Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Dec 3, 2012, 10:48 AM   #51
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Amazing Maze of Maize (Corn Labyrinth)
Quote:
Originally Posted by subsonix View Post
I was about to mention this as well, the question is also if intel's performance advantage is needed in a tablet. I have not come across a situation where I felt that the iPad for example, was lacking in performance.
It's not so much that the iPad is lacking in performance as much as it'd allow the iPad to do even more. Better content creation apps, better games, better multitasking, and so on and so on and so on.
Renzatic is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 10:51 AM   #52
diamond.g
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Virginia
Quote:
Originally Posted by unplugme71 View Post
I'd like to see Samsung create a high-res display that consumes 20% less power than the current displays on the market. Then see if Apple runs back to them.
I would assume you mean LED Backlit LCD displays, because technically (or at least in some situations) OLED meets that requirement. Yet Apple isn't using it (in anything).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glideslope View Post
It's more of, "How do we get Intel to fab our ARM Designs if we don't put an i5 in the Large iPad".
Samsung is done fabbing for Apple 6-30-14. Big issue for iOS.
Lots and Lots of $$ is the only way I could see Intel fabbing a chip for a competitor. Plus doing so would reduce Intel's ability to produce their own CPU's, so what ever they charge it would have to compensate.
diamond.g is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 10:51 AM   #53
subsonix
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
It's not so much that the iPad is lacking in performance as much as it'd allow the iPad to do even more. Better content creation apps, better games, better multitasking, and so on and so on and so on.
So your assessment is that developers is some how holding back? It's my impression that a performance increase would be mostly beneficial in the GPU department, which has never been intel's strong point anyway, as opposed to raw CPU number crunching capabilities.
subsonix is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 10:54 AM   #54
deconstruct60
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRumors View Post
Intel has already previewed its next-generation Haswell chips that will push power consumption to as low as 10 watts initially, but it seems that Intel is moving to reduce power needs for its chips even before Haswell hits the market.
Two things.

1. Ivy Bridge was late. If Haswell is also late then Intel may need stop gap chips. Even if on time some Ivy Bridge design wins are going to continue even after Haswell appears (with a new socket design and supporting chipset).

2. Even 10 Watts is about 10x higher than the ARM designs. The only competitive designs Intel has for hand held mobiles up against ARM are in the Atom class. Medfield is the latest and has some wins.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/31/o...go-benchmarks/


http://www.anandtech.com/show/6307/m...powered-razr-i

If look at the benchmarks the problem is that the Medfield doesn't keep up with the new A15 ARM designs like Exynos 5

http://www.engadget.com/2012/11/29/s...ux-benchmarks/

and A6


http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/...avascript_test


Intel needs lower power Core i models because quad core A15's are going to start to eat into their core i design wins (e.g., MacBookAir ). Not that Apple is going to shift the iOS devices into x86.

I'm sure that Apple is probably doing a "what if" scenario with Intel testing whether the follow-on Atom alternatives would be a viable candidate in 1 or 2 generations. If their internal ARM design team stumbles badly they'll have a fall back but it likely isn't "Plan A".

In some previous reports Intel made comments as being inclined to do "custom" SoC x86 chips for customers. A custom SoC for a MBA like derivative or even a Surface Pro like clone ( Mac with detachable keyboard) is far more likely than some wholesale switch of the iOS product lines to x86.


Quote:
With future Ivy Bridge and Haswell chips becoming feasible for tablets with their reduced power consumption, there have been rumors that Apple could consider Intel chips for at least the iPad,
Rumors by folks who don't look at chip power specs. The Core i chips are almost an order of magnitude off on power consumption. Intel has a product line aimed at being competitive to ARM, Atom, that is not Core i.

This is yet another one of those rumors that don't even remotely met the common sense test but land on the front page because they generate page views.
deconstruct60 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 10:55 AM   #55
John.B
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Flyover Country
FUD-to-English translation:

Quote:
A future, not-yet-published, version of Ivy Bridge will have significantly lower power usage, so please stop building millions of tablets and phones with ARM chips.
__________________
Motorola: Larry Page's Folly
John.B is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 11:00 AM   #56
10k1976
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Indeed...

Quote:
Originally Posted by hamean View Post
I can't find the specs for the current A6 or A6x wattage... It has to be much lower than 10watts....
It is only about 1.5 watts. Still a long way to go
10k1976 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 11:01 AM   #57
nutjob
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Intel have tried to lower power consumption on the x86 arch to ARM levels and failed. Don't see what's changed that would make it possible now. Using x86 competitively in tablets and other portable devices is a pipe dream.
nutjob is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 11:05 AM   #58
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Amazing Maze of Maize (Corn Labyrinth)
Quote:
Originally Posted by subsonix
So your assessment is that developers is some how holding back? It's my impression that a performance increase would be mostly beneficial in the GPU department, which has never been intel's strong point anyway, as opposed to raw CPU number crunching capabilities.
A good developer won't try and make their software beyond the specs of the machine they're targetting. They're holding back because, lets face it, no one wants to use an app that lags like a bastard and crashes their iPad all the time.

Content creation apps are all about the CPU, not the GPU. Think of Zbrush. How well it runs is 90% dependent on the processor. It's having to calculate where millions of vertices are moving to whenever you run your brush across them. That takes a ton of processing power to do. Something the iPad currently isn't anywhere near capable of. And what about Photoshop? It's all about CPU and copious amounts of ram, with the GPU assisting for certain things. The iPad 4 is better at this, but I know on my 3, doing color adjustments on large shots in iPhoto can take 5-6 seconds to process. Doing the same thing on my even my slower PC would be instantaneous. I could do 10 color adjustment operations in the amount of time the iPad can do one. And what about Pages? It's alright on the iPad, but it'd benefit from more raw CPU power. I've seen it get laggy when dealing with higher res pictures.

I'm not saying the iPad sucks or anything. Far from it. But it'd benefit just as much as anything from more processing power.
Renzatic is online now   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 11:07 AM   #59
tdream
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
No one cares about huge cpu dies that can push trillions of computations per second. It's simply not needed for normal consumer usage scenarios. All people need is to browse the web, take a picture, play some music, videos or games and check email. That's it.

Intel are part of the old school tradition heavy power usage in power scenarios when they were the only game in town. They easily could have captured the low power market with their resources, but didn't have the foresight or interest to do so until the market changed hard and far enough to take serious action.

Microsoft and Intel are the same peas in a pod, old behemoths trying to reinvent themselves. They are no longer no1 in these respective new markets. In the same way Microsoft is clinging onto ancient x86 software architecture base, Intel is clinging on to x86 hardware. Google and Apple would sooner do away with these old technologies as soon it's possibly feasible.
__________________
rMacbook Pro 2.6 4G 32GB 3G 16GB iTouch 1G 32GB Mini 1.6 iPad 3 64GB
Moto G | Sony Vaio Flip 15A
tdream is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 11:08 AM   #60
Wingsnbeer
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: May 2012
Yeah I don't know about switching to Intel for iPads. At least not for iPads in their current form factor. I can see the convergence of iPads and Macs though and perhaps that device would use Intel processors.

In the end it doesn't matter. Software is the key.
Wingsnbeer is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 11:10 AM   #61
mytdave
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
how low?

So, Intel is going to get a Core i5 between 1-2 watts? Good luck with that. Go for it sure, but don't hold your breath for anything coming anytime soon.
mytdave is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 11:10 AM   #62
subsonix
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
A good developer won't try and make their software beyond the specs of the machine they're targetting. They're holding back because, lets face it, no one wants to use an app that lags like a bastard and crashes their iPad all the time.
I take it you are a developer and are speaking from experience. The point is, do you perceive a lack in performance or capability. Your point is obvious, the question is related to the cost/performance ratio, with the quoted ten times increase in price, is it worth it if the added power if it's just used for headroom.
subsonix is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 11:21 AM   #63
kd5jos
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Rumors on rumors...

The speed at which iOS and OS X are marching to unification indicates the amount of time that Intel has left to get its ducks in a row. Apple is going to move to a single OS, and it stands to reason, that they will only want one architecture.

Likely, they're going ARM. Apple has purchased it, and if they weren't going ARM, that's a LOT of wasted money. Intel's time will likely be up in 2014. Then all the Macs will be on ARM processors, and OS Xi (or XiOS, pronounced Zeye Oh Es).

Anyway, I may be completely wrong, and Apple may decide to buy AMD.
__________________
[15" MBP 9,1, 2.6 GHz, 16 GB RAM, 750 GB Momentus XT] [Mac Mini Server, 2.53 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 1 1TB HD, 1 2 TB HD] [AirPort Extreme]
kd5jos is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 11:26 AM   #64
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Amazing Maze of Maize (Corn Labyrinth)
Quote:
Originally Posted by subsonix View Post
The point is, do you perceive a lack in performance or capability.
No, but I can see my iPad doing so much more.

Quote:
Your point is obvious, the question is related to the cost/performance ratio, with the quoted ten times increase in price, is it worth it if the added power if it's just used for headroom.
That's the big question, and I think you've got a point there. The first and second release of an Intel based iPad wouldn't take immediate advantage of the processing power unless Apple were to start what's practically a new platform from scratch. The biggest advantage with them sticking to ARM processors is that Apple can scale performance slowly over time without relatively cheaply and keep older app compatibility. It'd be a huge pain in the ass for them to switch to Intel now.

Really, I can see it happening for Apple's possible theoretical future Mac tablet, but not for the iPad.
Renzatic is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 11:38 AM   #65
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmwebs View Post
Yup - and if the iPad had used an Intel chip, it's be a bulky, hot pile of crap.

Steve was wrong.
Or not :

http://www.gsmarena.com/lenovo_k800-4445.php



I think a lot of people are quite delusional. ARM CPUs are efficient because they compromise a lot of things x86 desktop/mobile chips don't. If you make the same compromises on the x86 side, you end up with efficient chips. If you squeeze out the performance and features from an ARM based CPU, you lose the efficiency.

ARMv7 and x86 are instruction sets, not chip designs. I bet most people think x86 chips are still CISC when they have been using RISC cores for more than 10 years.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 11:38 AM   #66
deconstruct60
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chupa Chupa View Post
But Surface Pro will live or dies well before Intel has decent power consumption chips out. Personally I don't think the Surface Pro will last. In 2012 consumers want a tablet OS on their tablet, not a computer OS on a tablet, not a hybrid OS on a table. The Surface RT is already dying on the vine with poor sales.
But the Surface RT is a "Windows" machine that doesn't run classic Windows apps. It was bound to run into 'rapid growth' problems coming out of the gate due to the disconnect with legacy software. The RT market so far isn't that far off of year 1 iPhone OS sales ( another new derivative OS that started out with a limited software library... namely no 3rd party apps. and only widgets.).

As long as Windows 8 , Windows RT, and Windows 7 combine to make Windows XP (and Vista) disappear Microsoft is on track to continue to be successful.

If Intel's Atom line continues to make steady, substantive improvements some RT ARM designs may switch back to Windows 8. If not then ARM will get more design wins in 2013-14 as the RT oriented software library builds.
deconstruct60 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 11:38 AM   #67
Eidorian
macrumors Penryn
 
Eidorian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cuidad de México
Send a message via AIM to Eidorian
I can imagine more experience at the 22nm process node could lead to slight improvements but this is seriously no leap to Haswell. We already have configurable TDP that can push an ULV processor down to 14W on Ivy Bridge. This feels more like a play to keep interest in Ivy Bridge down the line.
__________________
Core i5 750 / 16 GB RAM / 500 GB SSD / HD 7950 / Windows 8.1
77 Month Old MacBook
Eidorian is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 11:40 AM   #68
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glideslope View Post
It's more of, "How do we get Intel to fab our ARM Designs if we don't put an i5 in the Large iPad".
Samsung is done fabbing for Apple 6-30-14. Big issue for iOS.
Intel could just dust off the ARM fab it once had :

__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 11:40 AM   #69
Marx55
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
iPads with x86 inside would be fantastic for full Mac compatibility!
Marx55 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 11:42 AM   #70
Moonjumper
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Lincoln, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by bb426 View Post
Although optimizing CPU can be a huge benefit for many reasons besides the obvious, you have a good point. Other hardware components could (and should) be worked on to slash power usage (the display, the prominent battery drainer).

The only problem is that display optimizations rarely ever make the front page compared to the oh-so-important and oh-so-miniscule processor improvements, and Intel seems the only one taking all the credit here.
Retina, OLED and IGZO have all been getting a lot of coverage, as has the iMac screen improvements. Display optimisation has been at the forefront in recent years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by unplugme71 View Post
I'd like to see Samsung create a high-res display that consumes 20% less power than the current displays on the market. Then see if Apple runs back to them.
Sharp's IGZO technology should slash display power consumption.
Moonjumper is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 11:43 AM   #71
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marx55 View Post
iPads with x86 inside would be fantastic for full Mac compatibility!
How do you figure ? Mac compatibility has nothing to do with instruction sets. The problem is frameworks. iOS exposes UIKit as a high level framework, OS X exposes AppKit. Both are quite different.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 11:44 AM   #72
Glideslope
macrumors 68020
 
Glideslope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
Intel could just dust off the ARM fab it once had :

Image
Not an Apple Design. Apple is only interested in the Fab.
__________________
“There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. ” Sun Tzu
Glideslope is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 11:48 AM   #73
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glideslope View Post
Not an Apple Design. Apple is only interested in the Fab.
The point was that Intel has experience in fabbing for ARM designs, having made ARM cpus back in the days.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 11:49 AM   #74
Marx55
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
These super-ultra-low TDP chips could be used for the ultimate mobile Mac: 400 to 600 g and as small as possible (ideally, pocketable) with whatever form factor (clamshell, slider or tablet). Not for heavy work on them, but being the ultimate Keynote and PowerPoint presentation tool. The Mac in your pocket. Always.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
How do you figure ? Mac compatibility has nothing to do with instruction sets. The problem is frameworks. iOS exposes UIKit as a high level framework, OS X exposes AppKit. Both are quite different.
I mean virtualization compatibility as now possible between Mac and Windows or Linux on x86 via VMware Fusion on Mac (run Windows on Mac), for instance.
Marx55 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 11:53 AM   #75
HurryKayne
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by tann View Post
Lower power requirements = retina MBA
This AND MAYBE ...a Air with touch display and quad core (plus HD5000).
Would be sweet.
HurryKayne is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:48 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC