A12Z Chip in iPad Pro Confirmed to Be Same As A12X, But With Extra GPU Core Enabled

[chucker23n1]

It's my understanding that the 2018 processor didn't have all 8 cores working. So they sold it as a 7-core chip.

It's a process called "binning"

So it's not that they artificially deactivated that 8th core... it's that it wasn't there at all.

It's a yield issue.

Imagine a bunch of bins full of oranges. Most of the oranges are fine; some aren't. Apple's contract with TSMC was: "set your quality control such that 7 out of 8 oranges are fine; throw those that aren't away". Then take the 7 remaining chips and put them on a package.

At this point, TSMC's process for 7nm has improved such that making 8 out of 8 oranges correctly isn't as costly as it was two years ago. So their bins no longer contain about one in eight spoiled oranges, but far fewer than that. The few they still have to throw away are at TSMC's cost, as they now have to put all eight chips on a package.

 

[EugW]

It's my understanding that the 2018 processor didn't have all 8 cores working. So they sold it as a 7-core chip.

It's a process called "binning"

So it's not that they artificially deactivated that 8th core... it's that it wasn't there at all.

The 8th core is there and for many chips it may have been fully working, but it would have been deactivated anyway because on some sub-portion of the chips one of the cores may have been defective. So, they deactivated one core on all the chips to keep them all the same.

Note that the deactivated core would be different on different chips.

It's a yield issue.

Imagine a bunch of bins full of oranges. Most of the oranges are fine; some aren't. Apple's contract with TSMC was: "set your quality control such that 7 out of 8 oranges are fine; throw those that aren't away". Then take the 7 remaining chips and put them on a package.

At this point, TSMC's process for 7nm has improved such that making 8 out of 8 oranges correctly isn't as costly as it was two years ago. So their bins no longer contain about one in eight spoiled oranges, but far fewer than that. The few they still have to throw away are at TSMC's cost, as they now have to put all eight chips on a package.

All 8 cores are on the chip package. However, one of them has been deactivated.

So, imagine they put 8 oranges in every package, but magically make one of those oranges invisible and inaccessible, and then sell each package as a 7-orange package. If a package had 2 bad oranges, the whole package would be discarded. If a package had one bad orange, the bad one would be hidden and the package would get sold as a 7-orange package. Some of those packages would have 8 good oranges, but to keep things consistent they hid one of those good oranges anyway.

 

[Azrael9]

a.k.a. if you have the 2018 iPad Pro, don't even bother.

Aye. 7 cores vs 8. Meh.

Awaiting the 'real' update later this year?

Azrael.

 

[rufwork]

It is not unusual for chip manufacturers to disable one core of a processor when a chip isn't meeting yield levels, and that's perhaps what happened with the A12X

Why is that what we believe?

Thought in an earlier story the reasoning was lower battery drain. I’m buying that version more than this one... but tell me why this one is more likely.

 

[ksgant]

50% more RAM, double the base storage, new camera, WiFi 6, etc.

This is it in a nutshell. If you have a 2018 iPad Pro, there's little reason to upgrade. But if you're like me or others that don't even have an iPad Pro (I'm on an old 5th generation regular iPad), then there's a lot to consider. All models now have 6gigs of RAM, and the base storage has gone from 64gigs to 128gigs...and the price remains the same. Sure, I can wait...yet again...to see if something comes out this fall. But then why get that? Why not wait until next year on the off chance they come out with something else....or wait until 2022 to see if something else comes out. Etc etc.

 

[fbr$]

4GB to 6GB of RAM is a huge increase, let's imagine for a moment that the OS uses 1GB of RAM, then the amount of RAM that the apps can actually use went from 3GB to 5GB up, this is a huge 67% increase.

 

[chucker23n1]

Why is that what we believe?

Because it's a rather common thing in chip manufacturing.

A Core i5 is often really just a Core i7 where the yield wasn't as good, so they turn a core or two off.

 

[jmgregory1]

This is it in a nutshell. If you have a 2018 iPad Pro, there's little reason to upgrade. But if you're like me or others that don't even have an iPad Pro (I'm on an old 5th generation regular iPad), then there's a lot to consider. All models now have 6gigs of RAM, and the base storage has gone from 64gigs to 128gigs...and the price remains the same. Sure, I can wait...yet again...to see if something comes out this fall. But then why get that? Why not wait until next year on the off chance they come out with something else....or wait until 2022 to see if something else comes out. Etc etc.

And there are few people who could honestly say that there is a lack of performance on the 2018 iPad Pro’s, so getting a 2020 release, with its added GPU core, more ram, more memory, better cameras and mics at the same price makes for a compelling upgrade. Most people, outside of the tech followers like us, won’t even think about the fact that the chip is a couple of years old, because it isn’t going to matter.

I love my 2018 iPad Pro 12.9” (256gb cellular version) and highly recommend it to anyone looking for an option outside of a MacBook (Air or Pro), especially if you’re doing basic work (email, spreadsheets, docs), and you travel for work. I’m using mine just about 100%, even as I sit at my desk with an iMac next to me. The updated iPadOS is the biggest reason for my shift, as it’s made the iPad more functional for basic operations, while still allowing for hands-on tablet use.

 

[Metrosey]

I’ll add on to the binning queries. Yes, Apple most likely could have asked TSMC for all 8 cores only and to not accept any non-functioning chips, however it would have been much more costly, risky and time consuming. Apple made the decision to reduce their operating costs and ensure the product could be delivered on-time. In turn, reducing the cost to the consumer and allowing the consumer to get a new device faster. As time progresses, yields improve and costs reduce, allowing TSMC to produce an 8 core which meets Apple’s requirements.

 

[EugW]

4GB to 6GB of RAM is a huge increase, let's imagine for a moment that the OS uses 1GB of RAM, then the amount of RAM that the apps can actually use went from 3GB to 5GB up, this is a huge 67% increase.

I think it's rather telling that the minimum RAM these days that Apple sells in a new iPad is 3 GB RAM. Yes, beginning in 2019 you could get a brand new iPad 7 with 3 GB RAM for just US$249, with all 2 GB iPads discontinued. The budget iPhone SE (2020) coming soon will likely be 3 GB too.

2 GB devices have increased memory-related browser tab refreshes and lag these days, even with lighter usage. For this reason I think the 3 GB minimum is a good one, and even an entry level buyer buying a new machine in 2020 should be buying a 3 GB device. "Saving" $40 to get a 2 GB device is a false economy IMO, even for entry level users, unless budget is the absolute primary concern. For moderate users, 4 GB is sufficient for now, but may become problematic in a couple of years. And for true Pro users with heavier memory requirements, going with 4 GB is also false economy if they're buying new right now.

 

[Zdigital2015]

Why is that what we believe?

Thought in an earlier story the reasoning was lower battery drain. I’m buying that version more than this one... but tell me why this one is more likely.

Because most chip manufacturers do this, especially AMD and NVIDIA. The Vega 56 is nothing more than a Vega 64 that has had 8 CUs disabled in the chip microcode because not all CUs passed validation. Do you think AMD is going to throw out entire wafers because some of the chips don’t pass validation for 64 CUs or that they make separate Vega 64 and Vega 56 wafers?
[automerge]1586872283[/automerge]
For all the supposed tech savvy of some posters here, it seems doing a simple search on Google completely eludes them.

This is no conspiracy, Apple did nothing wrong and this is not evidence they’ve hit a wall.

There is, however, ample evidence here of entitlement, whining and people with incredible negativity that makes one wonder how humanity is still going.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

Why didn't Apple at least use the A13 (or a binned A13X version) in the new iPad Pro? It already existed and seems the more logical candidate than a 2 year old chip.

 

[EugW]

Why didn't Apple at least use the A13 (or a binned A13X version) in the new iPad Pro? It already existed and seems the more logical candidate than a 2 year old chip.

A13 is significantly slower than A12X/Z and A13X likely doesn't even exist.

However, we'll probably have A14X in less than a year.

 

[Populus]

I don’t know yours, but my A12X powered iPad Pro 11” gets very very hot when playing fortnite. It’s almost burning if you dare to touch the aluminum on the back if you play while charging. So I cannot imagine how will it handle the heat issue with one more graphic core...

 

[chucker23n1]

A13 is significantly slower than A12X/Z and A13X likely doesn't even exist.

However, we'll probably have A14X in less than a year.

Another reason might be that they wanted to maximize volume of the A13 to sell as many iPhones as possible.

 

[EugW]

Another reason might be that they wanted to maximize volume of the A13 to sell as many iPhones as possible.

A13 and A13X would be produced separately, as they would be different chips.

I don't know if this is what you were suggesting, but you wouldn't be able to create an A13X bin out of A13 chips.

 

[Freida]

Thats what I've been saying since the release. 2018 vs 2020 is just almost nothing. Sure, people will mention double storage to start with, double ram on lower models and as of now useless wifi 6. And yet, this is what we get.
Its literally stop gap. The proper upgrade is coming later (hopefully fall) but this was a ****** one

So based on this information, if you have the 2018 iPad pro, this upgrade is pretty unimpressive.

 

[chucker23n1]

A13 and A13X would be produced separately, as they would be different chips.

They're the same "chip" in a different package. Look at A10 vs. A10X and A12 vs. A12X: the clock rate is the same; the core count isn't (and the GPU core count typically isn't either). So you use a larger package, because the iPad Pro generally has more room to spare, and put more chips in.

I don't know if this is what you were suggesting, but you wouldn't be able to create an A13X bin out of A13 chips.

I'm no expert, but I don't think that's right.

 

[EugW]

They're the same "chip" in a different package. Look at A10 vs. A10X and A12 vs. A12X: the clock rate is the same; the core count isn't (and the GPU core count typically isn't either). So you use a larger package, because the iPad Pro generally has more room to spare, and put more chips in.

That is not correct. You don’t make A12X chips by slapping separately manufactured A12 cores together. It doesn’t work that way.

 

[wegster]

It is not a big deal because the people are not buying it to use AR Application. The wearable AR is what Apple needs to be focused on.

No, but this release enables them to keep pushing the perception of they are leading/creating the AR market, gives them credibility in that front, while also allowing the 2% 'always upgrade' + larger group of those coming from Samsung/others or older iPads - something to buy. They don't want another homepod - need to be seen as leading, even if 'not at the goal' yet, and gives devs something to work with/not lose interest in the meantime.

[automerge]1586879742[/automerge]

That's a false statement, the developers are not developing any newer application due to inadequate performance by RAM and GPU.

Certainly possible in the video editing field, but also has the 'Windows problem' as well - they want to run on a wide range of iPad/iPhone generations as well to keep their addressable market/potential customers up. For most software, given that consideration, I don't think the A12X/Z changes much.

 

[aevan]

So basically if you have the 2018 iPad pro, this upgrade is pretty unimpressive.

50% more RAM, double the base storage, new camera, WiFi 6, etc.

Pretty much unimpressive as an upgrade from 3rd gen, yeah. Maybe in a few years that RAM difference gets more important, but today, unless you really care about the LiDAR camera - no reason to upgrade. This is probably the smallest upgrade since iPad Pro was introduced, even the jump from 1st gen to 2nd gen was bigger with a faster CPU*, P3 display and ProMotion. And, of course, the jump from 2nd to 3rd gen was very big.

It is intended for new iPad Pro owners, or owners of 1st/2nd gen iPad Pro generations. From that aspect, it's a very impressive device.

*Technically, the A12Z is faster than A12X due to the extra GPU core and a better cooling system, but still, it's a very small difference.

 

[UltimateSyn]

As mentioned ad nauseum in other threads, Apple's main target market for current model iPad Pros and iPhones, is NOT owners of the previous model. If you have a 2018 model, the incentive to upgrade is low. The incentive to upgrade is significantly higher for those with previous models (or who have no iPad Pro at all).

DUH, if you're happy with your current device and you don't need what is offered by the new device an upgrade is pointless. Isn't that valid for pretty much device ever? What are we even discussing here?

It would be a great upgrade for my iPad Air 2 but I'm broke.

My intention was simply to take the Devil's Advocate perspective and point out that half the list of upgrades I quoted are nullified if you own a particular model of the 2018 iPad Pro or don't own a WiFi 6 router.

I understand that there are some other incremental improvements and the target audience is not 2018 iPad Pro owners.

 

[Zdigital2015]

I really believe that, at this point, we’re looking at an iPad Pro (A14X-based) refresh in either March or June of 2021. The iPhone 12 (A14) is Apple’s paramount concern right now. Getting it right, getting 5nm yields up to where they want them to be and making sure 5g is really ready for prime time, among any other upgrades that Apple wants. Given the issues with coronavirus, I expect Apple has its hands full with just getting the iPhone 12 ready to go in time for a September event.

Anyone counting on an A14X iPad Pro in the Fall should temper their expectations.

 

[EugW]

Pretty much unimpressive, yeah. Maybe in a few years that RAM difference gets more important, but today, unless you really care about the LiDAR camera - no reason to upgrade. This is probably the smallest upgrade since iPad Pro was introduced, even the jump from 1st gen to 2nd gen was bigger with a faster CPU*, P3 display and ProMotion. And, of course, the jump from 2nd to 3rd gen was very big.

It is intended for new iPad Pro owners, or owners of 1st/2nd gen iPad Pro generations. From that aspect, it's a very impressive device.


*Technically, the A12Z is faster than A12X due to the extra GPU core and a better cooling system, but still, a very small difference

IMO the worst iPad Pro introduction of all time was the 9.7" iPad Pro.

 

[fbr$]

I don’t know yours, but my A12X powered iPad Pro 11” gets very very hot when playing fortnite. It’s almost burning if you dare to touch the aluminum on the back if you play while charging. So I cannot imagine how will it handle the heat issue with one more graphic core...

My 2018 9.7" iPad 6th gets hot as hell when doing a simple basic task like playing a video, sometimes I have to completely turn if off for 5 minutes, I guess if it had only 1/2 core it would still gets very hot... /s