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

145791014

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 269
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    Indeed; there, he chose neither.
    Because someone can make a comment like about something they've never used? I call BS on that.
  • Reply 122 of 269
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    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 ....
    Yes.
  • Reply 123 of 269
    rogifan wrote: »
    Indeed; there, he chose neither.
    Because someone can make a comment like about something they've never used? I call BS on that.

    I'm going by the demo that Marvin posted.
  • Reply 124 of 269
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,733member
    gimarbazat wrote: »
    1gb of ram only???? for a phone that costs between $700 and 1000?? what do we need to wait 3 years and beg again for more ram as we did for larger screens?

    RAM requires power to be refreshed. That's why Apple keeps the amount down.
  • Reply 125 of 269
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,523member
    It's called an iPad.

    Glad that Apple could make your dreams come true!

    No it isn't and Apple would agree with me. An iPad and a Mac are for very different uses with a lot of obvious overlap. I don't think i will be editing one of my 4K videos, with many TBs of Thunderbolt RAID storage and three screens on my iPads anytime soon even though I read email, Netflix (used as a verb) and web browse on both.

    Sorry to disagree, but as I have stated earlier, my reason for asking about an Apple foray into a desktop CPUs and GPUs (not a just Mobile chips) is purely based on the premiss that Apple should now control everything. Tim just said Apple controls its own hardware and software but in fact that isn't totally true as long as the GPUs and CPUs in a Mac are not made by Apple. I say screw Intel, NVidea and AMD and the ability to run VMware with Winblows, it's time to drop legacy crap.
  • Reply 126 of 269
    It's called an iPad.

    Glad that Apple could make your dreams come true!

    No it isn't and Apple would agree with me. An iPad and a Mac are for very different uses with a lot of obvious overlap. I don't think i will be editing one of my 4K videos, with many TBs of Thunderbolt RAID storage and three screens on my iPads anytime soon even though I read email, Netflix (used as a verb) and web browse on both.

    Sorry to disagree, but as I have stated earlier my reason for asking about an Apple foray into a desktop CPUs and GPUs (not a just Mobile chips) is purely based on the premiss that Apple should now control everything. Tim just said Apple controls its own hardware and software but in fact that isn't totally true as long as the GPUs and CPUs in a Mac are not made by Apple. I say screw Intel, NVidea and AMD and the ability to run VMware with Winblows, it's time to drop legacy crap.

    Melgross was asking for an iPad; I gave it to him.

    If you want a heavier, thicker, bigger, less portable computer with a fan, then you want a Mac.
  • Reply 127 of 269
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,733member
    wizard69 wrote: »
    There seems to be two groups of people here. Those that don't understand how computers work claim that we don't need more RAM. Those that understand how computers work claim that we do need more RAM. See the problem here?

    Yeah, the problem is you forgot type three - forum nerds who know enough to be dangerous but mistakenly construe their knowledge as applying equally to all situations :rolleyes:
  • Reply 128 of 269
    "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."

    He did but it was relatively easy. OS X is based on Next Computer's OpenStep OS which ran on Intel processors. Apple had to port there existing code to run on the PowerPC and then started adding more features to transform the OpenStep into OS X. The small team only had to keep the original Intel code base up to date and make sure the new code would compile for Intel as well. I believe the team was never more than a month behind the PowerPC code base.
  • Reply 129 of 269
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post





    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.

    He did but it was relatively easy. OS X is based on Next Computer's OpenStep OS which ran on Intel processors to begin with. Apple had to port there existing Intel code to run on the PowerPC and then started adding more features to transform the OpenStep into OS X. The small team only had to keep the original Intel code base up to date and make sure any new code would compile for Intel as well. I believe the team was never more than a month behind the PowerPC code base.

  • Reply 130 of 269
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,523member
    I’d prefer they stick with what makes Apple’s line of computers–whatever it’s called–the best performance.

    Then we are in agreement.
  • Reply 131 of 269
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,523member
    mretondo wrote: »
    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">He did but it was relatively easy. OS X is based on Next Computer's OpenStep OS which ran on Intel processors to begin with. Apple had to port there existing Intel code to run on the PowerPC and then started adding more features to transform the OpenStep into OS X. The small team only had to keep the original Intel code base up to date and make sure any new code would compile for Intel as well. I believe the team was never more than a month behind the PowerPC code base.</span>

    Good to know but does that preclude Apple from having developed their own CPU capable of running OS X ?
  • Reply 132 of 269
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,523member
    Melgross was asking for an iPad; I gave it to him.

    If you want a heavier, thicker, bigger, less portable computer with a fan, then you want a Mac.

    Ok but that doesn't address my comment. I'd like to see a non Intel Mac Pro etc..
  • Reply 133 of 269
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,523member
    rogifan wrote: »
    Yes.

    Ok, so are you suspecting web browsing per se is on Apple's hit list? It could be, Apps are the answer to killing Google's ability to monetize the web on iOS.

    That said, I prefer to believe Apple know what they are doing.
  • Reply 134 of 269
    melgross wrote: »


    for OS X over ARM, but as usual, that's just a pipe dream,

    LOL pipe dream
  • Reply 135 of 269
    Concerning RAM, I certainly hope the new iPads bump it up. There are times on Google Earth when I run out of memory. Also, going between apps many times requires re-drawing due to memory issues. Yeah, that 1GB needs to get bumped up.
  • Reply 136 of 269
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post





    Ok but that doesn't address my comment. I'd like to see a non Intel Mac Pro etc..

    Any particular reason? I am quite happy with my MBP with intel.

  • Reply 137 of 269
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post





    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.

     

    Forgot to say: the dwindling (but still profitable) "Pro" market could in theory keep running their legacy Intel apps on "Pro" Macs running OS X.  (Until, as you say, Apple decides to replace Intel's crusty old x86 with something better.  Whether or not it's ARM-based.)

  • Reply 138 of 269
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post





    No it isn't and Apple would agree with me. An iPad and a Mac are for very different uses with a lot of obvious overlap. I don't think i will be editing one of my 4K videos, with many TBs of Thunderbolt RAID storage and three screens on my iPads anytime soon even though I read email, Netflix (used as a verb) and web browse on both.



    Sorry to disagree, but as I have stated earlier, my reason for asking about an Apple foray into a desktop CPUs and GPUs (not a just Mobile chips) is purely based on the premiss that Apple should now control everything. Tim just said Apple controls its own hardware and software but in fact that isn't totally true as long as the GPUs and CPUs in a Mac are not made by Apple. I say screw Intel, NVidea and AMD and the ability to run VMware with Winblows, it's time to drop legacy crap.



    That all depends on how well ARM performs vs x86, at least as far as traditional desktops / notebooks go and Apple's ability to "compete" with Intel in terms of designing CPUs / GPUs.  Intel is no slouch and they're not standing still.

  • Reply 139 of 269
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post



    When you post like this all you are doing is displaying to the entire world your ignorance about computer systems.

    Sure it can be because RAM's impact remains the same. As long as RAM remains the same size the issues will remain the same. Oh by the way yes some of us are on iOS 8 betas and know very well what works well in those betas and what has been improved. Safari has been improved in many ways actually but still suffers from RAM problems.



    If you had any understanding of computer systems you would realize that even if Apple put a 12GHz CPU in the machine it would still suffer from not having enough RAM. The performance of the various processors in the machine do not make up for the lack of RAM.

     

    I think everyone is missing the a central point - including you - devices on a particular computer platform are a collection of items the company wants to emphasize, not emphasize, include, not include, including cost, ability to produce in large numbers/small numbers.  

     

    Are you privy to what Apple wants to emphasize?  If so, then you would be able to specifically explain why the amount of system RAM chosen by Apple is wrong.

     

    Finally it appears that a lot of people forget that you must also temper what can be put in a device on a particular computer platform - i.e. mobile phones - with what can be produced in high quantities at a reasonable manufacturing price in a given amount of time.

  • Reply 140 of 269
    mpantone wrote: »
    gimarbazat wrote: »
    1gb of ram only???? for a phone that costs between $700 and 1000?? what do we need to wait 3 years and beg again for more ram as we did for larger screens?
    It is likely that Apple tests a variety of RAM configurations during the prototyping stage of iPhone development and decided that 1GB was sufficient for a wide range of applications.

    Note that increasing RAM also increases costs, something Apple is very careful about.

    RAM also sucks on the battery.

    One thing I noticed on the charts in the article is that the iPhone 6 is now TWICE as fast as my two-year-old iPhone 5 on both charts. THAT kind of surprised me... I'm less concerned with how much faster the 6 and 6+ is from the original iPhone and more interested in seeing what I'm trading up to from my current phone.

    EDIT: corrected my mistype on the iPhone name
Sign In or Register to comment.