Some people just are not able to comprehend their own linked texts...
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acorn_Computers#ARM_Ltd
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acorn_Computers#ARM_Ltd
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.
A Closer Look at Apple's A7 Chip from the iPhone 5s
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Lol. You aren't wrong
seeing a lot of misinformation spread around on forums, even here. *sigh*...Lol. You aren't wrong
No, he is wrong.
ARM was a joint venture between Acorn, Apple and VLSI in 1990. Although Acorn had been developing RISC technology since 1983, it had not been able to overcome barriers to making chips for mobile technologies (the earliest implementations of ARM chips were in desktops). So in 1990, as Apple was looking for a mobile platform on which to base the Newton, the 3 companies formed a new spin-off combining Acorn's RISC expertise and Apple's memory management technologies, along with silicon from VLSI, into an independent company intended to develop CPUs for mobile technology. As such, the first intended use for the mobile version of ARM technology was the Newton, and the current entity of ARM was born.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_Holdings
So, while you are correct that Apple was not on the ground floor of developing RISC technology, it was on the ground floor of the effort to bring that technology to the mobile space.
Last edited:
Then why aren't you enjoying giving credit to Apple for the A6 and A7 chips? It's Apple's creation.
I agree Apple often goes to far to insist everything is their making but I don't think one can really blame Jobs for being paranoid. After all their two big partners, Google and Samsung, backstabbed them, as with Bill Gates earlier. It's just natural they get paranoid given how intensely competitive things can get.
But regardless, why is that so many people cannot accept the fact the A6 and A7 chips are actually real Apple chips? A fab is just a fab and we don't call an nVidia graphics card a TSMC graphics card. If you want to keep insisting on giving Samsung the credit for "making the iPhone possible" because they are the fab for those chips, TSMC should be getting credits for most of the world's game consoles, computers and smartphones, almost all of them.
Last edited:
The one big thing no one has mentioned is that apple does not just pay for a USE license the use of ARM, but they hold an architectural license. Thus gives them the permission to use the ARM design as a starting point and change anything they want while using the arm instructions. This is the same thing Qualcomm does. So the truth is this could be and most likely is much different than just adding a few tweaks.
I had thought it wouldn't be worth the upgrade either. But after looking at the pictures being an amateur photographer I started to second guess it. Sometime I just don't want to carry around the Nikon DSLR and 2 lenses.
I also do a lot of video editing and used the iPhone 5 when I was mobile since it compiled video faster then the iPad. I ran some 1 minute clips to compile with iMovie (had to try it since it's free) and added multiple videos into a default trailer on the iPhone 5 and 5s. Some of the videos were Slomo at 120 frames. I transferred the videos from the 5s to the 5 with airdrop and confirmed with iTunes that the compressions of the videos were the same.
Then went back to the phones and told iMovie to export and compile the video @ 1080P to the camera roll. The results were iPhone 5S completed in 32 seconds. The iPhone 5 done in 59 seconds. Almost half the time. So when I do bigger videos I'm now saving half the time it takes. Impressive for a 2 core chip running the same speed.
So if you do a lot of video editing on the go it may be worth it.
ARM actually only own the CPU core architecture designs, the GPU and everything else is either Apple IP or licensed from various other companies.
Lol. You aren't wrong
He is wrong, Apple was even instrumental in the formation of ARM right at the beginning because it needed the technology for its first tablet the Newton. That aside the current A7 only employs the ARM architecture, the implementation and layout being unique to Apple. The A6 was also implemented in this way which is why it was a level up in performance/power consumption compared with competing ARM based processors at that time.
Ahh I misread what he wrote, mah bad!
See what I wrote in my original reply to him...I did explain quite extensively about apple-arms working relationship.
That is where all of this is headed ... and why Microsoft is kicked to the curb. It is all about your data, apps and processor in the environment you work in. It is NOT about the environment with the processor, apps and data compelling you to work there.
Many in the group are too young (unless they have very good past life recall) to remember office buildings with mainframe computers (IBM, Burroughs, Sperry) where they were attended by acolytes and access to them and its processing time was in the order of a high priesthood. These "mainframe rooms" were in fact Douglas Adams inspiration for Deep Though in his "Life the Universe and Everything" storyline.
Then came the mini-frames (Data General, DEC) where individual departments of companies could have a "closet computer" that only ran off 120 VAC and could wheel around from one room to another as needed.
After that, "personal computers" (Commodore, Apple, IBM) where they run on a office desk and areaffordable for home use.
We are now in the middle of a transition where mobile computers (Palm, Apple, Android) are accessing data without any requirement for stationary placement. Desktop computers are becoming "full attention" workstations where you sit down with a big display and full sized input devices working with your data in depth. They are no longer the depository of your data, app nor processor of choice.
Gerstner saved IBM by firing a core of Watson to Akers era middle managers who wanted to keep IBM equipment at the center of the customers lives. Gerstner moved IBM into a services based model where IBM servers moved from ancillary to auxiliary use avoiding total abandonment.
This is the billion dollar solution for Microsoft. However, the Office Suite tradition core refuses to see it. To save the PC and the entire desktop computing market, feature these machines as "personal aides" of your mobile device beyond just sync'ing data.
That is the big money in the next decade IMO.
Apple does it again. While other companies are letting you wave your hands to browse your picture gallery apple is innovating.
But they again modern x86 bit cpus are light years ahead of Pentium Chip, but the A7 and modern x86 CPU are not just cpus anymore - they have GPU, memory management and other components. Comparing modern cpu's to cpus back in 80's in same for all cpus.. but the modern x86 cpus can do something that modern ARM cpu can never do - virtualize a windows machine - maybe one virtualize an ARM OS machine - but not sure if that would have benefits - maybe an iPhone that could also run Android OS on it also,
But modern x86 likely simulate ARM machine - and I believe it already been done. BTW in the 80's my senior designed project in collect was a HP41 simulator. Also in the very early 90's I interview for Intel in software area - and ask if they have virtualize the 386 - they did not - and now they do.
Pretty much any architecture can emulate any other architecture. The question is speed. There's been X86 emulators on ARM. They're possible, but extremely slow.
If you want to see an ARMv5 emulator on x86, look no further than QEMU. It's the project that the Android SDK uses to run their debugging emulator. Despite having the power of a full blown desktop Core i7 behind it, there's been many developers who consider it very slow as well.
Ooooh, too fun a thread!
I had no idea there was any confusion about all this, but judging by this thread there sure is! Oh well, I like nothing more than talking about hardware :-D
To be fair, they're comparing across OSes, as far as I can see Android is generally slower, and also the extra cores there may not be doing anything. No question Cyclone is an awesome, competitive, and very possibly the best currently shipping ARM core, but it's POSSIBLE we may not be getting a full picture of it versus A15.
This is utterly ridiculous. Samsung doesn't own the chip and didn't design the chip, they're just a fab, and not the only one Apple's going to be using.
Cyclone beats Krait hands down (as near as I can tell, Swift and Krait were pretty similar, sort of A9+ performance). But it doesn't compare to AMD or Intel's main notebook/desktop chips. It's clearly a VERY competent design though.
No they don't. Many companies use ARM's CPU designs. Apple uses the A9 in both the iPod touch and iPad 2 and iPad mini. But Swift and Cyclone used in everything newer are *Apple*, not ARM's designs.
We're not unsure. We're 100% sure Apple did indeed design Cyclone.
"A7" includes lots of different technologies, including those licensed from other companies, like PowerVR's Rogue GPU cores (Apple owns a chunk of PowerVR by the way). But the CPU cores are a 100% Apple design, one of only two companies that designs their own ARM compatible chips (besides ARM of course). By all indications, Cyclone is the most powerful currently shipping ARM CPU core there is...it seems to be more powerful even than A15, which is amazing if true considering A15 is hardly used in anything yet. (I have a hard time believing it as I write it, maybe there are software issues mucking up the issue, but anyway it's a very, very good design).
Nope.
"The smartphone industry" meaning "Apple's competitors". Did anyone expect them to say "wow, that beats the chips we're using!"?
The Android companies are already running these CPU designs way faster than they're intended (absurdly so, sometimes like 1GHz faster than really intended), and running CPUs faster requires much more power than a more powerful chip clocked slower.
Actually the real "tech pundits" know it is quite special. They just introduced what may be the most powerful shipping ARM core, faster than even cores that aren't actually getting used because of power draw.
It's an ARM compatible chip, it's not using ARM's design. The cores are all Apple.
That's the case with Samsung's chips. Apple designed the CPUs here, and they've long been integrating better than average GPUs.
Wrong. It's not using a Cortex CPU. It's using Cyclone, which is a huge upgrade from Swift, which was itself already impressive, and both of them are 100% Apple.
Actually only one other company makes their own ARM CPUs, Qualcomm, and Apple just beat Qualcomm (and apperently ARM's) best.
It's insanely expensive, and basically no one was designing ARM CPUs to their liking. Quite possibly part of building up a design team was to threaten Intel to an extent too, but to actually design their own competitive x86 CPUs would be a much bigger undertaking, and they already have great ones available to buy.
Yeah, I'm not pleased with the higher prices and lower specs (and lack of Blu Ray either).
They have licensed ARM's designs, but neither the iPhone 5, 5c, 5s, nor iPad 4 use them. They're entirely Apple's designs.
No, the analogy would be that Apple has to build a car that will drive on existing roads, but they design the care themselves.
Samsung doesn't design their own CPUs. Not that I think that's nessisarily a bad thing, given they can get chips or designs from others, but...
Intel and AMD cross license from each other. It's not one way. Both companies own x86.
Ugh, and I know Microsoft says "x64" (or someone does..) but that term drives me nuts. It's x86.
The CPUs are in fact "from scratch" Apple designs. Of course not really, obviously they're probably built up from Swift, or related in some way, and pulling on the expertise of the engineers they hired, but anyway in the way you mean it, yes, they are "from scratch" designs, they are absolutely NOT ARM's designs.
I don't even know what that means. "Not good or fast enough to become smart-capable"? Tons of companies made smartphones before Apple.
Huh? "Mere latops"? A tablet is just a computing device without a keyboard, or with one that detaches or folds up or whatever.
Ridiculous. Tons of smartphones existed before the iPhone, though the iPhone did innovate in many respects.
They're not doing the same thing at all. It's Apple's designs, not ARM. They're not modifying ARM designs.
I wonder if this is what the 13" iPad is? It would effectively be Apple's answer to Surface, assuming it still runs iOS stuff.
I love a lot about Surface and other Windows 8/RT tablets, and I hope Apple's got something similar in the works soon.
I had no idea there was any confusion about all this, but judging by this thread there sure is! Oh well, I like nothing more than talking about hardware :-D
To be fair, they're comparing across OSes, as far as I can see Android is generally slower, and also the extra cores there may not be doing anything. No question Cyclone is an awesome, competitive, and very possibly the best currently shipping ARM core, but it's POSSIBLE we may not be getting a full picture of it versus A15.
This is utterly ridiculous. Samsung doesn't own the chip and didn't design the chip, they're just a fab, and not the only one Apple's going to be using.
It shows incredible dedication and pure genius when a consumer electronics company creates a dual-core mobile processor that rivals Intel's and Qualcomm's quad-core offerings
Cyclone beats Krait hands down (as near as I can tell, Swift and Krait were pretty similar, sort of A9+ performance). But it doesn't compare to AMD or Intel's main notebook/desktop chips. It's clearly a VERY competent design though.
No they don't. Many companies use ARM's CPU designs. Apple uses the A9 in both the iPod touch and iPad 2 and iPad mini. But Swift and Cyclone used in everything newer are *Apple*, not ARM's designs.
We're not unsure. We're 100% sure Apple did indeed design Cyclone.
"A7" includes lots of different technologies, including those licensed from other companies, like PowerVR's Rogue GPU cores (Apple owns a chunk of PowerVR by the way). But the CPU cores are a 100% Apple design, one of only two companies that designs their own ARM compatible chips (besides ARM of course). By all indications, Cyclone is the most powerful currently shipping ARM CPU core there is...it seems to be more powerful even than A15, which is amazing if true considering A15 is hardly used in anything yet. (I have a hard time believing it as I write it, maybe there are software issues mucking up the issue, but anyway it's a very, very good design).
Nope.
"The smartphone industry" meaning "Apple's competitors". Did anyone expect them to say "wow, that beats the chips we're using!"?
The Android companies are already running these CPU designs way faster than they're intended (absurdly so, sometimes like 1GHz faster than really intended), and running CPUs faster requires much more power than a more powerful chip clocked slower.
Actually the real "tech pundits" know it is quite special. They just introduced what may be the most powerful shipping ARM core, faster than even cores that aren't actually getting used because of power draw.
It's an ARM compatible chip, it's not using ARM's design. The cores are all Apple.
That's the case with Samsung's chips. Apple designed the CPUs here, and they've long been integrating better than average GPUs.
Wrong. It's not using a Cortex CPU. It's using Cyclone, which is a huge upgrade from Swift, which was itself already impressive, and both of them are 100% Apple.
Actually only one other company makes their own ARM CPUs, Qualcomm, and Apple just beat Qualcomm (and apperently ARM's) best.
It's insanely expensive, and basically no one was designing ARM CPUs to their liking. Quite possibly part of building up a design team was to threaten Intel to an extent too, but to actually design their own competitive x86 CPUs would be a much bigger undertaking, and they already have great ones available to buy.
Yeah, I'm not pleased with the higher prices and lower specs (and lack of Blu Ray either).
They have licensed ARM's designs, but neither the iPhone 5, 5c, 5s, nor iPad 4 use them. They're entirely Apple's designs.
No, the analogy would be that Apple has to build a car that will drive on existing roads, but they design the care themselves.
Samsung doesn't design their own CPUs. Not that I think that's nessisarily a bad thing, given they can get chips or designs from others, but...
Intel and AMD cross license from each other. It's not one way. Both companies own x86.
Ugh, and I know Microsoft says "x64" (or someone does..) but that term drives me nuts. It's x86.
The CPUs are in fact "from scratch" Apple designs. Of course not really, obviously they're probably built up from Swift, or related in some way, and pulling on the expertise of the engineers they hired, but anyway in the way you mean it, yes, they are "from scratch" designs, they are absolutely NOT ARM's designs.
I don't even know what that means. "Not good or fast enough to become smart-capable"? Tons of companies made smartphones before Apple.
Huh? "Mere latops"? A tablet is just a computing device without a keyboard, or with one that detaches or folds up or whatever.
Ridiculous. Tons of smartphones existed before the iPhone, though the iPhone did innovate in many respects.
They're not doing the same thing at all. It's Apple's designs, not ARM. They're not modifying ARM designs.
I wonder if this is what the 13" iPad is? It would effectively be Apple's answer to Surface, assuming it still runs iOS stuff.
I love a lot about Surface and other Windows 8/RT tablets, and I hope Apple's got something similar in the works soon.
Apple didn't license the microarchitecture, they licensed the instruction set and made their own core. That's what makes the A6 and the A7 special. Most others such as Samsung and Mediatek use the vanilla core licensed from ARM, with one notable exception of Qualcomm who has their own architecture.
And I am sure there are many who thinks Apple just "licensed" the chips, like yourself. Accusing others of bias and ignorance works better when your own bias isn't so transparent, not that it's an uncommon thing at Macrumors where being negative about Apple is somehow often considered the neutral and objective thing to do.
edit: holy moly. my apologies for responding to an oold thread!
Last edited:
I was just in an "argument" with two people today over something similar. If you can call it an "argument" when they immediately resorted to insults, and never tried to source their claims, while I provided a new source every time they made a random claim.
First one was about the GPU used in that Amazon Fire versus the (considerably faster) GPU used in Sony's Vita. Every time I sourced it there was some new excuse LOL.
Second one was a claim that android devices "are far more powerful than Apple". Absolutely refused to listen to the minor detail that Cyclone absolutely destroys Qualcom's best, and even A15.