit multiple CPU as well as GPU cores.
When FCP 7 runs on a multi-core CPU it gains little improvement -- the extra CPU cores sit idle.
When FCPX runs on a multi-core CPU you can see the parallelism (in activity monitor) -- all cores are maxed out,
The OS X constructs that make this possible, also exist in iOS...
Apple is going with some other company risking quality problems, yield problems, and manufacturing problems just because it has some grudge against Samsung.
I hope the people who run Apple has a business degree because the bottom line is what matters the most, not personal feelings. Business is not about feelings, its about money.
They are going to throw away the mass production capacity and quality control of Samsung's manufacturing prowess for a increasingly strained non-exclusive chip fabricator TSMC?
Yeah, really smart Apple. I hope they feel the pains when they request increases in production capacity. They are in for a rude awakening.
I had to turn mine off. I couldn't take it anymore. I wish there was a middle setting that would just show you the squiggly red line and let you decide, just like Snow Leopard.
I turned it on recently on my iPad just for fun. It's shocking how its tendencies make it hard to distinguish between it's and its. You have to override its decision every time you don't want to say "it's." It's a disaster.
Edit: I see mstone is also on its case. It's terrible. I'll probably turn it off too.
I hope the people who run Apple has a business degree because the bottom line is what matters the most, not personal feelings. Business is not about feelings, its about money.
Well, you know, all those non-business degree guys seem to be doing pretty well with Apple, well, very well, oh, wait - they're one of the absolute top companies in the world. Dang. Think what would have happened if they'd all gotten their degrees!
I had to turn mine off. I couldn't take it anymore. I wish there was a middle setting that would just show you the squiggly red line and let you decide, just like Snow Leopard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
I turned it on recently on my iPad just for fun. It's shocking how its tendencies make it hard to distinguish between it's and its. You have to override its decision every time you don't want to say "it's." It's a disaster.
Edit: I see mstone is also on its case. It's terrible. I'll probably turn it off too.
Mmm... maybe AI forums need a setting for autoTrollBan, or autoDumbPostCorrection...
I wonder if <typeAndCatchFire> has been implemented in HTML 5 yet?
I know Flash supports the stutterAndSpinFan command!
Apple is going with some other company risking quality problems, yield problems, and manufacturing problems just because it has some grudge against Samsung.
I hope the people who run Apple has a business degree because the bottom line is what matters the most, not personal feelings. Business is not about feelings, its about money.
They are going to throw away the mass production capacity and quality control of Samsung's manufacturing prowess for a increasingly strained non-exclusive chip fabricator TSMC?
Yeah, really smart Apple. I hope they feel the pains when they request increases in production capacity. They are in for a rude awakening.
Last I checked, Tim Cook has an MBA from Duke's Fuqua school.
I'm sure that there is some strategy not to give Samsung all of their supplier dollars after Samsung began copying Apple products. But there's also a practical consideration for spreading the supplier dollars around. It can be dangerous to single-source any major component inn a consumer electronics product. The Japanese earthquake-tsunami proved that. Apple was fortunate that their supply chain wasn't that disrupted but they worked very hard behind the scenes to make sure of that. Apple makes tens of millions of their popular products every year. It makes sense to keep two or three component makers in your supply chain in case bad things happen.
I just had deja vu ... didn't we have this exact comment last time they ran this pic?
I don't know if that's true or not ..... but you have to admit it does seem like overkill. wouldn't you agree? It's kinda like when someone will quote the whole 4 or 5 paragraphs in a story .... to make a 1 sentence reply.
Or maybe iPad 5, no wait, iPad 8 ... yea, that's the one or maybe iPad 11, ok, ok, I got it ... iPad 24 ......
When I was younger I waited for the "perfect girl" to come along .... then I found her, only to realize .... she was waiting for the "perfect guy' .... sigh ......!
If the A6 is really quad core, then that must mean that Apple thinks they can make productive use of four cores. They wouldn't make it quad core just for marketing purposes.
I wouldn't put it past them to market the heck out of quad cores.
As to your other concern Apple already has the system structured to make use of all the cores available. That is one of the reasons iPad 2 showd consistently good performance in creases on a dual core chip. Apple has put a lot of thought into this and has supplied programmers with the APIs to leverage future hardware. For example NSOperation has been in iOS since version 2.
Quote:
So if it really does end up being quad core I'll be very interested to see how Apple ends up making use of all those cores.
What does Apple have to do with it? Seriously apps have to be written to exploit the hardware, there is very little for Apple to do. IOS underneath is a very UNIX'y environment much of the system load would be balanced across those cores already as part of the normal operation of the kernel.
From the perspective of Apple or the app developer the tools to make use of these cores has steadily expanded. For example iOS4 introduced Grand Central Dispatch. The tools are there, further some methods of implementation mean automatic usage of the available cores.
I know this is long winded but my point is Apple is actually ahead of the game here software wise. They have introduced concepts from Mac OS well before the hardware became available. When you start up an iPad 3 with four cores (if it exists) you will see many apps performing much better if they have embraced Apples APIs and recommendations.
Quote:
There's no doubt that iMovie could make use of them. But beyond iMovie, what else would really use quad cores? Would it be useful for a lower power way to play back video? (that is, use all four cores to play back video, but run them at a much lower clock speed?)
I get really frustrated when I see this question in either context (iOS or MacOS). First off due to the nature of video it is best handled in hardware!
As to other apps well you need to get a grip on the concept here. Almost any app has the potential to use all of those cores. Which do and how often is a question of program design and user input. Frankly I really don't understand people's obsession with this question because honestly how often is a dual core machine using all of it's cores.
Think about it, as you type away on an iPad how loaded are those cores or core. Maybe you are using 5% of the total capability typing with huge bursts of activity when doing something more demanding.
Quote:
Of course, that's assuming we're talking about an iPad. How would four cores end up making sense in a phone? Or maybe Apple would split the line?
I suspect that the SoC line will split soon with tablets getting the more powerful versions. It only makes sense, you wouldn't want tablets held back to keep phones running cool.
Quote:
Frankly it would not surprise me at all if Apple decides to keep the A6 dual core but with the ability to hit higher clock speeds.
It isn't clear to me what will happen other than a huge overhaul is needed to support Retina displays. That means paying attention to cache sizes, data transfer rates and the GPU. Provided that they can do that in the allocated space it might make sense to add more ARM cores rather than to crank power up with high clock rates.
To that end I'd suggest that you download XCode and the API documentation and read up on the facilities available in iOS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastdoor
seems like none of those things require a quad core CPU (better GPU perhaps, but not a quad core CPU).
Nothing requires anything more than a single core, if you don't care about responsiveness. Hell I can remember programming my old Mac Plus to solve a problem and waiting hours for an answer.
Quote:
One other thought occurred to me after my OP -- if Apple were to add high quality and pervasive voice recognition, that could certainly keep another core or two busy.
Maybe maybe not, it all depends upon how many turn it on. However you need to realize keeping all of those cores busy is exactly what you don't want to do. Busy cores are cores that eat up your battery capacity. Rather you want those cores to execute small bits of an app and go inactive as fast as possible.
The thing to grasp here is that the cores are there to provide the highest possible amount of responstivity in a app and at the same time minimize power draw.
Or maybe iPad 5, no wait, iPad 8 ... yea, that's the one or maybe iPad 11, ok, ok, I got it ... iPad 24 ......
When I was younger I waited for the "perfect girl" to come along .... then I found her, only to realize .... she was waiting for the "perfect guy' .... sigh ......!
If the A6 is really quad core, then that must mean that Apple thinks they can make productive use of four cores. They wouldn't make it quad core just for marketing purposes.
So if it really does end up being quad core I'll be very interested to see how Apple ends up making use of all those cores. There's no doubt that iMovie could make use of them. But beyond iMovie, what else would really use quad cores? Would it be useful for a lower power way to play back video? (that is, use all four cores to play back video, but run them at a much lower clock speed?)
Of course, that's assuming we're talking about an iPad. How would four cores end up making sense in a phone? Or maybe Apple would split the line?
Frankly it would not surprise me at all if Apple decides to keep the A6 dual core but with the ability to hit higher clock speeds.
Yeah, I just finished a 30 minute iMovie home "movie". The software is barely useable at that level, having to wait while finger keystrokes catch up in the processor. If Apple decides to significantly upgrade iMovie for the ipad3, then a significant increase in speed is called for. I assume Final Cut X is Apple's vision of being eventually available on ipads. Already Hollywood likes the use of ipads in film production right on the set, so this makes sense to try to develop a quad-core (or whatever) increase in processor speed.
Could you possibly use a larger photo of the previous generation chip to the one talked about in the story next time. I couldn't quite make out each individual atom in the one you posted.
I'm no programmer, but I think this depends on how the apps are coded and wether the infrastructure of the OS handles multiple cores automatically or not.
This much is true. An app has to be coded the right way to leverage the cores in a system. Further the OS needs to support the usage of those cores.
Quote:
For instance I have an 8 Core Mac Pro that's three years old already and the only app (including Apple's built in apps) that uses more than one core is Handbrake, which uses all 7 of them. So the presence of multiple cores doesn't mean they will be used for anything at all if history is any judge.
This is the part that is nonsense!!!!!
First off open up Activity Monitor and tell me how many processes use only one thread. Finder list 6 threads, iTunes - 9, QuickTime player - 8, Safari runs 9 idle plus two other associated processes from a fresh start with no Internet connection. Run Flash and Safari will have another process running for that.
I keep seeing this crap from so many people that it is just redicoulus on the face of it. Really think about it, you open up E-Mail and start reading a message while the rest of the mail downloads in background. Heck you might respond to a message and be typing away with a spell checker running in background. All of this requires threading and those threads will get thrown across different processors as needed. If you remember back to the day that Apple tied in the NSOperation family with Grand Central Dispatch mail got an immediate performance boost due to operations being spread across cores.
Almost every App that Apple supplies benfits from cores to some extent or another. This has been true for sometime now with many apps gaining significantly with Snow Leopard. This is not to say that serial bits of code do not exist just that use of those extra cores does not imply saturation of those cores. Apps like Handbrake are the exception to the rule, most gains from threading occur with threads that unevenly take load from the main thread.
Look at it this way more cores means fewer CPU bottle necks. Just as a SATA SSD removes storage bottle necks it does not imply that the SATA channel is saturated all the time. For many users they make use of that SATA channel bandwidth sporadically but when they do use it it makes a big difference. Same thing with cores, when put to use they can have a big impact on performance of an app.
This much is true. An app has to be coded the right way to leverage the cores in a system. Further the OS needs to support the usage of those cores.
This is the part that is nonsense!!!!!
First off open up Activity Monitor and tell me how many processes use only one thread. Finder list 6 threads, iTunes - 9, QuickTime player - 8, Safari runs 9 idle plus two other associated processes from a fresh start with no Internet connection. Run Flash and Safari will have another process running for that.
I am not sure what all is required to use the cores effectively. I don't usually have any problems with processes taking too long except in a few circumstances. For example when I am rendering a movie in FCP, why can't it use 100% of all 8 cores? It doesn't even come close maybe 50% if I'm lucky. Secondly Safari goes into beach ball mode far too often but is not using any significant amount of CPU % when it does.
Comments
If the A6 is really quad core, then that must mean that Apple thinks they can make productive use of four cores. They wouldn't make it quad core just for marketing purposes.
So if it really does end up being quad core I'll be very interested to see how Apple ends up making use of all those cores. There's no doubt that iMovie could make use of them. But beyond iMovie, what else would really use quad cores? Would it be useful for a lower power way to play back video? (that is, use all four cores to play back video, but run them at a much lower clock speed?)
Of course, that's assuming we're talking about an iPad. How would four cores end up making sense in a phone? Or maybe Apple would split the line?
Frankly it would not surprise me at all if Apple decides to keep the A6 dual core but with the ability to hit higher clock speeds.
One word - AirPlay Gaming.
And I think the other two cores would not be in use unless a gaming app is turned on and it is trying to stream to tv.
If the A6 is really quad core, then that must mean that Apple thinks they can make productive use of four cores. They wouldn't make it quad core just for marketing purposes.
So if it really does end up being quad core I'll be very interested to see how Apple ends up making use of all those cores. There's no doubt that iMovie could make use of them. But beyond iMovie, what else would really use quad cores? Would it be useful for a lower power way to play back video? (that is, use all four cores to play back video, but run them at a much lower clock speed?)
Of course, that's assuming we're talking about an iPad. How would four cores end up making sense in a phone? Or maybe Apple would split the line?
Frankly it would not surprise me at all if Apple decides to keep the A6 dual core but with the ability to hit higher clock speeds.
They could make each core do different things rather than making use all 4 cores to do things better. Think it like multithreading independence. They could then achieve remote wireless streaming or extended display more efficiently. One core to handle the stream, two to do processing and one for the rest, for example mind.
This is getting very exciting. Imagine what Apple will be doing with chips in a few years... I can see Intel and AMD getting out of 'the unprofitable consumer market' soonand joining HP and IBM, specializing in only enterprise systems ...
nonsense. I LOLed.
If the A6 is really quad core, then that must mean that Apple thinks they can make productive use of four cores. They wouldn't make it quad core just for marketing purposes.
So if it really does end up being quad core I'll be very interested to see how Apple ends up making use of all those cores. There's no doubt that iMovie could make use of them. But beyond iMovie, what else would really use quad cores? Would it be useful for a lower power way to play back video? (that is, use all four cores to play back video, but run them at a much lower clock speed?)
Of course, that's assuming we're talking about an iPad. How would four cores end up making sense in a phone? Or maybe Apple would split the line?
Frankly it would not surprise me at all if Apple decides to keep the A6 dual core but with the ability to hit higher clock speeds.
I'm no programmer, but I think this depends on how the apps are coded and wether the infrastructure of the OS handles multiple cores automatically or not.
For instance I have an 8 Core Mac Pro that's three years old already and the only app (including Apple's built in apps) that uses more than one core is Handbrake, which uses all 7 of them. So the presence of multiple cores doesn't mean they will be used for anything at all if history is any judge.
seems like none of those things require a quad core CPU (better GPU perhaps, but not a quad core CPU).
One other thought occurred to me after my OP -- if Apple were to add high quality and pervasive voice recognition, that could certainly keep another core or two busy.
Yes! voice would do it.
In my response I was thinking displaying HD on the iPad screen while, at the same time, moving and syncing all those pixels to the ATV, or an iMac, another iPad....
I would think that this would be a natural for multiple CPU cores.
If they do provide some sort of FCPX, or FCPX-like apps on the iPad - they should exploit multiple CPU as well as GPU cores.
When FCP 7 runs on a multi-core CPU it gains little improvement -- the extra CPU cores sit idle.
When FCPX runs on a multi-core CPU you can see the parallelism (in activity monitor) -- all cores are maxed out,
The OS X constructs that make this possible, also exist in iOS...
I hope the people who run Apple has a business degree because the bottom line is what matters the most, not personal feelings. Business is not about feelings, its about money.
They are going to throw away the mass production capacity and quality control of Samsung's manufacturing prowess for a increasingly strained non-exclusive chip fabricator TSMC?
Yeah, really smart Apple. I hope they feel the pains when they request increases in production capacity. They are in for a rude awakening.
IPad autocorrect, actually.
I had to turn mine off. I couldn't take it anymore. I wish there was a middle setting that would just show you the squiggly red line and let you decide, just like Snow Leopard.
IPad autocorrect, actually.
I turned it on recently on my iPad just for fun. It's shocking how its tendencies make it hard to distinguish between it's and its. You have to override its decision every time you don't want to say "it's." It's a disaster.
Edit: I see mstone is also on its case. It's terrible. I'll probably turn it off too.
I hope the people who run Apple has a business degree because the bottom line is what matters the most, not personal feelings. Business is not about feelings, its about money.
Well, you know, all those non-business degree guys seem to be doing pretty well with Apple, well, very well, oh, wait - they're one of the absolute top companies in the world. Dang. Think what would have happened if they'd all gotten their degrees!
IPad autocorrect, actually.
I had to turn mine off. I couldn't take it anymore. I wish there was a middle setting that would just show you the squiggly red line and let you decide, just like Snow Leopard.
I turned it on recently on my iPad just for fun. It's shocking how its tendencies make it hard to distinguish between it's and its. You have to override its decision every time you don't want to say "it's." It's a disaster.
Edit: I see mstone is also on its case. It's terrible. I'll probably turn it off too.
Mmm... maybe AI forums need a setting for autoTrollBan, or autoDumbPostCorrection...
I wonder if <typeAndCatchFire> has been implemented in HTML 5 yet?
I know Flash supports the stutterAndSpinFan command!
Apple is going with some other company risking quality problems, yield problems, and manufacturing problems just because it has some grudge against Samsung.
I hope the people who run Apple has a business degree because the bottom line is what matters the most, not personal feelings. Business is not about feelings, its about money.
They are going to throw away the mass production capacity and quality control of Samsung's manufacturing prowess for a increasingly strained non-exclusive chip fabricator TSMC?
Yeah, really smart Apple. I hope they feel the pains when they request increases in production capacity. They are in for a rude awakening.
Last I checked, Tim Cook has an MBA from Duke's Fuqua school.
I'm sure that there is some strategy not to give Samsung all of their supplier dollars after Samsung began copying Apple products. But there's also a practical consideration for spreading the supplier dollars around. It can be dangerous to single-source any major component inn a consumer electronics product. The Japanese earthquake-tsunami proved that. Apple was fortunate that their supply chain wasn't that disrupted but they worked very hard behind the scenes to make sure of that. Apple makes tens of millions of their popular products every year. It makes sense to keep two or three component makers in your supply chain in case bad things happen.
I just had deja vu ... didn't we have this exact comment last time they ran this pic?
I don't know if that's true or not ..... but you have to admit it does seem like overkill. wouldn't you agree? It's kinda like when someone will quote the whole 4 or 5 paragraphs in a story .... to make a 1 sentence reply.
Nah. iPad 4 would be the one to wait for.
Or maybe iPad 5, no wait, iPad 8 ... yea, that's the one or maybe iPad 11, ok, ok, I got it ... iPad 24 ......
When I was younger I waited for the "perfect girl" to come along .... then I found her, only to realize .... she was waiting for the "perfect guy' .... sigh ......!
If the A6 is really quad core, then that must mean that Apple thinks they can make productive use of four cores. They wouldn't make it quad core just for marketing purposes.
I wouldn't put it past them to market the heck out of quad cores.
As to your other concern Apple already has the system structured to make use of all the cores available. That is one of the reasons iPad 2 showd consistently good performance in creases on a dual core chip. Apple has put a lot of thought into this and has supplied programmers with the APIs to leverage future hardware. For example NSOperation has been in iOS since version 2.
So if it really does end up being quad core I'll be very interested to see how Apple ends up making use of all those cores.
What does Apple have to do with it? Seriously apps have to be written to exploit the hardware, there is very little for Apple to do. IOS underneath is a very UNIX'y environment much of the system load would be balanced across those cores already as part of the normal operation of the kernel.
From the perspective of Apple or the app developer the tools to make use of these cores has steadily expanded. For example iOS4 introduced Grand Central Dispatch. The tools are there, further some methods of implementation mean automatic usage of the available cores.
I know this is long winded but my point is Apple is actually ahead of the game here software wise. They have introduced concepts from Mac OS well before the hardware became available. When you start up an iPad 3 with four cores (if it exists) you will see many apps performing much better if they have embraced Apples APIs and recommendations.
There's no doubt that iMovie could make use of them. But beyond iMovie, what else would really use quad cores? Would it be useful for a lower power way to play back video? (that is, use all four cores to play back video, but run them at a much lower clock speed?)
I get really frustrated when I see this question in either context (iOS or MacOS). First off due to the nature of video it is best handled in hardware!
As to other apps well you need to get a grip on the concept here. Almost any app has the potential to use all of those cores. Which do and how often is a question of program design and user input. Frankly I really don't understand people's obsession with this question because honestly how often is a dual core machine using all of it's cores.
Think about it, as you type away on an iPad how loaded are those cores or core. Maybe you are using 5% of the total capability typing with huge bursts of activity when doing something more demanding.
Of course, that's assuming we're talking about an iPad. How would four cores end up making sense in a phone? Or maybe Apple would split the line?
I suspect that the SoC line will split soon with tablets getting the more powerful versions. It only makes sense, you wouldn't want tablets held back to keep phones running cool.
Frankly it would not surprise me at all if Apple decides to keep the A6 dual core but with the ability to hit higher clock speeds.
It isn't clear to me what will happen other than a huge overhaul is needed to support Retina displays. That means paying attention to cache sizes, data transfer rates and the GPU. Provided that they can do that in the allocated space it might make sense to add more ARM cores rather than to crank power up with high clock rates.
seems like none of those things require a quad core CPU (better GPU perhaps, but not a quad core CPU).
Nothing requires anything more than a single core, if you don't care about responsiveness. Hell I can remember programming my old Mac Plus to solve a problem and waiting hours for an answer.
One other thought occurred to me after my OP -- if Apple were to add high quality and pervasive voice recognition, that could certainly keep another core or two busy.
Maybe maybe not, it all depends upon how many turn it on. However you need to realize keeping all of those cores busy is exactly what you don't want to do. Busy cores are cores that eat up your battery capacity. Rather you want those cores to execute small bits of an app and go inactive as fast as possible.
The thing to grasp here is that the cores are there to provide the highest possible amount of responstivity in a app and at the same time minimize power draw.
Or maybe iPad 5, no wait, iPad 8 ... yea, that's the one or maybe iPad 11, ok, ok, I got it ... iPad 24 ......
When I was younger I waited for the "perfect girl" to come along .... then I found her, only to realize .... she was waiting for the "perfect guy' .... sigh ......!
It worked out... We found each other
Edit: The girl and I... not you and I
If the A6 is really quad core, then that must mean that Apple thinks they can make productive use of four cores. They wouldn't make it quad core just for marketing purposes.
So if it really does end up being quad core I'll be very interested to see how Apple ends up making use of all those cores. There's no doubt that iMovie could make use of them. But beyond iMovie, what else would really use quad cores? Would it be useful for a lower power way to play back video? (that is, use all four cores to play back video, but run them at a much lower clock speed?)
Of course, that's assuming we're talking about an iPad. How would four cores end up making sense in a phone? Or maybe Apple would split the line?
Frankly it would not surprise me at all if Apple decides to keep the A6 dual core but with the ability to hit higher clock speeds.
Yeah, I just finished a 30 minute iMovie home "movie". The software is barely useable at that level, having to wait while finger keystrokes catch up in the processor. If Apple decides to significantly upgrade iMovie for the ipad3, then a significant increase in speed is called for. I assume Final Cut X is Apple's vision of being eventually available on ipads. Already Hollywood likes the use of ipads in film production right on the set, so this makes sense to try to develop a quad-core (or whatever) increase in processor speed.
Could you possibly use a larger photo of the previous generation chip to the one talked about in the story next time. I couldn't quite make out each individual atom in the one you posted.
lol x2
I'm no programmer, but I think this depends on how the apps are coded and wether the infrastructure of the OS handles multiple cores automatically or not.
This much is true. An app has to be coded the right way to leverage the cores in a system. Further the OS needs to support the usage of those cores.
For instance I have an 8 Core Mac Pro that's three years old already and the only app (including Apple's built in apps) that uses more than one core is Handbrake, which uses all 7 of them. So the presence of multiple cores doesn't mean they will be used for anything at all if history is any judge.
This is the part that is nonsense!!!!!
First off open up Activity Monitor and tell me how many processes use only one thread. Finder list 6 threads, iTunes - 9, QuickTime player - 8, Safari runs 9 idle plus two other associated processes from a fresh start with no Internet connection. Run Flash and Safari will have another process running for that.
I keep seeing this crap from so many people that it is just redicoulus on the face of it. Really think about it, you open up E-Mail and start reading a message while the rest of the mail downloads in background. Heck you might respond to a message and be typing away with a spell checker running in background. All of this requires threading and those threads will get thrown across different processors as needed. If you remember back to the day that Apple tied in the NSOperation family with Grand Central Dispatch mail got an immediate performance boost due to operations being spread across cores.
Almost every App that Apple supplies benfits from cores to some extent or another. This has been true for sometime now with many apps gaining significantly with Snow Leopard. This is not to say that serial bits of code do not exist just that use of those extra cores does not imply saturation of those cores. Apps like Handbrake are the exception to the rule, most gains from threading occur with threads that unevenly take load from the main thread.
Look at it this way more cores means fewer CPU bottle necks. Just as a SATA SSD removes storage bottle necks it does not imply that the SATA channel is saturated all the time. For many users they make use of that SATA channel bandwidth sporadically but when they do use it it makes a big difference. Same thing with cores, when put to use they can have a big impact on performance of an app.
This much is true. An app has to be coded the right way to leverage the cores in a system. Further the OS needs to support the usage of those cores.
This is the part that is nonsense!!!!!
First off open up Activity Monitor and tell me how many processes use only one thread. Finder list 6 threads, iTunes - 9, QuickTime player - 8, Safari runs 9 idle plus two other associated processes from a fresh start with no Internet connection. Run Flash and Safari will have another process running for that.
I am not sure what all is required to use the cores effectively. I don't usually have any problems with processes taking too long except in a few circumstances. For example when I am rendering a movie in FCP, why can't it use 100% of all 8 cores? It doesn't even come close maybe 50% if I'm lucky. Secondly Safari goes into beach ball mode far too often but is not using any significant amount of CPU % when it does.