Apple's A8 SoC likely carrying new 6-core PowerVR GPU, clocked at 1.4GHz with 1GB RAM

13468914

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 269
    canukstorm wrote: »
    The link you were referring to was referencing the iPhone 6 Plus.  I don't expect the iPhone 6 to get 2GB of RAM.  It would be nice but not banking on it.

    Yes, I meant the Plus; even more reason to be pessimistic (since the smaller iP6 would be the only phone worth considering for me).
  • Reply 102 of 269
    tipootipoo Posts: 1,120member
    "Apple boasts of massive performance improvements in its latest A-series processor up to 84x over the first-generation iPhone" is an absolutely hilarious way to say "25% gain over the prior model".

    Yeesh, editorial standards. I know this is an apple fan site, but that was practically more over the top than Apples own advertising for it.
  • Reply 103 of 269
    wizard69 wrote: »
    Honestly I'm not impressed with somebody that would post here and so try to dismiss the importance of RAM in a modern computer.

    I'll count that as an ad hominem attack. A sure sign of a weak rebuttal.
  • Reply 104 of 269
    Originally Posted by CanukStorm View Post

    The link you were referring to was referencing the iPhone 6 Plus.  I don't expect the iPhone 6 to get 2GB of RAM.  It would be nice but not banking on it.

     

    Seems like Apple would highlight the difference in performance between the two models if ANY of the hardware was different.

     

    They did for the battery. Why didn’t they for RAM if this is true?

  • Reply 105 of 269




    09/15/2014 10:09 AM

     

     

    Quote:

    Cue the AI experts telling Apple it needs more RAM .... 



    Not my area of knowledge at all, but can someone explain if these babies are even close to being able to run OS X?



     

    Mobile processors are faster than ever, but so desktop ones, the rules still apply Desktop CPU are way faster than mobile ones, they have plenty more level 1, 2 and 3 cache, faster system bus, way more RAM, better heat dissipation and electric power to use, the same happens to the GPUs, Mobile GPUs use way less electricity, but they have smaller cpu cache, GPUs are also slower etc etc, they are built  specifically to maximize power performance and create less heat. Mac OS X could run on it, if it was x86 instruction CPU, also the mobile GPU don't exactly use the same Desktop GPU instructions so as this is not the case, you have to rebuild all Mac OS X to run on those chips, Android Phones for example,  run a Linux version with a special Java Virtual Machine on it, it's called Dalvik, Google is changing that VM to Ant,... anyway the the bottom line is Mac OS X have some similarities with Linux, but to have a 100% Mac OS X on a phone you probably have to rewrite 90% of the OS code, at least if you want an "exact" copy of it, and that would be an enormous job...

  • Reply 107 of 269
    hattig wrote: »
    The A8 is a process shrink and power saving design. Any extra speed is a benefit from tweaking the design.

    Maybe the A9 is the next generation core - Apple can't keep on releasing new super-cores every year! Clearly Cyclone was a lot of work over several years, and the A8 is just an evolution. It's clearly good enough right now.

    More concerning is the 1GB RAM. There's something about that which doesn't seem right, for long term viability for applications with large datasets (and remember the display will use a lot more RAM, especially with multiple buffers and apps running at the same time). For something that is cheap and easy to remedy, it's annoying, and it's an easy thing for competitors to target with their 2GB -> 4GB phones in the next year.

    But OTOH Apple looks like it will sell umpteen million of these regardless, so what do I know!

    I think we'll see something like an A8X for the iPads and AppleTV. Likely this chip could access more RAM -- say up to 8GB.

    Supposedly, Apple has a major deal with Micron for a stacked RAM based on Silicon on Sapphire. The advantages to this are less leakage == better performance == less power requirement == smaller, more dense packaging.

    There is also some newer RAM tech that allows fewer transistors/circuits on RAM.

    I suspect that IBM and Apple have some amazing uses for iPads planned ... said Me, rambling!
  • Reply 108 of 269
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post



    Why are you so defensive of Apples designs?



    It isn't unreasonable to expect better performance out of the hardware we buy from Apple year after year.



    Defensive was not the impression I wanted - I wanted clarity. I personally do not think that the ring around the back camera is keeping with the spirit of previous Apple iPhone designs.  But a similar design element was featured on the iPod Touch so I will give Apple the benefit of doubt on their design/feature choice.

     

    Better performance is very nebulous.  Do you mean raw performance over everything else? If the processor is running at full capacity, would that not generate tremendous heat and very short battery life?  Is that want you want to emphasize? Or do you want to emphasize performance that most consumers (words chosen carefully) want - i.e. battery life, better feeling product. etc.?

     

    A pro and a consumer are not necessary aligned on what they consider important.  Apple seems to have no problems selling millions of iPhones to consumers all over the world.  They must be doing something right - no other vendor appears to be.

     

    It is a phone - not a desktop computer.  While Apple seems to be slowly moving hardware to a "desktop class" they have never been know to use "bleeding edge technology" just to say they did it first.  It is all about emphasis - and it appears that the size of the RAM is not an emphasis.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by brlawyer View Post





    I have an iPhone 5 as well as an iPad Air and BOTH have the same problem. But pray tell: why would it be ANY different (if not actually worse) with the iPhone 6? Or do you think Safari will miraculously use GPU RAM now?

     

    Not sure - but to speculate on performance of an un-released product is just speculation.  If indeed that is the same issue with the iPhone 6 then I will join the chorus.  But until then lets call speculation what it is "speculation".

  • Reply 109 of 269
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

    I think we'll see something like an A8X for the iPads and AppleTV. Likely this chip could access more RAM -- say up to 8GB.



    Why would it need 8GB of RAM? Why does it make sense to bring the X back?

  • Reply 110 of 269
    I think we'll see something like an A8X for the iPads and AppleTV. Likely this chip could access more RAM -- say up to 8GB.


    Why would it need 8GB of RAM? Why does it make sense to bring the X back?

    For the AppleTV, games, HomeKit server, HomeServer.

    For iPads, IBM Big Data, 4K video manipulation, drawing tablet/CAD accessory to Macs ...
  • Reply 111 of 269
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post





    For the AppleTV, games, HomeKit server, HomeServer.



    For iPads, IBM Big Data, 4K video manipulation, drawing tablet/CAD accessory to Macs ...



    AppleTV is an enigma - not really a desktop computer and not really a mobile device - the interface is not really Cocoa and not really Cocoa Touch - really hard to pinpoint where it fits ...

     

    Perhaps it is a test bed to see what works in the field ... a "lower performance" CPU, a non-mouse and non-touch interface, how much RAM is needed to be an effective streaming device, etc.

     

    It is not a revenue generating machine like the iPhone but you can see where iOS has influenced the interface ...

     

    Hopefully Apple has something in mind and will act on it soon - I think that they are risking the living room space to domination by others.

     

    ApplePay is clearly showing that Apple now feels comfortable in using iTunes to provide services. The addition of ABC Now and other apps seem to point that Apple is comfortable to open the AppleTV main screen to others.  Those apps lessen the need for you to go outside the AppleTV main screen.

     

    Would love to know what they have planned ...

  • Reply 112 of 269
    melgross wrote: »
    Thanks for the info.

    I always recall that Steve had a secret team running Mac OS on Intel in parallel to the Power PC years before it was known. I can't help wonder if there might be a skunk works team deep underground already running OS X on an secret new Apple chip as we speak.

    I would be very surprised if Apple hasn't had OS X running on their ARM chips since the A5x. But running, and running usefully are two different things. I would love to see a lower priced, lower weight, longer battery life Macbook Air, of some sort. It possibly wouldn't need a fan, and the fan uses appreciable battery power, even if it only comes on occasionally. It also takes up a fair amount of space.

    It's called an iPad.

    Glad that Apple could make your dreams come true!
  • Reply 113 of 269
    rogifan wrote: »
    saarek wrote: »

    True, but I'd be happier with the same thickness as the iPhone 5S with a bigger battery and 2gb+ or Ram.


    I love Mr Ive's designs, but he frequently seems to choose form over function when it comes to the thickness of a device.
    Except Apple watch of course. ;)

    Indeed; there, he chose neither.
  • Reply 114 of 269
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,523member
    Yeah, but that’s nonsense is all.

    Of course they do. They probably still have OS X running on Power7, too.

    So I take it you are happy and content that Apple stay with Intel for Macs for ever? My drift was to suggest this was not a good idea ...
  • Reply 115 of 269
    misa wrote: »
    davemcm76 wrote: »
    And lets not forget the power usage implications...

    I think the power cost is more critical. The way current OS's operate is that all RAM is utilized, thus sucking down all the power. So unless they can die shrink the RAM they can't add any more without needing to increase the battery size.

    I'm sure Apple could put 32GB of ram on the device if the power cost could be justified. The difference between 4GB and 8GB on a notebook is 50$, and these have several chips on them. Apple's stacking RAM on the CPU, so they are literately limited by what can be thermally accepted.

    I'd be grateful if you would post here a mockup of an iPhone with 32GB RAM.

    Thanks.
  • Reply 116 of 269
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,523member
    sockrolid wrote: »
    I used to think that an ARM-based MB Air running OS X was inevitable.  But now I'm thinking that Apple could release an MB Air-like device running iOS instead of OS X.  And that the division between consumer and Pro Macs might eventually be iOS / AX vs. OS X / Intel.  Now that the iPhone 6 is on the horizon, Apple's auto-scaling of iOS apps could easily be applied to a laptop form-factor screen.

    With either OS, an ARM-based AX SoC MB Air would have a far less-expensive CPU.
    No more Intel Tax (tm).  That could bring the price down and simultaneously keep Apple's margins up.

    If iOS could run Final Cur Pro X maybe ... I suspect it is more likely Apple have chip development underway that will blow Intel out of the water for OS X. Few need to run Windblows in a VM these days, so Intel is not needed if Apple can improve and surpass.
  • Reply 117 of 269
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    brlawyer wrote: »
    Currently, 1GB of RAM DOES impact user experience across the board; particularly when using Safari, whose always-reloading behavior when visiting even basic websites is completely unacceptable. Unless the "geniuses" in this forum still want us to believe that this is NOT due to insufficient RAM, of course...
    If the iPad still has 1GB RAM I won't be upgrading. Safari is a crap experience on the iPad.
  • Reply 118 of 269
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,523member
    chandra69 wrote: »
    Might be. But is that a good idea?  Same OS - Windows - on tablet and PCs and mobiles etc - which is failing.  
    But, yeah -  who knows what Apple has in its plan.
    Personally, I love to SEE (only) OS X running on iPad. But, won't be liking working on it.
    (Sorry for my bad English)

    Maybe if iOS and OS X merge one day in a way that allows the best of both worlds. I agree a 30" iPad might be awesome for FCP X and Logic Pro X if I can have multiple monitors, 64 GIGs of RAM and unlimited TB of on line storage over Thunderbolt. However, I'm thinking a continuation of the two Apple OSs is here for a while.
  • Reply 119 of 269
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,523member
    rogifan wrote: »
    If the iPad still has 1GB RAM I won't be upgrading. Safari is a crap experience on the iPad.

    So, you are stating for the record, that Apple has knowingly released a device with their own in-house processor that isn't optimized for their own web browser? Just checking ....
  • Reply 120 of 269
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

    So I take it you are happy and content that Apple stay with Intel for Macs for ever? My drift was to suggest this was not a good idea ...

     

    I’d prefer they stick with what makes Apple’s line of computers–whatever it’s called–the best performance.

Sign In or Register to comment.