Why would you assume that? The iPhones have gone A4 -> A5 -> A6 -> (presumably) A7... Next year should be the A8. The X has only ever meant a fat GPU boost which the iPads have gotten since last year. Unless you think Apple's SoC development is about to slow down which I guess is possible but seems unlikely.
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.
A7 Processor to Be 31% Faster and 64-Bit, iPhone 5S to Support Motion Tracking?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why would you assume that? The iPhones have gone A4 -> A5 -> A6 -> (presumably) A7... Next year should be the A8. The X has only ever meant a fat GPU boost which the iPads have gotten since last year. Unless you think Apple's SoC development is about to slow down which I guess is possible but seems unlikely.
Myth?
I thought Intel and AMD had figured out years ago (at least with desktop processors) that, even though the nano architectures would continue to shrink as the technologies advanced, there was an effective speed limit of around 3-4 GHz when it came to single core processors. Anything faster would be difficult to mass produce with acceptable yields and would run way too hot anyway. They, therefore, "told" Apple, HP, Dell, and the like to design software for multiple cores as a viable means of increasing efficiency and speed. I'd assumed that thinking had been adopted for mobile processors (including ARM) as well. I'm I off base?
I thought Intel and AMD had figured out years ago (at least with desktop processors) that, even though the nano architectures would continue to shrink as the technologies advanced, there was an effective speed limit of around 3-4 GHz when it came to single core processors. Anything faster would be difficult to mass produce with acceptable yields and would run way too hot anyway. They, therefore, "told" Apple, HP, Dell, and the like to design software for multiple cores as a viable means of increasing efficiency and speed. I'd assumed that thinking had been adopted for mobile processors (including ARM) as well. I'm I off base?
I only want a bigger screen if the hardware size doesn't change dramatically. If they can make the screen a little bigger by going edge to edge on the iPhone 5 hardware, I'll take that. Otherwise, I do not want a bigger screen if it means a bigger device, especially a wider one.
If there aren't any major changes to the design of the Phone, there 'has to be' a major speed increase. Otherwise people would have no reason to upgrade.
I'm sure Apple could design a far more impressive iPhone if they wanted to, but they don't want to use up all their ideas in one go. Instead they are spreading out tiny little incremental changes over several generations of phones. They keep basically the same design for as long as they can until we start to get really bored of it.
The iPhone 6 or 7 will probably have a bezel-free display and everyone will go crazy over it, but for now we are still in the speed-bump stage.
I'm sure Apple could design a far more impressive iPhone if they wanted to, but they don't want to use up all their ideas in one go. Instead they are spreading out tiny little incremental changes over several generations of phones. They keep basically the same design for as long as they can until we start to get really bored of it.
The iPhone 6 or 7 will probably have a bezel-free display and everyone will go crazy over it, but for now we are still in the speed-bump stage.
But not for iPhone and iPad. It would be dumb to use non-touch gestures to control devices you're already holding in your hand. (Modulo some kind of near-touch "hover" gestures, to simulate mouse-hover. But that would only be for certain web pages. And maybe some first-person shooters, but not for the majority of iOS apps.)
So what would motion tracking be useful for? Well, the obvious application would be for focusing on faces as people move around, especially back and forth within the camera's field of view, requiring re-focusing. Meh. That's not new.
I think the real purpose of motion tracking in the iPhone SoC would be for some future version of Apple TV or the fabled Apple television set. Easier and possibly cheaper to build one single SoC for all iOS devices. The Apple TV's SoC is nearly identical to the one in (older?) iPhones. And some future Apple television-related product could read gestures and/or distinguish individual users and present customized content. That's not terribly new either, but it makes sense to me.
Interesting question. Some are pushing for leading edge tech yet the market says it is not so important. Look how well the iPhone 4 and 4S are selling. That is signaling that those phones are good enough for many people.
Very few users on 2-year contracts will ever upgrade their iPhone every year.
Small matter of an early termination fee.
So, in practice, iPhone owners upgrade every 2 years.
iPhone 5 was vastly better in every way than the iPhone 4.
Same will be true for the iPhone 5S in comparison to the iPhone 4S.
Isn't refreshing RAM one of the biggest battery costs on the ideal system?
Would it be dumb to suggest they could use the 64bit address space to direct access the storage chips?
FusionIO can license them code to do this, LLVM compiler chain knows the life time of the object and could also flag if it is only needs to be read in to Memory what could be read direct from Storage. That could also speed up all of the above as well so that it seems like the machine has more RAM without the battery cost of more RAM.
You've gotta be kidding?
31% is an incredible improvement within the timespan of a single generation of smartphone.
Another benefit of 64 bit is improved security.
ASLR in 32 bit systems is defeated via brute force in the form of repeatedly triggering the vulnerability until code execution is achieved.
This is why recent versions of Mac OS X were not compromised at pwn2own but iOS is still being compromised.
Given the runtime security mitigations in iOS, jailbreaks that rely on bypassing runtime security mitigations would no longer be available if iOS was 64 bit because ASLR would no longer be defeated via brute force.
ASLR in 32 bit systems is defeated via brute force in the form of repeatedly triggering the vulnerability until code execution is achieved.
This is why recent versions of Mac OS X were not compromised at pwn2own but iOS is still being compromised.
Given the runtime security mitigations in iOS, jailbreaks that rely on bypassing runtime security mitigations would no longer be available if iOS was 64 bit because ASLR would no longer be defeated via brute force.
I think I can speak for a lot of people when I say the fingerprint scanner won't be a hit. The possibility that an intruder can steal my fingerprint is too risky. You can change a password, but not your fingerprint.
p.s. I think a slight screen bump would be great.
Why would you upgrade? IOS 7 will be available to owners of last 3 models. As for the fingerprint scanner it's not going to motivate you to upgrade. It's just a bonus.
Motion tracking with an separate CPU al la Moto x sounds more like an iphone 6 thing than 5s. The mid 2 year cycle phones are usually a nice bump in power, but the big shiny things are on the full number change.
I think I can speak for a lot of people when I say the fingerprint scanner won't be a hit. The possibility that an intruder can steal my fingerprint is too risky. You can change a password, but not your fingerprint.
p.s. I think a slight screen bump would be great.
I think I would have bigger things to worry about than my phone being stolen.
Attachments
or its saying that the newer phones are not that big enough of a leap that people find that the older phones are a better pick.
Consider when the iphone 4 first came out. it was undeniably a better deal than the 3GS.
the 5 compared to the 3GS?? not really..
Dude. This article is about the processor, not the phone (other than the motion tracking part that you were choosing to ignore anyway). The phone will have other new features as well... I suspect that no matter what was rumoured to be coming, you'd still find a way to criticize it.
11 up votes for a clueless post.
There is very little to be re-written in the kernel. First, you don't need a 64 bit kernel, you just need the ability to run 64 bit apps on top of the kernel. Apple has had that technology for many years. Second, when moving the kernel to 64 bit, the big problem is compatibiity with 32 bit drivers. Since all the iPhone drivers are Apple drivers, that's no problem; that 64 bit kernel will have no need to run any 32 bit drivers. The last one, that 32-bit apps would have to be run in emulation, that is just nonsense. Look at MacOS X. 32 and 64 bit apps run together just fine.
We will see signs of 64 bit compilers when Apple wants people to know about a 64 bit processor. Clang wouldn't have the slightest problems producing 64 bit code. And iOS supports Fat binaries; there _are_ apps shipping code for two different ARM processors already. Shipping mixed 32bit/64bit is no problem.
Not complaining, but I do disagree with you.
It might be nice for some to have a bigger phone, but not everyone. Those of us who don't want a bigger iPhone aren't necessarily "complainers" either. Not even sure I follow your logic there.
I agree with Apple's stance that a phone should be one hand operable, and I expect that they're going to maintain that position regarding the iPhone. The current size and dimensions of the iPhone 5 are right at that limit. I have a Galaxy S3 for work and I don't like it primarily because the screen is too big! The lag, clutter, and counter-intuitive confusion of the Droid interface just make me hate using it that much more.
I do think many people, but definitely not most, would get a larger iPhone if Apple ever made one available (though I seriously doubt they ever will). Given the choice between a cheaper iPhone C, a standard iPhone, and a larger iPhone Plus, I think most people would still choose a standard iPhone as the best bang for their buck.
While the iPhone C might appeal to people in emerging markets like China, or as a less-expensive choice for kids, I expect it will be feature-light and perceived as a major downgrade to current iPhone users. An iPhone Plus might appeal to a minority of users because of the larger screen size and probable 128 GB capacity, but most people wouldn't be willing to pay the premium for such a device when the same investment (or just slightly more) would get them an iPad Mini or full-sized iPad.
i'm saying it's nice to have a BIGGER PHONE. did i say "get rid of the 4" phone?" absolutely not. keep that small phone for the complainers, although most of them would probably get a bigger phone once they try it
It might be nice for some to have a bigger phone, but not everyone. Those of us who don't want a bigger iPhone aren't necessarily "complainers" either. Not even sure I follow your logic there.
I agree with Apple's stance that a phone should be one hand operable, and I expect that they're going to maintain that position regarding the iPhone. The current size and dimensions of the iPhone 5 are right at that limit. I have a Galaxy S3 for work and I don't like it primarily because the screen is too big! The lag, clutter, and counter-intuitive confusion of the Droid interface just make me hate using it that much more.
I do think many people, but definitely not most, would get a larger iPhone if Apple ever made one available (though I seriously doubt they ever will). Given the choice between a cheaper iPhone C, a standard iPhone, and a larger iPhone Plus, I think most people would still choose a standard iPhone as the best bang for their buck.
While the iPhone C might appeal to people in emerging markets like China, or as a less-expensive choice for kids, I expect it will be feature-light and perceived as a major downgrade to current iPhone users. An iPhone Plus might appeal to a minority of users because of the larger screen size and probable 128 GB capacity, but most people wouldn't be willing to pay the premium for such a device when the same investment (or just slightly more) would get them an iPad Mini or full-sized iPad.
Uh, many snapdragons and exynix (the samsung ones, however they're spelled) only got a 10-25% speed increase generation to generation. INTEL's chips only did roughly 15-20% with Haswell. How exactly do you think this kind of thing works?
You don't need 64 bit for more than 4GB of RAM. The processors in the current iPhone / iPad support more than 4GB of RAM. You need 64 bit support for more than 4GB of address space used by a single process.