Rumor: Schematic suggests NFC chip in 'iPhone 6,' RAM remains unknown [u]

Posted:
in iPhone edited August 2014
While incorrect claims came on Monday from a document showing alleged details on a NAND flash chip for Apple's next iPhone, another questionable schematic from the same source suggests the "iPhone 6" may include a near-field communications chip [updated].




Chinese repair firm "GeekBar" shared a picture of the schematic on Monday via the social media site Weibo. It purports to show that a PN65V near-field communications chip from Semiconductors will be included on the "iPhone 6."

The details seem questionable, as Apple has to date only used Bluetooth and Wi-Fi for short-range wireless communications. Apple currently offers a combination of the two technologies for its own proprietary "iBeacon" standard.

The schematic was released on the heels of another document that was originally interpreted to suggest that Apple's next-generation "A8" processor would come with 1 gigabyte of RAM --?the same as the A7 chip found in the iPhone 5s. But observers were quick to note that the mention of 1 gigabyte on the schematic was actually in reference to a NAND flash module, representing internal storage instead of RAM.




The purported schematic was published on Weibo by GeekBar, and it initially --?and incorrectly?-- said it suggested that the "A8" processor will not expand the amount of RAM available. The document was first highlighted on Monday by GforGames.

Apple first began offering a gigabyte of RAM in its custom CPUs with the A5X chip that debuted in the third-generation iPad with Retina display in 2012. Later that same year, the A6 processor that powered the iPhone 5 also came with a gigabyte of RAM, marking the first time Apple had achieved that amount on a phone.

If Apple did stick with 1 gigabyte of RAM for this year's expected "A8" chip, the chief reason could be to improve battery life. RAM constantly consumes power, and more RAM available for programs will result in a faster battery drain, so less memory will actually improve battery life.

TSMC Fab
TSMC's 12-inch wafer fab


Of course, there's a cost as well: Less memory means that iOS must actively close background tasks and refresh tabs in Safari as well.

For its part, Apple does not focus on the amount of RAM available in the current A7 processor. The company's website only mentions that it has a 64-bit architecture, and the company played up the chip as "desktop-class" when the iPhone 5s was unveiled next September.

However much RAM it does end up having, the "A8" chip is expected to be unveiled at a media event Sept. 9 where the company is said to be planning to unveil its next-generation "iPhone 6." It's expected that Apple will launch two new iPhone models this year: One with a 4.7-inch display, and a jumbo-sized version with a 5.5-inch screen.

Some have speculated that the larger iPhone could be a so-called "iPhone Pro," speculating that Apple could add in more advanced features like a superior camera --?or even more RAM --?for those who want a more powerful handset. But thus far there has been little hard evidence to suggest that either model would be drastically different.
«1345678

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 143
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,303member
    If true I am sure Apple know that is sufficient.
  • Reply 2 of 143
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,931member

    I hope they've done something in software then, because I often seem to be bumping up against a lack of memory, especially with Safari tabs needing reloading.

  • Reply 3 of 143
    For the things that I am able to do with that form factor, why would would I need more?

    I'd rather have the extra battery power from a sufficiently powerful chip than too little from a chip that offers bragging rights for geeks.

    Add: Anyone else suffer from DED withdrawal this weekend?
  • Reply 4 of 143
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,743member
    Well, at this point I'd like to see 2GB. Maybe we don't really need it for the phone, but I hope we'll see it for the iPad where battery life and heat aren't as important. I do work on my iPad that I wouldn't do on my iPhone, and it's more needed there. We are bumping the limitations for the iPad at this time.
  • Reply 5 of 143
    melgross wrote: »
    Well, at this point I'd like to see 2GB. Maybe we don't really need it for the phone, but I hope we'll see it for the iPad where battery life and heat aren't as important. I do work on my iPad that I would t do on my iPhone, and it's more needed there. We are bumping the limitations for the iPad at this time.

    This I agree with.
  • Reply 6 of 143
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,743member
    If true I am sure Apple know that is sufficient.
    I'm not sure if you're serious, or being sarcastic.

    Either way, I'd like to point out the arguments we had with people when RAM was 256MB, and some people were serious when they said that Apple knew best here, and as they didn't move to more RAM, we obviously didn't need it. They were wrong then too.
  • Reply 7 of 143
    chipsychipsy Posts: 287member
    melgross wrote: »
    Well, at this point I'd like to see 2GB. Maybe we don't really need it for the phone, but I hope we'll see it for the iPad where battery life and heat aren't as important. I do work on my iPad that I wouldn't do on my iPhone, and it's more needed there. We are bumping the limitations for the iPad at this time.

    My sentiments exactly.
  • Reply 8 of 143
    lilgto64lilgto64 Posts: 1,147member

    Could be that the iOS operating system has a smaller memory footprint than Android. 

     

    Or perhaps they are using a sort of paging to fee up memory with little or no impact on performance - or maybe the chip is powerful enough to do compression. 

     

    If only they could prefect carbon nanotube batteries - and get a 10x increase in the charge density of the battery - or maybe it is micro crystal batteries - whatever the next major breakthrough in batteries. 

  • Reply 9 of 143
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,743member
    For the things that I am able to do with that form factor, why would would I need more?

    I'd rather have the extra battery power from a sufficiently powerful chip than too little from a chip that offers bragging rights for geeks.

    Add: Anyone else suffer from DED withdrawal this weekend?

    I'm really tired of reading him. I always feel as though I should be editing his work to make it more adult and less fanboyish.
  • Reply 10 of 143
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,599member

    Consider how well Apple does memory management, having less memory is less of an issue. Other what what others have pointed out about Safari tabs needing reloaded, I have not seen any downs side to have less memory then any of the Android alternatives. I will tell you this, the Androids with 2GB are not any fast, what you will notice with them is they just fill up the extra memory that much quicker, programs become memory hogs because they can. Kitkat has attempted to fix the memory management issues as well as the memory leaks, but in their attempt to fix apps are not working well. This is the problems when you do not control the hardware and software.

  • Reply 11 of 143
    mazda 3smazda 3s Posts: 1,572member

    For the iPhone, I don't mind as much. I'm running iOS 8 with my iPhone 5 and am not having any issues.

     

    But my Retina iPad mini, even running iOS 7, is a pain in the ass due to Safari tab refreshing. It's incredibly annoying and I was hoping for a RAM boost to help alleviate the problem.

  • Reply 12 of 143
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,743member
    lilgto64 wrote: »
    Could be that the iOS operating system has a smaller memory footprint than Android. 

    Or perhaps they are using a sort of paging to fee up memory with little or no impact on performance - or maybe the chip is powerful enough to do compression. 

    If only they could prefect carbon nanotube batteries - and get a 10x increase in the charge density of the battery - or maybe it is micro crystal batteries - whatever the next major breakthrough in batteries. 

    iOS is more efficient that Android. Android uses more of a Desktop model of memory management and multitasking. In theory, it looks better, but it really does such processor cycles and battery life.

    I almost never find the need to "close" an app in iOS, but it's a requirement in Android. Except for a few apps that monitor and measure in the background, apps don't use RAM or battery when they are offscreen, except to finish some task. With Android, most apps are actually open, until they are explicitly closed. While Apple has been improving multitasking, and giving developers more leaway, the model is still much more power efficient.

    But, I'm disappointed to see that the new battery for the 4.7" iPhone 6 looks to be about 1800milliamphere vs about 1560 in the current devices. I was excited with the rumor it would be over 2000. I'd really like to see the iPhone end this thinness race with Samsung, and give us a bigger battery. When you think about it, the battery can't be much more than a couple of mm thick. If they kept the iPhone just one mm thicker, they could increase capacity by almost 40%.

    Observing Apple since the late '80's, I've noticed that with Steve, or without Steve, Apple has a mental problem. They get a new significant feature, or performance advantage—and then they sit on it, often for years, while competitors catch up and pass them. This has been true for iPhone and iPad battery life. When they reached 8 hours with the iPhone, and came out with 10 hours for the iPad, no one could tough them. But where are we today, years later? That's right, still at 8 and 10. That big advantage has been totally lost.
  • Reply 13 of 143
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post



    For the things that I am able to do with that form factor, why would would I need more?



    I'd rather have the extra battery power from a sufficiently powerful chip than too little from a chip that offers bragging rights for geeks.



    Add: Anyone else suffer from DED withdrawal this weekend?

     

    Yes, I noticed Daniel hasn't posted anything in awhile. His writings are the best thing on AI.

  • Reply 14 of 143
    adrayvenadrayven Posts: 460member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lilgto64 View Post

     

    Could be that the iOS operating system has a smaller memory footprint than Android. 

     

    Or perhaps they are using a sort of paging to fee up memory with little or no impact on performance - or maybe the chip is powerful enough to do compression. 

     

    If only they could prefect carbon nanotube batteries - and get a 10x increase in the charge density of the battery - or maybe it is micro crystal batteries - whatever the next major breakthrough in batteries. 


     

    Likely, since Android is a Linux kernel running Java on-top of that as the base platform for everything.. Java isn't the most memory efficient beast in the world... It could be argued iOS is closer to hardware than Java.. Been a while, but I seem to remember Java was considered a 4th tier language, where C based languages were 3rd .. Assembly was considered even closer, 2nd if I remember.. thus more efficient in general.. but not nearly as easy or as quick to develop in.

     

    Basically, the further from hardware level, the more you risk inefficiencies and loss of performance.. which is one reason Android has had that annoying stutter / lag for so many years. They've largely gotten it smooth now; but thats mostly due to faster, better hardware making up for the inefficient manner of Android. 

     

    That old school though.. 

  • Reply 15 of 143
    melgross wrote: »

    I'm really tired of reading him. I always feel as though I should be editing his work to make it more adult and less fanboyish.

    I tend to focus on his substance, not style (which can be a tad breathless).
  • Reply 16 of 143
    froodfrood Posts: 771member

    Doesn't matter how much or little RAM it has.  Doesn't matter how many cores it has.  Doesn't matter what clock speed it runs at.  Doesn't matter how many bits it uses.

     

    It just matter how fast and well it runs the stuff you want it to.

     

     

    I'm sure the 6 is going to be a beast performance-wise.  It will actually need to be to even 'break even' with the 5s since I assume it is going to be running at a much higher resolution.

  • Reply 17 of 143
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,743member
    I tend to focus on his substance, not style (which can be a tad breathless).

    I try to do that too. But he's read by those who are not Apple users, and his style is pointed to as being typical of an Apple Fanboy. Unfortunately, while his style might thrill some here, it detracts from the usefulness of his writing. And he does exaggerate, and minimize facts, depending whether they're about Apple, or its competitors. I would prefer more objectively written articles.
  • Reply 18 of 143
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,743member
    frood wrote: »
    Doesn't matter how much or little RAM it has.  Doesn't matter how many cores it has.  Doesn't matter what clock speed it runs at.  Doesn't matter how many bits it uses.

    It just matter how fast and well it runs the stuff you want it to.


    I'm sure the 6 is going to be a beast performance-wise.  It will actually need to be to even 'break even' with the 5s since I assume it is going to be running at a much higher resolution.

    You're right, of course. But it's those things that impact performance, so they are important, and wondering about them is a legitimate topic of discussion.
  • Reply 19 of 143
    lilgto64 mentioned a paging file. This to me seems the most logical. Neither iOS or Android use a paging file which is why you run into memory limits (and why Apps get suspended and closed when memory is low).

    Paging files back in the days of hard disk drives sucked because of the speed compared to memory. Running Windows on a system with low memory was horribly slow. I'm sure we all remember the light for your hard drive blinking madly as Windows was constantly paging stuff to disk. This is the main reason people upgraded their RAM.

    Now with Flash storage paging files are far more practical on systems with lower RAM.
  • Reply 20 of 143
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,303member
    melgross wrote: »
    You're right, of course. But it's those things that impact performance, so they are important, and wondering about them is a legitimate topic of discussion.

    I said the same thing more succinctly at the start of the thread and got a strange response from you.
Sign In or Register to comment.