Almost fell off my chair reading this post...actual informed and intelligent speculation, rare indeed on this forum. Very interesting observations, thanks for posting.
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.
Photos of Bare iPhone 5S Logic Board Surface, Slightly Narrower Than iPhone 5 Board [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Almost fell off my chair reading this post...actual informed and intelligent speculation, rare indeed on this forum. Very interesting observations, thanks for posting.
And not to forget iOS 7 was redesigned in about 6 months. That's crazy. Apple could have waited until iOS 8 to show off the redesign but having another year of the iOS 6 UI would have been a big mistake. If this is the direction Apple is going, better to get it out there and perfect over time. If, for instance Apple wasn't able to redesign mail and calendar the way they wanted to in time, what's stopping them from providing updates to those apps after iOS 7 ships? I'd love to see more frequent updates on the software front.
A wise man once said "640K ought to be enough for anyone."
Never say never, quad core with the right multitasking & optimization to balance battery life can really be a wonderful experience.
Actually, no one ever proved he said that line, or for that matter, anyone ever said it... http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...te_won_t_go_away_but_did_Gates_really_say_it_
Yeah I heard about it, but since its been quoted numerous times, kinda makes it "he must have said that" thing.
The size of the processor package says nothing about the size of the die within.
What it does say is that there are likely to be more I/Os into/out of the SoC.
This means that Apple could have integrated more functionality into the SoC directly that requires its own I/O.
But you can't say anything definite about the die within, whether or not it is larger, how many cores it has, and so on and so forth.
All you can do is speculate - if it's 28nm maybe there are four cores, and/or the cores run faster, and/or there are big.LITTLE companion A7s (so small they barely affect the die size, but they save a lot of power), and/or the GPU is bigger, and/or the memory controller is wider/faster ...
What it does say is that there are likely to be more I/Os into/out of the SoC.
This means that Apple could have integrated more functionality into the SoC directly that requires its own I/O.
But you can't say anything definite about the die within, whether or not it is larger, how many cores it has, and so on and so forth.
All you can do is speculate - if it's 28nm maybe there are four cores, and/or the cores run faster, and/or there are big.LITTLE companion A7s (so small they barely affect the die size, but they save a lot of power), and/or the GPU is bigger, and/or the memory controller is wider/faster ...
My thoughts as well, and good point about the package. However, one can assume the package is no bigger than it needs to be in such a tight environment, so barring I/O changes, it would indeed point to a bigger die.
Glad you appreciate it. I enjoy trying to keep people informed with realistic expectations. A few other posters regularly post content just as good as mine, if not better, with the above quoted poster being a good example.
Good point. I've played a bit more with overlaying the images, and I think you might be right. Narrower board, however slight, means a bit more room for a larger battery maybe.
Good point. I've played a bit more with overlaying the images, and I think you might be right. Narrower board, however slight, means a bit more room for a larger battery maybe.
Perhaps. If they do implement lean core(s), coupled with a larger battery, there could be a significant battery boost, especially if they do make the screen change to IGZO.
Does anyone else ever take a step back to just be _amazed_ at the computing power of something about the size of a stick of gum?
Dunno, it seems to me there's more space/capacitors on the right-hand side, so maybe the A6 is just being realigned?
On the back-side, you have a point. I tried a quick copy, rotate and paste (not very scientific, or engineeriffic!) to see if the Hynix chip would fit if rotated 90 degrees, and it juuust about does, but the image is too low res to accurately judge it.
Yes, there is a double row on the right, but you still have 3.5 rows versus 4 rows.
As for the Hynix chip, components usually have some minimum distance from the edge of the PWB for manufacturing tolerances and produceability.
I don't. I WANT a quad-core iPhone. I'm not even sure why this is a question. Why did I want a dual-core iPhone? Because it's better. Why did I want a retina display on my Macbook Pro? Because it's better. A better question would be why wouldn't I want it.Why do you need a quad core iPhone?
Lets hope so although the reports on the first implementation of big.LITTLE that I've seen, namely a comparison of battery life between the Samsung S4 Snapdragon and Exynos parts, looked weird with the Snapdragon having better battery life. Maybe the tests were run badly.
In any event one of my hopes for the next iPhone is that Apple do put a big focus on extending battery life and I'd love to see them do a really effective implementation of big.LITTLE or something similar. If the next iPhone is going to be pretty much the same physical packaging with internal modifications then making really significant advances in battery life would be a really nice stick for Apple to use to beat on its competitors.
I suspect that you're right on the main board getting narrower so if the rumours of the same screen size and physical home button are true then that might (and I hope does) mean a bigger battery although it could also mean that they could maintain the same battery capacity but use the extra width available for the battery to make it, and hence the whole phone, even thinner.
I'm not saying that I want a thinner iPhone, I'm just saying that if Apple have narrowed the main board to allow more width for the battery then making the phone thinner while maintaining the same battery capacity is another possibility open to them.
- Julian
More cores, dont make necesarry a better cpu. They can make a octa-core cpu but if it is not frecuency efficient and energy optimized, your applications will remain slugish and you will be left without battery in hours. The CPU power is not defined only by the number of cores, the same way the camera is not defined only by the number of megapixels it has. There are fundamental aspects of design of the CPU which are even more important than the number of cores. Yeah, galaxy s4 has better benchmarks results than the iPhone, so what? Whats is faster in terms of user experiance?
That's not a fair apples to apples because the process is different and the cores are different (A15 versus custom Krait).
I'm not ignorant as to CPUs. I'm working under the assumption that a quad-core A7 would be just as efficient if not more than the current A6. Which means I simply have a more powerful iPhone that continues to have great battery life and performance.