Questionable rumor claims Apple's next-gen 'A10' processor could switch to six cores
Apple's next-generation mobile processor may be called the A10 and leap ahead to a six-core architecture, according to a rumor from Chinese microblogging site Weibo.
The chip should be manufactured using a 10- or 14-nanometer process, with Samsung and TSMC competing for orders, the Weibo source said. Allegedly Intel might also make a play if Apple chooses to go with 14 nanometers.
The source previously made some accurate predictions about the A9 processor used in Apple devices launching this fall, but a switch to six cores may be unlikely for several reasons.
The A9 is a dual-core chip, making use of proprietary, 64-bit technology to match or surpass third-party options like Qualcomm's Snapdragon series. Apple has stuck to a dual-core design even as other processors have upgraded to quad-, hexa-, or even octocore layouts. If the company does add more cores, four may be the most logical next step.
Such a change would also probably come at the expense of battery life, something Apple has been struggling with for years. The company waited until the iPad Air 2 to begin upgrading mobile devices to 2 gigabytes of RAM for similar reasons.
The source suggested however that Apple is interested in further exploiting multithreading, which could improve efficiency when handling several tasks at once. iPad multitasking was a central focus of last week's iOS 9 update.
The chip should be manufactured using a 10- or 14-nanometer process, with Samsung and TSMC competing for orders, the Weibo source said. Allegedly Intel might also make a play if Apple chooses to go with 14 nanometers.
The source previously made some accurate predictions about the A9 processor used in Apple devices launching this fall, but a switch to six cores may be unlikely for several reasons.
The A9 is a dual-core chip, making use of proprietary, 64-bit technology to match or surpass third-party options like Qualcomm's Snapdragon series. Apple has stuck to a dual-core design even as other processors have upgraded to quad-, hexa-, or even octocore layouts. If the company does add more cores, four may be the most logical next step.
Such a change would also probably come at the expense of battery life, something Apple has been struggling with for years. The company waited until the iPad Air 2 to begin upgrading mobile devices to 2 gigabytes of RAM for similar reasons.
The source suggested however that Apple is interested in further exploiting multithreading, which could improve efficiency when handling several tasks at once. iPad multitasking was a central focus of last week's iOS 9 update.
Comments
Apple has not 'struggled' with power as much as made strategic decisions with power and how to manage it. My iPhone 6 right now out runs the majority of Android phones, and my iPhone 6s Plus will last a few days.
Would be fine with me if it also comes with a much more powerful graphics system so it could work with a regular laptop or iMac. Otherwise, it seems like it would only really work on an iPad Pro since having something this powerful might be a waste for a regular iPhone.
Now this just HAD to put Samsung in the mix to help the company look better, which might be needed come Friday when the iPhones 6S/Plus are torn apart to discover TSMC being the A9X manufacturer after all.
If it's DigiTimes, must be a slow news day.
Let the Trash (Rubbish) talk begin
actually the source made really bad predictions about the A9 processor. I can’t understand how can anyone say otherwise. It is the same source that said the geekbench score of the A9 would be 2090 and 3569 (single and multicore), which we already know it is false.
With the iPhone 6S beating the MacBook in CPU benchmarks, which doesn't include the upcoming iPad Pro with an A9X with what I assume is a higher clock speed and 4GB RAM, we could see performance speeds that beat out even the MacBook Air from just 2-3 years ago. The biggest issue I see is a logistical one on how to work the OS to make it work with 3rd-party apps: Open installs or Mac App Store-only?
A portable device with a 6 core chip, at present, is a bit overkill. Those needing that kind of power would probably do better with a Macbook.
With the iPhone 6S beating the MacBook in CPU benchmarks, which doesn't include the upcoming iPad Pro with an A9X with what I assume is a higher clock speed and 4GB RAM, we could see performance speeds that beat out even the MacBook Air from just 2-3 years ago. The biggest issue I see is a logistical one on how to work the OS to make it work with 3rd-party apps: Open installs or Mac App Store-only?
It seems like only a year ago people on here were arguing with me saying ARM chips would never come close to being fit for laptops. Funny how time and progression changes things
I didn't know the 6S was beating the MacBook in benchmarks, that's pretty impressive.
Those same people are probably still saying that.
Bested in 2 of the three tiers for single-core and on the heals of multi-core, but let's remember the power envelope, RAM and other features of this chip. The A9X should jump far ahead of the A9, and future A-series chips will jump far ahead of that.
Looking at current events... The move to cross-Apple-platform frameworks like Metal and the use of bitcode for distribution... There might not be much left to be done once it happens.
By what measure? If it's an iOS laptop, no problem. If it's an OS X laptop, problem.
We've been over this a number of times. Making an ARM OS X device is a lot more difficult than an iOS one. It's one reason Microsoft went with i3, i5 and i7 chips for the Surface Pro.
People keep thinking that Apple has OS X on ARM, since it's pretty much the same thing as iOS inside, and that Apple has iWork apps on iOS, so they could do that too. Simple! But it's not so simple. There is no way that Desktop Office or Apple's FCP suite, or Creative Cloud, would work off an ARM chip. Not going to happen! There is lots of software for OS X that's just too big and needs too much processing power for this. Then, there's the little problem that these third party apps would need to run in emulation. Forget it!
By what measure? If it's an iOS laptop, no problem. If it's an OS X laptop, problem.
We've been over this a number of times. Making an ARM OS X device is a lot more difficult than an iOS one. It's one reason Microsoft went with i3, i5 and i7 chips for the Surface Pro.
People keep thinking that Apple has OS X on ARM, since it's pretty much the same thing as iOS inside, and that Apple has iWork apps on iOS, so they could do that too. Simple! But it's not so simple. There is no way that Desktop Office or Apple's FCP suite, or Creative Cloud, would work off an ARM chip. Not going to happen! There is lots of software for OS X that's just too big and needs too much processing power for this. Then, there's the little problem that these third party apps would need to run in emulation. Forget it!
Well, I'm assuming it would be running a variant of iOS with OSX relegated to 'pro' machines, and destined to die in the distant future.
Quite possiblle.
Note: I do consider all these moves a long term focus on working out the logistics of migrating Mac OS X (or a Mac OS X-like OS) to less expensive machines using their own chips.
That sound wrong.
The "x86 forever " argument is such a ridiculous defense against ARM. No one is saying Intel would be dropped the way PPC was dropped completely for x86, when PPC plateaued. We're talking about making entry-level notebooks that re hundreds of dollars less expensive than their current lineup, with very expensive Intel chips that Apple can beat.
Do you even know how the iOS App Store was created? Do you think those were x86 apps that magically ran on ARM? No! Apple made tools and people adopted them. If and when large and expensive productively app makers decide that the new, much lower entry-level Mac market is viable they will make SW. If not, someone else will, but that won't matter to its initial success, just as not even having an App Store didn't matter to the iPhone initial success, and yet I'd wager that if this does happen there will already be an App Store in place for those machines running that architecture… or do you not think Apple partners with SW developers in secret despite all the special events and keynotes to the contrary.