Ditching plus branding only works well if both phones offer all the same features. If they do it’s a no brainier plus branding is likely gone. As for the 6.1” iPhone, making it 6.1” as opposed to 5.8” is confusing. And it is sensible to assume it will be named iPhone 9, and will feature a single lens camera and LCD screen.
Hoping the iPads go the A12X route, finally being in line with the iPhone processor core launches, while still being higher power/higher bandwidth/more cores. The rumored 3+5 core sounds scary for the Intel U series.
It would be nice but then we have to think that Apple may be putting new CPU into iPad because they need time to finish X CPU version design and producer capacity is not constrained by new iPhone launches.
But only God and handful of Apple employees and partners know .
SemiAccurate, for whatever their reputation is worth (so...Mound of salt, here), is staking their reputation on a 50% increase per core. Now that would be a mighty impressive feat, given that they're already up there with Intel size execution windows, but given the density, power, and clock speed improvements of the 7nm fab, maybe, if all those things were used towards peak power...
SemiAccurate is saying +50% per Hz or +50% per core from A11 to A12 cores?
The former is basically impossible for generic integer/FP code or on average across a variety of loads, especially when it’s limited to a 5W environments. It could be done for narrow cases by adding more and SIMD units or an extra FP unit, etc, with only a few loads that can take advantage of it, but if on average, a lot of people will think it is tantamount to magic.
The latter is doable if TSMC gets a 30% uplift from their 10nm to 7nm process and Apple gets a 15% improvement in perf per clock. So, a clock increase from 2.4 GHz to 3.2 GHz and a per clock improvement of 1.15x gets you to 50% improvement. 15% is achievable through the usual methods like better caches, buffers and whatnot. But this hinges TSMC 7nm being really good.
Hoping the iPads go the A12X route, finally being in line with the iPhone processor core launches, while still being higher power/higher bandwidth/more cores. The rumored 3+5 core sounds scary for the Intel U series.
Me too! Love my iPad Pro 10.5. I’m already seriously jealous of an iPad with 12.9” display with a smaller footprint than the current, not to mention the 11” being about the same footprint. Still wish for a 5:4 aspect ratio display and improved OS and app. Have to wait it out at least another year. Might have to seriously consider a selling my 1 year old iPad.
SemiAccurate, for whatever their reputation is worth (so...Mound of salt, here), is staking their reputation on a 50% increase per core. Now that would be a mighty impressive feat, given that they're already up there with Intel size execution windows, but given the density, power, and clock speed improvements of the 7nm fab, maybe, if all those things were used towards peak power...
SemiAccurate is saying +50% per Hz or +50% per core from A11 to A12 cores?
The former is basically impossible for generic integer/FP code or on average across a variety of loads, especially when it’s limited to a 5W environments. It could be done for narrow cases by adding more and SIMD units or an extra FP unit, etc, with only a few loads that can take advantage of it, but if on average, a lot of people will think it is tantamount to magic.
The latter is doable if TSMC gets a 30% uplift from their 10nm to 7nm process and Apple gets a 15% improvement in perf per clock. So, a clock increase from 2.4 GHz to 3.2 GHz and a per clock improvement of 1.15x gets you to 50% improvement. 15% is achievable through the usual methods like better caches, buffers and whatnot. But this hinges TSMC 7nm being really good.
Hoping the iPads go the A12X route, finally being in line with the iPhone processor core launches, while still being higher power/higher bandwidth/more cores. The rumored 3+5 core sounds scary for the Intel U series.
Me too! Love my iPad Pro 10.5. I’m already seriously jealous of an iPad with 12.9” display with a smaller footprint than the current, not to mention the 11” being about the same footprint. Still wish for a 5:4 aspect ratio display and improved OS and app. Have to wait it out at least another year. Might have to seriously consider a selling my 1 year old iPad.
From the recent link regarding the ARM Roadmap;
"More importantly the vanilla ARM cores are designed for a wide frequency range so they leave some performance on the table to gain that flexibility. If you take an ARM core and design it for a small number of workloads and frequency ranges, you can get a lot more performance out of the SoC, and we mean a lot. The classic example of this is the Apple A11 which currently trounces the best Intel has at performance per Watt and in many cases raw performance. The numbers SemiAccurate has seen for the A12 show it gains about 50% more single threaded performance without changing energy use. Some of this is process related but most of it is architectural. You will see in a few weeks and you will be impressed."
Ditching plus branding only works well if both phones offer all the same features. If they do it’s a no brainier plus branding is likely gone. As for the 6.1” iPhone, making it 6.1” as opposed to 5.8” is confusing. And it is sensible to assume it will be named iPhone 9, and will feature a single lens camera and LCD screen.
I wonder if they keep the 7 and 8 around.
They’ll allow their propensity for profit over product lineup clarity, simplicity and elegance inform their direction on that one—sigh.
Were it my decision the entire linup would consist of an LCD 5” full screen iPhone with Face ID and squared-off sides as the full-screen small choice. Existing SE hardware with iPhone 8 processor and camera as the true budget small choice (but only if the 5” couldn’t be made affordable enough). And the two X phones they are planning this year—with feature parody for both and no more plus branding.
Four iPhone display size options and no old iPhones: SE, 9, X (2 sizes).
Or if the 9 could be made affordable enough I’d can the SE, drop the number 9, increase focus and offer customers an ideal lineup: (1) iPhone - 5” (2) iPhone X - 5.8” and 6.5”
I think it's extremely likely the iPad Pro will have an A12X. I doubt Apple will make an A11X a full year after the A11. They skipped announcing the iPad Pro at WWDC, so it's almost a given it'll be announced along with the iPhone, or in October.
Plus, Apple is now designing both their own CPU and GPU. It makes sense that since they're now in complete control of everything that they could design the A12/A12X side-by-side and launch them around the same time. The A11 was their first try at a custom GPU, so I can see them not wanting to rush out a first-gen A11X without seeing how their GPU worked in the A11 (for example, how well it scales or thermal issues). Now we're a year later and Apple will be coming out with their second generation GPU, which would be a great time to show off how powerful it is with a new A12X.
Also remember that Adobe talked about Photoshop on the iPad Pro. What better way to show off your most powerful processor by having an iPad run full-blown Photoshop?
Ditching plus branding only works well if both phones offer all the same features. If they do it’s a no brainier plus branding is likely gone. As for the 6.1” iPhone, making it 6.1” as opposed to 5.8” is confusing. And it is sensible to assume it will be named iPhone 9, and will feature a single lens camera and LCD screen.
I wonder if they keep the 7 and 8 around.
They’ll allow their propensity for profit over product lineup clarity, simplicity and elegance to inform their direction on that one. Sigh.
Bullshit. Apples profits result from making superior products and selling them in ridiculous quantities, not because they put profit over everything else.
Sorry, but the 6.1” LCD “value proposition” iPhone X does not make any sense. There is NO reason for Apple to make a cheaper version of something, when the expensive version is already selling extremely well.
I’m betting that the 6.1” LCD display is for iPhone 9 Plus.
They will release 2 new models and 4, maybe 5, new phones...
iPhone X.2 iPhone X.2 Plus
iPhone 9 iPhone 9 Plus iPhone 9 mini
All new models will have True Depth cameras, meaning no more Home Button. The iPhone 9 display will not have a notch, but rather smaller top and bottom bezels.
Just a great posting. Clear, easy to read, and thoughtful !
Sorry, but the 6.1” LCD “value proposition” iPhone X does not make any sense. There is NO reason for Apple to make a cheaper version of something, when the expensive version is already selling extremely well.
I’m betting that the 6.1” LCD display is for iPhone 9 Plus.
They will release 2 new models and 4, maybe 5, new phones...
iPhone X.2 iPhone X.2 Plus
iPhone 9 iPhone 9 Plus iPhone 9 mini
All new models will have True Depth cameras, meaning no more Home Button. The iPhone 9 display will not have a notch, but rather smaller top and bottom bezels.
Ditching plus branding only works well if both phones offer all the same features. If they do it’s a no brainier plus branding is likely gone. As for the 6.1” iPhone, making it 6.1” as opposed to 5.8” is confusing. And it is sensible to assume it will be named iPhone 9, and will feature a single lens camera and LCD screen.
I wonder if they keep the 7 and 8 around.
They’ll allow their propensity for profit over product lineup clarity, simplicity and elegance to inform their direction on that one. Sigh.
Bullshit. Apples profits result from making superior products and selling them in ridiculous quantities, not because they put profit over everything else.
They make good products, but profit is a significantly important dimension for Apple. Don’t fool yourself. You need look no further than how they price everything they sell and their standard 40% markup. Margins are huge and important for this company. There’s no bullshit about it. It’s a fact.
SemiAccurate, for whatever their reputation is worth (so...Mound of salt, here), is staking their reputation on a 50% increase per core. Now that would be a mighty impressive feat, given that they're already up there with Intel size execution windows, but given the density, power, and clock speed improvements of the 7nm fab, maybe, if all those things were used towards peak power...
SemiAccurate is saying +50% per Hz or +50% per core from A11 to A12 cores?
The former is basically impossible for generic integer/FP code or on average across a variety of loads, especially when it’s limited to a 5W environments. It could be done for narrow cases by adding more and SIMD units or an extra FP unit, etc, with only a few loads that can take advantage of it, but if on average, a lot of people will think it is tantamount to magic.
The latter is doable if TSMC gets a 30% uplift from their 10nm to 7nm process and Apple gets a 15% improvement in perf per clock. So, a clock increase from 2.4 GHz to 3.2 GHz and a per clock improvement of 1.15x gets you to 50% improvement. 15% is achievable through the usual methods like better caches, buffers and whatnot. But this hinges TSMC 7nm being really good.
Hoping the iPads go the A12X route, finally being in line with the iPhone processor core launches, while still being higher power/higher bandwidth/more cores. The rumored 3+5 core sounds scary for the Intel U series.
Me too! Love my iPad Pro 10.5. I’m already seriously jealous of an iPad with 12.9” display with a smaller footprint than the current, not to mention the 11” being about the same footprint. Still wish for a 5:4 aspect ratio display and improved OS and app. Have to wait it out at least another year. Might have to seriously consider a selling my 1 year old iPad.
From the recent link regarding the ARM Roadmap;
"More importantly the vanilla ARM cores are designed for a wide frequency range so they leave some performance on the table to gain that flexibility. If you take an ARM core and design it for a small number of workloads and frequency ranges, you can get a lot more performance out of the SoC, and we mean a lot. The classic example of this is the Apple A11 which currently trounces the best Intel has at performance per Watt and in many cases raw performance. The numbers SemiAccurate has seen for the A12 show it gains about 50% more single threaded performance without changing energy use. Some of this is process related but most of it is architectural. You will see in a few weeks and you will be impressed."
It looks to me like Apple has good data on what workloads are important to its customers, and have used that knowledge to maximize performance.
So, the latter, comparing A11 single threaded performance to A12 single threaded performance. We will see how much is architectural in a few weeks.
Keep in mind what this means, and why you should be skeptical. If the 50% is a generalized improvement over a wide set of PC workloads, it’ll mean the A12 can score 6300 on GB4. The A11 currently scores 4200 on GB4, and multiply that by 1.5, you get 6300. The current highest official score is a 6190 from a Core i7-8086K, which is an unlocked 95W Intel processor with a turbo of 5 GHz. It seems basically impossible for Apple to achieve such a performance uplift. Maybe a 3.6 GHz turbo with the A12 core? And after a few minutes, it’ll drop down to 2.7 GHz or so?
I think I would be pleasantly surprised if the A12 hit 5000 single threaded GB4 points. 20% is pretty awesome these days.
I think it's extremely likely the iPad Pro will have an A12X. I doubt Apple will make an A11X a full year after the A11. They skipped announcing the iPad Pro at WWDC, so it's almost a given it'll be announced along with the iPhone, or in October.
Plus, Apple is now designing both their own CPU and GPU. It makes sense that since they're now in complete control of everything that they could design the A12/A12X side-by-side and launch them around the same time. The A11 was their first try at a custom GPU, so I can see them not wanting to rush out a first-gen A11X without seeing how their GPU worked in the A11 (for example, how well it scales or thermal issues). Now we're a year later and Apple will be coming out with their second generation GPU, which would be a great time to show off how powerful it is with a new A12X.
Also remember that Adobe talked about Photoshop on the iPad Pro. What better way to show off your most powerful processor by having an iPad run full-blown Photoshop?
To me, the biggest improvement for iPad Pros, would be 8 GB RAM, turning on virtual memory (swap files etc), and other OS and app optimizations, with upgrade options to 16 GB. It would make Photoshop style apps, other apps, much more amenable on iPads.
Oh, and external monitor support too. Would be interesting if I could use the iPad as the input device, including software keyboard, trackpad, and stylus.
Ditching plus branding only works well if both phones offer all the same features. If they do it’s a no brainier plus branding is likely gone. As for the 6.1” iPhone, making it 6.1” as opposed to 5.8” is confusing. And it is sensible to assume it will be named iPhone 9, and will feature a single lens camera and LCD screen.
I wonder if they keep the 7 and 8 around.
They’ll allow their propensity for profit over product lineup clarity, simplicity and elegance to inform their direction on that one. Sigh.
Bullshit. Apples profits result from making superior products and selling them in ridiculous quantities, not because they put profit over everything else.
And selling them at high prices. I do wish their strategy for the low end was something other than keeping older models around and reducing the price. I wish they had an iPhone strategy of good, better best and each model was updated every year. Then even the low end would feel like a new phone rather than a 3 year old phone price reduced.
Comments
The former is basically impossible for generic integer/FP code or on average across a variety of loads, especially when it’s limited to a 5W environments. It could be done for narrow cases by adding more and SIMD units or an extra FP unit, etc, with only a few loads that can take advantage of it, but if on average, a lot of people will think it is tantamount to magic.
The latter is doable if TSMC gets a 30% uplift from their 10nm to 7nm process and Apple gets a 15% improvement in perf per clock. So, a clock increase from 2.4 GHz to 3.2 GHz and a per clock improvement of 1.15x gets you to 50% improvement. 15% is achievable through the usual methods like better caches, buffers and whatnot. But this hinges TSMC 7nm being really good.
Me too! Love my iPad Pro 10.5. I’m already seriously jealous of an iPad with 12.9” display with a smaller footprint than the current, not to mention the 11” being about the same footprint. Still wish for a 5:4 aspect ratio display and improved OS and app. Have to wait it out at least another year. Might have to seriously consider a selling my 1 year old iPad.
"More importantly the vanilla ARM cores are designed for a wide frequency range so they leave some performance on the table to gain that flexibility. If you take an ARM core and design it for a small number of workloads and frequency ranges, you can get a lot more performance out of the SoC, and we mean a lot. The classic example of this is the Apple A11 which currently trounces the best Intel has at performance per Watt and in many cases raw performance. The numbers SemiAccurate has seen for the A12 show it gains about 50% more single threaded performance without changing energy use. Some of this is process related but most of it is architectural. You will see in a few weeks and you will be impressed."
https://semiaccurate.com/2018/08/16/deimos-and-hercules-appear-on-the-arm-roadmap/
It looks to me like Apple has good data on what workloads are important to its customers, and have used that knowledge to maximize performance.
Were it my decision the entire linup would consist of an LCD 5” full screen iPhone with Face ID and squared-off sides as the full-screen small choice. Existing SE hardware with iPhone 8 processor and camera as the true budget small choice (but only if the 5” couldn’t be made affordable enough). And the two X phones they are planning this year—with feature parody for both and no more plus branding.
Four iPhone display size options and no old iPhones: SE, 9, X (2 sizes).
Or if the 9 could be made affordable enough I’d can the SE, drop the number 9, increase focus and offer customers an ideal lineup:
(1) iPhone - 5”
(2) iPhone X - 5.8” and 6.5”
Plus, Apple is now designing both their own CPU and GPU. It makes sense that since they're now in complete control of everything that they could design the A12/A12X side-by-side and launch them around the same time. The A11 was their first try at a custom GPU, so I can see them not wanting to rush out a first-gen A11X without seeing how their GPU worked in the A11 (for example, how well it scales or thermal issues). Now we're a year later and Apple will be coming out with their second generation GPU, which would be a great time to show off how powerful it is with a new A12X.
Also remember that Adobe talked about Photoshop on the iPad Pro. What better way to show off your most powerful processor by having an iPad run full-blown Photoshop?
Bullshit. Apples profits result from making superior products and selling them in ridiculous quantities, not because they put profit over everything else.
X Plus : 6.5”
X: 5.8”
9/9+:6.1”
So, the latter, comparing A11 single threaded performance to A12 single threaded performance. We will see how much is architectural in a few weeks.
Keep in mind what this means, and why you should be skeptical. If the 50% is a generalized improvement over a wide set of PC workloads, it’ll mean the A12 can score 6300 on GB4. The A11 currently scores 4200 on GB4, and multiply that by 1.5, you get 6300. The current highest official score is a 6190 from a Core i7-8086K, which is an unlocked 95W Intel processor with a turbo of 5 GHz. It seems basically impossible for Apple to achieve such a performance uplift. Maybe a 3.6 GHz turbo with the A12 core? And after a few minutes, it’ll drop down to 2.7 GHz or so?
I think I would be pleasantly surprised if the A12 hit 5000 single threaded GB4 points. 20% is pretty awesome these days.
To me, the biggest improvement for iPad Pros, would be 8 GB RAM, turning on virtual memory (swap files etc), and other OS and app optimizations, with upgrade options to 16 GB. It would make Photoshop style apps, other apps, much more amenable on iPads.
Oh, and external monitor support too. Would be interesting if I could use the iPad as the input device, including software keyboard, trackpad, and stylus.