This SO reminds me of when DEC introduced the Alpha processor to the world. I remember quotes like "only the national debt can't be represented in 32 bits". INTEL ruled then as now and the sheeples that dutifully follow, were caught off guard. Oddly at that time, Microsoft was somewhat of a supporter of the Alpha. I was one of the almost 5000 that attended the Windows NT kickoff where MS had MIPS, Alpha, INTEL machines all running the beta version of NT.
Of course those that are now BEHIND the 8-ball on mobile CPU design are going to say that the A7 is marketing.
Just as everyone followed DEC down the 64path, so will the mobile space.
This guy is a Marketing guy, not a tech. I'm sure he was told exactly what to say. He probably is just confused between 64-bit and Gold. As for the technical and consumer benefits of 64 bit, they are huge. This is only a first step. Does this clown honestly believe that mobile device technology is limited to 1GB of RAM. Jeez dude, can't you see past tomorrow? The mobile device WILL become our desktop of choice. Just image, you set your mobile 64 bit device next to a smart display and all of the sudden your display comes to life, driven by your phone. It's coming. Oh, and your phone conveniently turns into a trackpad.
"At the same time, though, Chandrasekher seemed to hint that Qualcomm ? which supplies the LTE chips used inside Apple's mobile devices ? would itself be rolling out a 64-bit mobile processor at some point in the future.
'From an engineering efficiency standpoint it just makes sense to do that," Chandrasekher said. "Particularly the OS guys will want it at some point in time.' "
He lost me. It's a gimmick "but" from an engineering efficiency standpoint it just makes sense to do it.
Which is it... a gimmick or a sensible thing to do?
Building a 6 lane highway is extremely beneficial. In Los Angeles. In rural Kansas there wouldn't be much need for it and it would probably leave quite a few people scratching their heads as to why someone built it there.
The guy wasn't saying there was zero benefit to 64 bit architecture- he was saying there was zero benefit to 64 bit architecture in Apple's current hardware (his words, not mine).
With slower clock speeds and fewer cores, Apples efficient design gets the least benefit from going to 64-bit than the busier architectures with more cores and higher speeds would. A 32 bit bus can address four times the memory in iPhone. So building a 64 bit bus with their architecture has left a lot of people scratching their heads as to why and from their view the biggest benefit Apple gets from shifting to 64 bit is their fans have something to cheer about and say 'first'
Samsung led the charge in 'more cores and higher clock speeds' Apple is leading the charge in bus bits. Either way, to build faster devices they are eventually both going to go with more cores and higher clock speeds, which will demand a bigger 64 bit bus to support the bit transfers. I don't view any of those as particularly 'amazing' Apple has gone the multi core route, and will eventually bump its clock speed up. You won't find me crying that 'Apple copied Samsung! The thieves!' Similarly when Samsung or Qualcomm go 64 bit I'm not going to feel personally mortified that Samsung has stolen anything from Apple (Question: Why is no one screaming Apple copied Intel by going 64 bit? Answer: Its just not that big 'a deal).
Him saying there was 'zero benefit' to it was a little extreme in my opinion. Clearly there is a benefit- the 5s is one of the leading rocket ships in the phone speed category. It is 'pretty amazing' in its current incarnation but I really think it is largely just setting things up for the next generation of phones.
Obviously Chandrasekher has to downplay the competition, but he couldn't be more wrong. For those who know a little about computer architecture, the following is a great breakdown of the new A7.
Also, beyond just the chip improvements, Apple was able to take advantage of the extra bits in a pointer to help speed up the Objective-C runtime.
Its have been a while since I worked with processor so I forgot lots of details, but when I read this it all came back.
Let just take this statement, from the so called expert from Qualcomm
Quote:
The Qualcomm VP pointed out that 64-bit processors are most useful in addressing memory quantities above 4GB, whereas the iPhone 5s has only 1 gigabyte of RAM. Consumer performance, Chandrasekher noted, would be largely unaffected, as the use cases most in need of 64-bit are large, server-class applications.
Now take the facts from your source
Quote:
It's also important to point out the things that "64-bit" does not refer to, as there's a lot of confusion in this area as well. In particular, "64-bit" does not include:
Physical RAM address size. The number of bits used to actually talk to RAM (and therefore the amount of RAM the hardware can support) is decoupled from the question of CPU bitness. ARM CPUs have ranged from 26 bits to 40 bits, and this can be changed independently from the rest.
Data bus size. The amount of data fetched from RAM or cache is likewise decoupled. Individual CPU instructions may request a certain amount of data, but the amount of data actually fetched can be independent, either by splitting the fetch into smaller parts, or fetching more than is necessary. The iPhone 5 already fetches data from memory in 64-bit chunks, and chunk sizes of up to 192 bits exist in the PC world.
Anything related to floating-point. FPU register size and internal design is independent, and ARM CPUs have had 64-bit FPU registers since well before ARM64.
This idiot from Qualcomm has no clue what he is talking about another example of faking it to you make it, he fake his way all the way to a VP level.
Over time all their own technology inside a Mac might be the plan but I wonder if Apple might not add one of their own A chips to a Mac as well as the Intel and allow some sort of hybrid in the short term.
Apple tends to stay clear of hybrid technology, it's their refrigerator/toaster theory.
Hey Apple Insider, quit placing Chevrolet ads over the articles so your customers can't read the articles without maneuvering around the ads. Your readers deserve better. You have enough ads on your site already. It takes forever for your site to load due to all the ads. Enough is enough! Quit it!
That's a pretty myopic view. Today's mobile device is tomorrow's work device. Apple understands you have to build a foundation and have a critical mass to move the Apple ecosystem forward learning all the way. The full advantage is not what the A7 can do today; it's what it will be doing in 3 years.
Sounds like somebody's nervous. Which I would be too, if I saw someone with Apple's resources and drive starting to vertically-integrate, and doing it well.
CDMA will be around for another decade at least, the future is meaningless when backwards compatibility is still important, not to mention the largest US carrier's backbone is still CDMA, as is China. Whether it's used or not it's included in nearly all multimode modems in phones meaning Qualcomm is getting paid regardless.
I think you misunderstood, Qualcomm owns 21% of LTE, as in 2nd largest patent holder for the technology. Unavoidable again. My assertion? Name one large scale OEM shipping a phone with something other than a Qualcomm modem. Intel just rolled out the XMM7160 that industry folk hope to break into Qualcomm's near monopoly in the space. Marvell also makes one but also largely unproven. Qualcomm is best of breed, and you can bet Apple will continue to use them as well.
Agreed. Qualcomm aint going anywhere. You can't be in the cellphone business and not see some of your money go to Qualcomm. Apple would be stupid, at the very least, to dump Qualcomm based on these comments (even if they don't use Qualcomm CPUs and SoCs, they do use their networking chips, which are the best in the business and will only get better).
it limits the device, especially for things that could be done in the next few years.
What is wrong with you?
chicken and eggs. There's nothing TODAY that demands more than 1gb of ram because there is no idevice with more than 1gb of ram.
What were you doing that demanded more than 256mb of ram?
In what way does it limit the device from an end user perspective.
And to counter your question about 256mb of RAM, What is wrong with you? Why are you demanding only 4GB. Why not 64GB of RAM? Or 256GB of RAM? Or Gazzillion GB of RAM?
Like most things in life, you need to balance out several different consequences. And Apple has decided that 1GB allows them to meet that balance the best. And considering the success they have had (and that their devices have always been best of breed, at least within the first 9 months of release) it seems like they, rather than a pedromartins posting on an AppleInsider forum has a better idea of what that balance is.
Obviously Chandrasekher has to downplay the competition, but he couldn't be more wrong. For those who know a little about computer architecture, the following is a great breakdown of the new A7.
Samsung is selling the ativ book 9 lite (?) for 700 euros. it has 4gb ram and a 128gb ssd. The processor? "samsung quad core", of course. What is that? Of course, coming from samsung, is it just some sort of exynos slow as hell BS, or some sort of AMD processor with samsung branding and "quad core" to fool the usual carcasses that buy galaxy s4?
I have no interest on that POS at all, I own a 2011 macbook air. The point is: If samsung can do it and overprice it, oh boy. Apple can clearly build one hell of a mac for that price.
3x A7, same Air battery (is it 5x bigger than the one on the iPhone?), 4 gb ram, clean OSX (or something iOSside) 128gb ssd 1gb read/write.
Let the intel tax go, make it smaller and/or thinner or put a bigger battery (no intel cpu, no fan), put 4g on the damn thing, 800 euros, 24h battery life and little pedro gets one tomorrow.
Hmm...So Apple should build a device which has 5 times the most expensive component in the iPhone and sell it for the same price as the iPhone.
Adding more RAM than necessary is a surefire way to battery power hell.
Why do people get this wrong all the time! This is not the case in reality. Moving from 1GB DDR2 to 2GB DDR3 can actually result in lowered power consumption (A7 moved to DDR3 whereas A6 was DDR2).
Double the RAM does not have a major impact on battery life. Case in fact, IP4S and IP5 batteries were almost identical mah's but IP5 doubled the 4S 512MB to 1GB.
it limits the device, especially for things that could be done in the next few years.
And those things are what exactly? In a few years, you really should just buy a device better suited to run those "things". That as silly as claiming that Apple should throw in 64GB of RAM and dual octo-core processors in their MacBook Pros because of some amorphous "things" that may need those to run in the future.
Quote:
chicken and eggs. There's nothing TODAY that demands more than 1gb of ram because there is no idevice with more than 1gb of ram.
What were you doing that demanded more than 256mb of ram?
So nothing will use the extra RAM but they should throw it in anyway? 256 MB of RAM on the other hand was quite easy to hit the limits of simply by opening more than a few javascript heavy sites using Safari. What's funny is that if they did so you'd probably come back and whine about how costs went up to add memory you weren't using.
The A7 seems to perform well when tested and it is relatively power thrifty. These are the main points to consider as a buyer. For Apple, moving to 64 bit early will pay off down the line and is one of the advantages of being vertically integrated.
Comments
Of course those that are now BEHIND the 8-ball on mobile CPU design are going to say that the A7 is marketing.
Just as everyone followed DEC down the 64path, so will the mobile space.
"At the same time, though, Chandrasekher seemed to hint that Qualcomm ? which supplies the LTE chips used inside Apple's mobile devices ? would itself be rolling out a 64-bit mobile processor at some point in the future.
'From an engineering efficiency standpoint it just makes sense to do that," Chandrasekher said. "Particularly the OS guys will want it at some point in time.' "
He lost me. It's a gimmick "but" from an engineering efficiency standpoint it just makes sense to do it.
Which is it... a gimmick or a sensible thing to do?
Building a 6 lane highway is extremely beneficial. In Los Angeles. In rural Kansas there wouldn't be much need for it and it would probably leave quite a few people scratching their heads as to why someone built it there.
The guy wasn't saying there was zero benefit to 64 bit architecture- he was saying there was zero benefit to 64 bit architecture in Apple's current hardware (his words, not mine).
With slower clock speeds and fewer cores, Apples efficient design gets the least benefit from going to 64-bit than the busier architectures with more cores and higher speeds would. A 32 bit bus can address four times the memory in iPhone. So building a 64 bit bus with their architecture has left a lot of people scratching their heads as to why and from their view the biggest benefit Apple gets from shifting to 64 bit is their fans have something to cheer about and say 'first'
Samsung led the charge in 'more cores and higher clock speeds' Apple is leading the charge in bus bits. Either way, to build faster devices they are eventually both going to go with more cores and higher clock speeds, which will demand a bigger 64 bit bus to support the bit transfers. I don't view any of those as particularly 'amazing' Apple has gone the multi core route, and will eventually bump its clock speed up. You won't find me crying that 'Apple copied Samsung! The thieves!' Similarly when Samsung or Qualcomm go 64 bit I'm not going to feel personally mortified that Samsung has stolen anything from Apple (Question: Why is no one screaming Apple copied Intel by going 64 bit? Answer: Its just not that big 'a deal).
Him saying there was 'zero benefit' to it was a little extreme in my opinion. Clearly there is a benefit- the 5s is one of the leading rocket ships in the phone speed category. It is 'pretty amazing' in its current incarnation but I really think it is largely just setting things up for the next generation of phones.
Obviously Chandrasekher has to downplay the competition, but he couldn't be more wrong. For those who know a little about computer architecture, the following is a great breakdown of the new A7.
http://www.mikeash.com/pyblog/friday-qa-2013-09-27-arm64-and-you.html
Also, beyond just the chip improvements, Apple was able to take advantage of the extra bits in a pointer to help speed up the Objective-C runtime.
Its have been a while since I worked with processor so I forgot lots of details, but when I read this it all came back.
Let just take this statement, from the so called expert from Qualcomm
Now take the facts from your source
It's also important to point out the things that "64-bit" does not refer to, as there's a lot of confusion in this area as well. In particular, "64-bit" does not include:
This idiot from Qualcomm has no clue what he is talking about another example of faking it to you make it, he fake his way all the way to a VP level.
Over time all their own technology inside a Mac might be the plan but I wonder if Apple might not add one of their own A chips to a Mac as well as the Intel and allow some sort of hybrid in the short term.
Apple tends to stay clear of hybrid technology, it's their refrigerator/toaster theory.
Sounds like somebody's nervous. Which I would be too, if I saw someone with Apple's resources and drive starting to vertically-integrate, and doing it well.
CDMA will be around for another decade at least, the future is meaningless when backwards compatibility is still important, not to mention the largest US carrier's backbone is still CDMA, as is China. Whether it's used or not it's included in nearly all multimode modems in phones meaning Qualcomm is getting paid regardless.
I think you misunderstood, Qualcomm owns 21% of LTE, as in 2nd largest patent holder for the technology. Unavoidable again. My assertion? Name one large scale OEM shipping a phone with something other than a Qualcomm modem. Intel just rolled out the XMM7160 that industry folk hope to break into Qualcomm's near monopoly in the space. Marvell also makes one but also largely unproven. Qualcomm is best of breed, and you can bet Apple will continue to use them as well.
Agreed. Qualcomm aint going anywhere. You can't be in the cellphone business and not see some of your money go to Qualcomm. Apple would be stupid, at the very least, to dump Qualcomm based on these comments (even if they don't use Qualcomm CPUs and SoCs, they do use their networking chips, which are the best in the business and will only get better).
What the f.....???
it limits the device, especially for things that could be done in the next few years.
What is wrong with you?
chicken and eggs. There's nothing TODAY that demands more than 1gb of ram because there is no idevice with more than 1gb of ram.
What were you doing that demanded more than 256mb of ram?
In what way does it limit the device from an end user perspective.
And to counter your question about 256mb of RAM, What is wrong with you? Why are you demanding only 4GB. Why not 64GB of RAM? Or 256GB of RAM? Or Gazzillion GB of RAM?
Like most things in life, you need to balance out several different consequences. And Apple has decided that 1GB allows them to meet that balance the best. And considering the success they have had (and that their devices have always been best of breed, at least within the first 9 months of release) it seems like they, rather than a pedromartins posting on an AppleInsider forum has a better idea of what that balance is.
The entire article is quite heavy on the technical details but I implore everyone to at least the Conclusion section at the end of the blog post..
To the guys talking about an arm macbook air:
Samsung is selling the ativ book 9 lite (?) for 700 euros. it has 4gb ram and a 128gb ssd. The processor? "samsung quad core", of course. What is that? Of course, coming from samsung, is it just some sort of exynos slow as hell BS, or some sort of AMD processor with samsung branding and "quad core" to fool the usual carcasses that buy galaxy s4?
I have no interest on that POS at all, I own a 2011 macbook air. The point is: If samsung can do it and overprice it, oh boy. Apple can clearly build one hell of a mac for that price.
3x A7, same Air battery (is it 5x bigger than the one on the iPhone?), 4 gb ram, clean OSX (or something iOSside) 128gb ssd 1gb read/write.
Let the intel tax go, make it smaller and/or thinner or put a bigger battery (no intel cpu, no fan), put 4g on the damn thing, 800 euros, 24h battery life and little pedro gets one tomorrow.
Hmm...So Apple should build a device which has 5 times the most expensive component in the iPhone and sell it for the same price as the iPhone.
Okay.
Little Pedro needs to go back to his meds.
I am not sure I undersand why he says its a gimmick. If the only benefit is for managing memory above 4gb, then why this:
RAM sucks up a lot of power when idle.
Adding more RAM than necessary is a surefire way to battery power hell.
Why do people get this wrong all the time! This is not the case in reality. Moving from 1GB DDR2 to 2GB DDR3 can actually result in lowered power consumption (A7 moved to DDR3 whereas A6 was DDR2).
Double the RAM does not have a major impact on battery life. Case in fact, IP4S and IP5 batteries were almost identical mah's but IP5 doubled the 4S 512MB to 1GB.
Thinking this guy will be the SVP of Qualcom's mail room soon.
What the f.....???
it limits the device, especially for things that could be done in the next few years.
And those things are what exactly? In a few years, you really should just buy a device better suited to run those "things". That as silly as claiming that Apple should throw in 64GB of RAM and dual octo-core processors in their MacBook Pros because of some amorphous "things" that may need those to run in the future.
chicken and eggs. There's nothing TODAY that demands more than 1gb of ram because there is no idevice with more than 1gb of ram.
What were you doing that demanded more than 256mb of ram?
So nothing will use the extra RAM but they should throw it in anyway? 256 MB of RAM on the other hand was quite easy to hit the limits of simply by opening more than a few javascript heavy sites using Safari. What's funny is that if they did so you'd probably come back and whine about how costs went up to add memory you weren't using.
For Apple, moving to 64 bit early will pay off down the line and is one of the advantages of being vertically integrated.