Rumor: Apple may re-architect iOS to utilize more processor cores ahead of iPhone 6

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 56

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post


    You guys are hilarious; Obviously Apple is trying to play catch-up on Samsung's Quadcores /s



     


    Simply stated...  "It's not the meat -- its the motion!"

  • Reply 42 of 56
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Re-architect? Please, what the heck is wrong with re-designing.  Architect is a noun, not a verb.

    Technically, it can be a verb. However, I agree with you that it's silly pedantry to let the author think he's smarter than everyone else.
  • Reply 43 of 56

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post



    However i'm not even convinced that apples next move will be many core machines.   Instead I see them moving towards 64 bit computing as soon as they can implement a reasonable core.    That might be a quad core machine of maybe not, the important thing is that 64 bit positions Apple with an iOS platform upon which to build upon for years even decades.   Combine the long term goals with the fact that they now have the very best 32 bit ARM implementation going and you have a good argument for a 64 bit move.




    Why? What benefit does 64 bit offer on an iPad or iPhone?



    Obviously, on a desktop system with 4 or 8 or 16 GB of RAM, it's important. Similarly, when the system is manipulating multi-GB images, it can help. But the iDevices generally don't do that kind of heavy lifting and it's not clear that the benefits would outweigh the disadvantages (larger code, more overhead, etc).


     


    How about playing 2K and 4K videos?


     


    www.gottabemobile.com/2012/03/27/10-retina-display-ready-videos-new-ipad-2048-4k-videos/

  • Reply 44 of 56
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,756member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Galbi View Post


    This is to all those fans who said iOS doesnt need "multi-core" CPU to run its OS because its "efficient" and "fast".


     


    Who is talking now?


     


     


     


    The game has certainly changed. What once Apple's boasting about them not "following the market trend", now without Jobs, they are certainly "following the trend".


     


    First, the iPad mini. Many thought within the Apple camp there would NEVER, I repeat NEVER be a smaller iPad. BAM iPad Mini.


     


    Second, there would NEVER be a need for a multi-core CPU chip for the iOS because "its so efficient" BAM. Rumors of a multi-Core chip comming.


     


    Third, there would NEVER be a cheaper iPhone to serve the developing markets (where most of the growth is). BAM. Rumors of a cheaper "plastic" (!!) iPhone. NEVAR!!


     


    And fourth, there would NEVER be a need for a larger iPhone than the 3.5" display as it is "perfect" for one handed use. BAM. iPhone 5 with 4" display.


     


     


    BTW, Apple lost their "iphone" trademark in Brazil today. How ironic.



    BAM.


     


    Do you need to look up the word 'rumor'? BAM. They don't mean shit most of the time. But BAM they give haters wood, so there you go.

  • Reply 45 of 56
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    tulkas wrote: »
    BAM.

    Do you need to look up the word 'rumor'? BAM. They don't mean shit most of the time. But BAM they give haters wood, so there you go.

    He needs to look up "straw man argument", too. Almost all of his (BAM) claims are simple fabrications.
  • Reply 46 of 56
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,653member
    galbi wrote: »
    This is to all those fans who said iOS doesnt need "multi-core" CPU to run its OS because its "efficient" and "fast".

    Who is talking now?



    The game has certainly changed. What once Apple's boasting about them not "following the market trend", now without Jobs, they are certainly "following the trend".

    First, the iPad mini. Many thought within the Apple camp there would NEVER, I repeat NEVER be a smaller iPad. BAM iPad Mini.

    Second, there would NEVER be a need for a multi-core CPU chip for the iOS because "its so efficient" BAM. Rumors of a multi-Core chip comming.

    Third, there would NEVER be a cheaper iPhone to serve the developing markets (where most of the growth is). BAM. Rumors of a cheaper "plastic" (!!) iPhone. NEVAR!!

    And fourth, there would NEVER be a need for a larger iPhone than the 3.5" display as it is "perfect" for one handed use. BAM. iPhone 5 with 4" display.


    BTW, Apple lost their "iphone" trademark in Brazil today. How ironic.

    That loss of the trademark is a bit sad, but unrelated to anything here.

    You are inventing straw men arguments. The OS always could handle mufti threading , and it can distribute the threads to any core it wants including the GPU in some cases. This has always been the case.

    BAM
  • Reply 47 of 56
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    I does make you question the technical abilities of the people working for Appleinsider.   iOS has been multicore friendly for ages now.  



     


    I think people are misreading the article.  It doesn't say "add" multi-core support.  It says add "more cores":


     


    "We think Apple plans to re-architect iOS to utilize more cores..."


     


    The original iOS only supported one core.  I think dual show up in 4.x, and quad in 5.x.  This article seems to be talking about going higher than that.


     


    (Rumors say the Galaxy S4 might be using Samsung's new octo-core chip.)

  • Reply 48 of 56
    emig647emig647 Posts: 2,434member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ontheinside View Post



    GCD was designed to prevent developers from needing to recode their apps to be multithreaded. It's not about support cores. Given iOS is UNIX based, like OS X, it has always supported multiple cores from day one. GCD helps but GCD depends on the kernel. I don't think there has ever been a UNIX kernel that can't cope with as many cores as you can throw at it.



    Yep... we're in a new era where total ignoramuses are writing this crap and all the stupid people are lapping it up. The sad thing is, some of this is now affecting the share price.


     


    Obviously we're talking about diminishing returns. But the scaling on the Mac Pro with 24 threads has been fairly linear. Does that mean we won't see a drop at 25 threads? Who knows, but it will be a damn long time before ARM is in the same boat.

  • Reply 49 of 56

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    It isn't naive at all.   iOS already supports multiple processors just fine The issue of scalability is a problem domain one not an issue for the OS.   By their nature some apps won't scale no matter what you do, that has little to do with the OS or its already strong support for multiple cores.   In essence your position is misleading here because scalability of an app has nothing to do with the OS.   The fact is many apps would take advantage of the additional cores with little to no effort on the part of the developer if a new machine where to come out with more cores.



     


    While scaling is very dependent on the application, the idea that "...scalability of an app has nothing to do with the OS." is absurd. OS-level thread scheduling is still a very active area of research, especially for power conscious systems.  How and when the OS schedules threads, how it handles coherency and sharing, how it manages inter-thread communication and synchronization, how interrupts are handled, how threads/tasks are bound to cores, etc... all can have huge impacts on application performance.


     


    I can't say if Apple is redesigning or re-architecting their multicore thread libraries, but the idea that they are constantly improving them would not be a surprise.

  • Reply 50 of 56

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    It isn't naive at all.   iOS already supports multiple processors just fine The issue of scalability is a problem domain one not an issue for the OS.   By their nature some apps won't scale no matter what you do, that has little to do with the OS or its already strong support for multiple cores.   In essence your position is misleading here because scalability of an app has nothing to do with the OS.   The fact is many apps would take advantage of the additional cores with little to no effort on the part of the developer if a new machine where to come out with more cores.


    Even your reference to Linux is nonsense here.   We aren't talking about installations of hundreds of processors here, we are talking about leveraging multiple cores in cell phone and iPad like devices.   In this context iOS doesn't need much work at all.


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by martinp View Post



    The comments saying iOS will just use all the cores efficiently no matter how many there are, are a little naive. Just because there is some GCD special sauce sprinkled on the system does not mean it will just automatically scale efficiently to large core counts. Most parallel implementations have scalability limitations, and building a sytem that performs well with 2 or 4 cores does not just automatically continue to scale further forever. Look at the constant reworking of the Linux kernel to improve scalability on very large systems. So while that aspect of the article may well be nonsense, it is not necessarily so. :-)


    Even your reference to Linux is nonsense here.   We aren't talking about installations of hundreds of processors here, we are talking about leveraging multiple cores in cell phone and iPad like devices.   In this context iOS doesn't need much work at all.


     


    If Apple where to change the OS at all for future multi core processors it is very likely that such changes would be made to manage power in the overall device.   



     


    Apple has got to compile a new kernel for every new hardware and via the ioreg it's very easy for GDC to adjust itself and scale efficiently without needs for the developers to much care about. For example GDC knows the differences between hyperthreads, multicore and SMP setup, it will maximize processing distribution between cores and CPUs in computers like dual hyperthreaded Xeon, so right now iOS devices still have many years to mature before struggling with GDC efficiency.  Besides, all of this got very little to do with the OS and much more with the development environment, compiler and the code itself. Like most Smalltalk oriented language,  Objective-C has always been multicore friendly.


     


    You can read more about GCD and Blocks here: https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#featuredarticles/BlocksGCD/_index.html

  • Reply 51 of 56
    galbi wrote: »
    This is to all those fans who said iOS doesnt need "multi-core" CPU to run its OS because its "efficient" and "fast".

    Who is talking now?



    The game has certainly changed. What once Apple's boasting about them not "following the market trend", now without Jobs, they are certainly "following the trend".

    First, the iPad mini. Many thought within the Apple camp there would NEVER, I repeat NEVER be a smaller iPad. BAM iPad Mini.

    Second, there would NEVER be a need for a multi-core CPU chip for the iOS because "its so efficient" BAM. Rumors of a multi-Core chip comming.

    Third, there would NEVER be a cheaper iPhone to serve the developing markets (where most of the growth is). BAM. Rumors of a cheaper "plastic" (!!) iPhone. NEVAR!!

    And fourth, there would NEVER be a need for a larger iPhone than the 3.5" display as it is "perfect" for one handed use. BAM. iPhone 5 with 4" display.


    BTW, Apple lost their "iphone" trademark in Brazil today. How ironic.

    The difference is that Apple does those things only if the technology has reached a point where the user experience will not be negatively effected rather than rush something out the door to say they were first. Their implementation is usually better and more polished. No one knows what Apple is going to do next, not you, me or these dingbat analysts. Apple is not going to offer that information so the rumor mill starts cranking. One thing is true, Apple does not do anything to be competitive, they do it to be better.
  • Reply 52 of 56
    galbi wrote: »

    I commend you for taking the time to reply to such posts
  • Reply 53 of 56

    Excellent link: thank you sir!
  • Reply 54 of 56


    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

    I commend you for taking the time to reply to such posts


     


    I don't know why people WANT to be embarrassed and discredited so much. I mean, when they post obvious lies, it's really difficult to chalk it up to unintelligence. People here are smart. Certainly more so than the average otherwise. I hate thread-derailing posts like that, but apparently there's nothing wrong with them.

  • Reply 55 of 56
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    I don't know why people WANT to be embarrassed and discredited so much. I mean, when they post obvious lies, it's really difficult to chalk it up to unintelligence. People here are smart. Certainly more so than the average otherwise. I hate thread-derailing posts like that, but apparently there's nothing wrong with them.

    He claiming that people here have said that iOS doesn't need multi-core support. He's making claims against posters here without providing any proof. That sounds bannable to me, even before we acknowledge that iOS has supported multi-core ARM for years now.
  • Reply 56 of 56

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by KDarling View Post


    (Rumors say the Galaxy S4 might be using Samsung's new octo-core chip.)





    Yes, it would be like 2x4cores that switch of or on depending on the load. These 8 cores might not be the same. Might be 4xA15 plus 4xA7.

     

Sign In or Register to comment.