No one has mentioned that the Apple A4 chip is code named S5L8930X and that the Apple A5 chip is code named S5L8940X. Therefore, logic suggests that the chip to be featured in the iPad 3 will be code named S5L8950X which suggests that the Apple A5X chip, code named S5L8945X, is a prototype.
Either way, if coding found in the iOS 5.1 beta is to be believed, the Apple A5X is reportedly a quad-core chip.
A) you have only recently got into computers, maybe starting with an iPad
you have only recently got into trolling
If you can tell me which then I might bother to explain your "dilemma"
A) I'm a computer science major (graduate student) doing research on parallel computing. Heck, look at my sig.
I'm not a troll.
The 512MB in the iPad 2 is just not enough. How do I know? Try opening multiple tabs in Safari. My RAM complaint with the iPad is legitimate. Why are you trying to label it as trolling? I had the original iPad and it was slooooooooow so I replaced it immediately with the iPad 2. Much better; but with lots of tabs open it does get slow at times. Maybe I have become spoiled by very fast machines but I'm not trolling. I will get the iPad 3, 1GB of RAM or not, because there will be performance improvements. But I sincerely hope that it has at least 1GB. Having pages reload just because I have lots of tabs open completely ruins the experience, especially if you had some forms filled in some tab and switched to another tab and switched back just to see the page reloading.
It's transferring 4 times the pixel rate now. 'X', my guess ..is the graphics throughput/
support instruction set is extended.
Although I hope it is an A6(who doesn't), I am getting used to
Apple's evolution speed.
As long as they keep the whole use experience ahead of upcoming Android ICS/JB or win phone 8. Going to be tougher this year.
What the SoC is name doesn't really matter. If it can be as much of a performance jump as the iPad 2 was to the original iPad then they could call it A3 for all I care.
It's probably unrealistic to expect this awesome new display, a quad core processor, double RAM, etc. all in iPad 3 due to costs. If the new display costs substantially more than the current one, Apple will have to find savings elsewhere to maintain the current pricing and healthy margins.
I think most customers will far happier with the retina display than more RAM and a faster processor this year. But you aren't happy, wait for the iPad 3S next year.
You keep making stuff mythical scenarios the can't be backed up. So in your mind the dual-core Cortex-A15 running at 1.5GHz will be worse than a quad-core Cortex-A9 running at 800MHz simply because you've decided to focus only on one aspect and then hold it up as being the only thing that has ever mattered.. right now.
They are going to go from 1000MHz to 800MHz? Precisely what planet are you from?
I bet the A5X is a TSMC part on their 28mn processes
Could very well be. Or it could be a base A5 with more RAM. Another possibility is an A5 engineered for a low cost iPad. That is we could see an A6 in the high resolution iPads at a higher cost with the A5X rev targeting an entry level iPad.
There are many possibilities here. I would be surprised though if Apple upgrade the GPU enough to drive a retina display and kept the processor name the same.
Cortex A9 cores are hitting 2.5 GHz on some processes at virtually the same power levels. Apple could double computational performance with just two Cortex cores if they wanted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Being quad-core or not quad-core doesn't matter. Note that the first Cortex-A15's will smoke Cortex-A9 yet will only be dual-core. But all that's beside the point but there is no evidence to support this is not quad-core Cortex-A9 so don't get all frowny face over something that isn't substantiated.
Now let's talk about it being a dual-core Cortex-A9 and not quad-core. Quantify the very specific ways it would ruin your iPad experience. Note that I'm asking you something impossible to answer, hence you should only react to actual shortcomings that are quantifiable, not mythical.
That is without the issue of a bigger frame buffer for a high resolution display. Even today there are apps that could obviously use more RAM beyond Safari.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdaddyguido
You're not running all those apps at once. In simplified terms, they are in a suspended state. Obviously the exchange accounts work a tad differently since they are able to retrieve data without being opened by the user.
Apps such as GarageBand with many tracks; safari with tons of tabs; and new 3rd party apps like avid would be better candidates for using/desiring more ram.
Comments
Either way, if coding found in the iOS 5.1 beta is to be believed, the Apple A5X is reportedly a quad-core chip.
What has that got to do with the device? Nothing
A) you have only recently got into computers, maybe starting with an iPad
If you can tell me which then I might bother to explain your "dilemma"
A) I'm a computer science major (graduate student) doing research on parallel computing. Heck, look at my sig.
The 512MB in the iPad 2 is just not enough. How do I know? Try opening multiple tabs in Safari. My RAM complaint with the iPad is legitimate. Why are you trying to label it as trolling? I had the original iPad and it was slooooooooow so I replaced it immediately with the iPad 2. Much better; but with lots of tabs open it does get slow at times. Maybe I have become spoiled by very fast machines but I'm not trolling. I will get the iPad 3, 1GB of RAM or not, because there will be performance improvements. But I sincerely hope that it has at least 1GB. Having pages reload just because I have lots of tabs open completely ruins the experience, especially if you had some forms filled in some tab and switched to another tab and switched back just to see the page reloading.
support instruction set is extended.
Although I hope it is an A6(who doesn't), I am getting used to
Apple's evolution speed.
As long as they keep the whole use experience ahead of upcoming Android ICS/JB or win phone 8. Going to be tougher this year.
It's transferring 4 times the pixel rate now. 'X', my guess ..is the graphics throughput/
support instruction set is extended.
Although I hope it is an A6(who doesn't), I am getting used to
Apple's evolution speed.
As long as they keep the whole use experience ahead of upcoming Android ICS/JB or win phone 8. Going to be tougher this year.
What the SoC is name doesn't really matter. If it can be as much of a performance jump as the iPad 2 was to the original iPad then they could call it A3 for all I care.
I don't want an iPad. I don't want any tablet. I am fine with my i7 MacBook Pro.
So why post in the thread?
So why post in the thread?
I don't know.
I think most customers will far happier with the retina display than more RAM and a faster processor this year. But you aren't happy, wait for the iPad 3S next year.
You keep making stuff mythical scenarios the can't be backed up. So in your mind the dual-core Cortex-A15 running at 1.5GHz will be worse than a quad-core Cortex-A9 running at 800MHz simply because you've decided to focus only on one aspect and then hold it up as being the only thing that has ever mattered.. right now.
They are going to go from 1000MHz to 800MHz? Precisely what planet are you from?
Imagine that. A bullshit rumor.
lol...
I bet the A5X is a TSMC part on their 28mn processes
Could very well be. Or it could be a base A5 with more RAM. Another possibility is an A5 engineered for a low cost iPad. That is we could see an A6 in the high resolution iPads at a higher cost with the A5X rev targeting an entry level iPad.
There are many possibilities here. I would be surprised though if Apple upgrade the GPU enough to drive a retina display and kept the processor name the same.
I matters to me. When you're on iOS 7 it will matter. It matters.
But as I sold my iPad 2 so I have no choice, but I won't say I'm not : ( when I am. Hope it's quad core.
Oh God...
If I used this logic, I wouldn't buy a quad core either because eventually iOS 11 will drop someday.
Being quad-core or not quad-core doesn't matter. Note that the first Cortex-A15's will smoke Cortex-A9 yet will only be dual-core. But all that's beside the point but there is no evidence to support this is not quad-core Cortex-A9 so don't get all frowny face over something that isn't substantiated.
Now let's talk about it being a dual-core Cortex-A9 and not quad-core. Quantify the very specific ways it would ruin your iPad experience. Note that I'm asking you something impossible to answer, hence you should only react to actual shortcomings that are quantifiable, not mythical.
You're not running all those apps at once. In simplified terms, they are in a suspended state. Obviously the exchange accounts work a tad differently since they are able to retrieve data without being opened by the user.
Apps such as GarageBand with many tracks; safari with tons of tabs; and new 3rd party apps like avid would be better candidates for using/desiring more ram.
Oh God...
If I used this logic, I wouldn't buy a quad core either because eventually iOS 11 will drop someday.
The iPad is coming in two weeks it could have dual or quad core, I want quad core. OK!!!
And the Yield for 28nm LP aren't anywhere near iPad 3 requirement.
waiting for the IPad 3 ......
or wait IPad2S !
Maybe the X mens it will OS X Lion...
The X Men are involved on this one?
Then it's going to be fucking awesome!
It is really driving me crazy
waiting for the IPad 3 ......
or wait IPad2S !
2S.
No retina screen.
No quad core.
2S.
No retina screen.
No quad core.
That would really suck. Can't see a reason to buy an iPad 2S.