These tech heads have shown that they are utterly irrelevant in the market place, as well as being completely deluded as to what makes a good product for the vast majority of people.
To be fair, when Android has ~60% of the market, a fair portion of that can be the tech heads: those who bought the phone just for the specs. I would imagine it's a greater amount, at least, than the people who do the same for PCs. You know, with the liquid helium cooling, in-box lighting, and the like.
Seems very, very unlikely. The A6, if it follows Apple's previous pattern, will be comprised of a Cortex A15 and a Power VR Rogue, neither of which is ready yet.
To be fair, when Android has ~60% of the market, a fair portion of that can be the tech heads: those who bought the phone just for the specs. I would imagine it's a greater amount, at least, than the people who do the same for PCs. You know, with the liquid helium cooling, in-box lighting, and the like.
The main reasons there are so many Android devices is the following:
1. Almost every single non-iPhone has Android installed by default from every manufacturer on the planet, and why not? A free OS which cuts their R&D costs by a massive margin.
2. iPhone is not available on many carriers, and those who would have purchased one are forced to purchase an Android device instead
3. A large number of Android phones are dirt cheap, almost dumb phone prices, sold in developing countries and on pre-paid lines
Some want to delude themselves and make themselves believe that the reason Android is selling so well is because of 'open', 'customization' or other such bullshit. Yeah, I'm sure there's a few people who specifically choose to buy an Android phone because of the OS, but this is an extremely small minority, the major factors being the above. Its the same paradigm as comparing Mac VS PC sales, which is Apples and oranges. The vast majority of people who buy Macs consciously decide to buy them based on the the OS, etc. The vast majority of people who buy PCs don't buy because they love Windows, it's because of price and that they're 'used' to it, or its what they use at work. Same with Androids. Most people I know who own an Android phone don't know a clue about the OS. It wasn't even a factor on their radar when making the purchase, it's what was available on their plan and 'looked kinda like an iPhone'. They didnt 'choose' it cause it was 'open' or that they could install their own ROMS, regardless of what reality-challenged Android cheerleaders want you to believe,
If there is an A6 chip, I wonder what will happen with the iPad.
I could see the iPad mini using the A5X, and possibly coming out with a newer iPad using the A6.
Because of its few products and high volume requirements, Apple has to arrange product releases when major parts (CPUs, GPUs, retina displays) can be manufactured in quantity.
There are not any currently shipping smartphones which utilize the ARM Cortex A-15 architecture. (1) (2) This just demonstrates how poorly informed Android advocates are.
Apple will use the 32 nm process technology they have previously implemented on lower volume devices (AppleTV and iPad 2) but will almost certainly use the same (or better) CPU and GPU as the A5X SOC simply because the SOC can be much smaller using a 32 nm process rather than a 45 nm process and certainly much more efficient as well.
There are not any currently shipping smartphones which utilize the ARM Cortex A-15 architecture. (1) (2) This just demonstrates how poorly informed Android advocates are.
Apple will use the 32 nm process technology they have previously implemented on lower volume devices (AppleTV and iPad 2) but will almost certainly use the same (or better) CPU and GPU as the A5X SOC simply because the SOC can be much smaller using a 32 nm process rather than a 45 nm process and certainly much more efficient as well.
I love how Apple-haters instantly trashed the specs of the 4S, then the benchmarks came out and showed that the A5 blew everything else out of the water. To this day, 11 months later, the GPU in the 4S is still one of the most powerful, if not THE most powerful GPU in any smartphone. It's just that Apple doesn't spam their marketing with specs/#s which it knows are irrelevant and incomprehensible for most people. The 4S still performs better than any other phone I've used, and I've used all flagship Android phones extensively (S3, One X, etc). Facts aren't a strong suit for these neck-bearded, antisocial, spec-worshipping fanatics.
I love how Apple-haters instantly trashed the specs of the 4S, then the benchmarks came out and showed that the A5 blew everything else out of the water. To this day, 11 months later, the GPU in the 4S is still one of the most powerful, if not THE most powerful GPU in any smartphone. It's just that Apple doesn't spam their marketing with specs/#s which it knows are irrelevant and incomprehensible for most people. The 4S still performs better than any other phone I've used, and I've used all flagship Android phones extensively (S3, One X, etc). Facts aren't a strong suit for these neckbearded droolers.
Historically, each model of the iPhone has demonstrated superior performance versus rivals for at least six months. Interestingly, the Samsung Galaxy S3 only achieves superior performance using double the number of cores at nearly double the clock speed with twice the RAM of the iPhone 4S. One can only imagine the performance of the Apple iPhone if Apple were to double the number of cores, double the clock speed and double the RAM.
You fall into the trap that it is all about speed, when it comes to marketing. Apple has tried to move away from this metric because it is highly misleading. More importantly raw speed is no where near as important as battery lifetimes to most iPhone customers. It is certainly true I want my iPhone to be responsive and capable but I also want it to last all day on a charge.
To put it another way I don't care how iPhone stacks up against other phones, I only care that the software I use works correctly and is responsive!
As to cores and the impact on battery life that is extremely complex. Four cores can be a better energy solution if there is a big differential in clock rates relative to a two core solution. How well four cores work out for users depends upon how many of the apps they use are bound to a single thread. Like all engineering problems you have to find the right set of trade offs that leads to satisfying the greatest number of design parameters. Thus I wouldn't automatically rule out four cores, though I can see two cores with wide frequency scaling being a better choice for many users. Remember also that the process shrink to 28 nm would likely cost the SoC zero extra watts to move to quad core.
My feeling here is that this is just a process shrunk A5X with enhancements. The real interesting future is in 64 bit arm technology. AMC just announced a 64 bit ARM chip at Hot Chips to ship in a few months. 64 bit is the future and as such I suspect that the next iPad will get a 64 bit SoC. We may very well see a split in processors for iPads and iPhone class devices in 2013. The smaller handhelds would get follow ons to the A5X for a couple of more years while the advanced tech goes into the next iPad.
Average consumers might not know or care if it is a quad core 1 Ghz or 1.5Ghz and Apple keeps those specs pretty secretive in any case. But what they would find out relatively quickly is if some big news outlet does some benchmarks and the iPhone 5 is significantly slower or faster than competing Android phones like the SIII or HTC One X. Apple have a pretty decent track record at significantly increasing either the CPU, GPU, or both with each new iPhone.
Personally, If I had to guess I would say it is a dual core in the range of 1 to 1.2Ghz. They would only go with a quad core if they saw significant speed gains that warranted the battery loss of two additional cores. They do need to be a little cautious though because they only upgrade about once every 12 months and have to at least match or best android phones in speed for at least half that time. An iPhone 5 that blows away the Galaxy SIII in some real world use benchmarks would especially be nice so close after the lawsuit verdict. Almost like a slap in the face to say, you can't copy our speed.
You fall into the trap that it is all about speed, when it comes to marketing. Apple has tried to move away from this metric because it is highly misleading. More importantly raw speed is no where near as important as battery lifetimes to most iPhone customers. It is certainly true I want my iPhone to be responsive and capable but I also want it to last all day on a charge.
To put it another way I don't care how iPhone stacks up against other phones, I only care that the software I use works correctly and is responsive!
As to cores and the impact on battery life that is extremely complex. Four cores can be a better energy solution if there is a big differential in clock rates relative to a two core solution. How well four cores work out for users depends upon how many of the apps they use are bound to a single thread. Like all engineering problems you have to find the right set of trade offs that leads to satisfying the greatest number of design parameters. Thus I wouldn't automatically rule out four cores, though I can see two cores with wide frequency scaling being a better choice for many users. Remember also that the process shrink to 28 nm would likely cost the SoC zero extra watts to move to quad core.
My feeling here is that this is just a process shrunk A5X with enhancements. The real interesting future is in 64 bit arm technology. AMC just announced a 64 bit ARM chip at Hot Chips to ship in a few months. 64 bit is the future and as such I suspect that the next iPad will get a 64 bit SoC. We may very well see a split in processors for iPads and iPhone class devices in 2013. The smaller handhelds would get follow ons to the A5X for a couple of more years while the advanced tech goes into the next iPad.
I didn't fall into any trap. I was stating my opinion and expressing the desire for Apple to release as fast a phone as possible while as you said taking battery life into account. Having said that, if CBS news ran a story that shows the next iPhone is slower than a SIII on a number of common tests that parallel typical day to day use, I imagine many people would seriously consider going with an SIII. Even if you don't know a lot about tech, everyone wants to get the latest and greatest and hopefully fastest phone you can. I use an extended 2100 battery case for my 4S which solves any battery problems and will do the same for my next iPhone. So for me I value speed far more than battery life. I want the fastest iPhone possible,
Comments
Originally Posted by Slurpy
These tech heads have shown that they are utterly irrelevant in the market place, as well as being completely deluded as to what makes a good product for the vast majority of people.
To be fair, when Android has ~60% of the market, a fair portion of that can be the tech heads: those who bought the phone just for the specs. I would imagine it's a greater amount, at least, than the people who do the same for PCs. You know, with the liquid helium cooling, in-box lighting, and the like.
And think what you will about those fanatics and PCs as a whole, but this doesn't look half bad (except the backplate ruins it). Of course, then you throw ludicrously irresponsible things like this into the mix and it sort of dilutes the beauty.
Selling now ?
Which brand, model? Seriously, no offense, it would raise the hope A6 housing A15's if there are Phones shipping.
Otherwise, I tend to believe it is a die shrunk quad core A9 with some less powerful gpu than the A5X.
Seems very, very unlikely. The A6, if it follows Apple's previous pattern, will be comprised of a Cortex A15 and a Power VR Rogue, neither of which is ready yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
To be fair, when Android has ~60% of the market, a fair portion of that can be the tech heads: those who bought the phone just for the specs. I would imagine it's a greater amount, at least, than the people who do the same for PCs. You know, with the liquid helium cooling, in-box lighting, and the like.
And think what you will about those fanatics and PCs as a whole, but this doesn't look half bad (except the backplate ruins it). Of course, then you throw ludicrously irresponsible things like this into the mix and it sort of dilutes the beauty.
The main reasons there are so many Android devices is the following:
1. Almost every single non-iPhone has Android installed by default from every manufacturer on the planet, and why not? A free OS which cuts their R&D costs by a massive margin.
2. iPhone is not available on many carriers, and those who would have purchased one are forced to purchase an Android device instead
3. A large number of Android phones are dirt cheap, almost dumb phone prices, sold in developing countries and on pre-paid lines
Some want to delude themselves and make themselves believe that the reason Android is selling so well is because of 'open', 'customization' or other such bullshit. Yeah, I'm sure there's a few people who specifically choose to buy an Android phone because of the OS, but this is an extremely small minority, the major factors being the above. Its the same paradigm as comparing Mac VS PC sales, which is Apples and oranges. The vast majority of people who buy Macs consciously decide to buy them based on the the OS, etc. The vast majority of people who buy PCs don't buy because they love Windows, it's because of price and that they're 'used' to it, or its what they use at work. Same with Androids. Most people I know who own an Android phone don't know a clue about the OS. It wasn't even a factor on their radar when making the purchase, it's what was available on their plan and 'looked kinda like an iPhone'. They didnt 'choose' it cause it was 'open' or that they could install their own ROMS, regardless of what reality-challenged Android cheerleaders want you to believe,
Lol
SEE....Proof, Bigfoot is real :P
Well yeah, what tech head wouldnt want one of these beauties .
So, I was right it wll include the A6, Here's for quad core!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo
I hope the production goes smoothly and high demand can be met.
No, no, no. Sales are supposed to be smooth, not production!
In other news, when the 6th iPhone is released, Samsung is suing Apple that very day.
No, seriously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
Well yeah, what tech head wouldnt want one of these beauties .
That really is an Android phone!
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
iOS 6, A6. This is definitely not an iPhone 5
Lol
If they call it iPhone 6, then you have the number of the beast! Isn't that what the Apple 1 sold for? Satan wears a turtleneck!
If there is an A6 chip, I wonder what will happen with the iPad.
I could see the iPad mini using the A5X, and possibly coming out with a newer iPad using the A6.
Because of its few products and high volume requirements, Apple has to arrange product releases when major parts (CPUs, GPUs, retina displays) can be manufactured in quantity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartcat
Selling now ?
Which brand, model? Seriously, no offense, it would raise the hope A6 housing A15's if there are Phones shipping.
Otherwise, I tend to believe it is a die shrunk quad core A9 with some less powerful gpu than the A5X.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }There are not any currently shipping smartphones which utilize the ARM Cortex A-15 architecture. (1) (2) This just demonstrates how poorly informed Android advocates are.
Apple will use the 32 nm process technology they have previously implemented on lower volume devices (AppleTV and iPad 2) but will almost certainly use the same (or better) CPU and GPU as the A5X SOC simply because the SOC can be much smaller using a 32 nm process rather than a 45 nm process and certainly much more efficient as well.
Agam Shah. Published 19 April 2011. ARM Expects First Cortex-A15 Devices in Late 2012 IDG News. Retrieved 30 August 2012.
Alexandra Burlacu. Published 11 August 2012. Samsung's Cortex A15-based Exynos 5 Dual Chip May Pave the Way for 'Retina' Android Devices. Mobile & Apps. Retrieved 30 August 2012.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
There are not any currently shipping smartphones which utilize the ARM Cortex A-15 architecture. (1) (2) This just demonstrates how poorly informed Android advocates are.
Apple will use the 32 nm process technology they have previously implemented on lower volume devices (AppleTV and iPad 2) but will almost certainly use the same (or better) CPU and GPU as the A5X SOC simply because the SOC can be much smaller using a 32 nm process rather than a 45 nm process and certainly much more efficient as well.
Agam Shah. Published 19 April 2011. ARM Expects First Cortex-A15 Devices in Late 2012 IDG News. Retrieved 30 August 2012.
Alexandra Burlacu. Published 11 August 2012. Samsung's Cortex A15-based Exynos 5 Dual Chip May Pave the Way for 'Retina' Android Devices. Mobile & Apps. Retrieved 30 August 2012.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
I love how Apple-haters instantly trashed the specs of the 4S, then the benchmarks came out and showed that the A5 blew everything else out of the water. To this day, 11 months later, the GPU in the 4S is still one of the most powerful, if not THE most powerful GPU in any smartphone. It's just that Apple doesn't spam their marketing with specs/#s which it knows are irrelevant and incomprehensible for most people. The 4S still performs better than any other phone I've used, and I've used all flagship Android phones extensively (S3, One X, etc). Facts aren't a strong suit for these neck-bearded, antisocial, spec-worshipping fanatics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
I love how Apple-haters instantly trashed the specs of the 4S, then the benchmarks came out and showed that the A5 blew everything else out of the water. To this day, 11 months later, the GPU in the 4S is still one of the most powerful, if not THE most powerful GPU in any smartphone. It's just that Apple doesn't spam their marketing with specs/#s which it knows are irrelevant and incomprehensible for most people. The 4S still performs better than any other phone I've used, and I've used all flagship Android phones extensively (S3, One X, etc). Facts aren't a strong suit for these neckbearded droolers.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }Historically, each model of the iPhone has demonstrated superior performance versus rivals for at least six months. Interestingly, the Samsung Galaxy S3 only achieves superior performance using double the number of cores at nearly double the clock speed with twice the RAM of the iPhone 4S. One can only imagine the performance of the Apple iPhone if Apple were to double the number of cores, double the clock speed and double the RAM.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
To put it another way I don't care how iPhone stacks up against other phones, I only care that the software I use works correctly and is responsive!
As to cores and the impact on battery life that is extremely complex. Four cores can be a better energy solution if there is a big differential in clock rates relative to a two core solution. How well four cores work out for users depends upon how many of the apps they use are bound to a single thread. Like all engineering problems you have to find the right set of trade offs that leads to satisfying the greatest number of design parameters. Thus I wouldn't automatically rule out four cores, though I can see two cores with wide frequency scaling being a better choice for many users. Remember also that the process shrink to 28 nm would likely cost the SoC zero extra watts to move to quad core.
My feeling here is that this is just a process shrunk A5X with enhancements. The real interesting future is in 64 bit arm technology. AMC just announced a 64 bit ARM chip at Hot Chips to ship in a few months. 64 bit is the future and as such I suspect that the next iPad will get a 64 bit SoC. We may very well see a split in processors for iPads and iPhone class devices in 2013. The smaller handhelds would get follow ons to the A5X for a couple of more years while the advanced tech goes into the next iPad.
Be careful how much vitriol you spew
I remember those bad old days when we used to justify the worsening power and features of our macs before steve took over
Just hope with Steve gone and samsung snapping at our heels we dont become too complacent
I for one have tried out the samsung products with LTE, and at least in canada on the rogers network sure like the extra speed!
I am counting on LTE for this current upgrade, I dont really care about anything else
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
You fall into the trap that it is all about speed, when it comes to marketing. Apple has tried to move away from this metric because it is highly misleading. More importantly raw speed is no where near as important as battery lifetimes to most iPhone customers. It is certainly true I want my iPhone to be responsive and capable but I also want it to last all day on a charge.
To put it another way I don't care how iPhone stacks up against other phones, I only care that the software I use works correctly and is responsive!
As to cores and the impact on battery life that is extremely complex. Four cores can be a better energy solution if there is a big differential in clock rates relative to a two core solution. How well four cores work out for users depends upon how many of the apps they use are bound to a single thread. Like all engineering problems you have to find the right set of trade offs that leads to satisfying the greatest number of design parameters. Thus I wouldn't automatically rule out four cores, though I can see two cores with wide frequency scaling being a better choice for many users. Remember also that the process shrink to 28 nm would likely cost the SoC zero extra watts to move to quad core.
My feeling here is that this is just a process shrunk A5X with enhancements. The real interesting future is in 64 bit arm technology. AMC just announced a 64 bit ARM chip at Hot Chips to ship in a few months. 64 bit is the future and as such I suspect that the next iPad will get a 64 bit SoC. We may very well see a split in processors for iPads and iPhone class devices in 2013. The smaller handhelds would get follow ons to the A5X for a couple of more years while the advanced tech goes into the next iPad.
I didn't fall into any trap. I was stating my opinion and expressing the desire for Apple to release as fast a phone as possible while as you said taking battery life into account. Having said that, if CBS news ran a story that shows the next iPhone is slower than a SIII on a number of common tests that parallel typical day to day use, I imagine many people would seriously consider going with an SIII. Even if you don't know a lot about tech, everyone wants to get the latest and greatest and hopefully fastest phone you can. I use an extended 2100 battery case for my 4S which solves any battery problems and will do the same for my next iPhone. So for me I value speed far more than battery life. I want the fastest iPhone possible,