A12Z chip in 2020 iPad Pro confirmed to be recycled A12X

Posted:
in iPad
A closer look into Apple's A12Z system-on-chip processor, introduced with the latest iPad Pro series in March, confirms the silicon is indeed a re-binned A12X from 2018.

A12Z
Die comparison between A12Z and A12X shows identical GPU layout. | Source: TechInsights


Chip analysis specialist TechInsights in a tweet on Monday detailed new findings that confirms the GPU architecture in Apple's A12Z SoC is identical to that of the A12X used in the third-generation iPad Pro. An enhanced photo of the chip's die was examined to discern potential differences.

"Our analysis confirms #Apple #A12Z GPU chip found inside #iPadPro (model A2068) is the same as A12X predecessor," the firm said.

The discovery means Apple is reusing, or more specifically re-binning, 2018's A12X. Both chips are built on the same 7nm process and boast identical CPU and memory configurations.

As previously reported, the "new" A12Z integrates an 8-core GPU core, while the original A12X had a 7-core GPU. TechInsights in March found the A12X has eight physical cores, suggesting Apple simply activated the latent core as part of a binning process with A12Z.

As noted by AnandTech, the A12X was one of the largest 7nm chips being fabricated by Apple partner TSMC in 2018. More than 18 months after the chip debuted, Apple is likely seeing better yields, which should mean the company no longer needs to bin to lower specifications to save chip output.

Apple's decision to recycle a nearly two-year-old chip is unprecedented. With iPad Pro, the company typically integrates an "X-series" chip that delivers architectural upgrades to the current base A-series SoC introduced with iPhone.

There are a number of reasons Apple skipped an "X" update for 2020. For one, the company potentially felt its A12 series was powerful enough to handle the computational demands of 2020 iPad Pro. The tablet does bring a few hardware upgrades in a dual-camera array and the LiDAR Scanner, but is for the most part an iterative update over the third-generation variant. Re-binning the A12X also grants engineers more time to develop an "A14X" chip capable of chewing through processor-intensive operations associated with future AR tasks and other graphics-heavy applications.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 52
    It's Intel's fault!
    ne1razorpit
  • Reply 2 of 52
    ne1ne1 Posts: 71member
    So let’s take a poll— who thinks we’ll see 

    A) an iPad Pro Fall 2020 release with A13X
    (And mini-LED, as predicted) 

    or 

    B) a next release of iPad Pro in Spring 2021 with A14X?

    I’m curious because I have an upgrade due this fall and, well, quarantine— I’m bored. ;)
    Scot1cyberzombiewatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 52
    iadlibiadlib Posts: 117member
    Can they be sued for that? Selling a product that you later find out was intentionally hobbled?
  • Reply 4 of 52
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,904moderator
    iadlib said:
    Can they be sued for that? Selling a product that you later find out was intentionally hobbled?
     Can be.  Successfully is the question.  
    ajlGeorgeBMacrazorpit
  • Reply 5 of 52
    roakeroake Posts: 821member
    iadlib said:
    Can they be sued for that? Selling a product that you later find out was intentionally hobbled?
    While I suppose people can sue for anything, I think the spirit of the answer is no.  The original device met the specifications it was advertised with.  The fact that it had an underlying inactivated graphics core should be legally irrelevant.  Perhaps the had cooling or other issues with the overall design when that core was active.
    gilly33razorpitrandominternetpersonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 52
    chadbagchadbag Posts: 2,029member
    iadlib said:
    Can they be sued for that? Selling a product that you later find out was intentionally hobbled?
    As long as the product sold meets the specs promised then any suit is unlikely to be successful.  It does not matter if there are extra bits “in the box”, so to speak.  You did not pay for them so you are not losing anything.  

     This “binning” process is well known across the whole industry and used by most all semiconductor manufacturers.  
    gilly33gregoriusmpeteloblGeorgeBMacrazorpitrandominternetpersonStrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 52
    roakeroake Posts: 821member
    ne1 said:
    So let’s take a poll— who thinks we’ll see 

    A) an iPad Pro Fall 2020 release with A13X
    (And mini-LED, as predicted) 

    or 

    B) a next release of iPad Pro in Spring 2021 with A14X?

    I’m curious because I have an upgrade due this fall and, well, quarantine— I’m bored. ;)
    A fall 2020 release is going to piss off the people who purchased the current one.

    I hope it’s a 2021 A14X in a well thought out, much improved platform that the engineers will have been working on for almost 3 years.
    Scot1watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 52
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    iadlib said:
    Can they be sued for that? Selling a product that you later find out was intentionally hobbled?
    Well, why don’t you try and report back to us.
    gilly33macplusplusStrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 52
    bloggerblogbloggerblog Posts: 2,525member
    iadlib said:
    Can they be sued for that? Selling a product that you later find out was intentionally hobbled?
    Tesla uses the same large battery in their cheaper models but disables parts of it.
    zeus423gregoriusmrazorpitStrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 52
    flydogflydog Posts: 1,141member
    iadlib said:
    Can they be sued for that? Selling a product that you later find out was intentionally hobbled?
    More likely that you would be sued for libel. 
    lkruppwatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 52
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 2,486member
    iadlib said:
    Can they be sued for that? Selling a product that you later find out was intentionally hobbled?
    Tesla uses the same large battery in their cheaper models but disables parts of it.
    Disables or doesn't warrant for higher distance?
    Higher-end model just have a higher likelihood of battery replacement built-in, lower models keep more capacity for wear leveling. 

    12Z is a better bin of parts that doesn't need the core turned off to meet the warranty repair risk of the product. The 12X was sold to what it could delivery.
    gregoriusmnetroxwatto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 52
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member
    As soon as this iPad Pro was released, I did mention here that I found the inclusion of an A12Z chip to be strange, because I think that it was expected that it would have an A13X, but an A12Z instead?

    Who's going to be disappointed? I don't think that many 2018 iPad Pro owners would be upgrading to this model, as the 2018 iPad Pros are still very powerful. Hell, my 2017 10.5" is still powerful in my opinion, which is why upgrading isn't even on my mind at this time.

    Anybody buying this is still getting the most powerful tablet on the market, afaik. If somebody needs or wants an iPad Pro at this moment, then this is the obvious choice if they want the newest model.

    I also think that many people who get hung up on the spec side of things are the very same people who will never utilize their devices to the fullest to begin with. I remember all of the Fandroid fools from some years ago that used to invade this forum and boast about their multicore phones, never mind that they all performed like garbage and were easily beat and outperformed by a dual core iPhone.
    edited April 2020 razorpitrandominternetpersonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 52
    It the same bait and switch or in this case the same old vs. same old minus the upgraded label!
  • Reply 14 of 52
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member
    It the same bait and switch or in this case the same old vs. same old minus the upgraded label!
    I wouldn't call it bait and switch, there are a number of improvements over the previous model, like 6 GB RAM across all models, better and more cameras etc., Apple just chose not to prioritize any significant improvement on the CPU this time around. They obviously have their reasons, though we don't know exactly what those are at this time. 

    The 2020 iPad Pro is the best tablet in the world, even with the A12Z chip.
    gregoriusmuraharathtlkrupprazorpitGG1StrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 52
    bonobobbonobob Posts: 395member
    Quote: 
    Apple's decision to recycle a nearly two-year-old chip is unprecedented.
    Except that it’s not.  The sixth and seventh gen iPads both have the same A10 chip. 

    Edit:  Okay, you’re right.  The A10 was a three year old chip. 
    edited April 2020 fastasleepuraharaGilliam_Batesrazorpitrandominternetpersonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 52
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,136member
    iadlib said:
    Can they be sued for that? Selling a product that you later find out was intentionally hobbled?
    I doubt it.  IBM does it all the time.  I do work on IBM Power I machines and they are multi-core machines, but sold as single-core machines.  The additional cores can be unlocked by paying IBM more money (ransom) and a software "switch" to bring the core(s) online.  I absolutely hate that.  

    It's like buying a V8 but with 2 of the spark plugs disconnected and selling it as a V6.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 52
    dedgeckodedgecko Posts: 169member
    I wonder if this is related to the chipset engineers who tried to start their own company while still working for Apple.  Perhaps that stalled development for the A13X/14X.  That started about two years ago if I recall correctly. 

    Regardless, I hadn’t picked up an iPad Pro until these 2020’s dropped. I’m loving Procreate and Lumafusion on this compared to the iPads and Apple Pencil 1.0. 
    edited April 2020 watto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 52
    cosimocosimo Posts: 27member
    Competition... It's called competition
    Nobody can match the A12X... Power, Heat, consumption. Is literally the best by a far margin. So... Why bother?

    I love Apple products, but I'm sad that only Qualcomm can try (unsuccessfully) to beat Apple SoC's... Apple is so far ahead that can even laugh at us by re-releasing the same chip and still being years ahead of the competition.
    edited April 2020
  • Reply 19 of 52
    vukasikavukasika Posts: 103member
    I think the moral of this story is for iPad buyers to wait for reviews of CPU performance and architecture before purchasing new iPads. This simply not enough “improvement” to justify a brand new device for anything other than hardcore Apple fans.
  • Reply 20 of 52
    So Apple releases an absolute monster of an iPad in 2018, decides to do a slight upgrade with the same chip in 2020 - and people break out the pitchforks?

    iPad Pro 2020 release is closely connected to the new Apple Magic Keyboard for the iPad Pro. How would it have been received if Apple released that keyboard and NOT an updated iPad Pro? Not that well, I imagine.

    ”But they should have delivered a new iPad Pro with the newest A13 chip!” Maybe so, but they chose not to. Did Apple lie about that? No. Is there a real problem here? No. 
    randominternetpersonnetroxStrangeDayswatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.