Yet they are slower, more power hungry and worse with memory than Apple chips. If that makes them "a mile ahead" then clearly it's not Apple with the biggest bull.
Nothing to do with the chips, all to do with the compiler used.
Get the K1 64 bit to run IOS and likely it runs at 3 times the speed of the A8.
All tests are artificial in some way.
e.g. AMD was always crippled in tests because the testers used an Intel compiler !
We certainly were talking about current limitation - you brought up overcharge protection, for no apparent reason. With lithium chemistry the main factor determining battery life is charging temperature, so your fixation on internal resistance is not very helpful because it is only a part of the picture. Joule heating in the battery is proportional to current² and internal resistance (itself temperature dependent), but the cell temperature is also determined by electrode material, cell geometry, thermal boundary conditions and unsteady heat flow, and so there are more effective ways to improve charge rates than by just attempting to lower internal resistance.
In any case - what's your point now? The question was - does increasing the charging rate reduce battery life - and the answer is yes, which is why the charging circuitry in iPhones limits the charging current. It's not the charger that limits the current unless its maximum output is less than the charging circuit current demand - not the case with a 12 W charger and any iPhone. Are you still disagreeing with those statements, or can we finally move on?
Charging temperature is directly related to internal resistance. The higher the resistance, the higher temperature at a particular charge rate, and current. You can't divorce the two. The biggest difficulty in making faster charging, and discharging batteries, is internal resistance. This is pretty simple. I don't know what you're argument is here.
All of the factors you mention directly affect internal resistance. Yes, of course, there are factors inI addition to resistance, but resistance is the major factor.
The answer is yes, as I've been saying, for batteries that are not designed for fast charging. The answer is no for those batteries that are designed for fast charging.
You may not like it, but that will remain regardless. It just seems to me that those arguing this with me are trying hard to find a reason why Apple is not doing a quick charge. I'm sure if Apple did, those arguments would fall to the side.
1. Emphasize the laptop/desktops. As people use more smartphones, they will need more laptops and desktops. Just look at how many more Macs are being sold. Intel can get more sales the same way.
2. Be even more aggressive in developing the Atom and other x86 chips so that they can be competitive with ARM chips. Intel is Chipzilla for one thing. It is a sign of weakness when it can't compete on its own turf.
It took a long time but the Atom is starting to show signs of life, the Atom used in Foxcomms/Nokias IPad Mini clone, the N1 for instance, performs better than the Qualcomm 805 and the iPad Mini it's competing against, which are both bery quick, regardless of the existence of faster chips like the A8x. Here is a nice write up on it, http://www.anandtech.com/show/7789/intel-talks-merrifield-moorefield-and-lte-at-mwc-2014 . 64Bit mobile chips are just now starting to take off, with many new Atom versions coming in 2015, so I wouldn't say Intel isn't able to compete just yet, let's see what they introduce in the coming months before we draw that conclusion.
It took a long time but the Atom is starting to show signs of life, the Atom used in Foxcomms/Nokias IPad Mini clone, the N1 for instance, performs better than the Qualcomm 805 and the iPad Mini it's competing against, which are both bery quick, regardless of the existence of faster chips like the A8x. Here is a nice write up on it, http://www.anandtech.com/show/7789/intel-talks-merrifield-moorefield-and-lte-at-mwc-2014 . 64Bit mobile chips are just now starting to take off, with many new Atom versions coming in 2015, so I wouldn't say Intel isn't able to compete just yet, let's see what they introduce in the coming months before we draw that conclusion.
I don't doubt that Intel will compete on performance at some point, but I'm not convinced that Intel will want to live with the margins that they will need to get volume sales in Android tablets. This is the advantage of Apple; they can build the SOC they want optimized to iOS, and not have to skimp on die to cut cost that Qualcomm and Nvidia have to live with.
Some like to think the Apple ARM processor is approaching desktop performance levels but the truth is that it isn't even close. Should Apple switch to Intel's iAtom? It could bring Mac performance to an iPad-like device but it would be a very painful switch. Apple has done painful processor switches in the past (twice!) but I don't think they want to do it again. So, now Apple is stuck in the processor rat-race without being able to deliver the ultimate "iPad Pro."
Not so. The US PC ASP is $420 @ Dell.com this buys an E1-2500 based machine. Geekbench scores that APU at 1400 multicore, the A8X scores over 4400 around the same as last years dual core i5 and more than most i3s. Fire-breathing i7s are not the norm in the PC market.
I think it would be short sighted for Apple to release a Mac Pro based on Intel X86 and then decide to dump x86 on the MBA , MBP , iMac Range.
Quote:
Correct, which means it doesn't scale worth a crap on heavy load operations and thus won't ever be stuck in a Laptop/Desktop/Workstation.
Anyone thinks AMD not having Keller back and the head of AMD GPGPUs leaving Apple to return to AMD won't release a beast is truly delusional.
The reason the industry has x86_64 is because of Keller and company. We'd be stuck on 32 bit if it weren't for that team he has once amassed.
FYI: Jim Keller designed the DEC Alpha processor, not to mention was the driving force behind PA-Semi which got bought by Apple, and he worked at Apple as Chief Architect of the Apple A4-A5X processor.
AMD will be a pivotal player in the next 18 months and I guarantee you Apple is paying attention, not just collaborating with the Radeon GPGPUs.
Yes, it is much more likely for Apple move to AMD then jumping to its own SoC. At least in the next few years as stop gap.
You cant just scale the A8X SoC, rank up clock speed and call it a day thinking giving it a 25W TDP everything will immediately work fine. No.
That is like saying Intel Atom is great why dont you just overclock it and it will become a cheap Haswell alternative?
It is the same with Porting Apps. Even if you get 100% correct code translation from x86 to ARM ( which you wont ), you are still going to get a heavy performance penalty, with much weaker CPU on A8X this isn't going to be a great user experience.
Then there is the market. When Apple decide to switch from PPC to x86, most Apple users were loyal fans with only a few millions active users. Apple has been shipping on average 15M Macs for the past 3 - 4 years. By this time next year they will have 75M Mac users. Mac, while substantially small on revenue % for AAPL, is no longer a niche product.
There is no reason why AMD and Apple cant make a deal like Sony's PlayStation 4 CPU. Zen CPU Core with Next Gen Radeon GPU.
But then Zen is a 2016 product, that is 2 years for Apple to catch up on CPU + GPU.
And finally, Thunderbolt. No one knows of a solution to this problem. ( Apart from sticking with Intel )
I think it would be short sighted for Apple to release a Mac Pro based on Intel X86 and then decide to dump x86 on the MBA , MBP , iMac Range.
[…]
And finally, Thunderbolt. No one knows of a solution to this problem. ( Apart from sticking with Intel )
That assumes that everything would be changed instead of having an entry-level device that only has Mac App Store access. Do you really not believe Apple can't create an Å9X chip that will equal the performance of an 11" MBA?
As for Thunderbolt, how many budget-Mac users with 11" MBAs use Thunderbolt? Why not just include DP(mDP) for an external display?
That assumes that everything would be changed instead of having an entry-level device that only has Mac App Store access. Do you really not believe Apple can't create an Å9X chip that will equal the performance of an 11" MBA?
As for Thunderbolt, how many budget-Mac users with 11" MBAs use Thunderbolt? Why not just include DP(mDP) for an external display?
There is no reason for Apple not to include USB 3.0 in their ARM notebooks or even add support for wireless displays, negating the need for both ThunderPort and DisplayPort, though I'm sure at least a DisplayPort could be used. It would be interesting to find out how many people actually useThunderPort, I'm sure it wouldn't be surprising to find out that it's an extremely low number. I'm an avid computer and tech user and I still haven't found any use for it, I've played with the idea of using an external graphics card on my Macbook Air but the price to do so just didn't seem advantageous, especially for what I would use it for.
This is an interesting flip in the market. Apple moved to Intel to get the benefit of a large Windows market that drove chip development faster than Motorola/IBM. Now that it dominants the mobile market, it's flipping that around, going proprietary for its chips and doing its best to make sure its own purchases don't drive chip development for others.
Sad, but I can recall going through cell phone after cell phone looking for one that wasn't an ill-designed piece of junk still further crippled by the demands cell companies. Their failures were Apple's opportunity with the iPhone. They could have created something like the iPhone before Apple.
And the chief benefit of owning an iPhone/iPad are all the third-party apps. Initially Apple said it wasn't going to all them, only clumsy web apps. Did they change their minds, or was opening up to outsides planned all along? I still don't know.
Personally, if I were Apple, I'd make life even harder for everyone else by offering an 80/20 split with developers. That'd mean that Apple gets the best apps the fastest.
Comments
Nothing to do with the chips, all to do with the compiler used.
Get the K1 64 bit to run IOS and likely it runs at 3 times the speed of the A8.
All tests are artificial in some way.
e.g. AMD was always crippled in tests because the testers used an Intel compiler !
You are never comparing like with like.
Charging temperature is directly related to internal resistance. The higher the resistance, the higher temperature at a particular charge rate, and current. You can't divorce the two. The biggest difficulty in making faster charging, and discharging batteries, is internal resistance. This is pretty simple. I don't know what you're argument is here.
All of the factors you mention directly affect internal resistance. Yes, of course, there are factors inI addition to resistance, but resistance is the major factor.
The answer is yes, as I've been saying, for batteries that are not designed for fast charging. The answer is no for those batteries that are designed for fast charging.
You may not like it, but that will remain regardless. It just seems to me that those arguing this with me are trying hard to find a reason why Apple is not doing a quick charge. I'm sure if Apple did, those arguments would fall to the side.
It took a long time but the Atom is starting to show signs of life, the Atom used in Foxcomms/Nokias IPad Mini clone, the N1 for instance, performs better than the Qualcomm 805 and the iPad Mini it's competing against, which are both bery quick, regardless of the existence of faster chips like the A8x. Here is a nice write up on it, http://www.anandtech.com/show/7789/intel-talks-merrifield-moorefield-and-lte-at-mwc-2014 . 64Bit mobile chips are just now starting to take off, with many new Atom versions coming in 2015, so I wouldn't say Intel isn't able to compete just yet, let's see what they introduce in the coming months before we draw that conclusion.
It took a long time but the Atom is starting to show signs of life, the Atom used in Foxcomms/Nokias IPad Mini clone, the N1 for instance, performs better than the Qualcomm 805 and the iPad Mini it's competing against, which are both bery quick, regardless of the existence of faster chips like the A8x. Here is a nice write up on it, http://www.anandtech.com/show/7789/intel-talks-merrifield-moorefield-and-lte-at-mwc-2014 . 64Bit mobile chips are just now starting to take off, with many new Atom versions coming in 2015, so I wouldn't say Intel isn't able to compete just yet, let's see what they introduce in the coming months before we draw that conclusion.
I don't doubt that Intel will compete on performance at some point, but I'm not convinced that Intel will want to live with the margins that they will need to get volume sales in Android tablets. This is the advantage of Apple; they can build the SOC they want optimized to iOS, and not have to skimp on die to cut cost that Qualcomm and Nvidia have to live with.
Not so. The US PC ASP is $420 @ Dell.com this buys an E1-2500 based machine. Geekbench scores that APU at 1400 multicore, the A8X scores over 4400 around the same as last years dual core i5 and more than most i3s. Fire-breathing i7s are not the norm in the PC market.
"At the launch of the iPhone 5s, Apple referred to the A7 as being "desktop class" - it turns out that wasn't an exaggeration."
How about them Apples?
I think it would be short sighted for Apple to release a Mac Pro based on Intel X86 and then decide to dump x86 on the MBA , MBP , iMac Range.
Anyone thinks AMD not having Keller back and the head of AMD GPGPUs leaving Apple to return to AMD won't release a beast is truly delusional.
The reason the industry has x86_64 is because of Keller and company. We'd be stuck on 32 bit if it weren't for that team he has once amassed.
FYI: Jim Keller designed the DEC Alpha processor, not to mention was the driving force behind PA-Semi which got bought by Apple, and he worked at Apple as Chief Architect of the Apple A4-A5X processor.
http://venturebeat.com/2012/08/01/apple-cpu-jim-keller-amd/
AMD will be a pivotal player in the next 18 months and I guarantee you Apple is paying attention, not just collaborating with the Radeon GPGPUs.
Yes, it is much more likely for Apple move to AMD then jumping to its own SoC. At least in the next few years as stop gap.
You cant just scale the A8X SoC, rank up clock speed and call it a day thinking giving it a 25W TDP everything will immediately work fine. No.
That is like saying Intel Atom is great why dont you just overclock it and it will become a cheap Haswell alternative?
It is the same with Porting Apps. Even if you get 100% correct code translation from x86 to ARM ( which you wont ), you are still going to get a heavy performance penalty, with much weaker CPU on A8X this isn't going to be a great user experience.
Then there is the market. When Apple decide to switch from PPC to x86, most Apple users were loyal fans with only a few millions active users. Apple has been shipping on average 15M Macs for the past 3 - 4 years. By this time next year they will have 75M Mac users. Mac, while substantially small on revenue % for AAPL, is no longer a niche product.
There is no reason why AMD and Apple cant make a deal like Sony's PlayStation 4 CPU. Zen CPU Core with Next Gen Radeon GPU.
But then Zen is a 2016 product, that is 2 years for Apple to catch up on CPU + GPU.
And finally, Thunderbolt. No one knows of a solution to this problem. ( Apart from sticking with Intel )
That assumes that everything would be changed instead of having an entry-level device that only has Mac App Store access. Do you really not believe Apple can't create an Å9X chip that will equal the performance of an 11" MBA?
As for Thunderbolt, how many budget-Mac users with 11" MBAs use Thunderbolt? Why not just include DP(mDP) for an external display?
That assumes that everything would be changed instead of having an entry-level device that only has Mac App Store access. Do you really not believe Apple can't create an Å9X chip that will equal the performance of an 11" MBA?
As for Thunderbolt, how many budget-Mac users with 11" MBAs use Thunderbolt? Why not just include DP(mDP) for an external display?
There is no reason for Apple not to include USB 3.0 in their ARM notebooks or even add support for wireless displays, negating the need for both ThunderPort and DisplayPort, though I'm sure at least a DisplayPort could be used. It would be interesting to find out how many people actually useThunderPort, I'm sure it wouldn't be surprising to find out that it's an extremely low number. I'm an avid computer and tech user and I still haven't found any use for it, I've played with the idea of using an external graphics card on my Macbook Air but the price to do so just didn't seem advantageous, especially for what I would use it for.
Sad, but I can recall going through cell phone after cell phone looking for one that wasn't an ill-designed piece of junk still further crippled by the demands cell companies. Their failures were Apple's opportunity with the iPhone. They could have created something like the iPhone before Apple.
And the chief benefit of owning an iPhone/iPad are all the third-party apps. Initially Apple said it wasn't going to all them, only clumsy web apps. Did they change their minds, or was opening up to outsides planned all along? I still don't know.
Personally, if I were Apple, I'd make life even harder for everyone else by offering an 80/20 split with developers. That'd mean that Apple gets the best apps the fastest.