Here is another fact for you, every iOS app gets compiled t run on i86 if the developer runs that App on the simulator.
I'm not saying you're wrong as I really don't know either way but that seems counterintuitive to me. Compiling for x86 could introduce new issues and not weed out any AArch issues. I'd think it would compile for AArch with Simulator iOS being an emulator app.
A7 already appears to be a lower power device so just on that basis I can see it in the next Mini.
In the next iPad Mini? The one due out next week to the next few months? That seems like an unlikely timeframe to me. I agree with previous poster that it's still years away in terms of equatable performance and SW before this would be feasible.
The A7 and Arm cpus are closing fast at 100% improvements per year. vs Current Intel cpu improvement rates.
That 100% improvement per year won't last long, however A7 is looking to be an extraordinary advancement for Apple. Mind you this excellent result happens at 1.3 GHz, since many foundries have been demonstrating running ARM cores at well above 2GHz, there is no telling how fast Apple can run the A7. Add a bit more I/O, possibly in the A7X variant, and the processor could power a wide range of hardware.
Many people have been comparing core performance to Intel hardware, more so Intels top end hardware! The problem is this, A7 already out performs ATOM and probably a number of AMD chips. It is a leading processor considering its real competition. Could it power other devices at a higher clock rate? That is almost a certainty, for Apple it means far lower cost devices at very good margins.
What this means now or next year or two years time...?
It is up to Apple really but let look at it this way, they have options. Options gives them leverage with the likes of Intel.
I'm not saying you're wrong as I really don't know either way but that seems counterintuitive to me.
I'm not sure why you think that. On suggestion; Apples developer materials are free, take a look at XCode and the SDK documentation. They hide very little from developers for released materials. They have lots of options. Further they have yet to really leverage everything that LLVM and CLang can do or them.
Compiling for x86 could introduce new issues and not weed out any AArch issues.
Actually it does introduce issues, some of which may be gotchas. For example simulator apps have access to more RAM.
I'd think it would compile for AArch with Simulator iOS being an emulator app.
I’d say expect A6X in the retina mini unless the A7’s GPU performs better.
I see a lot of people assuming that the A7 (not A7X) could drive a retina iPad without any problem based on some raw GPU benchmarks that shows the A7 performing better than the A6X.
Well I'm not so sure about that. I'm not a GPU expert, but I don't think that pushing 4x the number of polygons is the same thing as pushing 4x the number of pixels. The latter might require more parallel processing in the form of a multi-core GPU, such as the ones found in the A6X (or A7X).
An A7 could perform worse than an A6X if it runs into bottleneck issues because of the large number of pixels it has to push on an iPad.
In the next iPad Mini? The one due out next week to the next few months?
Next week is a possibility. That would be an iPad Mini.
That seems like an unlikely timeframe to me. I agree with previous poster that it's still years away in terms of equatable performance and SW before this would be feasible.
The chip already runs at a low enough power level to drive an iPhone so that issue seems to be solved. I'm not sure what you mean by equatable performance as the A7 whips the older A series chips in almost every way. As for software A7 is already fully exploited by iOS and for the most part old apps run fine on the chip.
By the way the strongest motivation for Apple here is marketing. Being able to say they have already transitioned all of their tablets to 64 bits is marketing gold. It will give Apple a comfortable lead for a year or more.
I see a lot of people assuming that the A7 (not A7X) could drive a retina iPad without any problem based on some raw GPU benchmarks that shows the A7 performing better than the A6X.
Actually the GPU isn't an overall win.
Well I'm not so sure about that. I'm not a GPU expert, but I don't think that pushing 4x the number of polygons is the same thing as pushing 4x the number of pixels. The latter might require more parallel processing in the form of a multi-core GPU, such as the ones found in the A6X (or A7X).
The behavior of the processor would vary with apps. Beyond that Apple could easily change the clock rate of the GPU cores in the A7 as opposed to making an A7X. The discussion is frankly a little premature considering nothing has shipped yet. The A7 however brings a lot to the performance table with only a few regressions in the GPU. How much the more dramatic the other GPU improvements are, have already been seen in many apps so it looks like Apple has seen a good balance of improvements. Beyond all of this you have to understand that a Retina in a Mini might not mean a 2X density increase in pixels.
An A7 could perform worse than an A6X if it runs into bottleneck issues because of the large number of pixels it has to push on an iPad.
It could no doubt, but Apple wouldn't put a plan into place that resulted in dramatic reductions in iPad Mini performance. Just see an overall potential increase in performance with A7, and the value of moving to 64 bit as soon as possible.
As an aside there is some mystery with respect to a RAM array embedded in A7, some of us think it is a frame buffer to support the GPUs. Apple could resize that array for other screen sizes. This might not yield an A7X but maybe an A7-0.5X. Of course this is guess work but the point is there are many ways to address A7 processors in a Mini.
Maybe they'll drop the price of the models that are in "good inventory" while they come out with newer models to replace the existing ones at the current prices? Just a possibility, but not a high probability.
It is a high probability for the mini. That is exactly what they do for the larger iPads and see no reason why they won't keep the current mini around and lower the price point. That allows them to go down market with a known good product that has been value engineered to lower COGS, etc. So not only do we get a new and better mini, but we get the current one at a new lower price. So the 1st gen mini will probably be around the price everyone though Apple had to hit under $300 to be a success. Of course Apple did just fine at the current price, but they will do even better expanding the total addressable market for iPad with a lower priced entry model.
Next week is a possibility. That would be an iPad Mini.
The chip already runs at a low enough power level to drive an iPhone so that issue seems to be solved. I'm not sure what you mean by equatable performance as the A7 whips the older A series chips in almost every way. As for software A7 is already fully exploited by iOS and for the most part old apps run fine on the chip.
By the way the strongest motivation for Apple here is marketing. Being able to say they have already transitioned all of their tablets to 64 bits is marketing gold. It will give Apple a comfortable lead for a year or more.
I thought you were referring to the Mac Mini with the A7 on the next release hence my comment despite writing iPad Mini in my reply. My bad.
As for A7 next week in the iPad Mini it's possible but I don't recall Apple even jumping a generation in an iDevice. The closest example is the iPod Touch but it also skipped a year of being updated so it still maintained the A-chip that was behind the iPhone.
I'd think Apple would do the same thing with the iPad Mini to the iPad otherwise why even start a generation behind in the first place. Clearly they are planning these updates year in advance.
That leads be to believe the most likely outcome for a Retina iPad Mini this year will be an A6X.
I see a lot of people assuming that the A7 (not A7X) could drive a retina iPad without any problem based on some raw GPU benchmarks that shows the A7 performing better than the A6X.
Well I'm not so sure about that. I'm not a GPU expert, but I don't think that pushing 4x the number of polygons is the same thing as pushing 4x the number of pixels. The latter might require more parallel processing in the form of a multi-core GPU, such as the ones found in the A6X (or A7X).
An A7 could perform worse than an A6X if it runs into bottleneck issues because of the large number of pixels it has to push on an iPad.
I read comments often how the GPU is good enough for a Retina display but I rarely does anyone address the important factor regarding memory bandwidth.
Doesn't the iPad mini have the same pixel count as the iPad 2?
If Apple were to introduce a Retina iPad mini, I assume it would have the same pixel count as the bigger Retina iPad. This means a higher resolution screen for the mini. I wonder if such screens are available and what they would cost Apple.
Anybody have any knowledge about this? Please share.
Pixel count and resolution are related terms; both independent of display surface area. It's pixel density which varies (inversely) with the display surface area.
The mini simply used the display panels from the iPhone 3G cut to a larger size. A retina mini would likely use iPhone 4/5S display panels with a comparable 4x jump in pixel density.
Expect the mini to look exactly like the display on the iPhone 5S only larger.
Comments
I'm not saying you're wrong as I really don't know either way but that seems counterintuitive to me. Compiling for x86 could introduce new issues and not weed out any AArch issues. I'd think it would compile for AArch with Simulator iOS being an emulator app.
In the next iPad Mini? The one due out next week to the next few months? That seems like an unlikely timeframe to me. I agree with previous poster that it's still years away in terms of equatable performance and SW before this would be feasible.
Many people have been comparing core performance to Intel hardware, more so Intels top end hardware! The problem is this, A7 already out performs ATOM and probably a number of AMD chips. It is a leading processor considering its real competition. Could it power other devices at a higher clock rate? That is almost a certainty, for Apple it means far lower cost devices at very good margins. It is up to Apple really but let look at it this way, they have options. Options gives them leverage with the likes of Intel.
I’d say expect A6X in the retina mini unless the A7’s GPU performs better.
I see a lot of people assuming that the A7 (not A7X) could drive a retina iPad without any problem based on some raw GPU benchmarks that shows the A7 performing better than the A6X.
Well I'm not so sure about that. I'm not a GPU expert, but I don't think that pushing 4x the number of polygons is the same thing as pushing 4x the number of pixels. The latter might require more parallel processing in the form of a multi-core GPU, such as the ones found in the A6X (or A7X).
An A7 could perform worse than an A6X if it runs into bottleneck issues because of the large number of pixels it has to push on an iPad.
By the way the strongest motivation for Apple here is marketing. Being able to say they have already transitioned all of their tablets to 64 bits is marketing gold. It will give Apple a comfortable lead for a year or more.
It could no doubt, but Apple wouldn't put a plan into place that resulted in dramatic reductions in iPad Mini performance. Just see an overall potential increase in performance with A7, and the value of moving to 64 bit as soon as possible.
As an aside there is some mystery with respect to a RAM array embedded in A7, some of us think it is a frame buffer to support the GPUs. Apple could resize that array for other screen sizes. This might not yield an A7X but maybe an A7-0.5X. Of course this is guess work but the point is there are many ways to address A7 processors in a Mini.
I worked on a dozen of them since 2002 and
cannot consider 15"
It is a high probability for the mini. That is exactly what they do for the larger iPads and see no reason why they won't keep the current mini around and lower the price point. That allows them to go down market with a known good product that has been value engineered to lower COGS, etc. So not only do we get a new and better mini, but we get the current one at a new lower price. So the 1st gen mini will probably be around the price everyone though Apple had to hit under $300 to be a success. Of course Apple did just fine at the current price, but they will do even better expanding the total addressable market for iPad with a lower priced entry model.
Good times ahead IMHO...
I thought you were referring to the Mac Mini with the A7 on the next release hence my comment despite writing iPad Mini in my reply. My bad.
As for A7 next week in the iPad Mini it's possible but I don't recall Apple even jumping a generation in an iDevice. The closest example is the iPod Touch but it also skipped a year of being updated so it still maintained the A-chip that was behind the iPhone.
I'd think Apple would do the same thing with the iPad Mini to the iPad otherwise why even start a generation behind in the first place. Clearly they are planning these updates year in advance.
That leads be to believe the most likely outcome for a Retina iPad Mini this year will be an A6X.
I read comments often how the GPU is good enough for a Retina display but I rarely does anyone address the important factor regarding memory bandwidth.
Does anyone know what happens to the stock on-hand that Apple does not sell when a replacement comes out?
Doesn't the iPad mini have the same pixel count as the iPad 2?
If Apple were to introduce a Retina iPad mini, I assume it would have the same pixel count as the bigger Retina iPad. This means a higher resolution screen for the mini. I wonder if such screens are available and what they would cost Apple.
Anybody have any knowledge about this? Please share.
Pixel count and resolution are related terms; both independent of display surface area. It's pixel density which varies (inversely) with the display surface area.
The mini simply used the display panels from the iPhone 3G cut to a larger size. A retina mini would likely use iPhone 4/5S display panels with a comparable 4x jump in pixel density.
Expect the mini to look exactly like the display on the iPhone 5S only larger.