People keep saying this, but with Airplay mirroring why would you need Apps on your ATV? Your iPhone, iPad, and OS X apps will display just fine on your TV provided you have a good network setup. What we need is simply better Wifi, with lower latency. Perhaps 802.11 ac would be all that's missing.
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.
New Apple TV Has A5X Chip and Single WLAN + Bluetooth Antenna
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
People keep saying this, but with Airplay mirroring why would you need Apps on your ATV? Your iPhone, iPad, and OS X apps will display just fine on your TV provided you have a good network setup. What we need is simply better Wifi, with lower latency. Perhaps 802.11 ac would be all that's missing.
The ATV2 & 3 can already play 3D HD content - the only flaw is the ATV video UI (play/pause indicator, progress bar) isn't 3D so doesn't display correctly.
Ugh. Please don't start the 4K hype machine.... they just barely got in 1080P (and internet speeds and limits effect this deeply.)
4K is meant more for wall sized displays.... the tv manufactures will market and hype it up in smaller sets to sell tv's... but literally, 4K is not worth much unless your display is way over 70" and more like.... your entire wall. Your cable company most likely can't even serve you 4K content in many areas, and ever companies that have moved to fiber optic will choke if it's not run to your door. (I mean you comcast, who lies and says they are fiber optic... but only are fiber optic on the street, not to the home like fios is.)
Streaming 4K will be a LONG time coming. There is not internet speed out there that can pull that off on a consumer level. 4K is really a joke and won't be viable for at least 10 more years. Just plan to be ripped off by marketing claims when they stuff into into sets that don't even need 1080
I have an atv2, and that was my feeling as well. Unless they announce something "miracle" like in the future, seems like it'd be the same thing.
Well as this is designated 3,2 as opposed to the 3,1 of ATV3 we can assume its not meant to be a generational hardware improvement. More likely a silent upgrade. If it was anything significant it would be 4,1.
That article is so incredibly biased.
It's not just that he wants to 'cut the cord' - he needs home phone as well - and won't bother to try other options from other providers. And he's only looking for one provider for internet, he didn't shop around.
Plus, he NEEDS a Roku box because of Amazon streaming. He doesn't care that the Roku interface for Netflix sucks compared to Apple TV - he's all about MORE features, not BETTER features.
My cost is less than $40/month for everything - including internet, a Hulu and Netflix subscription, 2 Tivo DVRs for antenna HDTV.
This guy did not try hard enough.
That is insane to me. Off the top of my head, internet alone would cost $50ish....then you are talking about $10 for netflix, $10 for hulu, $15 for tivo....plus the cost of the Tivo HD-DVR. That is still cheaper than a cable provider, but not by a massive margin. How are you getting all of that for $40 a month?
Internet is $19 a month for 2 years. We can get DSL for $17/month where I live, but those speeds can only stream one TV at a time. We will switch to DSL if Time/Warner ups the prices. Verizon FiOS is $39/month. Maybe if there is no competition, they gouge you?
We have lifetime on the Tivos - monthly cost $0.
Netflix is $8
Hulu is $8
I switched back in 2009. Even if you prorate the cost of Tivo lifetime ($299 per tivo back then), it's still less than $6/Tivo per month.
Yeah, good point. An A5X would make it more powerful than the Ouya for gaming... It would be able to handle some modestly nice 720p or 1080p titles pretty well.
Same here. Works great. I also have a TiVo for recording shows I receive over the air.
----------
I'm thinking apps and games. 4K TVs aren't mainstream enough yet.
gotcha....so it is a pretty hefty price on the front end, but in the end it beats $150 a month. I have heard that over-the-air broadcast is going to end soon though b.c by law it is no longer required.
not in this lifetime. I think Apple has interesting things up their sleeves, the fact they just got bluetooth support added means they want the user to use a physical keyboard when searching right ?, the fact their is quad core chip means its there for a future use.
I reckon Apple will realise the fact that they can't do a Apple Television, but instead use what we already have
and slowly integrate web browsing, email etc......
A5X die shrunk, is smaller than A6X, means many things.
Smaller than A6X.
Less transistors, translate to less power. Mini has limited space for battery.
Chip is smaller, more chips to wafer, lower cost to Apple.
Lot of dev time went into develping A5X, will look better ot bean counters to get two uses out of it.
Combined with plenty of CPU power... Very likely this will be in iPad Mini Retina refresh in fall.
The need for CPU power in a mobile device, for consumer, end-user experience has largely plateaued with the A5.
----------
1080P is already retina at the right viewing distance.
not in this lifetime. I think Apple has interesting things up their sleeves, the fact they just got bluetooth support added means they want the user to use a physical keyboard when searching right ?, the fact their is quad core chip means its there for a future use.
I reckon Apple will realise the fact that they can't do a Apple Television, but instead use what we already have
This seems like the most logical thing to me as well. The current smartTV interface is so choppy and horrid that using the internet is useless.
I'd advise against banking on this.
Maybe, maybe not.
But quadcore isn't a benefit in mobile devices. From the wide range of photo, movie editing apps, and the likes of Infinity Blade 3 etc. The user experience with dual core is top notch.
Spec sheet whoring is the only reason for quad core. Further evolving dual core architecture for performance and battery efficiency is still a better route for this and next gen.
A8 or 9. A hair bigger maybe.
But we have not actually heard that the A5X has been die shrunk, it's too early to make that assumption.
The article merely states when the original A5 was die shrunk, no confirmation of the same thing for the A5X. At the moment all they have is speculation which is as about as accurate as anyone guess here.
It's also likely they were just using up A5X chips that were manufactured for the iPad 3 before it's untimely demise.
Remember the AppleTV is still relatively niche so a decent stock pile of A5X's would fit nicely into that bracket as it looks unlikely that the new Apple TV will be bringing with it any new GUI or changes in regards to Apps. It's designated 3,2 (as opposed to 4,1) for a reason.
Likewise...
It's too early to predict and A5X in an iPad mini, especially if the iPad 5 goes to the A7, which would put Apple's now most popular iPad two generations behind it's bigger brother in cpu. The is just as much chance that if the A7 is going to be used in the iPhone 5S, iPad 5 then it too will just as likely be used in the iPad mini.
The A7 we should assume will be more power efficient allowing the iPad 5 to be made smaller and thinner, and without causing the iPad mini to gain weight or lose battery life dramatically because of the increased performance.
But again this is just speculation and has about as much merit as the speculation in the front page article. Only time will tell.
Maybe so. But we can at least assume the GPU will be more advanced, and therefore it may not need that 'X' variation to drive a retina display. That is more the important factor I was taking into consideration in regards to the a7.
Last edited:
The original A5X was 45 nm, hence the high battery requirements and massive heat dissipation. The new A5X in the Apple TV will be 32nm, with lower consumption and TDP, therefore it COULD be used in a Retina iPad mini. But due to display constraints of the smaller retina displays as mentioned by someone else, it won't happen until Q3. And then most likely they will use a more advanced processor.
Again we haven't actually had any confirmation of this however, just speculation that this is the case.
I totally disagree. WMC runs as well as most PC's do. Its laggy, buffers, takes forever just to load the menu with all my movies. I have both and use AppleTV because I never have the headaches with AppleTV that I do with WMC. My network is > 100mbs too, there's no reason anything streaming should lag on my network at all.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Unfortunately, this is true. Many people don't realize the pace of uptake for HD. It started in 1986 but didn't really start showing up until the late 1990's and then only in very select locations. Depending on your sense of "becoming mainstream", the date should be around 2006-2009 though even in 2013 there are still plenty of national channels that are not yet HD. And all of that is HD at either 1080i or 720p. 1080p is newer and mostly relies on BD, some streaming, some VOD and/or home video shot with good HD camcorders/cameras. It's far from becoming "mainstream" itself (except in the TV playback hardware itself)
2013 - 1986 = 26 years so far and we're still not fully there. 4K has just begun the process in the last half decade or so. While it might not take as long as 26 years, I wouldn't have any concept that it might take over for HD in the next 3 or 5 or 8 or so years either.
Best hope for accelerated 4K availability is probably disc again, as the file sizes- even with H.265- will be HUGE. I've heard both the BD governing body(s) are working on finalizing a spec for 4K now and that they've already got it finalized. Either way, it's probably at least a couple of years before the disc option begins to arrive in any mainstream way. In iTunes for streaming, my guess is probably 5+ years from now at the soonest.
Be great if it handled DTS-HD/MA for my Blu-Ray encodes (now supported in M4V thanks to Handbrake), access for NAS devices for media libraries. Until then, my 2012 Mac Mini makes for a great HTPC. The AppleTV seems to be a throw away device for consumers to purchase iTunes content unless your encodes follow the specific "approved" media codecs for "Home Sharing".
My suggestion: get a first gen aTV and for$35 $10 replace the WiFi card with a Broadcom Video/Audio Hardware Decoder. Connect using the RJ-45 to your router, and you have a powerful media device that takes NAS's, full 1080P rips with DTS, and toss in a larger HDD for more room in addition to your NAS. I have my Mac Mini with XBMC in my media room and a first gen modded aTV in my bedroom, with a Synology DS212j server holding 4TB's of movies and music.
My suggestion: get a first gen aTV and for
Last edited: