5s - time for quad core?

i think it will only make sense if they increase the size of the screen.

Maybe make it more energy efficient?

I feel like we've said the same thing about most iPhones: they each felt smooth and fast enough. However, it's the increasing performance of apps that really show the differences in generations. I'm not sure if more cores = better performance than more MHz.

I hope so.... nowadays all the hilevel smartphones are quadcore....

Troneas said:

i think it will only make sense if they increase the size of the screen.

Click to expand...

I agree, bigger screen size = bigger battery life.
Maybe quad core will happen on next year iphone.

Yes please, plus dual antennas for simultaneous voice/data on CDMA

The fingerprint sensor may need quadcore to run smoothly...One core would be dedicated to the fingerprint scanner. You know apple wont release a fingerprint scanner that lags in any way at all.

Tankmaze said:

I agree, bigger screen size = bigger battery life.
Maybe quad core will happen on next year iphone.

Click to expand...

i was thinking more in the lines of:


bigger screen size = more processing power needed.


but whatever tickles your fancy

mrdm said:

Just curious how many think the 5s will use a quad core CPU? I've seen no rumors to this effect and don't think it will happen this year. I think it is very likely for iphone 6.

[...]

What do you think?

Click to expand...

Why do you need 4 cores in a mobile device? Are you calculating the mass of the sun?

Two cores do it just fine as is. What you need are better GPU core count and a much more efficient architecture. Hell, a smaller fab process will do more wonders than you think.

jav6454 said:

Why do you need 4 cores in a mobile device? Are you calculating the mass of the sun?

Two cores do it just fine as is. What you need are better GPU core count and a much more efficient architecture. Hell, a smaller fab process will do more wonders than you think.

Click to expand...

are you the same poster who asked why do you need stereo sound on your iphone as well?


i suspect you are still using the iphone 2G, since you seem content as long as you can make and receive phone calls!

Troneas said:

are you the same poster who asked why do you need stereo sound on your iphone as well?


i suspect you are still using the iphone 2G, since you seem content as long as you can make and receive phone calls!

Click to expand...

The reason for quad core chips is for better computing needs in respect to desktops and laptops. However, a mobile device will never amount to the capabilities laptops have right now. In fact, the device that might come close to that is the iPad.

A phone? Hardly. I'm not saying it will not happen. But at this point in time, there is no need. Android perhaps needs such exaggerated specs in order to run smooth, but as it stands, iPhone OS is very resource efficient.

jav6454 said:

The reason for quad core chips is for better computing needs in respect to desktops and laptops. However, a mobile device will never amount to the capabilities laptops have right now. In fact, the device that might come close to that is the iPad.

A phone? Hardly. I'm not saying it will not happen. But at this point in time, there is no need. Android perhaps needs such exaggerated specs in order to run smooth, but as it stands, iPhone OS is very resource efficient.

Click to expand...

honestly dude i dont have a clue what you are talking about.


all computers (including smartphones) get upgraded. desktop computers now come in 12 cores. 5 years ago they came in 2 cores, and mobile phones were running simple games such as snake. now you can play games such as infinity blade 2 in a smartphone no problem. high end graphics and what not.


so who are you to say that there is "no need" for a quad core mobile device? perhaps if the iphone introduced a quad core processor developers will get even bolder and more sophisticated with their apps.


and android needs such exaggerated specs because they take advantage of them. they use widgets, feeds, true multitasking, 4.5+" displays with 400+ ppi, etc. that all requires processing power.

I'd rather they focus on battery life.

If improvements to the A6 can result in the same performance but at significantly lower power draw (similar to the upgrade the MacBook Air just had where performance went basically nowhere over the old one but the battery life doubled) then I think we'd see much better mobile devices.

SJism23 said:

I feel like we've said the same thing about most iPhones: they each felt smooth and fast enough. However, it's the increasing performance of apps that really show the differences in generations. I'm not sure if more cores = better performance than more MHz.

Click to expand...

I knew my iPhone 4 was slow before I got it. Same for prior gens. Having performance overhead is a relatively new phenomenon in the handheld market.

Troneas said:

honestly dude i dont have a clue what you are talking about.

[...]

Click to expand...

Apparently, you don't get it...

jav6454 said:

Apparently, you don't get it...

Click to expand...

i get you are happy with your current phone and how it performs and *you* don't see a need to get an upgrade.


i dont get how you reach the conclusion that a dual core processor is better than a quad core and why *you* deem its an unnecessary step in the iPhone evolution.

Troneas said:

honestly dude i dont have a clue what you are talking about.


all computers (including smartphones) get upgraded. desktop computers now come in 12 cores. 5 years ago they came in 2 cores, and mobile phones were running simple games such as snake. now you can play games such as infinity blade 2 in a smartphone no problem. high end graphics and what not.


so who are you to say that there is "no need" for a quad core mobile device? perhaps if the iphone introduced a quad core processor developers will get even bolder and more sophisticated with their apps.


and android needs such exaggerated specs because they take advantage of them. they use widgets, feeds, true multitasking, 4.5+" displays with 400+ ppi, etc. that all requires processing power.

Click to expand...

I'd follow you on theory about the apps, but in practice the vast majority of devs code for the weakest phone Apple still supports. In our case that would be the iPhone 4 with ios7 for the next year, at least. I've never seen an app that completed leveraged the capabilities of the newest gen iPhone (unless you are counting load times).

lordofthereef said:

I'd follow you on theory about the apps, but in practice the vast majority of devs code for the weakest phone Apple still supports. In our case that would be the iPhone 4 with ios7 for the next year, at least. I've never seen an app that completed leveraged the capabilities of the newest gen iPhone (unless you are counting load times).

Click to expand...

Exactly. There is also more to this. Older phones aside. But this is just one of the several points against a über powered phone.

lordofthereef said:

I'd follow you on theory about the apps, but in practice the vast majority of devs code for the weakest phone Apple still supports. In our case that would be the iPhone 4 with ios7 for the next year, at least. I've never seen an app that completed leveraged the capabilities of the newest gen iPhone (unless you are counting load times).

Click to expand...

true that. they code for the weakest phone. but does it run as it should? try playing temple run 2 or temple run oz on your iphone 4. it will lag so badly you will fall down the cliff at every turn. does it support it? according to the dev, yes.


so what happens in two or three years time? the new iphone 5S or whatever is still running a dual core processor when the new iphones come in 4.5+ inch displays with 400+ppi and iOS 10 or whatever and the apps you will have in the appstore will not take advantage of the specs of your phone because they will still need to cater for the 5S.



the notion that processing power evolution should halt because everything now runs smooth is totally backwards thinking.

Troneas said:

the notion that processing power evolution should halt because everything now runs smooth is totally backwards thinking.

Click to expand...

It is not backwards thinking. People need to let technology mature for an extra year. Just like it was backward thinking for Apple not to ship 3G with the first iPhone.

Made no sense to have a 3 hour battery life phone. I'd rather have a much smaller die size chip than extra cores. You get much better increased battery life and less heat.

That means the chips does more with less. This is accomplished not by using MOAR COARS, but by using a small fab process (28nm or smaller). In the end, these are the true advancements, when we truly understand a technology and can make it smaller thus much efficient.

Troneas said:

true that. they code for the weakest phone. but does it run as it should? try playing temple run 2 or temple run oz on your iphone 4. it will lag so badly you will fall down the cliff at every turn. does it support it? according to the dev, yes.


so what happens in two or three years time? the new iphone 5S or whatever is still running a dual core processor when the new iphones come in 4.5+ inch displays with 400+ppi and iOS 10 or whatever and the apps you will have in the appstore will not take advantage of the specs of your phone because they will still need to cater for the 5S.



the notion that processing power evolution should halt because everything now runs smooth is totally backwards thinking.

Click to expand...

There are certainly exceptions to everything. In just saying that nobody is coding specifically for the speediest phone. And apple doesn't release their phones based on the specs they think devs might enjoy coding for. They release them purely based on the specs they need to get the job done at the time at the lowest production and development cost possible. I'd have no issue with a quad core iPhone, I'm just saying why it's likely it won't happen. Without a resokution bump, I don't see apple justifying ("needing") quad cores in the upcoming phone. Hell, it took them this long to give us a gig of ram, and apps like safari could have used that for a while.

I'd love more RAM over quad core.

iOS runs lean and efficient compared to something like android.

It just doesn't have the overhead, so less raw computing power is needed.

And as was said, if devs and Apple and still working on high iPhone 4 compatibility, quad cores would really be wasted.

jav6454 said:

It is not backwards thinking. People need to let technology mature for an extra year. Just like it was backward thinking for Apple not to ship 3G with the first iPhone.

Made no sense to have a 3 hour battery life phone. I'd rather have a much smaller die size chip than extra cores. You get much better increased battery life and less heat.

That means the chips does more with less. This is accomplished not by using MOAR COARS, but by using a small fab process (28nm or smaller). In the end, these are the true advancements, when we truly understand a technology and can make it smaller thus much efficient.

Click to expand...

first of, the lack of 3G on the iphone 2G was its major complaint in all reviews. that wasnt backwards thinking, that is how apple does business. they sell a less capable device, only to sell what people wanted in the first place next year. its the same reason the ipad mini did not ship with retina display. there was no logical reason for this except milking people for their dollars.


if you sustain that you wouldn't want a quad core out of fear of a decreased battery life, thats a reasonable statement. you value battery life over performance and thats great. you should have mentioned it in your first reply, instead of having an unreasonable go at android.

i dont understand the technicality of what you mention in your last paragraph, but it sounds reasonable. again, had you mentioned this earlier instead of trying to convince everyone that processing power doesnt need a boost i would have valued your opinion more.

Troneas said:

first of, the lack of 3G on the iphone 2G was its major complaint in all reviews. that wasnt backwards thinking, that is how apple does business. they sell a less capable device, only to sell what people wanted in the first place next year. its the same reason the ipad mini did not ship with retina display. there was no logical reason for this except milking people for their dollars.

Click to expand...

Actually, apple took a calculated risk not releasing a 3G radio die to battery concerns. Same with LTE. Also, at the time of iPhone 3G launch, 3G was in limited markets, even more limited than LTE at iPhone 5 launch. Certainly that played a role as well.

As for the iPad, I might agree, or I might say they couldn't have achieved the price point and performance they wanted going retina last year. We are already seeing performance issues with the third gen (First gen retina) iPad and some buyers are kicking themselves for not having waited. I don't know the answers here, just musing.