Not if they try using IGZO tech which will save them throwing a massive battery in there = saved space.
And 13" MBPs have 2 fans I believe...
Except there is absolutely no evidence to support them using IGZO tech.
And since they haven't changed the design on the 13" MBP, its only one fan, which poses a major problem for a discrete GPU:
http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/MacBook-Pro-13-Inch-Unibody-Mid-2009-Teardown/814/1
What source are you pulling this from? I've been wondering this ever sense the New iPad shipped. The reason for the massive increase in GPU performance on the iPad was because they are pushing around an insane number of pixels. THIS WILL NOT BE THE CASE WITH THE NEW IPHONE. So it makes much more sense that they would design an A6 or an A5Y that delivered a more balanced CPU GPU upgrade. I have no proof of this but I can find no evidence suggesting that they intend to put A5X chips into this new phone ether.
Looking back on past rumors, an A6 will include a quad-core CPU. And looking back on history, the CPU in the iPhone always makes its first debut in the iPad. There will be no CPU upgrade for the next iPhone, only a GPU upgrade.
And you can find only proof that the A5X will be in the next iPhone. It is called history. Look it up before you think someone has no proof when in reality you are the one with nothing to back up a single word you are saying.
GPUs are not just about screen size. Especially if a fully OpenCL compliant GPU ends up in the next chip.
So tell me, what evidence do you have to support your theory that the A5X won't be in the next iPhone? None? Ok.
it is your usage of the term "underclocked" that is ignorant and objectionable.
A CPU being clocked a 1GHz and then the same CPU going into another device at a slower clock speed is just one example that can be defined as "underclocking." How are you missing such a simple concept?
The chip runs at the design frequency, what that frequency is relative to another device isn't relevant.
Then one could make the argument that using the term "underclocked" is completely relative to the original clock speed. In which case, the iPad CPUs being at 1GHz and the ones being in the iPhone are at 800MHz, that would be an underclock. Still confused?
it isn't safe to use the term underclocked here at all. The A5X could very well run at 1.2 or 1.4 GHz but that doesn't mean it is underclocked in the iPad.
Not once have I said it was underclocked in the iPad, this whole discussion has been revolving around the iPhone. Maybe pay attention more next time?
If the A5X was 1.2 in the iPad and 1 in the iPhone, it would be considered underclocked in the iPhone.
it is more of a question of what makes sense from an engineering standpoint at Apple. Do you use the next node shrink for more CPU cores, GPU resources or more IP. It might make more sense for Apple to put the equivalent of Gobi in the next SoC or plan for it down the road.
All Apple cares about is good battery life and acceptable performance. And since underlocking the CPU in the iPhone achieves their goals, they are going to continue to do it.
The point here is that the handheld environment is vastly different than the desktop or even laptop environment. Designers and engineers benefit far more from high integration in these devices. In fact one could say that the iPhone is impossible without the SoC technology we have today.
Eventually there will be a payoff in a split. Putting as much of iPhone as possible on a single chip can have big playoffs. At the same time iPad is crying out for much better performance. So why wouldn't they split.
Whom here is confused? I just think you can't follow what is being said.
Who is the one who cannot follow simple definitions? Oh yes, you.
Yeah sure, we all believe that now.
Never said I wanted other people to believe it. It was just a theory. A guess on a rumor sites. Apparently making guesses on a website specifically for rumors is a bad thing now. That sure makes sense.
I fully expect Apple to implement quad core CPUs sometime in the future but I'm not convinced it will happen to the next iPhone. In fact I'm strongly in the camp that says it won't. Why? Because they can double CPU performance by upping the clock rate and implementing other improvements that combined with a process shrink would leave a similar power profile.
Apple will add more cores WAY before increasing clock speed. The only reason for that is heat. iPhones have overheated in the past and they want to keep it cool with high battery life. Evidence only exists to support the theory that Apple will add cores. Otherwise the A5 would be single core with a higher clock speed, but it wasn't. Same clock speed. Additional core.
