Correct, which means it doesn't scale worth a crap on heavy load operations and thus won't ever be stuck in a Laptop/Desktop/Workstation.
Anyone thinks AMD not having Keller back and the head of AMD GPGPUs leaving Apple to return to AMD won't release a beast is truly delusional.
The reason the industry has x86_64 is because of Keller and company. We'd be stuck on 32 bit if it weren't for that team he has once amassed.
FYI: Jim Keller designed the DEC Alpha processor, not to mention was the driving force behind PA-Semi which got bought by Apple, and he worked at Apple as Chief Architect of the Apple A4-A5X processor.
AMD will be a pivotal player in the next 18 months and I guarantee you Apple is paying attention, not just collaborating with the Radeon GPGPUs.
That's interesting but Keller has been at AMD for two years now, and in the interim Apple has cranked out tens of millions of increasing sophisticated A6, A7 & A8 mobile chips while AMD hasn't.
And the point of the article really is: were AMD (or Intel, or Qualcomm, or Samsung, or Nvidia) to produce a superior chip for tablets that was better than Apple's, who would buy it? Who would sell it?
%u2018A-hahahahahahaa!%u2019 (The sound of Apple execs on the way to their banks.)
I hadn%u2019t thought of how seriously Apple%u2019s success had impacted, and decimated, competitors. With the on-going hyperbole of Samsung, Microsoft and anti-Apple folk, it%u2019s hard to get a clear picture.
But reading this article made me think of something %u2013 Apple was the underdog, and I always go for the underdog, but now it%u2019s the best, and by a very large margin. Who should I root for?
Android can only ever be a disaster %u2013 Google should stick to services and searches, and WinMob may just be turned around by Nadella, but it has a long way to go to make its selection of apps secure and with a high standard in quality.
Amazon should never have bothered with hardware. If it had developed its apps to be gorgeous and easy to use on any device, there%u2019d be a lot more people using Amazon instead of iBooks. Me included. Combining accounts from different countries, anyone?
Tizen would have been good, but Samsung has never been focussed on quality or easy-of-use, or business relationships based on integrity. Or foresight. Blackberry may simply not have enough money to build an appealing app selection. Ubuntu is the definition of %u2018a good effort%u2019 (sad trombone).
And Chinese licensees are not fully complying? One ought to research another culture before trying to do business there! Android was designed to be free, and Google%u2019s attempts to alter this fundamental aspect of the OS are obviously a Herculean task, which I doubt they will complete successfully.
The specs of other chip makers can definitely be superior to Apple, but people buy tablets to use, not check specs all day. Jobs was visionary when he focussed on user experience as the key point, and worked to ensure that apps were to be provided to such a high standard, and that the software and hardware worked together.
Honestly, I prefer the WinMob OS to iOS, but it%u2019ll be a few years before MS can provide a tenth of the apps at a fraction of the quality. A poor app selection on a mobile device is like a computer without the Internet. Until the apps are good, go Apple!
Oh, and all your %u2018lower-end%u2019 are belong to Apple: a free 4S this year is a free 5 next year. The year after that, a free 5S %u2013 a 64bit smartphone with all the AppStore can offer? Good-bye, lower-end competitors!
Have you ever stopped to think that maybe there is more than one valid metric to judge a processor by. Blindly cheerleading isn't something that leads to respect and acceptance of ones opinion.
In any event I don't know about those instance of down playing Apples processors. In this context I know that DED's article is laced with plenty of bull crap. Unfortunately far to many lap it up with out a bit of critical thinking. With an article like this part of that critical thinking has to involve acknowledging the good points of other products.
Shouldn't be hard to outline some of this "bullcrap" that you allege. If your bullcrap allegations are something other than bullcrap allegations.
That is irrational, the guy is a BS artist at the very least. He certainly is skilled at exploiting the gullible.
When it comes to Apple, he just sees things how they are,
Not even close. In fact some of his comments don't even reflect reality. Trying to trash NVidias K1 is just one example. Honestly it is the first decent tablet chip from NVidia. Is it perfect no but no chip is.
which is what makes his writing so attractive. He strips everything down to the historical facts and presents them in an entertaining way.
Im not sure I'd use the word entertaining here. Frankly when he does have facts to use he twists the facts around such that no reasonable person would pay attention.
Admittedly, he can't hep his liberal roots seeping through on non-tech related matters, bless him.
Political leanings have nothing to do with his writing.
Apple was the underdog and nearly dead, and has come back from the brink. Blackberry could only do so well!
I loved reading this article. Almost every piece on Apple seems to include references to competitors, and usually with snide remarks about Apple. It's nice to read an article that at least has a different tone. I really enjoyed the insight into the manufacturing industry!
Of all the current competitors, the only one that might be strong is Windows Mobile (since Nadella took control, that is), and only if MS can get security and quality standards established with their apps. Google, Canonical and Samsung have all failed to provide what most people seem to want (those who are spending money, that is), which is a reliable, smooth, and well-designed user experience. And secure. And integrated. And good resale value. And quality.
Come to think of it...
I wanted Ubuntu Mobile to work, but a business needs income to function. Good deeds don't pay the rent. WM8.1 is the most creative interface design-wise imo, and I want to have that! But it took Apple, including organising iTunes and becoming familiar with mobile devices with iPod, almost ten years before the iPad began to take the mobile PC market. There is no shortcut to providing what Apple has.
... The number of people that actually need i86 support and windows is extremely small these days. ...
I am an avid iPhone and Mac user but I totally disagree with you on this one. i86 and Windows may not be as important as they once were but that market, by any measurement, can not be classified as an extremely small market.
Posting on AI to say that DED isn't a good writer is like saying Howard Stern doesn't have a good radio show. This is a weekend story that is now close to 200 comments.
The vast majority of DED's articles are garbage, this is just another example. There is no need to counter what is said in the article as most of it is just inflation of common knowledge. Unfortunately it is a writin example more suited for the national enquirer than Apple Insider. Honestly if you find value in this article you need to look in a mirror and asks why.
Nowhere have I stated that DEDs article is 100% factual. I tend to steer away from the opinion side of things and deal with what I feel is the real topic at hand - the superiority of Apple processors. How they may or may not affect affect other companies business is of no concern to me.
The poster I responded to "tooltalk" does little other than produce troll comments. It's beyond ironic to call a DED article bullshit when the person commenting is even worse.
Have you ever stopped to think that maybe there is more than one valid metric to judge a processor by. Blindly cheerleading isn't something that leads to respect and acceptance of ones opinion.
In any event I don't know about those instance of down playing Apples processors. In this context I know that DED's article is laced with plenty of bull crap. Unfortunately far to many lap it up with out a bit of critical thinking. With an article like this part of that critical thinking has to involve acknowledging the good points of other products.
Do you have another metric that could possibly put the K1, Snapdragon or Exynos in a good light? Because from what I see of all 3 processors are companies taking old technology and stretching it as far as they can (increasing core counts and/or ramping up the clock) to stay competitive instead of doing what Apple did (design a more efficient core).
From the A5-A6 and A6-A7 Apple doubled performance with a small increase in clock speed and staying with two cores. Both Samsung (Exynos) and Qualcomm (Snapdragon) also achieved double the performance. They did so by switching to 4 cores and greatly increasing their clock speed. They made very little progress in increasing the efficiency of a core.
I like to use the word "pathetic" when describing Exynos and Snapdragon. I think the word fits. What else would you call a processor running at almost double the clock (2.7GHz vs 1.4GHz) and having twice the cores (4 vs 2) that performs about the same? I also called the K1 pathetic. Not because of its performance (which is good) but because of how Nvidia hyped it as being more efficient per clock, when it can't even match a year old A7 for efficiency. If you're going to talk shit, you better back it up. Nvidia should realize this, after the reputation they have with previous Tegra processors (over promise, under deliver).
That's interesting but Keller has been at AMD for two years now, and in the interim Apple has cranked out tens of millions of increasing sophisticated A6, A7 & A8 mobile chips while AMD hasn't.
CPU design isn't that simple.
Jim Keller is working on a design from zero...zilch....scratch at AMD(Zen). Intensive multi year project.
This, on the same time that he is working on an ARM design for AMD, PLUS, making their x86 and ARM offerings pin compatible with each other(skybridge).
All being done by one chip team. No A, and no B. Same team is designing both products due to resource constraints.
CPU design isn't that simple.
Jim Keller is working on a design from zero...zilch....scratch at AMD(Zen). Intensive multi year project.
This, on the same time that he is working on an ARM design for AMD, PLUS, making their x86 and ARM offerings pin compatible with each other(skybridge).
All being done by one chip team. No A, and no B. Same team is designing both products due to resource constraints.
AMD is very busy make no mistake.
His point still stands. Apple is producing these chips right now and AMD is still working on it. We've been hearing "soon" comments from the Android camp for the 8 years now. When Godot finally shows up with a product that can be tested we can make a proper evaluation, but clock rate wishes and calibration dreams just don't cut it when you have real components in real products on the market.
Again, If that's the case why give the smaller charger to the phone. BTW, I know the smaller one is the SAME PRICE. I go by logic, you seem to go by who knows what. The reason for it IS battery durability. If you have patience you can try charging you Iphone overnight with a low power USB charger. I'm going to guarantee you that the battery will last 5 years minimum.
Its the chemical reaction in storing the charge, discharging, moving the electrons around, that damages the battery (exothermic reaction equals heat, heat is the consequence of the reaction) ; the way to reduce the damage is reducing the current density. You can only do that by distributing the charges around to a battery split in many small cells. This increases the battery cost and makes it slightly bigger.
If the cell phone maker is doing that, well then maybe there is no damage, otherwise, yes there will be more damage with a quicker charge.
BTW, are you really comparing huge batteries with enormous thermal envelopes and size to batteries in a cell phone that are 3-4mm thick!! ?
BTW, the batteries used in tools don't get charged often, so they can endure much quicker recharges since cumulative damage will be slow (considering the few times they'll be recharged). That's what I said earlier in the thread.
For the Tesla, the space available for these batteries have are incredible compared to a cell phone and that alone changes the way the batteries are built.
Logic? You have no logic in your argument at all, just unsupported statements. You wanted some support from me, and I gave it. And no, it costs Apple more to make the 12 watt charger than the 5 watt charger. You're not using logic there either. Perhaps your lack of understanding manufacturing is helping you out there too. Yes, App,e charges the same $19 for each, but that's a sales and marketing decision, as should be obvious.
You can't guarantee anything. You can just make more unsupported statements.
And please, don't try to give an elementary school explanation of how this works, we all understand it very well. I don't know from where you're quoting, but it doesn't say much. Why don't you do what I asked you to do, and what you asked me to do, which I did, and you haven't, which is to link to some reliable sources that say that every rechargeable battery that is quick charged has a shorted lifetime. I already provided a link to a manufacturer that quite explicitly states that it isn't true for their product. I can supply more, if it's too much work for you to look up.
But, I see that you are already backing away from your statements that EVERY rechargeable battery has its life shortened from quick charging. Now, if you'll go the rest of the way, and admit that all rechargeable batteries, no matter what size, that are designed to be quick charged don't lose lifetime, you'll be ok.
And please stop the BTWing, as though what you're saying there is correct, or even important. You don't use batterypower tools, so please make no comments regarding them. I have numersus Bosh and DeWalt professional model tools. I use them a fair amount. When they are used several times a week, they need a lot of recharging. Older type Nicad tools need to be recharged even if you gave a full charge and only use it for 15 minutes, and put it away for a couple of days. Lithium is much better. But I can drain a battery in a day' sis e, easily, with using the tool hard. It just takes a few dozen long screws in wood to do that, or drilling a number medium size holes with a hole saw. If I leave the lithium tool with a decent charge, it will sit for quite a while. But using it is something else. Professionals who use these daily, charge them daily. That's why most kits come with two batteries, so that you can change over, and charge while working.
Not happy about it doesn't mean they are unhappy about it. They apparently make close to half of all profits from the "PC" market and their position is growing.
If Apple was unhappy about it they could have easily adopted Windows back in the day to sell more of their HW and/or raced to the bottom with cheap, shitty HW. They refused to do any of that when they were close to bankruptcy when they made their Hail Mary pass to NeXT and Steve Jobs, so I don't think they are unhappy about their position in the "PC" market today.
Not quite. They were always what they are, a maker of PCs that use their own OS. Wanting to be a larger player doesn't mean that they would switch to Windows in order to accomplish that. They are happy about the profits they make, but from statements they have also made over the years, it's been pretty clear that they want a bigger share. cooks talking about their increased marketshare, and increased sales vs Windows shows that it means something to them. Statements by both him, and Jobs, show that increasing that marketshare is something the both wanted, and want to do. When you say that a small marketshare is good because it gives you a lot of room for growth, you are saying that you WANT that growth, not that you're happy with being where you are.
No business person is every happy about being where they are, unless they're way on top already, and then, they're sill plotting on how to move up further. Apple is no different. They have their own way of doing though. They are trying to be smart about it, there's a difference in being desperate about gaining marketshare as Dell has been, and dropping prices to the point of failing to profit, and wanting to increase marketshare, but doing it in a way where profits don't suffer. Apple is doing it the latter way, but they are doing it.
I wouldn't want a CEO to say that in the age of static pc sales, (s)he's content with their 7.5% worldwide marketshare. Perhaps when pc sales were growing strongly, that wouldn't be as much of an issue, but now, certain,y, that would mean a slight but steady, shrinking amount of Mac sales. You really think that they would be happy with that? I don't. The on,y way they can have Mac sales grow is to increase marketshare. The two go hand in hand. Even when Jobs was alive, he would talk about how Apple went from a worldwide low of 1.1% to 5% in several years, and from a domestic 2.8% to 10%.
Cook has recently, in their last financial call, bragged about now being number five worldwide, just as Apple has bragged about moving to number four in the US, then number three.
You should probably take some time to read the posts before responding. I haven't made any contentions or assertions - my only post in this thread was the one you are replying to, and I posted only because I was unimpressed with the almost complete lack of substance in your hectoring responses to others. It's not even that your position is wrong - it's more that you appear totally unable to defend it.
I've defended it pretty well. If you think I'm wrong, then show some real proof.
Again, If that's the case why give the smaller charger to the phone. BTW, I know the smaller one is the SAME PRICE. I go by logic, you seem to go by who knows what. The reason for it IS battery durability. If you have patience you can try charging you Iphone overnight with a low power USB charger. I'm going to guarantee you that the battery will last 5 years minimum.
Its the chemical reaction in storing the charge, discharging, moving the electrons around, that damages the battery (exothermic reaction equals heat, heat is the consequence of the reaction) ; the way to reduce the damage is reducing the current density. You can only do that by distributing the charges around to a battery split in many small cells. This increases the battery cost and makes it slightly bigger.
If the cell phone maker is doing that, well then maybe there is no damage, otherwise, yes there will be more damage with a quicker charge.
BTW, are you really comparing huge batteries with enormous thermal envelopes and size to batteries in a cell phone that are 3-4mm thick!! ?
BTW, the batteries used in tools don't get charged often, so they can endure much quicker recharges since cumulative damage will be slow (considering the few times they'll be recharged). That's what I said earlier in the thread.
For the Tesla, the space available for these batteries have are incredible compared to a cell phone and that alone changes the way the batteries are built.
Logic? You have no logic in your argument at all, just unsupported statements. You wanted some support from me, and I gave it. And no, it costs Apple more to make the 12 watt charger than the 5 watt charger. You're not using logic there either. Perhaps your lack of understanding manufacturing is helping you out there too. Yes, App,e charges the same $19 for each, but that's a sales and marketing decision, as should be obvious.
You can't guarantee anything. You can just make more unsupported statements.
And please, don't try to give an elementary school explanation of how this works, we all understand it very well. I do t know from where you're quoting, but it doesn't say much. Why don't you do what I asked you to do, and what you asked me to do, which I did, and you haven't, which is to link to some reliable sources that say that every rechargeable battery that is quick charged has a shorted lifetime. I already provided a link to a manufacturer that quite explicitly states that it isn't true for their product. I can supply more, if it's too much work for you to look up.
But, I see that you are already backing away from your statements that EVERY rechargeable battery has its life shortened from quick charging. Now, if you'll go the rest of the way, and admit that all rechargeable batteries, no matter what size, that are designed to be quick charged don't lose lifetime, you'll be ok.
OK - enough avoiding the technical issue. The discussion started with the question of whether the iPhone battery would be damaged (i.e. shortened life) by charging with the (higher current) iPad charger relative to the iPhone charger. The answer is no, but not because the iPhone battery life is unaffected by charging current - it is because the iPhone's internal charging circuit limits the current during the CC charging phase. The iPhone charger was designed to supply approximately that maximum current (no reason to make it any higher). The iPad charger can supply a higher current, but the iPhone will not accept it.
The main parameters that affect lithium-ion battery life are overcharging (should not be a factor in this case) and charging temperature, which is directly affected by charge rate due to anode heating. That is why most charging circuits are current-limiting, with the current limit being a trade off between longer battery life and shorter charging times. So no, it is incorrect to say that higher charging rates do not negatively impact battery life, and when manufacturers say that fast charging is OK, they mean, presumably, that they have designed their batteries and chargers to provide an acceptable operational balance between those two conflicting goals.
You should probably take some time to read the posts before responding. I haven't made any contentions or assertions - my only post in this thread was the one you are replying to, and I posted only because I was unimpressed with the almost complete lack of substance in your hectoring responses to others. It's not even that your position is wrong - it's more that you appear totally unable to defend it.
I've defended it pretty well. If you think I'm wrong, then show some real proof.
See above. Commercial manufacturer claims do not constitute a sound technical defense of your assertion.
Logic? You have no logic in your argument at all, just unsupported statements. You wanted some support from me, and I gave it. And no, it costs Apple more to make the 12 watt charger than the 5 watt charger. You're not using logic there either. Perhaps your lack of understanding manufacturing is helping you out there too. Yes, App,e charges the same $19 for each, but that's a sales and marketing decision, as should be obvious.
You can't guarantee anything. You can just make more unsupported statements.
And please, don't try to give an elementary school explanation of how this works, we all understand it very well. I do t know from where you're quoting, but it doesn't say much. Why don't you do what I asked you to do, and what you asked me to do, which I did, and you haven't, which is to link to some reliable sources that say that every rechargeable battery that is quick charged has a shorted lifetime. I already provided a link to a manufacturer that quite explicitly states that it isn't true for their product. I can supply more, if it's too much work for you to look up.
But, I see that you are already backing away from your statements that EVERY rechargeable battery has its life shortened from quick charging. Now, if you'll go the rest of the way, and admit that all rechargeable batteries, no matter what size, that are designed to be quick charged don't lose lifetime, you'll be ok.
Apple could have made cheaper computer years ago to compete with the garbage put out by the Dells and HPs of the world.
Since they made the conscious decision not to... Apple can't be too upset by their resulting computer market share.
As for the iPad... I'm sure Apple isn't thrilled by the declining sales. Like I said... I hope it's a short trend and not a permanent situation. It's funny that we're having this conversation about people keeping iPads for 4 years... when the iPad itself has only been out for 4 years.
Some people say Apple needs to give the iPad more capabilities to make it act like a real computer. A 12" iPad Pro with a Wacom digitizer and professional app support... hell yes!
The problem is... that iPad Pro would probably start at $900.
And that's in a market where $250 Android tablets are "good enough"
So I dunno.... maybe Apple will have "lost" in the tablet market in the same way they "lost" in the desktop market.
But that's not really "losing" per se.
Yes, yes, they coulda, shoulda. They didn't because they want to remain independent. I'm not going to go over this in detail, because I've already don't so in other posts. But if unhappy, you mean crying into their cups, then obviously no. But thinking that everything is just great is also a no. Read my other posts on this.
Yes TSMC just announced 16nm FinFET+Risk certification
However, they lost their partership with Global Foundries, who joined with Samsung a single unified FinFET solution:
It's 14nm FinFET by Samsung and Global Foundries
TSMC stamped out 20nm SLP/16nm FinFET just like Global Foundries when they were partners.
Problem for TSMC is this won't be ready until July 2015 while 14nm FinFET arrives from Samsung/GloFlo for scaled production Q1/2015.
Intel is already pushing back their 14nm FinFET 6-12 months from their initial target dates.
Hell the A8X gets smoked 3:1 by the iMac 27 latest performance numbers.
Finally, the A9 mythical future Apple SoC is nowhere near the performance of any Intel Xeon/Haswell/Skylake or AMD FX Excavator/APU or K12. Not by a long shot.
No one is going to want to purchase crippled Macbooks so Apple can shave off the cost. They want and should get an increase in performance above today's Intel CPUs and that is how come Intel's Skylake will be what the masses will demand.
Apple does not have a license for Thunderbolt on the ARM processors, or they would have never released a USB3.0+ in Lightning.
Unfortunately for Samsung, their 14nm yields are way too low for successful use. This is a quandary for Apple, and why some think that Apple might split between Samsung and TSMC next year.
That's not always true. There are batteries that are designed for quick recharge, it all has to do with the internal resistance of the battery. The lower it is, the faster the recharge. It's the internal heat generated by a very fast recharge that damages the battery. Less internal resistance, the less the heat.
I've been using batteries for my power tools for many years. The normal charge time is about one hour for a full charge. But there are 15 minute chargers. I use them. First for my nicad models, and now for my Lithium batteries. Different chargers, of course. The manufacturers of the power tools, who make the batteries, and chargers, claim longer life for the 15 minute charges. They say the batteries last longer, and I have no reason to dispute that.
There is no evidence that Apple's batteries will be damaged by the bigger charge. Apple apparently doesn't think so either, as it hasn't told us not to use them, and I alwsys do.
Again, If that's the case why give the smaller charger to the phone. BTW, I know the smaller one is the SAME PRICE. I go by logic, you seem to go by who knows what. The reason for it IS battery durability. If you have patience you can try charging you Iphone overnight with a low power USB charger. I'm going to guarantee you that the battery will last 5 years minimum.
Its the chemical reaction in storing the charge, discharging, moving the electrons around, that damages the battery (exothermic reaction equals heat, heat is the consequence of the reaction) ; the way to reduce the damage is reducing the current density. You can only do that by distributing the charges around to a battery split in many small cells. This increases the battery cost and makes it slightly bigger.
If the cell phone maker is doing that, well then maybe there is no damage, otherwise, yes there will be more damage with a quicker charge.
BTW, are you really comparing huge batteries with enormous thermal envelopes and size to batteries in a cell phone that are 3-4mm thick!! ?
BTW, the batteries used in tools don't get charged often, so they can endure much quicker recharges since cumulative damage will be slow (considering the few times they'll be recharged). That's what I said earlier in the thread.
For the Tesla, the space available for these batteries have are incredible compared to a cell phone and that alone changes the way the batteries are built.
I'm far from a battery expert.
But not counting the heaters (for winter), cooling fans (for summer and normal driving), and charging controllers aside, the battery packs in a Tesla are made up of thousands of little 18650 lithium batteries. Not unlike the 18650's found in countless laptops, portable tools, portable battery packs, flashlights, etc.
Point being its not some super-exotic and custom battery pack in a Tesla, like the way apple custom designs its batteries to fit perfectly. Rather they are made of basically off the shelf 18650's, perhaps with slightly better energy density (capacity) than your average cheap 18650 knock off found on ebay or amazon.
Edit: I could be wrong but looking at the Lenovo tablet 2 (any size), I would venture that the cylindrical looking "handle" is full of 18650's as well.
You obviously can't compare x86 to MIPS to ARM clock speeds since the processors are fundamentally different. However, the Denver K1 and A7/8 are both ARMv8 processors. It's perfectly fair to compare their performance per clock. Especially when performance per clock is what Nvidia was hyping when talking about the Denver K1 compared to OTHER ARM processors. Nvidia obviously thinks it's a fair comparison, so the question is, why don't you?
The K1 is fast not because of Nvidia optimization or advances in processor architecture. It's fast because it has a high clock speed.
No, they are very different designs. Both Apple and Nvidia have architectural licenses from ARM. They use that chip architecture to design their own chips, as Qualcomm, and a few others do. As a result, their chips are very different, and are following different paths. Don't use the ARM8 instruction set to mean that the chips are that similar, because they aren't.
You are making that same mistake. We can look at AMD and Intel back in the days of the Intel Netburst architecture. Intel went fast, but AMD didn't have the same quality fabs, so they couldn't go fast. They went wide. Their chips ran at a slower clock, but still beat Netbust chips by about 10% in performance, and 10% in power usage. But that only happened when Intel went above about 3GHs, which was when leakage at 90mm first became a bigger problem for everyone, than anyone suspected. AMD was able to avoid more of the leakage problem because of their lower clock.
Since then, going wider (which the G5 did) has become an option for some. Apple's chips are wider, as a result, they must run at a lower clock. If they don't, heat buildup will be horrendous. That's why they only increase clock by 100MHz going from the phone to the tablet. Nvidia's chips are wider than Qualcomm and the original ARM designs, but not by as much as Apple's designs, so they can run at a higher clock, and need that clock. It's the design that determines the clock.
But you simply can't compare clock to clock. Samsung, with its Exnos chips, are ARM designs, because Samsung has a design license, so its chips are completely ARM designs, except for allowable differences due to differing process texhnologies, which is why their chips don't perform as well. This is also why wherever they sell their phones where performance is an issue, such as in N America, they use Qualcomm chips. Where performance is not as much of an issue, they use their own, less expensive, poorer performing chips.
There are a number of reasons why the A8x performes the way it does, and a number for why the Tegra K1 performs the way it does, but you simply can't divorce clock from the overall design.
Comments
Correct, which means it doesn't scale worth a crap on heavy load operations and thus won't ever be stuck in a Laptop/Desktop/Workstation.
Anyone thinks AMD not having Keller back and the head of AMD GPGPUs leaving Apple to return to AMD won't release a beast is truly delusional.
The reason the industry has x86_64 is because of Keller and company. We'd be stuck on 32 bit if it weren't for that team he has once amassed.
FYI: Jim Keller designed the DEC Alpha processor, not to mention was the driving force behind PA-Semi which got bought by Apple, and he worked at Apple as Chief Architect of the Apple A4-A5X processor.
http://venturebeat.com/2012/08/01/apple-cpu-jim-keller-amd/
AMD will be a pivotal player in the next 18 months and I guarantee you Apple is paying attention, not just collaborating with the Radeon GPGPUs.
That's interesting but Keller has been at AMD for two years now, and in the interim Apple has cranked out tens of millions of increasing sophisticated A6, A7 & A8 mobile chips while AMD hasn't.
And the point of the article really is: were AMD (or Intel, or Qualcomm, or Samsung, or Nvidia) to produce a superior chip for tablets that was better than Apple's, who would buy it? Who would sell it?
* Crickets *
I hadn%u2019t thought of how seriously Apple%u2019s success had impacted, and decimated, competitors. With the on-going hyperbole of Samsung, Microsoft and anti-Apple folk, it%u2019s hard to get a clear picture.
But reading this article made me think of something %u2013 Apple was the underdog, and I always go for the underdog, but now it%u2019s the best, and by a very large margin. Who should I root for?
Android can only ever be a disaster %u2013 Google should stick to services and searches, and WinMob may just be turned around by Nadella, but it has a long way to go to make its selection of apps secure and with a high standard in quality.
Amazon should never have bothered with hardware. If it had developed its apps to be gorgeous and easy to use on any device, there%u2019d be a lot more people using Amazon instead of iBooks. Me included. Combining accounts from different countries, anyone?
Tizen would have been good, but Samsung has never been focussed on quality or easy-of-use, or business relationships based on integrity. Or foresight. Blackberry may simply not have enough money to build an appealing app selection. Ubuntu is the definition of %u2018a good effort%u2019 (sad trombone).
And Chinese licensees are not fully complying? One ought to research another culture before trying to do business there! Android was designed to be free, and Google%u2019s attempts to alter this fundamental aspect of the OS are obviously a Herculean task, which I doubt they will complete successfully.
The specs of other chip makers can definitely be superior to Apple, but people buy tablets to use, not check specs all day. Jobs was visionary when he focussed on user experience as the key point, and worked to ensure that apps were to be provided to such a high standard, and that the software and hardware worked together.
Honestly, I prefer the WinMob OS to iOS, but it%u2019ll be a few years before MS can provide a tenth of the apps at a fraction of the quality. A poor app selection on a mobile device is like a computer without the Internet. Until the apps are good, go Apple!
Oh, and all your %u2018lower-end%u2019 are belong to Apple: a free 4S this year is a free 5 next year. The year after that, a free 5S %u2013 a 64bit smartphone with all the AppStore can offer? Good-bye, lower-end competitors!
Have you ever stopped to think that maybe there is more than one valid metric to judge a processor by. Blindly cheerleading isn't something that leads to respect and acceptance of ones opinion.
In any event I don't know about those instance of down playing Apples processors. In this context I know that DED's article is laced with plenty of bull crap. Unfortunately far to many lap it up with out a bit of critical thinking. With an article like this part of that critical thinking has to involve acknowledging the good points of other products.
Shouldn't be hard to outline some of this "bullcrap" that you allege. If your bullcrap allegations are something other than bullcrap allegations.
Apple was the underdog and nearly dead, and has come back from the brink. Blackberry could only do so well!
I loved reading this article. Almost every piece on Apple seems to include references to competitors, and usually with snide remarks about Apple. It's nice to read an article that at least has a different tone. I really enjoyed the insight into the manufacturing industry!
Of all the current competitors, the only one that might be strong is Windows Mobile (since Nadella took control, that is), and only if MS can get security and quality standards established with their apps. Google, Canonical and Samsung have all failed to provide what most people seem to want (those who are spending money, that is), which is a reliable, smooth, and well-designed user experience. And secure. And integrated. And good resale value. And quality.
Come to think of it...
I wanted Ubuntu Mobile to work, but a business needs income to function. Good deeds don't pay the rent. WM8.1 is the most creative interface design-wise imo, and I want to have that! But it took Apple, including organising iTunes and becoming familiar with mobile devices with iPod, almost ten years before the iPad began to take the mobile PC market. There is no shortcut to providing what Apple has.
Go Apple!
... The number of people that actually need i86 support and windows is extremely small these days. ...
I am an avid iPhone and Mac user but I totally disagree with you on this one. i86 and Windows may not be as important as they once were but that market, by any measurement, can not be classified as an extremely small market.
The poster I responded to "tooltalk" does little other than produce troll comments. It's beyond ironic to call a DED article bullshit when the person commenting is even worse.
Do you have another metric that could possibly put the K1, Snapdragon or Exynos in a good light? Because from what I see of all 3 processors are companies taking old technology and stretching it as far as they can (increasing core counts and/or ramping up the clock) to stay competitive instead of doing what Apple did (design a more efficient core).
From the A5-A6 and A6-A7 Apple doubled performance with a small increase in clock speed and staying with two cores. Both Samsung (Exynos) and Qualcomm (Snapdragon) also achieved double the performance. They did so by switching to 4 cores and greatly increasing their clock speed. They made very little progress in increasing the efficiency of a core.
I like to use the word "pathetic" when describing Exynos and Snapdragon. I think the word fits. What else would you call a processor running at almost double the clock (2.7GHz vs 1.4GHz) and having twice the cores (4 vs 2) that performs about the same? I also called the K1 pathetic. Not because of its performance (which is good) but because of how Nvidia hyped it as being more efficient per clock, when it can't even match a year old A7 for efficiency. If you're going to talk shit, you better back it up. Nvidia should realize this, after the reputation they have with previous Tegra processors (over promise, under deliver).
That's interesting but Keller has been at AMD for two years now, and in the interim Apple has cranked out tens of millions of increasing sophisticated A6, A7 & A8 mobile chips while AMD hasn't.
CPU design isn't that simple.
Jim Keller is working on a design from zero...zilch....scratch at AMD(Zen). Intensive multi year project.
This, on the same time that he is working on an ARM design for AMD, PLUS, making their x86 and ARM offerings pin compatible with each other(skybridge).
All being done by one chip team. No A, and no B. Same team is designing both products due to resource constraints.
AMD is very busy make no mistake.
His point still stands. Apple is producing these chips right now and AMD is still working on it. We've been hearing "soon" comments from the Android camp for the 8 years now. When Godot finally shows up with a product that can be tested we can make a proper evaluation, but clock rate wishes and calibration dreams just don't cut it when you have real components in real products on the market.
Logic? You have no logic in your argument at all, just unsupported statements. You wanted some support from me, and I gave it. And no, it costs Apple more to make the 12 watt charger than the 5 watt charger. You're not using logic there either. Perhaps your lack of understanding manufacturing is helping you out there too. Yes, App,e charges the same $19 for each, but that's a sales and marketing decision, as should be obvious.
You can't guarantee anything. You can just make more unsupported statements.
And please, don't try to give an elementary school explanation of how this works, we all understand it very well. I don't know from where you're quoting, but it doesn't say much. Why don't you do what I asked you to do, and what you asked me to do, which I did, and you haven't, which is to link to some reliable sources that say that every rechargeable battery that is quick charged has a shorted lifetime. I already provided a link to a manufacturer that quite explicitly states that it isn't true for their product. I can supply more, if it's too much work for you to look up.
But, I see that you are already backing away from your statements that EVERY rechargeable battery has its life shortened from quick charging. Now, if you'll go the rest of the way, and admit that all rechargeable batteries, no matter what size, that are designed to be quick charged don't lose lifetime, you'll be ok.
And please stop the BTWing, as though what you're saying there is correct, or even important. You don't use batterypower tools, so please make no comments regarding them. I have numersus Bosh and DeWalt professional model tools. I use them a fair amount. When they are used several times a week, they need a lot of recharging. Older type Nicad tools need to be recharged even if you gave a full charge and only use it for 15 minutes, and put it away for a couple of days. Lithium is much better. But I can drain a battery in a day' sis e, easily, with using the tool hard. It just takes a few dozen long screws in wood to do that, or drilling a number medium size holes with a hole saw. If I leave the lithium tool with a decent charge, it will sit for quite a while. But using it is something else. Professionals who use these daily, charge them daily. That's why most kits come with two batteries, so that you can change over, and charge while working.
Not quite. They were always what they are, a maker of PCs that use their own OS. Wanting to be a larger player doesn't mean that they would switch to Windows in order to accomplish that. They are happy about the profits they make, but from statements they have also made over the years, it's been pretty clear that they want a bigger share. cooks talking about their increased marketshare, and increased sales vs Windows shows that it means something to them. Statements by both him, and Jobs, show that increasing that marketshare is something the both wanted, and want to do. When you say that a small marketshare is good because it gives you a lot of room for growth, you are saying that you WANT that growth, not that you're happy with being where you are.
No business person is every happy about being where they are, unless they're way on top already, and then, they're sill plotting on how to move up further. Apple is no different. They have their own way of doing though. They are trying to be smart about it, there's a difference in being desperate about gaining marketshare as Dell has been, and dropping prices to the point of failing to profit, and wanting to increase marketshare, but doing it in a way where profits don't suffer. Apple is doing it the latter way, but they are doing it.
I wouldn't want a CEO to say that in the age of static pc sales, (s)he's content with their 7.5% worldwide marketshare. Perhaps when pc sales were growing strongly, that wouldn't be as much of an issue, but now, certain,y, that would mean a slight but steady, shrinking amount of Mac sales. You really think that they would be happy with that? I don't. The on,y way they can have Mac sales grow is to increase marketshare. The two go hand in hand. Even when Jobs was alive, he would talk about how Apple went from a worldwide low of 1.1% to 5% in several years, and from a domestic 2.8% to 10%.
Cook has recently, in their last financial call, bragged about now being number five worldwide, just as Apple has bragged about moving to number four in the US, then number three.
I've defended it pretty well. If you think I'm wrong, then show some real proof.
Again, If that's the case why give the smaller charger to the phone. BTW, I know the smaller one is the SAME PRICE. I go by logic, you seem to go by who knows what. The reason for it IS battery durability. If you have patience you can try charging you Iphone overnight with a low power USB charger. I'm going to guarantee you that the battery will last 5 years minimum.
Its the chemical reaction in storing the charge, discharging, moving the electrons around, that damages the battery (exothermic reaction equals heat, heat is the consequence of the reaction) ; the way to reduce the damage is reducing the current density. You can only do that by distributing the charges around to a battery split in many small cells. This increases the battery cost and makes it slightly bigger.
If the cell phone maker is doing that, well then maybe there is no damage, otherwise, yes there will be more damage with a quicker charge.
BTW, are you really comparing huge batteries with enormous thermal envelopes and size to batteries in a cell phone that are 3-4mm thick!! ?
BTW, the batteries used in tools don't get charged often, so they can endure much quicker recharges since cumulative damage will be slow (considering the few times they'll be recharged). That's what I said earlier in the thread.
For the Tesla, the space available for these batteries have are incredible compared to a cell phone and that alone changes the way the batteries are built.
Logic? You have no logic in your argument at all, just unsupported statements. You wanted some support from me, and I gave it. And no, it costs Apple more to make the 12 watt charger than the 5 watt charger. You're not using logic there either. Perhaps your lack of understanding manufacturing is helping you out there too. Yes, App,e charges the same $19 for each, but that's a sales and marketing decision, as should be obvious.
You can't guarantee anything. You can just make more unsupported statements.
And please, don't try to give an elementary school explanation of how this works, we all understand it very well. I do t know from where you're quoting, but it doesn't say much. Why don't you do what I asked you to do, and what you asked me to do, which I did, and you haven't, which is to link to some reliable sources that say that every rechargeable battery that is quick charged has a shorted lifetime. I already provided a link to a manufacturer that quite explicitly states that it isn't true for their product. I can supply more, if it's too much work for you to look up.
But, I see that you are already backing away from your statements that EVERY rechargeable battery has its life shortened from quick charging. Now, if you'll go the rest of the way, and admit that all rechargeable batteries, no matter what size, that are designed to be quick charged don't lose lifetime, you'll be ok.
OK - enough avoiding the technical issue. The discussion started with the question of whether the iPhone battery would be damaged (i.e. shortened life) by charging with the (higher current) iPad charger relative to the iPhone charger. The answer is no, but not because the iPhone battery life is unaffected by charging current - it is because the iPhone's internal charging circuit limits the current during the CC charging phase. The iPhone charger was designed to supply approximately that maximum current (no reason to make it any higher). The iPad charger can supply a higher current, but the iPhone will not accept it.
The main parameters that affect lithium-ion battery life are overcharging (should not be a factor in this case) and charging temperature, which is directly affected by charge rate due to anode heating. That is why most charging circuits are current-limiting, with the current limit being a trade off between longer battery life and shorter charging times. So no, it is incorrect to say that higher charging rates do not negatively impact battery life, and when manufacturers say that fast charging is OK, they mean, presumably, that they have designed their batteries and chargers to provide an acceptable operational balance between those two conflicting goals.
You should probably take some time to read the posts before responding. I haven't made any contentions or assertions - my only post in this thread was the one you are replying to, and I posted only because I was unimpressed with the almost complete lack of substance in your hectoring responses to others. It's not even that your position is wrong - it's more that you appear totally unable to defend it.
I've defended it pretty well. If you think I'm wrong, then show some real proof.
See above. Commercial manufacturer claims do not constitute a sound technical defense of your assertion.
Yes, yes, they coulda, shoulda. They didn't because they want to remain independent. I'm not going to go over this in detail, because I've already don't so in other posts. But if unhappy, you mean crying into their cups, then obviously no. But thinking that everything is just great is also a no. Read my other posts on this.
Unfortunately for Samsung, their 14nm yields are way too low for successful use. This is a quandary for Apple, and why some think that Apple might split between Samsung and TSMC next year.
I'm far from a battery expert.
But not counting the heaters (for winter), cooling fans (for summer and normal driving), and charging controllers aside, the battery packs in a Tesla are made up of thousands of little 18650 lithium batteries. Not unlike the 18650's found in countless laptops, portable tools, portable battery packs, flashlights, etc.
Point being its not some super-exotic and custom battery pack in a Tesla, like the way apple custom designs its batteries to fit perfectly. Rather they are made of basically off the shelf 18650's, perhaps with slightly better energy density (capacity) than your average cheap 18650 knock off found on ebay or amazon.
Edit: I could be wrong but looking at the Lenovo tablet 2 (any size), I would venture that the cylindrical looking "handle" is full of 18650's as well.
No, they are very different designs. Both Apple and Nvidia have architectural licenses from ARM. They use that chip architecture to design their own chips, as Qualcomm, and a few others do. As a result, their chips are very different, and are following different paths. Don't use the ARM8 instruction set to mean that the chips are that similar, because they aren't.
You are making that same mistake. We can look at AMD and Intel back in the days of the Intel Netburst architecture. Intel went fast, but AMD didn't have the same quality fabs, so they couldn't go fast. They went wide. Their chips ran at a slower clock, but still beat Netbust chips by about 10% in performance, and 10% in power usage. But that only happened when Intel went above about 3GHs, which was when leakage at 90mm first became a bigger problem for everyone, than anyone suspected. AMD was able to avoid more of the leakage problem because of their lower clock.
Since then, going wider (which the G5 did) has become an option for some. Apple's chips are wider, as a result, they must run at a lower clock. If they don't, heat buildup will be horrendous. That's why they only increase clock by 100MHz going from the phone to the tablet. Nvidia's chips are wider than Qualcomm and the original ARM designs, but not by as much as Apple's designs, so they can run at a higher clock, and need that clock. It's the design that determines the clock.
But you simply can't compare clock to clock. Samsung, with its Exnos chips, are ARM designs, because Samsung has a design license, so its chips are completely ARM designs, except for allowable differences due to differing process texhnologies, which is why their chips don't perform as well. This is also why wherever they sell their phones where performance is an issue, such as in N America, they use Qualcomm chips. Where performance is not as much of an issue, they use their own, less expensive, poorer performing chips.
There are a number of reasons why the A8x performes the way it does, and a number for why the Tegra K1 performs the way it does, but you simply can't divorce clock from the overall design.