It'll power some nice games in that new Apple TV
Not to mention iWork, Photoshop, and many productivity apps...
Apple's new "nano computer"...
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.
Apple's A7 Processor Truly 'Desktop Class', iOS Apps Don't Take Full Advantage
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not to mention iWork, Photoshop, and many productivity apps...
Apple's new "nano computer"...
Yeah! Let's see what they say now that I've presented them a quote from a very well-known forum member (with 4400+ posts) in the iOS / Mac forums over at DPReview...
I'm afraid it's you that missed half of it. A citation from the original article:
"The other problem I see is that although Cyclone is incredibly forward looking, it launched in devices with only 1GB of RAM. It's very likely that you'll run into memory limits before you hit CPU performance limits if you plan on keeping your device for a long time."
That is, it's the (meager, particularly in 64-bit devices) size of the RAM that is the bottleneck, and not the speed of it - contrary to what "BaldiMac" stated.
Those are not even remotely the same arguments.
Why bother quoting someone when it doesn't match what you claimed?
No kidding. And that has been the case since the iPad 2 if not longer. The A7 just makes it more of a blatantly weak link (I guess some take issue with calling that a "bottleneck").
Exactly. Far less frequent Safari page reloads (and, under iOS versions prior to 7.1, crashes); you wouldn't need to constantly restart (which takes at least half a minute each time) memory-hungry top games like XCOM: Enemy unknown if you minimize them to quickly check your mail / look at something in Safari etc.
ok so i think we can all agree that CPU performance on the mobile platform is as good as it needs to be for the coming years.
We don't need to see another graph on how much faster the CPU is on the next iPhone during the keynote, let's concentrate on battery life.
We don't need to see another graph on how much faster the CPU is on the next iPhone during the keynote, let's concentrate on battery life.
You do realise that we are individuals with our own opinions, and there is no consensus on the amount of RAM that is adequate, so lumping us into a group of 'fanboys' that think one way makes for a poor argument. There are plenty of us that consider 1GB insufficient with the 64bit architecture.
You're wrong. You asked me for a proof of Apple fanboys' usual Apple-defence of stating 1GB is sufficient and iDevices wouldn't really profit for more RAM. I did present you an example of this from an otherwise well-regarded, helpful (but seriously biased for Apple) guy with thousands of posts (read: he isn't a "noname" over at the Apple forums of DPR.)
I consider everybody fanboys that, just to justify Apple's not adding more memory, state iDevices' 1GB of RAM is the "sweet spot". It certainly isn't, as has been proved by tons of other mobile devices having 2 or even 3GGB's of RAM and still not showing any adverse effect (e.g., unbearable battery life) resulting from the increased RAM.
EDIT: BTW, the article this MR article is talking about also states it's the amount of RAM that is a serious bottleneck in current iDevices. Let me cite the original article again:
". The other problem I see is that although Cyclone is incredibly forward looking, it launched in devices with only 1GB of RAM. It's very likely that you'll run into memory limits before you hit CPU performance limits if you plan on keeping your device for a long time."
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7910/apples-cyclone-microarchitecture-detailed
It'll power some nice games in that new Apple TV
Hopefully it turns the ATV into something that will be essentially a desktop for your TV.
It can pair with a BT keyboard and mouse, just make an OS that will turn the ATV loose into a small desktop for the living room while being a TV/media device at heart.
You really can't tell the difference between "there would be no point in having 2GB of RAM in any iDevice" and "we think 1 GB is a good compromise at this time"?
You claimed that "Fanboys" said that iDevices don't need 2 GB.
That guy is arguing that the trade-off isn't worth it. When it comes to price and battery life, "what's it cost in money and resources?" is a valid discussion.
Not even close to the being the same.
1 Gig of RAM, with how much taken up by the OS itself?
I'm sure we'll see more, as soon as Apple opens up the change purse and grants us the ability to pay obscene prices for more than 1 gig of RAM
I'm sure we'll see more, as soon as Apple opens up the change purse and grants us the ability to pay obscene prices for more than 1 gig of RAM
Last edited:
Well, according to my latest, very strict experiments (I'm a die-hard iOS programmer and have developed tons of AppStore apps & JB tweaks), just minimizing (and not manually killing) apps under iOS7 indeed doesn't result in stability problems. (Unless you minimize apps that do something active in the background and, consequently, may remain in the memory longer than fully inactive apps - VoIP, some kind of GPS access etc.)
The only apps that, before allocating memory for themselves, suffer from this are apps that actively check for the amount of free RAM (via, say, host_statistics() calls) before memory allocations. They will think they have little free RAM and, consequently, may opt for a reduced-quality content presentation. But this isn't the way one should code - under iOS7, there is absolutely no point in making host_statistics() calls to find out how much free memory an app may use. Any apps depending on it are flawed as this value doesn't have the value of how much memory can (automatically) be freed when the app tries to allocate additional memory.
This only applies to iOS7 - I haven't done the same experiments under iOS versions prior to 7.
EDIT: I've posted a Safari-specific addition to https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/18945983/
Last edited: