I think the point here is that, and I agree with it, the iPhone has only a 480 x 320 rez screen. Just how much graphics power do we need for that? 20% more? 50% more? 500% more?
I can see it if Apple has other plans in mind.
Like all those 10" screens a number of credible sources have been saying Apple has been buying.
I think the point here is that, and I agree with it, the iPhone has only a 480 x 320 rez screen. Just how much graphics power do we need for that? 20% more? 50% more? 500% more?
I can see it if Apple has other plans in mind.
Like all those 10" screens a number of credible sources have been saying Apple has been buying.
Now, THAT could use much more power.
Depends on whether Apple has been requested to make a dock that allows for the Phone to drive external displays for presentations and more.
It normal for Imagination ip announcements for an 18-24 month window from initial announcement to SoC availability. Therefore for anything Apple will be doing with Imagination was licensed in 2007. So for iPhone this will still be a Samsung manufactured SoC with either SGX 520 or 530 on board. What Apple have now in a long term partnership with Imagination and my guess is they have access to all of their leading edge ip.
That's what i've heard as well which means that any mutil-core GPU from Imagination isn't likely to show up until 2H 2010.
A PowerVR SGX 530 series GPU along with a faster ARM 11 chip would be a nice upgrade.
The primary purpose of OpenCL and GP-GPU is to allow a GPU to use its power to better perform general purpose tasks.
Snow Leopard for Mac OS X aims to make this happen, and if we assume it also applies to iPhone OS X, then the iPhone (and other Apple handheld devices) may very well have a GPU.
I think we understand that. But there's a catch to it as well
If you have a high end board, that performs very well, you will get a big boost.
But you will only get that boost in certain areas, not in all areas in which a cpu functions.
If you don't get a high end board, the difference will be modest.
But you don't get a high end board if you don't need it for the graphics performance, because of the cost, and in portable devices, the power needed, and also because its power is limited in what it can be used for.
So the question here becomes, does the iPhone need all that graphics power to make it worthwhile to use what functions that do work for general computing when they are sometimes called? And does the cost of that chip make it too expensive for the boost it gives? And if the power draw is greater when used to boost up general computing tasks, because the chip will be working full out, will the battery drain be too much for most people to be happy with?
Apple is showing a propensity to have power usage rate higher than functionality. We can look to why they are not allowing background apps, because it may draw down the battery by 23%.
I can see some permutations where this would help, but it's murky right now.
isn't it obvious? high processing power is a required for ENCODING of video in good quality, for instance in h.264. this would enable efficient recording of video, and also enable high quality (mobile) video conferencing. it can be done parallel in many cores, requiring low power. PA Semi will help in doing that...
isn't it obvious? high processing power is a required for ENCODING of video in good quality, for instance in h.264. this would enable efficient recording of video, and also enable high quality (mobile) video conferencing. it can be done parallel in many cores, requiring low power. PA Semi will help in doing that...
and open CL can't do damage here either.
Isn't that jumping the gun a bit? You think Apple will be turning this into a camcorder? It doesn't take much to do video now. Jailbroken phones can do it without all the fancy chips. If you were going to use this for high quality recording, you would need a very good lens.
Isn't that jumping the gun a bit? You think Apple will be turning this into a camcorder? It doesn't take much to do video now. Jailbroken phones can do it without all the fancy chips. If you were going to use this for high quality recording, you would need a very good lens.
my emphasis was supposed to be on live video transmission. not really HQ, but the max for 3G. nobody is interested in HQ camcording stuff on a phone. at least not me. the life video transmission: Apple will be first, at least in acceptable quality. but not necessarily in its next incarnation.
The thing is, there is a middle ground. If you leap ahead too far and too soon, you end up costing too much and possibly drain batteries too quickly and maybe at best enable 120fps rendering on a display that can only handle 60. This thing may be a couple product generations away, which may be best that way.
The thing is, there is a middle ground. If you leap ahead too far and too soon, you end up costing too much and possibly drain batteries too quickly and maybe at best enable 120fps rendering on a display that can only handle 60. This thing may be a couple product generations away, which may be best that way.
I find it to be amusing when the game sites run the fps all the way up, and then (surprise!) find out that they can't use highest quality settings.
What exactly, is the point? I'd rather run the speed at 60, the normal frame rate of the monitor, and have AA all the way up, best lighting, etc.
I wish they would test more usefully.
The 3D graphics on the iPhone look pretty good already, another 50% increase in power, and I don't see how much further they would need to go with 480 x 320.
I see the chip as more suitable for a Netbook class device.
I want the next generation iPhone to be more capable than a Netbook. Just because it also acts as a phone doesn't mean the iPhone should be bound to our mindset of a limited device.
If they want to push the iPhone and iPod touch as a gaming device, they should give it all the power they can. I'd rate the current game graphics as above the DS/N64 and below a PSP/PS2, depends on the game. More powerful graphics would probably push it above the PSP/PS2, and with the advantage of motion sensors and touch screen, would give the PSP 2 a run, whenever that arrives.
I want the next generation iPhone to be more capable than a Netbook. Just because it also acts as a phone doesn't mean the iPhone should be bound to our mindset of a limited device.
You can only do so much with a small, low rez screen. Only if Apple decides to allow larger monitors, and a keyboard, hopefully, by way of a small dock, will it be able to move past a certain level.
We would just need a small screen, say 6" diagonal, with 720 x 480 rez. That would do a good deal.
Now, I'm reading that Apple is planning an OLED machine or two. This could be very interesting.
As LG is saying this, it has credibility. LG is a large screen manufacturer for Apple, and Apple gave them $500,000,000 for R&D in that area for them.
If they want to push the iPhone and iPod touch as a gaming device, they should give it all the power they can. I'd rate the current game graphics as above the DS/N64 and below a PSP/PS2, depends on the game. More powerful graphics would probably push it above the PSP/PS2, and with the advantage of motion sensors and touch screen, would give the PSP 2 a run, whenever that arrives.
That's understandable, but the iTouch is already considered to be more powerful than the DS AND the PSP.
How much more power can actually be used in a device for this purpose is questionable. You get to the point where the display, at the rez that it is, can use all effects, past that, more power doesn't do anything useful.
With PC's and consoles, display rez is continually going up, so that more powerful cpus and gpus are required. Not so with the phone. I can see a bit more rez on the phone, but not much more.
For a netbook type of device, yes. You could have four times as many pixels on the screen.
"...many of us do want higher performance and more importantly a larger screen. There is a lot of room on the current iPhone for a larger screen but I'm talking a slightly bigger physical device here. We are talking maybe a half inch wider and an eigth inch taller in landscape mode. Now I know many will say why bother, the answer of course is that those modest dimensional increases would lead to a huge increase in screen area, especially if much if the Bessel disappears. With the right rearrangement of components we are talking about getting a screen that is almost an inch wider. More importantly a larger device leads to room for another flash chip.
In any event yes dual core and lots of GPU cores will help here. As others have mentioned this GPU and CPU combo (speculated) would be even more at home in an even larger tablet. The advantage to Apple is that the whole CPU/GPU package will likely do just a little over a watt of power. That is a lot of computational capability for little watts.
Of course one needs to understand that those computational capabilities are very limited on most GPUs. The term "general purpose graphical processing unit" in my mind is a little mis leading. That due to the constructed processing capabilities in a GPU.
Dave
Fixed some spelling too
Eventually these things will be our computers. They will have display-port out for your "Monitor/TV", also a laser projected keyboard. When you're on the go in all fits in your pocket and is fully functional using the built in Multi-touch screen.
Comments
Seriously, I mean 640k is all you'll ever need.
I think the point here is that, and I agree with it, the iPhone has only a 480 x 320 rez screen. Just how much graphics power do we need for that? 20% more? 50% more? 500% more?
I can see it if Apple has other plans in mind.
Like all those 10" screens a number of credible sources have been saying Apple has been buying.
Now, THAT could use much more power.
Incorrect. HD is most definitely "defined" by resolution.
1280 x 720
1920x 1080
Progressive for 720 resolutions
Progressive or Interlaced for 1080
I think Apple is smart to choose 720p for iTunes. It looks great on most HDTV
under 65" and the bandwidth is half what 1080p requires for roughly equivalent
quality.
I'd say do a iTunes + for video in a couple of years. Raise the ceiling for 720p video
to 8-10Mbps (up from the 5Mbps today) and with further maturation of h.264 consumers
won't know or care about 1080p and 30Mbps and more datarates unless they have a full
blown home theatre.
iF you want to talk about a HD output on the iPhone, using Mini Displayport, I suppose, then yes.
But that's years away. The question is what can Apple use such a chip for within the next year, which is the timeframe for this.
I think the point here is that, and I agree with it, the iPhone has only a 480 x 320 rez screen. Just how much graphics power do we need for that? 20% more? 50% more? 500% more?
I can see it if Apple has other plans in mind.
Like all those 10" screens a number of credible sources have been saying Apple has been buying.
Now, THAT could use much more power.
Depends on whether Apple has been requested to make a dock that allows for the Phone to drive external displays for presentations and more.
It normal for Imagination ip announcements for an 18-24 month window from initial announcement to SoC availability. Therefore for anything Apple will be doing with Imagination was licensed in 2007. So for iPhone this will still be a Samsung manufactured SoC with either SGX 520 or 530 on board. What Apple have now in a long term partnership with Imagination and my guess is they have access to all of their leading edge ip.
That's what i've heard as well which means that any mutil-core GPU from Imagination isn't likely to show up until 2H 2010.
A PowerVR SGX 530 series GPU along with a faster ARM 11 chip would be a nice upgrade.
The primary purpose of OpenCL and GP-GPU is to allow a GPU to use its power to better perform general purpose tasks.
Snow Leopard for Mac OS X aims to make this happen, and if we assume it also applies to iPhone OS X, then the iPhone (and other Apple handheld devices) may very well have a GPU.
I think we understand that. But there's a catch to it as well
If you have a high end board, that performs very well, you will get a big boost.
But you will only get that boost in certain areas, not in all areas in which a cpu functions.
If you don't get a high end board, the difference will be modest.
But you don't get a high end board if you don't need it for the graphics performance, because of the cost, and in portable devices, the power needed, and also because its power is limited in what it can be used for.
So the question here becomes, does the iPhone need all that graphics power to make it worthwhile to use what functions that do work for general computing when they are sometimes called? And does the cost of that chip make it too expensive for the boost it gives? And if the power draw is greater when used to boost up general computing tasks, because the chip will be working full out, will the battery drain be too much for most people to be happy with?
Apple is showing a propensity to have power usage rate higher than functionality. We can look to why they are not allowing background apps, because it may draw down the battery by 23%.
I can see some permutations where this would help, but it's murky right now.
Depends on whether Apple has been requested to make a dock that allows for the Phone to drive external displays for presentations and more.
That's a whole 'nother ballgame.
I would like to see that, but so far Apple has indicated that they weren't even interested in a keyboard.
and open CL can't do damage here either.
isn't it obvious? high processing power is a required for ENCODING of video in good quality, for instance in h.264. this would enable efficient recording of video, and also enable high quality (mobile) video conferencing. it can be done parallel in many cores, requiring low power. PA Semi will help in doing that...
and open CL can't do damage here either.
Isn't that jumping the gun a bit? You think Apple will be turning this into a camcorder? It doesn't take much to do video now. Jailbroken phones can do it without all the fancy chips. If you were going to use this for high quality recording, you would need a very good lens.
Isn't that jumping the gun a bit? You think Apple will be turning this into a camcorder? It doesn't take much to do video now. Jailbroken phones can do it without all the fancy chips. If you were going to use this for high quality recording, you would need a very good lens.
my emphasis was supposed to be on live video transmission. not really HQ, but the max for 3G. nobody is interested in HQ camcording stuff on a phone. at least not me. the life video transmission: Apple will be first, at least in acceptable quality. but not necessarily in its next incarnation.
Flip Mino and Xacti cameras show there's a market for no frills video.
Apple's anti-shake technology in iMovie means you can go really cheap on a
camera because it doesn't need stabilization and correct it in iMovie to a point.
Looking forward to Toshiba's next entry.
http://www.toshiba.eu/camileo/
MutiCore SGX will properly come with MutiCore ARM Cortex A9. So i 2010 in the earliest.
Seriously, I mean 640k is all you'll ever need.
The thing is, there is a middle ground. If you leap ahead too far and too soon, you end up costing too much and possibly drain batteries too quickly and maybe at best enable 120fps rendering on a display that can only handle 60. This thing may be a couple product generations away, which may be best that way.
The thing is, there is a middle ground. If you leap ahead too far and too soon, you end up costing too much and possibly drain batteries too quickly and maybe at best enable 120fps rendering on a display that can only handle 60. This thing may be a couple product generations away, which may be best that way.
I find it to be amusing when the game sites run the fps all the way up, and then (surprise!) find out that they can't use highest quality settings.
What exactly, is the point? I'd rather run the speed at 60, the normal frame rate of the monitor, and have AA all the way up, best lighting, etc.
I wish they would test more usefully.
The 3D graphics on the iPhone look pretty good already, another 50% increase in power, and I don't see how much further they would need to go with 480 x 320.
I see the chip as more suitable for a Netbook class device.
I want the next generation iPhone to be more capable than a Netbook. Just because it also acts as a phone doesn't mean the iPhone should be bound to our mindset of a limited device.
I want the next generation iPhone to be more capable than a Netbook. Just because it also acts as a phone doesn't mean the iPhone should be bound to our mindset of a limited device.
You can only do so much with a small, low rez screen. Only if Apple decides to allow larger monitors, and a keyboard, hopefully, by way of a small dock, will it be able to move past a certain level.
We would just need a small screen, say 6" diagonal, with 720 x 480 rez. That would do a good deal.
Now, I'm reading that Apple is planning an OLED machine or two. This could be very interesting.
As LG is saying this, it has credibility. LG is a large screen manufacturer for Apple, and Apple gave them $500,000,000 for R&D in that area for them.
This link is interesting:
http://www.smarthouse.com.au/Home_Of...5M8X6Q2?page=1
If they want to push the iPhone and iPod touch as a gaming device, they should give it all the power they can. I'd rate the current game graphics as above the DS/N64 and below a PSP/PS2, depends on the game. More powerful graphics would probably push it above the PSP/PS2, and with the advantage of motion sensors and touch screen, would give the PSP 2 a run, whenever that arrives.
That's understandable, but the iTouch is already considered to be more powerful than the DS AND the PSP.
How much more power can actually be used in a device for this purpose is questionable. You get to the point where the display, at the rez that it is, can use all effects, past that, more power doesn't do anything useful.
With PC's and consoles, display rez is continually going up, so that more powerful cpus and gpus are required. Not so with the phone. I can see a bit more rez on the phone, but not much more.
For a netbook type of device, yes. You could have four times as many pixels on the screen.
"...many of us do want higher performance and more importantly a larger screen. There is a lot of room on the current iPhone for a larger screen but I'm talking a slightly bigger physical device here. We are talking maybe a half inch wider and an eigth inch taller in landscape mode. Now I know many will say why bother, the answer of course is that those modest dimensional increases would lead to a huge increase in screen area, especially if much if the Bessel disappears. With the right rearrangement of components we are talking about getting a screen that is almost an inch wider. More importantly a larger device leads to room for another flash chip.
In any event yes dual core and lots of GPU cores will help here. As others have mentioned this GPU and CPU combo (speculated) would be even more at home in an even larger tablet. The advantage to Apple is that the whole CPU/GPU package will likely do just a little over a watt of power. That is a lot of computational capability for little watts.
Of course one needs to understand that those computational capabilities are very limited on most GPUs. The term "general purpose graphical processing unit" in my mind is a little mis leading. That due to the constructed processing capabilities in a GPU.
Dave
Fixed some spelling too
Eventually these things will be our computers. They will have display-port out for your "Monitor/TV", also a laser projected keyboard. When you're on the go in all fits in your pocket and is fully functional using the built in Multi-touch screen.