Sorry, wouldn't**, I was tired last night lol. Why wouldn't they be able to put the same chip in both, with the mini's A7 clocked lower than the iPad 5's?
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 2 will NOT have retina display, stop dreaming!
- Thread starter saintforlife
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Sorry, wouldn't**, I was tired last night lol. Why wouldn't they be able to put the same chip in both, with the mini's A7 clocked lower than the iPad 5's?
This vid shows the 7 inch IGZO display in use and they say its in Production.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PJBjtB8bFU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PJBjtB8bFU
Haha, I gotcha now. They could. But then the difference between the iPad mini 2 and iPad 5 is much less than if they used the A6X SoC for the mini. The 5 would be more of a "high end" device.
I think they've made it apparent through marketing that their intention is not to make it a lesser product. I believe they will try and bring them closer together, especially with an even bigger iPad coming into the mix eventually.
I don't disagree, because it's really the screen size which makes the difference. But I still expect the A6X in the mini 2. We'll see soon enough.
The iPad Mini is 7.85 inch to be exact, and the 7 inch tablet in the video is AQUOS PAD SH-08E manufactured by Sharp.
If at all any rumour was there about IGZO and iOS, it was the following
i) A 4 inch iPhone 5S with IGZO
ii) MB Air and iPads to get IGZO next year.
The majority of the rumours is pure speculation and the hope of many fans (including me!) that iPad will pick it up this year.
----------
Depends on how much improvement they have made on the A7X compared to the A6X. The less screen area of the Mini should make a substantial difference if they go ahead with A6X, but we don't know what other performance modifications they are going to do, to extract more power and have less consumption from the A6X on the mini.
No. Screen size is irrelevant other than backlight requirements. It's the number of pixels in the display that will determine performance so if the two screen sizes have the same resolution then performance should be identical with the same chipset.
+++1
I want to downsize to the mini, but skipped the first gen. I don't care about retina, but it would be cool to get the mini 2 more "future proofed" by getting it the 64bit A7 CPU.
Unfortunately, I suspect that the Ipad 5 will get an A7, and the mini2 will get the A6X. History always seems to repeat itself in Apple product sequencing. They are predictable.
A mini with A6x & 1Gb ram will be quite the performer. I'd be happy with that paired to a retina display.
True, it will be a serious improvement over the A5, especially if the display resolution remains the same.
I am more worried about the A7 leading app developers to focus the good stuff on 64 bit CPU, leaving the A6 in the dust. In my house, we still use an Ipad 1; I would be sorry if the new mini becomes obsolete in 2 years because no new apps are being published for 32 bit CPU.
I know that Apple generally provides 3 years of support for their products, but there is no guarantee that independent software developers will. I know the transition to 64 bit is inevitable, I would just be happier if the mini 2 managed to get onboard this year.
100% correct, they will eventually release a Mini with retina but until then it's pure speculation.
I don't believe Apple with change the ratio of the Mini thought increase the dpi to the same as the retina iPad, it's too early in the morning for me to do math or maths...
For you guys that are saying there's only certain resolutions, does that mean that a 1280x800 IGZO is out of the question?
I'd be happy with that in the upgrade..2048x1536 seems a little overkill and, I'd imagine, tiny on an 8" screen, no?
I'd be happy with that in the upgrade..2048x1536 seems a little overkill and, I'd imagine, tiny on an 8" screen, no?
Pretty sure as of today's media event they mentioned that app devs would be able to easily update their apps to 64-bit and that iOS7 runs both 32-bit and 64-bit variants. Which means they would be maintaining apps simultaneously, so that neither would be forgone or neglected.
Brilliant argument.
But, just the only thing I have my own view on is the battery life you mentioned.
Apple are the most innovate company in the world, and battery life is something they definitely know a lot about. Whether they implement it in their devices or not, it's the biggest factor that gives any device only a 9 out of 10.
If they can increase the battery in the 5 to the 5s. Then no doubt, give the same [or better] battery life from the 4th Gen iPad to the 5th. Then they can definitely pump more juice in to a mini if it becomes retina.
Not saying they will do a retina this generation, but the technology is definitely there. Only Apple know how many mini's they are selling, and until they slow down, they won't release a new one.
But, just the only thing I have my own view on is the battery life you mentioned.
Apple are the most innovate company in the world, and battery life is something they definitely know a lot about. Whether they implement it in their devices or not, it's the biggest factor that gives any device only a 9 out of 10.
If they can increase the battery in the 5 to the 5s. Then no doubt, give the same [or better] battery life from the 4th Gen iPad to the 5th. Then they can definitely pump more juice in to a mini if it becomes retina.
Not saying they will do a retina this generation, but the technology is definitely there. Only Apple know how many mini's they are selling, and until they slow down, they won't release a new one.
You can't really shrink an A6x and still call it an A6x. Wouldn't the benefactor of this operation essentially be...the A7? Therefore the A7/A7x seems like the only real option to me. It would make the most sense to have an A7 chip in the iPad 5 mini, and A7x in the iPad 5. Not sure why everyone (in other threads at least) is against the iPad mini getting an A7. It's a decent amount more efficient than the A6X, and should pack more power too (while maintaining battery life - because the mini is actually good at that - plus will need it for the retina).
IGZO won't be this year. Likely next year though. You see IGZO in a few select notebooks this month and I'm sure a few more this fall, but it's not going to be apple-mainstream probably until next year or the year. Maybe iPhone 6 next year.
Regarding the resolution, they could do "Retina" for the mini's size, but I don't think they will, because 1) They used the same resolution for the iPad mini as they did the iPad 1-2 (1024x768), and 2) they don't want to make another resolution and bother devs with maintaining that in addition.
A die shrink will enable the A6x to physically smaller and require less power while remaining just as powerful as the chip on a larger die therefore it is still the A6x. Apple did this with the A5 that is in the iPad 2. When the mini was released it still used the A5 as did a refreshed iPad 2 but it was built on a smaller die using less power. The A7 is unlikely to be selected for a mini with retina because the x part denotes the extra gpu units to drive the higher resolution. If the mini goes retina then it will require an A?x chip. An A7x chip will canabalise ipad 5 sales whereas a mini with an A6x would be powerful enough while allowing the iPad 5 to remain the more powerful flagship product.
If they shrunk it, and it uses less power while still creating the same power, then isn't it basically a new chip? Much like Intel made a die shrunk from Sandy to Ivy bridge? Also, how is it possible for it to retain the same power, while using less power to create that? Isn't that impossible? If you compress something, but it remains identical then I don't see how it would be able to use less power.
Ah I see. Yes I agree with all of that, and have, but the inefficiency of the A6x is kinda what puts me off of it. If a die shrink is possible then it would be a fine chip for the mini 2.
Kind of hard to explain, especially since I have just woken up but it is all down to the manufacturing process. Imagine two cars which are identical and have the same engine but one is made from steel and the other is made from lighter aluminium. They are essentially the same car with the same power but the aluminum one will go faster.
Sandy bridge to ivy bridge contained more than a die shrink & power reduction hence the name change.
Sandy bridge to ivy bridge contained more than a die shrink & power reduction hence the name change.
Even the new 7" kindle Fire HD now has Retina so I would be really surprised if Apple doesn't do it! 
Smaller, with the the same resolution panel, means higher PPI, means smaller pixels, means you need more backlight power to achieve the same brightness.
A7X is on new 28nm process, by all accounts, it's a source of the iPhone 5S supply constraint.
Launching 2 new highvolume products on this already constrained process seems unlikely.
A6X on old process seems more likely, but it's not super power efficient. I imagine they need to work some engineering magic to achieve slim and battery life.
I suspect it's going to get thicker like IPad 3 Retina did.
----------
Interesting. So would the old A6 from the iPhone 5. It's at least as powerful as the A5X I think used in the iPad 3.
And it's low power. Interesting. Also that chip production line has no constraints on it like the new A7 line does with iPhone 5S and iPad 5. That makes a lot of sense.
I bet the iPad Mini2 Retina gets upgraded to plain A6. iOS7 will get further iPad optimizations, and it will continue to limp along. iOS8 will tax it, and it will have a short life like the iPad 3 had.
- Status