Slightly off topic... why did Apple start with the name A4? It always throws me off because their naming is skewed from the ARM naming. It would make sense if they started with A1 (i.e. Apple chip 1). As it is, I have to remember A4=A8, A5=A9, (A6=A15?). I know the average user doesn't care, but as a techie and a bit neurotic, it just messes with my head.
People were hopping for the Cortex-A15 on the iPad 3, but we had to settle for the A5x. I wouldn't be all that surprised to see it in the new iPhone, but if someone knows more about this, please share.
The 15 didn't come out for months AFTER the new iPad came out, so it was known that we wouldn't see that.
Slightly off topic... why did Apple start with the name A4? It always throws me off because their naming is skewed from the ARM naming. It would make sense if they started with A1 (i.e. Apple chip 1). As it is, I have to remember A4=A8, A5=A9, (A6=A15?). I know the average user doesn't care, but as a techie and a bit neurotic, it just messes with my head.
Not complaining, just wondering why.
Very often, the first prototype is number 1. The next is number 2. The final release version is whatever number it is. So that could have been the 4th version of the chip, and the one to go to manufacturing.
Numbering doesn't always seem to make sense. It's whatever the manufacturer wants it to be. Who knows, maybe they didn't name it the A1 because they didn't want people to think they were using steak sauce in their devices. That would have been a juicy bit of information, and bloody hard to swallow.
In fact, both ATI and Nvidia are reusing numbers from years ago in their new boards. And have been for some time.
simply put... is there a need for CPU cores? is there anything in iOS6 that would be 'unlocked' by doubling the cores (concurrent processing)?
Games, maybe?
Turn by Turn Directions?
Fly over Mapping?
passbook?
Facetime over broadband?
But for the most part, I don't see the need. I'd rather have engineering putting in NFC/passbook and LTE together in a compelling manner, and/or better phone call quality, and definitely better battery life on the iPhone. more speed? not so much.
simply put... is there a need for CPU cores? is there anything in iOS6 that would be 'unlocked' by doubling the cores (concurrent processing)?
Hmm. It would be tough for a CPU to work without any cores, so yes, it does need them. Oh wait, you mean; more than one core. Ah, well, in theory it doesn't, but with today's OS's and the newest apps, it does need more than one. Most apps don't need more than two, but some will benefit, such as photo editiing, video editing, 3D, CAD, etc.
Games, maybe?
Turn by Turn Directions?
Fly over Mapping?
passbook?
Facetime over broadband?
But for the most part, I don't see the need. I'd rather have engineering putting in NFC/passbook and LTE together in a compelling manner, and/or better phone call quality, and definitely better battery life on the iPhone. more speed? not so much.
Anything that needs more processing power. Remember that they were denying the need for Multicore desktop computers as well. But for multitasking, it's really required. For that, the more cores the better. If Apple is ever going to expand on the methods by which they implement multitasking, 4 cores could be necessary. These new designs use about as much battery power, and in some circumstances less, than the older dual core designs.
Chances of Apple being able to get enough manufacturing for 32nm chips? This is key to quad-corein the next iPhone.
I was thinking the same thing.
A 2.0 GHz quad-core ARM Cortex A15 and PowerVR Series6 G6400 GPU (Apple A6) using a 32 nm process would be amazing!
If I understand correctly, the high-end PowerVR Series6 GPUs (1) are capable of almost triple* half the floating point operations per second of the RSX 'Reality Synthesizer' (2) GPU in the Playstation 3!
According to some fact checking by Techland, DigiTimes has a 20% accuracy rate. (3)
simply put... is there a need for CPU cores? is there anything in iOS6 that would be 'unlocked' by doubling the cores (concurrent processing)?
Games, maybe?
Turn by Turn Directions?
Fly over Mapping?
passbook?
Facetime over broadband?
But for the most part, I don't see the need. I'd rather have engineering putting in NFC/passbook and LTE together in a compelling manner, and/or better phone call quality, and definitely better battery life on the iPhone. more speed? not so much.
Yeah... unless Apple is holding back some great new feature that requires more CPU cores, I can't see a need. 'Course if it has faster ringtones...
I can see them targeting more CPU cores for the next iPad -- and using rejects in the other iDevices!
Samsung makes ALL of Apple's iOS SoC's. They are made in Samsung's sprawling plant in Texas. Apple helped pay for that plant and the equipment. In return, they get additional discounts. What is happening in there now, we can only guess. But the new 28nm chip used in the iPad 2 today, and the new aTv are made there as well.
There is no reliable reason to believe Apple is planning a move soon.
As for Digitimes... they used to have a 50% average, but the past year that's moved down to under 40%.
Still, that's about as good as anyone else. I would be surprised if Apple didn't have a 4 core chip running. Why would they wait until next year, and a new iPad to use it? That would just put them behind a large number of competitors, and when it comes to chips, they don't like that happening.
Also, Apple is proud of their SoC's. They always mention the number of cores in the CPU, the number of cores, and the version of the gpu, and the speed. They don't tell what the RAM is, or discuss details about the chip. Though last year they did mention that the have their own processing module for the camera built into the chip.
oh boy.. sounds like a typical Apple reality distortion batshit.. Where is your proof that Apple helped paid for the Texas plant? Samsung has $20+ billions in cash, though they often issue bonds to cover the cost of building / upgrading plants. So what part of Samsung's annual $10+ billion capital investment comes from Apple - or $40+ billion for 2012 alone? Apple's up-front capital investment in the past was largely to secure volume supply & discount.
Saying the next iPhone will use a quad core CPU is like saying the sun will rise tomorrow or the sky is blue. It's practically a given. Since other phones already have them, Apple is all but guaranteed to have its own by the fall.
Without any technical specs like clock speed or ram, it's not a rumor at all, but just musings. They are right without being specific and irrelevant at the same time.
And does it matter what Apple calls it? A6 or A5XX or A7 (let's just skip A6, why not?). It's all marketing BS to make you think it's better than the previous chip, which it obviously will be. At least with code names people don't argue about a X.0 upgrade versus a 0.X upgrade.
Yeah... unless Apple is holding back some great new feature that requires more CPU cores, I can't see a need. 'Course if it has faster ringtones...
I can see them targeting more CPU cores for the next iPad -- and using rejects in the other iDevices!
I would guess that the following could be improved with an improved chipset:
Battery Life (smaller process leads to lower power consumption which leads to longer life per charge)
Battery Life (faster processor leads to lower power consumption which leads to longer life per charge)
Photorealistic Games
Maps Flyover (not sure if current performance constraints are network or CPU-based)
iPhoto effects
iMovie effects
Encryption/Decryption
Encoding and/or Transcoding
Live Effects such as "Live Apps" or Live Wallpaper
Native Speech Recognition (Dictation)
Native Natural Language Processing (Siri)
Hmm. It would be tough for a CPU to work without any cores, so yes, it does need them. Oh wait, you mean; more than one core. Ah, well, in theory it doesn't, but with today's OS's and the newest apps, it does need more than one. Most apps don't need more than two, but some will benefit, such as photo editiing, video editing, 3D, CAD, etc.
Anything that needs more processing power. Remember that they were denying the need for Multicore desktop computers as well. But for multitasking, it's really required. For that, the more cores the better. If Apple is ever going to expand on the methods by which they implement multitasking, 4 cores could be necessary. These new designs use about as much battery power, and in some circumstances less, than the older dual core designs.
Ahh... expanded multitasking... I forgot about that! I have two uses that would benefit from persistent background tasks:
1) Instant live stock market quotes -- Interactive Brokers, Scottrade
2) Find my iPhone, Find Friends -- people (iDevice) tracking. My grandkids are up in Canada with their Dad. They drove from the Bay Area to Victoria BC. Their mother and I were able to track them all the way... but it was a PITA to keep logging into Find My iPhone. BTW, iOS 6 Apple maps performed well all the way!
These timeout if not frequently used and require a new login. It would be great if a minimal bg task could maintain the connection then awake when:
-- the app is switched active
-- a significant notification is received
I am sure that there other apps that could use this for collaboration, crowd-sourcing, etc.
Of course it is BS... Just like "Retina Displays" which is just a meaningless marketing term ... for a display that has four times the resolution of the average consumer display with 99% accuracy against the Color Gamut Standard ... BS ... If you are reading the competition's talking points.
oh boy.. sounds like a typical Apple reality distortion batshit.. Where is your proof that Apple helped paid for the Texas plant? Samsung has $20+ billions in cash, though they often issue bonds to cover the cost of building / upgrading plants. So what part of Samsung's annual $10+ billion capital investment comes from Apple - or $40+ billion for 2012 alone? Apple's up-front capital investment in the past was largely to secure volume supply & discount.
@melgross you skin this one, and I'll go catch another
Most people expect a quad core to come sooner or later in an iPhone, but will it be in 2012 or 2013 or even later? I think the best indicator for the future CPU is to look backwards. Historically, how much speed increase have we seen from each generation to the next. I realize there are a lot of variable and benchmarks you can use, but you can use averages to get a good idea of what to expect. If the average for the past 5 years was about a 25% speed bump each year, then that is what I would expect for the next iPhone as well.
In the battery vs. performance debate, Apple tends to skew in favor of battery life which is why they underclocked the CPU in the 4S from 1Ghz down to 800 Mhz. If a quad core can have equal to better battery performance as a dual core an also see major gains in speed, I see no reason why Apple would be against using a quad core processor. They won't use it just for the sake of marketing though, it would have to have real world benefits. Given a choice between a dual core that performs about 90% as fast for CPU tasks but gives and extra 2.5 hours of battery life, I think everyone knows what Apple would choose. So how do current quad cores measure up in terms of speed advantages vs. battery efficiency and how efficient is iOS at using multiple cores? That is the question we need to ask and not look for another dart throw from Digitimes.
I would guess that the following could be improved with an improved chipset:
....
Native Speech Recognition (Dictation)
Native Natural Language Processing (Siri)
Siri may be the only thing. Release 1.0 is coming, right? Would apple really keep Siri in beta for over a year?
Pushing more of Siri onto the handset has to be major a goal. Apple has some reputation to restore around Siri, and i suspect that local processing would at least help with some of that annoying lag, if not other functions.
And Siri is very processor and memory intensive, right? So quad core with 1GB of ram might be it.
Wow what a asian version of national equirer for tech. I honestly have never once seen a digitimes rumor to be right not once. Why does any website listen to this rag anymore? The fact is Apple has and always will develop its own version of the arm processor and will never base theres on a design from there bitter enemy and rival samsung and put more of there design in someones hands that Apple believes is ripping off there intellectual property. In fact all industry accounts prove just the opposite. Apple is slowly moving away from samsung oem manufacturing any of there parts.
Also the A5X is already a quad core graphics processor with dual core arm cpu's so its really not a stretch that the A6 will be quad core on both cpus and graphics
And Siri is very processor and memory intensive, right? So quad core with 1GB of ram might be it.
I seriously doubt that encoding your speech and sending the file to a remote server -which is the one doing all the processing- is processor and memory intensive in any way.
Comments
Slightly off topic... why did Apple start with the name A4? It always throws me off because their naming is skewed from the ARM naming. It would make sense if they started with A1 (i.e. Apple chip 1). As it is, I have to remember A4=A8, A5=A9, (A6=A15?). I know the average user doesn't care, but as a techie and a bit neurotic, it just messes with my head.
Not complaining, just wondering why.
The 15 didn't come out for months AFTER the new iPad came out, so it was known that we wouldn't see that.
Very often, the first prototype is number 1. The next is number 2. The final release version is whatever number it is. So that could have been the 4th version of the chip, and the one to go to manufacturing.
Numbering doesn't always seem to make sense. It's whatever the manufacturer wants it to be. Who knows, maybe they didn't name it the A1 because they didn't want people to think they were using steak sauce in their devices. That would have been a juicy bit of information, and bloody hard to swallow.
In fact, both ATI and Nvidia are reusing numbers from years ago in their new boards. And have been for some time.
simply put... is there a need for CPU cores? is there anything in iOS6 that would be 'unlocked' by doubling the cores (concurrent processing)?
Games, maybe?
Turn by Turn Directions?
Fly over Mapping?
passbook?
Facetime over broadband?
But for the most part, I don't see the need. I'd rather have engineering putting in NFC/passbook and LTE together in a compelling manner, and/or better phone call quality, and definitely better battery life on the iPhone. more speed? not so much.
Hmm. It would be tough for a CPU to work without any cores, so yes, it does need them. Oh wait, you mean; more than one core. Ah, well, in theory it doesn't, but with today's OS's and the newest apps, it does need more than one. Most apps don't need more than two, but some will benefit, such as photo editiing, video editing, 3D, CAD, etc.
Anything that needs more processing power. Remember that they were denying the need for Multicore desktop computers as well. But for multitasking, it's really required. For that, the more cores the better. If Apple is ever going to expand on the methods by which they implement multitasking, 4 cores could be necessary. These new designs use about as much battery power, and in some circumstances less, than the older dual core designs.
I was thinking the same thing.
A 2.0 GHz quad-core ARM Cortex A15 and PowerVR Series6 G6400 GPU (Apple A6) using a 32 nm process would be amazing!
If I understand correctly, the high-end PowerVR Series6 GPUs (1) are capable of almost
triple* half the floating point operations per second of the RSX 'Reality Synthesizer' (2) GPU in the Playstation 3!According to some fact checking by Techland, DigiTimes has a 20% accuracy rate. (3)
1. Unattributed. 10 January 2012. Imagination announces first PowerVR Series6 GPU cores. Imagination. Retrieved 5 July 2012.
2. Unattributed. 16 May 2005. SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT INC. TO LAUNCH ITS NEXT GENERATION COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEM,IN SPRING 2006 Unrivaled Performance with the Introduction of Cell Processor and Many Advanced Technologies, andBackwards compatible with PlayStation® and PlayStation®2. Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. Retrieved 5 July 2012.
3. Harry McCraken. Published 14 May, 2012. Fact-Checking Digitimes, the Taiwanese Apple Rumor Source That Keeps Crying ‘Wolf!’. Techland. Retrieved 5 July, 2012.
* The floating point performance of the Playstation 3 is miscalculated on the RSX 'Reality Synthesizer' Wikipedia entry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff
simply put... is there a need for CPU cores? is there anything in iOS6 that would be 'unlocked' by doubling the cores (concurrent processing)?
Games, maybe?
Turn by Turn Directions?
Fly over Mapping?
passbook?
Facetime over broadband?
But for the most part, I don't see the need. I'd rather have engineering putting in NFC/passbook and LTE together in a compelling manner, and/or better phone call quality, and definitely better battery life on the iPhone. more speed? not so much.
Yeah... unless Apple is holding back some great new feature that requires more CPU cores, I can't see a need. 'Course if it has faster ringtones...
I can see them targeting more CPU cores for the next iPad -- and using rejects in the other iDevices!
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Samsung makes ALL of Apple's iOS SoC's. They are made in Samsung's sprawling plant in Texas. Apple helped pay for that plant and the equipment. In return, they get additional discounts. What is happening in there now, we can only guess. But the new 28nm chip used in the iPad 2 today, and the new aTv are made there as well.
There is no reliable reason to believe Apple is planning a move soon.
As for Digitimes... they used to have a 50% average, but the past year that's moved down to under 40%.
Still, that's about as good as anyone else. I would be surprised if Apple didn't have a 4 core chip running. Why would they wait until next year, and a new iPad to use it? That would just put them behind a large number of competitors, and when it comes to chips, they don't like that happening.
Also, Apple is proud of their SoC's. They always mention the number of cores in the CPU, the number of cores, and the version of the gpu, and the speed. They don't tell what the RAM is, or discuss details about the chip. Though last year they did mention that the have their own processing module for the camera built into the chip.
oh boy.. sounds like a typical Apple reality distortion batshit.. Where is your proof that Apple helped paid for the Texas plant? Samsung has $20+ billions in cash, though they often issue bonds to cover the cost of building / upgrading plants. So what part of Samsung's annual $10+ billion capital investment comes from Apple - or $40+ billion for 2012 alone? Apple's up-front capital investment in the past was largely to secure volume supply & discount.
Saying the next iPhone will use a quad core CPU is like saying the sun will rise tomorrow or the sky is blue. It's practically a given. Since other phones already have them, Apple is all but guaranteed to have its own by the fall.
Without any technical specs like clock speed or ram, it's not a rumor at all, but just musings. They are right without being specific and irrelevant at the same time.
And does it matter what Apple calls it? A6 or A5XX or A7 (let's just skip A6, why not?). It's all marketing BS to make you think it's better than the previous chip, which it obviously will be. At least with code names people don't argue about a X.0 upgrade versus a 0.X upgrade.
I would guess that the following could be improved with an improved chipset:
Battery Life (smaller process leads to lower power consumption which leads to longer life per charge)
Battery Life (faster processor leads to lower power consumption which leads to longer life per charge)
Photorealistic Games
Maps Flyover (not sure if current performance constraints are network or CPU-based)
iPhoto effects
iMovie effects
Encryption/Decryption
Encoding and/or Transcoding
Live Effects such as "Live Apps" or Live Wallpaper
Native Speech Recognition (Dictation)
Native Natural Language Processing (Siri)
Just like LTE.
So then it's… not BS…
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Hmm. It would be tough for a CPU to work without any cores, so yes, it does need them. Oh wait, you mean; more than one core. Ah, well, in theory it doesn't, but with today's OS's and the newest apps, it does need more than one. Most apps don't need more than two, but some will benefit, such as photo editiing, video editing, 3D, CAD, etc.
Anything that needs more processing power. Remember that they were denying the need for Multicore desktop computers as well. But for multitasking, it's really required. For that, the more cores the better. If Apple is ever going to expand on the methods by which they implement multitasking, 4 cores could be necessary. These new designs use about as much battery power, and in some circumstances less, than the older dual core designs.
Ahh... expanded multitasking... I forgot about that! I have two uses that would benefit from persistent background tasks:
1) Instant live stock market quotes -- Interactive Brokers, Scottrade
2) Find my iPhone, Find Friends -- people (iDevice) tracking. My grandkids are up in Canada with their Dad. They drove from the Bay Area to Victoria BC. Their mother and I were able to track them all the way... but it was a PITA to keep logging into Find My iPhone. BTW, iOS 6 Apple maps performed well all the way!
These timeout if not frequently used and require a new login. It would be great if a minimal bg task could maintain the connection then awake when:
-- the app is switched active
-- a significant notification is received
I am sure that there other apps that could use this for collaboration, crowd-sourcing, etc.
Of course it is BS... Just like "Retina Displays" which is just a meaningless marketing term ... for a display that has four times the resolution of the average consumer display with 99% accuracy against the Color Gamut Standard ... BS ... If you are reading the competition's talking points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk
oh boy.. sounds like a typical Apple reality distortion batshit.. Where is your proof that Apple helped paid for the Texas plant? Samsung has $20+ billions in cash, though they often issue bonds to cover the cost of building / upgrading plants. So what part of Samsung's annual $10+ billion capital investment comes from Apple - or $40+ billion for 2012 alone? Apple's up-front capital investment in the past was largely to secure volume supply & discount.
@melgross you skin this one, and I'll go catch another
Most people expect a quad core to come sooner or later in an iPhone, but will it be in 2012 or 2013 or even later? I think the best indicator for the future CPU is to look backwards. Historically, how much speed increase have we seen from each generation to the next. I realize there are a lot of variable and benchmarks you can use, but you can use averages to get a good idea of what to expect. If the average for the past 5 years was about a 25% speed bump each year, then that is what I would expect for the next iPhone as well.
In the battery vs. performance debate, Apple tends to skew in favor of battery life which is why they underclocked the CPU in the 4S from 1Ghz down to 800 Mhz. If a quad core can have equal to better battery performance as a dual core an also see major gains in speed, I see no reason why Apple would be against using a quad core processor. They won't use it just for the sake of marketing though, it would have to have real world benefits. Given a choice between a dual core that performs about 90% as fast for CPU tasks but gives and extra 2.5 hours of battery life, I think everyone knows what Apple would choose. So how do current quad cores measure up in terms of speed advantages vs. battery efficiency and how efficient is iOS at using multiple cores? That is the question we need to ask and not look for another dart throw from Digitimes.
TSMC is making 28nm along with GlobalFoundries and Samsung. They have technology partnerships and have been certified by ARM for nearly a quarter.
Siri may be the only thing. Release 1.0 is coming, right? Would apple really keep Siri in beta for over a year?
Pushing more of Siri onto the handset has to be major a goal. Apple has some reputation to restore around Siri, and i suspect that local processing would at least help with some of that annoying lag, if not other functions.
And Siri is very processor and memory intensive, right? So quad core with 1GB of ram might be it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOROM
And Siri is very processor and memory intensive, right? So quad core with 1GB of ram might be it.
I seriously doubt that encoding your speech and sending the file to a remote server -which is the one doing all the processing- is processor and memory intensive in any way.