Apple A10 Fusion in iPhone 7 family surprises, exceeds pre-release expectations

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 49
    mike1mike1 Posts: 3,275member
    *duplicate post deleted.

    WTF is wrong with AI iOS app? What junk, and to think about the irony of how we critic Apple related news on an iOS app that is plagued by misgivings. Do you heavy contributors comment using a desktop Internet browser?
    Yeah, I use a desktop browser 99% of the time.
    baconstangdoozydozen
  • Reply 22 of 49
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member

    koop said:
    Any reasonable android fan will tell you that number 1 thing they are most jealous of with the iPhone is Apple's amazing A chips. Apple has done nothing but embarrass qualcomm for the past two to three years. Intel basically didn't even bother.

    Those chips are crazy. Apple's combination of using them with their super fast storage solution, plus 3gb of memory means iPhone 7 is going to be so ridiculously fast that I can't even wrap my head around it.
    Trouble is there aren’t many “reasonable Android fans” out there. Yes, there are rare sightings but most Android fans who comment on Apple centric websites (9TO5Mac and MacRumors) are about as far away from reasonable as one can get.
    oldbluegmc50doozydozenwatto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 49
    irelandireland Posts: 17,798member
    How much of a battery life increase would an A11 gives us? All things being equal to iPhone 7.
  • Reply 24 of 49
    Do you commenters imagine the big.LITTLE architecture to become standard for Apple moving forward? 
    what makes you think this is Arm holdings biglittle. All hints point at this being an apple technology.  
    doozydozenwatto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 49
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Do you commenters imagine the big.LITTLE architecture to become standard for Apple moving forward? 
    I wouldn't assume big.LITTLE at this point in time. Frankly I don't know but I'm waiting for a Chipworks tear down. A10 seems to be one of the most interesting Apple chips to come out in some time. Unfortunately Apple is pretty tight lipped about their chip, so it may take awhile to fully discover this marvel.
    Solidoozydozenwatto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 49
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Do you commenters imagine the big.LITTLE architecture to become standard for Apple moving forward? 

    I doubt this is big.little, but rather a superior implementation by Apple. They even hinted at this by mentioning their custom performance controller at the announcement.

    big.little isn't nearly as good as people think, especially with the overhead you get if you put a thread onto the wrong core and want to move it later.
    I have to agree that people are jumping the gun calling this big.LITTLE. Im thinking more along the lines of a four core SMP that isn't so symmetric. In stead we have four equal core with two simply clocked much lower in speed.

    a bit of hardware I place to manage when high performance is called for and to ramp up the fast cores as required.   Why would Apple do this! To me the obvious reason is iPad and other higher performance machines, with a little tweaking, maybe even as simple as a fuse, you suddenly have a four core chip with all cores running full out.  

    im not a a fan of big.LITTLE, at least not in current implementations so I'm really hoping Apple did something different here.  
    doozydozenwatto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 49
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    wizard69 said:
    Do you commenters imagine the big.LITTLE architecture to become standard for Apple moving forward? 

    I doubt this is big.little, but rather a superior implementation by Apple. They even hinted at this by mentioning their custom performance controller at the announcement.

    big.little isn't nearly as good as people think, especially with the overhead you get if you put a thread onto the wrong core and want to move it later.
    I have to agree that people are jumping the gun calling this big.LITTLE. Im thinking more along the lines of a four core SMP that isn't so symmetric. In stead we have four equal core with two simply clocked much lower in speed.

    a bit of hardware I place to manage when high performance is called for and to ramp up the fast cores as required.   Why would Apple do this! To me the obvious reason is iPad and other higher performance machines, with a little tweaking, maybe even as simple as a fuse, you suddenly have a four core chip with all cores running full out.  

    im not a a fan of big.LITTLE, at least not in current implementations so I'm really hoping Apple did something different here.  
    Did you read MR's conjecture on A10 Fusion?
    doozydozencyberzombie
  • Reply 28 of 49
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Soli said:
    Do you commenters imagine the big.LITTLE architecture to become standard for Apple moving forward? 

    I doubt this is big.little, but rather a superior implementation by Apple. They even hinted at this by mentioning their custom performance controller at the announcement.

    big.little isn't nearly as good as people think, especially with the overhead you get if you put a thread onto the wrong core and want to move it later.
    I doubt it's officially big.LITTLE, but the principle is the same, so there's no harm in using that reference, right? When I consider it's Apple's processor design with Apple's controller design, on an Apple SoC using an Apple written OS, I'd love for there to be direct comparisons made between this fast_chip.SLOW_CHIP switching for comparable apps on Android.
    Actually it will lead to confusion if this turns out to be something spdifferent. If this isn't big.LITTLE, then obviously no one is served by calling it that.

    By the way you aren't the only one wanting to see the goods so to speak.  Id like to know if the system software sees this as a four core chip or a two core chip?    When running fairground apps on the fast cores are the slow cores still in use handling system tasks and other background chores?    This chip invites lots of questions.   On iPhone a lot of particulars don't bother me, but on iPad I want all the power we can manage out of this chip, as such it would be nice if developers had access to all four cores.   
    doozydozenwatto_cobra
  • Reply 29 of 49
    Do you commenters imagine the big.LITTLE architecture to become standard for Apple moving forward? 

    I doubt this is big.little, but rather a superior implementation by Apple. They even hinted at this by mentioning their custom performance controller at the announcement.

    big.little isn't nearly as good as people think, especially with the overhead you get if you put a thread onto the wrong core and want to move it later.
    People keep asking this question when they can skim the Developer APIs and get the answer.
  • Reply 30 of 49
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Soli said:
    wizard69 said:
    Do you commenters imagine the big.LITTLE architecture to become standard for Apple moving forward? 

    I doubt this is big.little, but rather a superior implementation by Apple. They even hinted at this by mentioning their custom performance controller at the announcement.

    big.little isn't nearly as good as people think, especially with the overhead you get if you put a thread onto the wrong core and want to move it later.
    I have to agree that people are jumping the gun calling this big.LITTLE. Im thinking more along the lines of a four core SMP that isn't so symmetric. In stead we have four equal core with two simply clocked much lower in speed.

    a bit of hardware I place to manage when high performance is called for and to ramp up the fast cores as required.   Why would Apple do this! To me the obvious reason is iPad and other higher performance machines, with a little tweaking, maybe even as simple as a fuse, you suddenly have a four core chip with all cores running full out.  

    im not a a fan of big.LITTLE, at least not in current implementations so I'm really hoping Apple did something different here.  
    Did you read MR's conjecture on A10 Fusion?
    Actually no, I've been swamped at work and frankly when watching the Apple debut of the new iPHone drifted in and out. In any event my comments today are basically my imagination and a little bit of "this is how I'd do it".

    now that you have mentioned it I will like have to see what you are talking about on MR.   At least the forums work properly over on MR!   
  • Reply 31 of 49
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,382member
    Apple has been hitting it out of the park with their cpu design over the past few years, both in performance and architecture, so not that shocking. It's become one of the many unique advantages of the iPhone.
    Soliwilliamlondondoozydozenwatto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 49
    paxman said:
    I am beginning to need the iPhone 7 more by the hour. I am wondering if I really REALLY need the +. I think I may.
    Even with all the limited-availability and Apple Upgrade Program missteps -- the iP7+ seems the the goto phone...

    You deserve it, go for it!

    watto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 49
    I wonder how accurate that performance-increase chart is? I'm still on an iPhone 4, which looks pathetically show compared to successive iPhones, yet it still works exceptionally well for what I do with it. Makes me wonder just how fast current iPhones are at basic everyday tasks? An iPhone SE is within my view.
    Wow, still on a iPhone 4?. Are you still on iOS 4?. I've used that phone  for 4+ years, but there near the end it was dog slow!!! Some days if almost want to throw it against the wall it was so slow.  Then I upgraded to the iPhone 6 I have now, much, much faster even now it runs good, so how it is with iOS 10.  But I'll keep it at least a 3rd year.  

    That is iPhone is not getting new security updates either.  It's really time to update that thing.  It would be a huge jump I speed.  For your needs, maybe just getting a cheaper iPhone 6s will be good enough for you.  Lots of speed. IOS updates still, Apple pay, 3d touch and so on and so on.  Save some money not getting the latest and greatest.  That iPhone 4 needs to go.

    watto_cobra
  • Reply 34 of 49
    Can you imagine the fanfare the "tech press" hacks and general Samsung whores would be doing if Samsung came out with a chip this order of magnitude faster than the previous one. All the usual trolls and idiots would be hailing them as taking over the world and that Apple is doomed! 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 35 of 49
    lkrupp said:
    paxman said:
    I am beginning to need the iPhone 7 more by the hour. I am wondering if I really REALLY need the +. I think I may.
    Yep, I’m currently using an iPhone 6 and I’m thinking the same thing.
    the cool aid finally got to you huh! 

    I dunno I have an iPhone 6+ , 2 years old now , and its a great phone, I don't need a new one but hey , it all comes down to how much we think its worth upgrading , a better camera , waterproof, faster etc I don't REALY need one but it sure would be nice. I mean once we are on the 20 something a month buy/lease plan  please does it matter really when we upgrade. The only advantage I see in not upgrading is I defer having to pay that monthly charge for a few extra months. Depends how long you can hold out, I suggest simply not reading any ads or watching  apple phone commercials. They are designed to hook you! 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 36 of 49

    sockrolid said:
    ... with the next generation of iPhone chip shifting to 10nm with resultant battery life and thermal improvements.
    I'm counting the days until my Jet Black iPhone 7 Plus arrives on or after Oct. :# 18   :#
    Fine. I can deal with the delay.

    But next year's iPhone "8" could be another huge leap forward in design *and* technology.
    Especially if all these rumors turn out to be true:

    TSMC-made "A11" 10nm-process SoC for faster speeds, better battery life, lower heat output
    http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/05/06/rumor-tsmc-already-finalizing-10nm-a11-processor-design-for-apples-iphone-7s

    Zirconium dioxide ceramic (aka zirconia) enclosure for total scratch-resistance, wireless charging, and radio transparency
    Zirconia consumer electronics enclosure patent (2006):
    http://appleinsider.com/articles/06/11/30/apple_seeks_patent_on_radio_transparent_zirconia_ce_casings
    Specific  Watch and iPhone zirconia enclosure patent (2015):
    http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2016/09/revealing-apple-patent-covers-ceramic-apple-watch-and-all-new-ceramic-iphone.html
    Apple supplier rumor:
    http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/05/19/glass-based-iphone-redesign-coming-in-2017-apple-partner-catcher-reaffirms 

    AMOLED display panel for better battery life and... wait for it... thinner form factor
    http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/04/17/apple-expected-to-ditch-aluminum-release-glass-backed-iphone-with-oled-display-in-2017

    I wish I could pre-order the 2017 iPhone NOW.


    What we have here is the trials and tabulation of living and breathing life on the bleeding edge. Tech companies and the Credit card industry have been pitching you this for many years -  they love you dearly! 
  • Reply 37 of 49
    wizard69 said:
    Do you commenters imagine the big.LITTLE architecture to become standard for Apple moving forward? 

    I doubt this is big.little, but rather a superior implementation by Apple. They even hinted at this by mentioning their custom performance controller at the announcement.

    big.little isn't nearly as good as people think, especially with the overhead you get if you put a thread onto the wrong core and want to move it later.
    I have to agree that people are jumping the gun calling this big.LITTLE. Im thinking more along the lines of a four core SMP that isn't so symmetric. In stead we have four equal core with two simply clocked much lower in speed.

    a bit of hardware I place to manage when high performance is called for and to ramp up the fast cores as required.   Why would Apple do this! To me the obvious reason is iPad and other higher performance machines, with a little tweaking, maybe even as simple as a fuse, you suddenly have a four core chip with all cores running full out.  

    im not a a fan of big.LITTLE, at least not in current implementations so I'm really hoping Apple did something different here.  

    I had hoped that Apple would offer some new special capability on the iP7 based on the Intel modem...

    They have bifurcated their iP7 offerings because of this new modem. Why?  There must be a compelling reason.

    I suspect the new iPads (or updated new versions of existing iPads) will also use Intel modems for AT&T and Qualcom Modems for Verizon.  AT&T could limit support (for now) of the higher speeds of the Intel modems to [the lower install base of new] iPads with Intel modems.  This sounds to me like an Apple/IBM/Cisco thing.  

    If it proves out on the 2016 iPads, they could offer it on next years iPhone -- when the Intel modem is supposed to support both Intel and Verizon.  

    Finally, since the new special capability would be communication based, most of the work could be offloaded to the modem and supported by a core, or two, running in low-power mode to handle the communication...

    Does that make any sense?




  • Reply 38 of 49
    misamisa Posts: 827member
    I had hoped that Apple would offer some new special capability on the iP7 based on the Intel modem...

    They have bifurcated their iP7 offerings because of this new modem. Why?  There must be a compelling reason.

    I suspect the new iPads (or updated new versions of existing iPads) will also use Intel modems for AT&T and Qualcom Modems for Verizon.  AT&T could limit support (for now) of the higher speeds of the Intel modems to [the lower install base of new] iPads with Intel modems.  This sounds to me like an Apple/IBM/Cisco thing.  

    If it proves out on the 2016 iPads, they could offer it on next years iPhone -- when the Intel modem is supposed to support both Intel and Verizon.  

    Finally, since the new special capability would be communication based, most of the work could be offloaded to the modem and supported by a core, or two, running in low-power mode to handle the communication...

    Does that make any sense?





    Offer what exactly? VoLTE was the last thing added, and it's something that is implemented in software on phones, not implemented on tablets, even though the chip can do it.

    The entire reason is more then likely that CDMA 1X voice support is missing from the Intel modems, thus they can only be used on AT&T/T-Mobile's iPhones, and any network's iPad's since no Voice support is required.

    Most of the cost of a modem is in the patent royalties, so it's not like Apple just went "hey we need cheaper modems" when Qualcomm would have to sell at a loss against their patent royalties. Roughly $150 of a cellular device is the modem and it's patent licencing. Apple would more than likely be happy to remove the SIM card slot and just permanently have a sim card installed, but this destroys customer freedom to switch carriers if they do so. Yet this would have made more sense than removing the 3.5mm jack which destroys all customers freedom to use any headphones they want and charge their phone and listen at the same time.

    At any rate, I'm looking forward to replacing my iPad3 with a new model at some point, I just don't know if I want to if they decide to remove the headphone jack from it too.
  • Reply 39 of 49
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,729member
    paxman said:
    I am beginning to need the iPhone 7 more by the hour. I am wondering if I really REALLY need the +. I think I may.
    Even with all the limited-availability and Apple Upgrade Program missteps -- the iP7+ seems the the goto phone...

    You deserve it, go for it!

    I do deserve it. I really do. (thanks)
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 40 of 49
    the two disparate pairs of cores are driven my a new traffic-regulating chip

    is AI using Siri to post articles now?
    edited September 2016
Sign In or Register to comment.