But but but...
1. Android is already 64-bit
2. 64-bit doesn't matter
3. Most iOS apps are 32-bit
4. The A7/A8 is made by Samsung so that counts, right?
5. only 1GB of RAM
1. That's strange. None of the apps are.
2. Then why did you list Android as already being 64-bit?
3. Most are. 100% of Android apps are but 64-bit doesn't matter, right?
4. Intel makes processors for Apple too but they don't use Apple processors in their hardware nor does Samsung.
5. Only 1GB of RAM and still faster. Just imagine when Apple adds more RAM
But... but... the pr!cks that are the bedwetting Fandroids constantly reminded us why 64-bit chips were just a gimmick, that it was not necessary unless it had at least 4GB of RAM! They know everything! So why is the market RACING to 64-bit if it is just nonsense?
*cue the silent fandroids scurrying to the back of the room, once again being called out for being clues a$$holes.
Couldn't have said it better myself! I got into a few heated fights with idiot Fandroids over just this very topic. Now look at them, all on the 64-bit bandwagon like it's an absolute must all of a sudden, when just a year ago it was "a worthless gimmick", bunch of stupid, ignorant buttwipes.
1. That's strange. None of the apps are.
2. Then why did you list Android as already being 64-bit?
3. Most are. 100% of Android apps are but 64-bit doesn't matter, right?
4. Intel makes processors for Apple too but they don't use Apple processors in their hardware nor does Samsung.
5. Only 1GB of RAM and still faster. Just imagine when Apple adds more RAM
Apple already added more RAM to the iPad Air 2, and look at that monster of a tablet :smokey:
1. That's strange. None of the apps are.
2. Then why did you list Android as already being 64-bit?
3. Most are. 100% of Android apps are but 64-bit doesn't matter, right?
4. Intel makes processors for Apple too but they don't use Apple processors in their hardware nor does Samsung.
5. Only 1GB of RAM and still faster. Just imagine when Apple adds more RAM
Guys, after these 64-bit Qualcomm and nVidia chips start shipping, the Android kernel is still going to be 32-bit. That basically means the advantage of these things is zero. I am not aware of a beta or preview build of Android *anywhere* that is going to be able to make use of these new chips. Before any of the Dalvik/Java apps for Android can run in 64-bit, Google is going to have to build Android for 64-bit. Yes, the Linux kernel has been 64-bit for a long time now, but that doesn't mean its going to be a trivial process to get Android there. Intel has been making Android run on their x86 chips for a couple of years now, and we all know that x86 has been 64-bit for quite a while. Well just this past October, Google finally released a *preview* 64-bit version of Android for that platform: http://www.extremetech.com/computing/191744-android-l-64-bit-preview-finally-released-but-only-for-x86-wheres-armv8-google
So I think the competition might have to hold their breath until they turn blue...
That's what happens when one company decides to build a phone... but they get their processors from another company... and the operating system comes from a third company... etc.
It reminds me of that saying "your right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing"
There are certain challenges when the individual elements of a phone are being handled by separate companies thousands of miles apart.
If HTC wants to build a 64-bit phone... they gotta wait until Qualcomm and Google get on the same page.
But when Apple decided to do that... they just yelled down the hall.
There's a term for that:
Vertical Integration Apple Inc. is an example of a vertically integrated company. Specifically, it controls many elements of the ecosystem for the iPhone and iPad, such as the processor and hardware designs, operating system and application software, and related cloud services.
1. That's strange. None of the apps are.
2. Then why did you list Android as already being 64-bit?
3. Most are. 100% of Android apps are but 64-bit doesn't matter, right?
4. Intel makes processors for Apple too but they don't use Apple processors in their hardware nor does Samsung.
5. Only 1GB of RAM and still faster. Just imagine when Apple adds more RAM
Don't forget that by February, or sometime around then, Apple is requiring all developers who update their apps to include a 64-bit version. Whether it means performance improvements will remain to be seen, but there'll be a ton of 64-bit apps for iOS nonetheless.
That's nothing compared to the delays until Android developers deliver actual 64-bit benefits...
As per latest numbers, Android 5.0 Lollipop accounts for only 0.1% of installed base. By the time the installed base for 64-bit Android reaches current iOS 7 numbers, Apple will be on OS XI.
So by the time Android sees a 64-bit chip Apple will be releasing it's 3rd generation processor, the A9. I'm going to assume it'll also be a triple core because the new iPad Airs are Triple. Seems pretty logical. I think Apple will hold off on Quad Core. It's just eats more power. How laughable of Android. It really does look bad. Apple 1 company, making it's own Custom 64-bit ARM chip and where's anyone else??? Now even Samscum who make their own Chips and yet make Apples!!! It's really pretty funny.
@JBDragon : Sure, and Qualcomm, Mediatek, Samsung, etc will have their next generation AP's by the time A9 is out.
Now, as for your multicore comment, there is a good reason why almost all processor makers stopped competing for higher clock frequency in favor of multi-cores in mid 2000: power efficiency. Adding more cores reduces power consumptions and heat dissipation for the same performance, not the other way around. According to a IEEE article by Phillip Ross :
... Intel reports that underclocking a single core by 20 percent saves half the power while sacrificing just 13 percent of the performance. That means that if you divide the work between two cores running at an 80 percent clock rate, you get 73 percent better performance for the same power. And the heat is dissipated at two points rather than one. So even though the cutting-edge logic chip gulps ever more power [see graph, center], it isn't about to melt its way through the floor. ...
GeekBench is not useful for benchmarking for a few reasons:
• It relies on some specific code snippets which are optimised differently for different platforms.
• It's strictly about general purpose processing, e.g. many of the real world speed gains come from platform-specific extensions
• It does not measure sustained performance, A8 in benchmarking is no faster than long-term A8 use. While speed/power requirements force other chipsets to throttle as much as 30-50% of their performance.
If you're looking for real world benchmarks you should look at the amalgamated result: There are now many benchmarks which show the latest devices with the same apps, taking each through an ASAP testing routine. From there you can see load time and operation times in real world scenarios.
This is how you can truly evaluate the end performance, not tiny slithers of Mandelbrot/FFT/GEMM code. If those are all that mattered, we'd all design chips that did those at high speed.
@ECats: Sure, so then I'm guessing you strongly disagree with DED's assertion that Apple A8's "significant performance lead in both areas" -- as there is really no cross-platform mobile benchmark good enough to quantify CPU performances ?
The fact that Apple designs its own processors is pretty much ignored by Wall Street. Apple gets no premium value for that capability although maybe it's because Apple doesn't sell those processors to other companies.
This is so true and a huge problem because it is innovation that leads the industry right now. People don't want to admit that it is innovation too.
Apple is basically seen as a smartphone company by Wall Street and that's about it. Being able to design its own processors would seem to be a fairly big advantage over other smartphone companies. Apple has had its own 64-bit processor for quite a while and yet rivals have not caught up.
Apple is on its second rev, actually you might say third as there are huge differences between A8 & A8X.
Still there are always the criticisms that Apple's iPhone is far behind the rest of the smartphone industry due to having lesser specs than most of its rivals. It was true that the iPhone was behind in display size for (two years?) but made up for it almost immediately. Same with LTE. It took some time for Apple to wait for lower-power LTE chips while many Android smartphones had LTE almost immediately. I'm always thinking Apple deliberately takes its time and thinks everything through before adapting it. That's probably the best way to do things, but the company will be criticized for being slower than some rival companies.
In the end you can't find better cell phone hardware in the physical sizes Apple ships. This is huge. This is also why I beleive that that 4" sized machine rumored recently is real. Apple will ship it when the hardware is in a suitable state to deliver far better performance, in that form factor.
Sure they will. And Santa Claus is going to bring you one for Christmas.
Qualcomm, Samsung, Nvidia and Mediatek are lightweights compared to Apple when it comes to processor design.
Even Marvell is in the game with an applications processor. What is most interesting here isn't how these people are doing when out up against Apple but rather how they are doing when put up against Intel. It is Intel that has demonstrated pathetic accomplishments with low power processors. It is very much an ARM world still even if these designers are behind Apple.
The fact that Apple designs its own processors is pretty much ignored by Wall Street. Apple gets no premium value for that capability although maybe it's because Apple doesn't sell those processors to other companies.
Maybe they should start. What if Apple started selling A5s and A6s to the commodity Chinese phone makers? This would cut into Qualcomm's revenue and give Apple a little extra profit.
Don't forget that by February, or sometime around then, Apple is requiring all developers who update their apps to include a 64-bit version. Whether it means performance improvements will remain to be seen, but there'll be a ton of 64-bit apps for iOS nonetheless.
The underlying advantage of which is that, with fewer and fewer 32-bit apps installed on a person's 64-bit iPhone or iPad, there will be fewer contexts within which that person will be running at least one 32-bit app and therefore fewer times when the iPhone or iPad has to load the 32-bit libraries, resulting in an overall better performance of the device.
Comments
1. That's strange. None of the apps are.
2. Then why did you list Android as already being 64-bit?
3. Most are. 100% of Android apps are but 64-bit doesn't matter, right?
4. Intel makes processors for Apple too but they don't use Apple processors in their hardware nor does Samsung.
5. Only 1GB of RAM and still faster. Just imagine when Apple adds more RAM
Apple already added more RAM to the iPad Air 2, and look at that monster of a tablet :smokey:
You know his comment was sarcastic, right?
That's what happens when one company decides to build a phone... but they get their processors from another company... and the operating system comes from a third company... etc.
It reminds me of that saying "your right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing"
There are certain challenges when the individual elements of a phone are being handled by separate companies thousands of miles apart.
If HTC wants to build a 64-bit phone... they gotta wait until Qualcomm and Google get on the same page.
But when Apple decided to do that... they just yelled down the hall.
There's a term for that:
Apple Inc. is an example of a vertically integrated company. Specifically, it controls many elements of the ecosystem for the iPhone and iPad, such as the processor and hardware designs, operating system and application software, and related cloud services.
Don't forget that by February, or sometime around then, Apple is requiring all developers who update their apps to include a 64-bit version. Whether it means performance improvements will remain to be seen, but there'll be a ton of 64-bit apps for iOS nonetheless.
That's nothing compared to the delays until Android developers deliver actual 64-bit benefits...
As per latest numbers, Android 5.0 Lollipop accounts for only 0.1% of installed base. By the time the installed base for 64-bit Android reaches current iOS 7 numbers, Apple will be on OS XI.
So by the time Android sees a 64-bit chip Apple will be releasing it's 3rd generation processor, the A9. I'm going to assume it'll also be a triple core because the new iPad Airs are Triple. Seems pretty logical. I think Apple will hold off on Quad Core. It's just eats more power. How laughable of Android. It really does look bad. Apple 1 company, making it's own Custom 64-bit ARM chip and where's anyone else??? Now even Samscum who make their own Chips and yet make Apples!!! It's really pretty funny.
@JBDragon : Sure, and Qualcomm, Mediatek, Samsung, etc will have their next generation AP's by the time A9 is out.
Now, as for your multicore comment, there is a good reason why almost all processor makers stopped competing for higher clock frequency in favor of multi-cores in mid 2000: power efficiency. Adding more cores reduces power consumptions and heat dissipation for the same performance, not the other way around. According to a IEEE article by Phillip Ross :
Sure they will. And Santa Claus is going to bring you one for Christmas.
Qualcomm, Samsung, Nvidia and Mediatek are lightweights compared to Apple when it comes to processor design.
GeekBench is not useful for benchmarking for a few reasons:
• It relies on some specific code snippets which are optimised differently for different platforms.
• It's strictly about general purpose processing, e.g. many of the real world speed gains come from platform-specific extensions
• It does not measure sustained performance, A8 in benchmarking is no faster than long-term A8 use. While speed/power requirements force other chipsets to throttle as much as 30-50% of their performance.
If you're looking for real world benchmarks you should look at the amalgamated result: There are now many benchmarks which show the latest devices with the same apps, taking each through an ASAP testing routine. From there you can see load time and operation times in real world scenarios.
This is how you can truly evaluate the end performance, not tiny slithers of Mandelbrot/FFT/GEMM code. If those are all that mattered, we'd all design chips that did those at high speed.
@ECats: Sure, so then I'm guessing you strongly disagree with DED's assertion that Apple A8's "significant performance lead in both areas" -- as there is really no cross-platform mobile benchmark good enough to quantify CPU performances ?
In the end you can't find better cell phone hardware in the physical sizes Apple ships. This is huge. This is also why I beleive that that 4" sized machine rumored recently is real. Apple will ship it when the hardware is in a suitable state to deliver far better performance, in that form factor.
Even Marvell is in the game with an applications processor. What is most interesting here isn't how these people are doing when out up against Apple but rather how they are doing when put up against Intel. It is Intel that has demonstrated pathetic accomplishments with low power processors. It is very much an ARM world still even if these designers are behind Apple.
Patronising much?
The fact that Apple designs its own processors is pretty much ignored by Wall Street. Apple gets no premium value for that capability although maybe it's because Apple doesn't sell those processors to other companies.
Maybe they should start. What if Apple started selling A5s and A6s to the commodity Chinese phone makers? This would cut into Qualcomm's revenue and give Apple a little extra profit.
Imagine if you could buy a laptop like a 13" MacBook Air running OS X like today. You lift off the screen and it becomes an iPad running iOS.[/quote]
This is something I've been dreaming about for a while.
The underlying advantage of which is that, with fewer and fewer 32-bit apps installed on a person's 64-bit iPhone or iPad, there will be fewer contexts within which that person will be running at least one 32-bit app and therefore fewer times when the iPhone or iPad has to load the 32-bit libraries, resulting in an overall better performance of the device.