Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPad mini Ipad Mini A7?
- Thread starter rovex
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Anything possible, I wouldn't get my hopes up though.
Last year, Mini got previous generation A5 SOC.
I would expect the same, get previous generation A6 or A6X SOC.
A6X. Hopefully die shrunk and not as power thirsty as in iPad 4... or it could be thicker for battery capacity, like how the iPad 3/4 grew in size over the iPad 2.
I fear Apple wasn't planning on iPad Mini Retina this year, but Nexus 7 may have put some pressure and forced their hand. If it comes out forced, poor batt. life or under performing because they shoehorned in the retina panel in the last 3 months rather than going through entire design cycle from the start.
Last year, Mini got previous generation A5 SOC.
I would expect the same, get previous generation A6 or A6X SOC.
A6X. Hopefully die shrunk and not as power thirsty as in iPad 4... or it could be thicker for battery capacity, like how the iPad 3/4 grew in size over the iPad 2.
I fear Apple wasn't planning on iPad Mini Retina this year, but Nexus 7 may have put some pressure and forced their hand. If it comes out forced, poor batt. life or under performing because they shoehorned in the retina panel in the last 3 months rather than going through entire design cycle from the start.
A retina mini would certainly benefit from an A7, but it comes right up against price points. A mini with full parity with a non mini isn't really going to much less to produce (the cost of a frame with the same minutes per unit but 30% less material isn't much of a savings). Meanwhile, a mini that doesn't cost less (smaller is supposed to) will receive massive ridicule. So you have to cut something, why not the cost of the most expensive component?
I would pay the full Ipad price for a mini with the same capabilities. I have always recognized that frequently small=expensive. It is difficult to shoe-horn in all the capabilities while maintaining a small form factor.
Alas, I think Apple is treating the mini as the low cost contributor to fight the smaller Android tablets adoption by consumers. There is a bigger market for a mini that costs $170 less then an ipad, and that is the market they are trying to tap.
A6 core is my bet (A6X if they come up with a retina display, which I doubt, but then I was completely blown away by the IPad 3 release).
----------
Same as every year. Iphone event is always a separate event from Ipads. Last Ipad event was 23 Oct, with release 2 Nov. I suspect this year's event will be 22 Oct, with release on 31 Oct. Apple does tend to be predictable (not counting the unexpected Ipad 4 event only 6 months after IPad 3).
If you look in the BUYERS GUIDE tab at the top of the page, you can find this sort of information.
Wikipedia has a good graphic of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipad
Last edited:
Oh, me too. But we are the exception. The whining at 329 was deafening. Can't image the uproar over 499 for 16GB. They would literally have to make two models.
Same here. Wish they'd do a Mini Pro, but it ain't going to happen.
As it is, I'll be getting the iPad 5 because I want the fastest cpu/gpu/most ram combo. Just wish all this was available in Mini form, oh well. The weight and smaller bezels on the full will help no doubt.
I doubt it.
Having a new, 32-bit iPad gives developers more incentive to code for 32-bit iPads, and therefore, older 32-bit iPads as well. It'll help keep older iPads supported longer.
Having a new, 32-bit iPad gives developers more incentive to code for 32-bit iPads, and therefore, older 32-bit iPads as well. It'll help keep older iPads supported longer.
Im sure they make a load of money off of old hardware owners buying apps, so more apps supporting the older hardware is better.
That's definitely not what they're going for. They want to push 64-bit for sure, because that's where the future of their products are. They don't want to push the old 32-bit if all their products for the next 10 years will be 64-bit. They already support both 32-bit and 64-bit for iOS7, so until 32-bit is phased out, they will likely keep it neutral. But they will push 64-bit before 32-bit in almost every case.
I'm almost certain Apple wants to retain 32-bit app compatibility for the near future to continue to milk money via app sales from old hardware owners. Apple only gets the initial product cost when their hardware is bought, but continue to make money from app and software sales. Also, they just released a "new" iPhone with a 32-bit processor so they'll obviously want one of their new products to still be supported.
Apple definitely isn't trying to drop 32-bit right now.
I don't think you understood what I said. iOS7 supports full 64-bit for the iPhone 5s. But iOS7 supports both 64-bit (which only the 5s uses right now) and 32-bit. App devs only have to make slight adjustments to make their current apps 64-bit compatible. Basically, everyone's apps will work on both 32-bit and 64-bit from here on, once they make a small adjustment (which should be done by 5s' launch, or a couple weeks after). App devs making new apps will make them compatible for both 32-bit, and 64-bit. But any pushes apple might make, would likely be focused on 64-bit, since that is the future of their products.
The most likely to happen. Apple will save the A7 for the Big iPad 5. The Mini will get either the same A6 chip or a 'modified' (incrementally improved) A6x chip etc.
I'd be happy with a Retina Mini with a (slightly improved) A6X chip. Improved rear camera (the one for taking pictures, not for FaceTiming) would make it near perfect. Oohh... and Space Gray!
Don't you think the battery life would go down the tube if they put the A6X chip in the Mini though?
Why take pictures with your tablet? Don't you have an iPhone?
Actually I'm going to go against the majority here and say yes. More than that, it actually make a lot of sense.
If Apple are going to put out a retina iPad Mini they need to solve three linked problems: screen, processing power and battery. Looking at the leaked iPad cases it seems like they've figured out how to make a retina display thin enough (and, presumably, within acceptable power limits) to shrink the depth of the case down. There hasn't been a big jump in battery tech, though the iPhone 5S seems to suggest there may be a slight jump in power for roughly the same size battery. That leaves the SoC.
I've never been convinced the A6X is a practical solution for the iPad Mini. It's a big (and, therefore, expensive) chip that's going to need a fair bit of power and, more importantly, create a decent chunk of heat. Both the A5X and A6X are, in some ways, compromise designs to provide enough graphics power for that retina display. CPU power is broadly in line with the non-X versions, though it's usually clocked a bit higher.
From the few details we have at this point A7 seems to solve the GPU problem. Whether that's down to a new part or increased cores from the A7 remains to be seen but we do have that 'up to 2x faster' claim to work with. Looking at some theoretical numbers the iPhone 5 could hit 28.8 GFLOPS @ 300Mhz, the iPad 3 38.4 and the iPad 4 76.8. If that 2x is anywhere near accurate the A7 would be just about slap bang in between the two and with a nice CPU boost to go with it. Not as quick as the A6X but good enough to get decent performance levels and it's not too big a jump to suggest that Apple may be able to squeeze a bit more from the A7 in the iPad Mini chassis to help make up the difference.
That's the technical side, now look at the product positioning. Let's skip over the low end for a moment as there's a few ways that could go (for arguments sake let's say a non-retina Mini sticks around). The iPad Mini gets a retina display,the A7 SoC, 64 bit compatibility and, of course, "the same great battery life". The iPad gets the A7X for the best possible performance (it'd presumably have more battery power to spare with the larger chassis), a brand new design and probably a push more towards content creation / pro levels. In fact I wouldn't be shocked if we saw an iPad Pro in the not too distant future.
Apple bring costs down on the retina Mini by avoiding the need to build a potentially costly A6X and helps solve the battery problem at the same time. There's a nice clear marketing distinction between the Mini and the iPad. The whole line shifts to 64bit which can only help drive app changes and seemed to be something Apple were already pushing in the iPhone event (desktop-class architecture etc). They also end up with a very clear product line - iPad Mini, iPad Mini Retina, iPad Retina - that covers a range of price points and also has a consistent design with the traditional iPad design vanishing overnight.
Of course this could all be nonsense but, to me anyway, it'd make a certain amount of sense. Guess we'll see come October...
If Apple are going to put out a retina iPad Mini they need to solve three linked problems: screen, processing power and battery. Looking at the leaked iPad cases it seems like they've figured out how to make a retina display thin enough (and, presumably, within acceptable power limits) to shrink the depth of the case down. There hasn't been a big jump in battery tech, though the iPhone 5S seems to suggest there may be a slight jump in power for roughly the same size battery. That leaves the SoC.
I've never been convinced the A6X is a practical solution for the iPad Mini. It's a big (and, therefore, expensive) chip that's going to need a fair bit of power and, more importantly, create a decent chunk of heat. Both the A5X and A6X are, in some ways, compromise designs to provide enough graphics power for that retina display. CPU power is broadly in line with the non-X versions, though it's usually clocked a bit higher.
From the few details we have at this point A7 seems to solve the GPU problem. Whether that's down to a new part or increased cores from the A7 remains to be seen but we do have that 'up to 2x faster' claim to work with. Looking at some theoretical numbers the iPhone 5 could hit 28.8 GFLOPS @ 300Mhz, the iPad 3 38.4 and the iPad 4 76.8. If that 2x is anywhere near accurate the A7 would be just about slap bang in between the two and with a nice CPU boost to go with it. Not as quick as the A6X but good enough to get decent performance levels and it's not too big a jump to suggest that Apple may be able to squeeze a bit more from the A7 in the iPad Mini chassis to help make up the difference.
That's the technical side, now look at the product positioning. Let's skip over the low end for a moment as there's a few ways that could go (for arguments sake let's say a non-retina Mini sticks around). The iPad Mini gets a retina display,the A7 SoC, 64 bit compatibility and, of course, "the same great battery life". The iPad gets the A7X for the best possible performance (it'd presumably have more battery power to spare with the larger chassis), a brand new design and probably a push more towards content creation / pro levels. In fact I wouldn't be shocked if we saw an iPad Pro in the not too distant future.
Apple bring costs down on the retina Mini by avoiding the need to build a potentially costly A6X and helps solve the battery problem at the same time. There's a nice clear marketing distinction between the Mini and the iPad. The whole line shifts to 64bit which can only help drive app changes and seemed to be something Apple were already pushing in the iPhone event (desktop-class architecture etc). They also end up with a very clear product line - iPad Mini, iPad Mini Retina, iPad Retina - that covers a range of price points and also has a consistent design with the traditional iPad design vanishing overnight.
Of course this could all be nonsense but, to me anyway, it'd make a certain amount of sense. Guess we'll see come October...