The A5x was a problem because it couldn't properly power the higher resolution. It was obvious from the skipped frames and laggy animations in games and the excess heat generated.
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.
iPad A8x
- Thread starter MartinAppleGuy
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The A5x was a problem because it couldn't properly power the higher resolution. It was obvious from the skipped frames and laggy animations in games and the excess heat generated.
The A5x was only a problem because it was huge and expensive for Apple to produce. The A6x included a die shrink which saved Apple money. This chatter about Apple cutting the A5x because it had issues is garbage. There's no way that Apple could have switched course in six month as a response to A5x issues.
It did power the iPad with Retina Display running iOS 5 and 6 absolutely fine though. There was never a big problem. The heat was a backlight issue, rather than a chip issue. I don't believe the problem was the Quad Core Graphics, it was the fact there was only an A5 CPU when the iPad with Retina Display (3rd Generation) really needed to have an A6 CPU. That's the reason why iOS 7 and 8 have been so laggy on it.
If.....if they for some reason up the resolution of the iPad Air, then 2gb of RAM will just be the equivalent of the current air with 1gb for the most part.
Personally I think the A8X could be for the larger iPad that will have the higher res. The current iPad air upgrade would sport an A8. The same goes for that 2gb of ram people are pre-drooling about.
4 more days.
Personally I think the A8X could be for the larger iPad that will have the higher res. The current iPad air upgrade would sport an A8. The same goes for that 2gb of ram people are pre-drooling about.
4 more days.
No, that won't be the case. We would still feel the benefit of the 2GB. Apple won't be increasing the resolution that much. I think it'll go to 326dpi, not going 2X again to 4096x3072 which would take it to 527dpi which would be crazy.
Increasing resolution to some arbitrary amount doesn't make any sense. That will cause a lot of app issues. Every single app would then be blurry and upscaled until developers catch up with could take many months.
The only logical reason for a resolution change would be a new size screen.
I'm thinking the same where 3x the resolution would look better on a 12.9" screen. On the current Air, you'd need 20/20 vision and a magnifying glass.
They did it with the 6 Plus, so I don't see why they wouldn't do it with the iPad. Also, Apps wouldn't be blurry as they'd be the same resolution as the current ipad.
The current iPad display isn't really that high resolution. I can see the pixels. I certainly would like to see a bump in resolution.
The point is not that you can't discern pixels, it's that you can't discern pixels from an average viewing distance per device. I hold my iphone about 10-12" from my face most of the time while browsing, but my previous iPad 4 always sat a good 2-feet or so.
And for the record I have 20/20 vision. I'm not opposed to sharper image quality, but not if it's for arbitrary consumer reasons, forcing apps to scale and causing unnecessary consumption of resources.
I guess you don't understand how resolution works. Having current resolution apps on a higher resolution display will indeed cause blurring. The iPhone 6 plus is having these issues right now until apps are updated to display at native res.
----------
Sanity and logic tend to take a back seat on some of these threads.
Not really at all true, the iPad 2 had an A5 and the 3 had an A5X which is why there was no performance boost. The air had an A7 so an A8X is still a whole another generation.
Well as an iPad 3 owner I wouldn't take that gamble knowing now that Apple is clueless about writing an efficient and optimized OS for their iDevices.
If there's an A8X then surely that can only spell a higher resolution screen, as the A7 was perfectly capable of running the Air. A lot of people are saying they're not upgrading because the Air is perfect. It would seem therefore that the A8 would be more than capable of running the new iPad unless it has a higher resolution.
I would expect so, although the A7 could see a fair bit of choppiness with certain graphics, such as launching Siri where you could see a notable lag on the Air. It could be solely for those reasons, although I would think that as it's essentially jumping 'twice' with the graphics, from A7-A8 and then getting Quad or 6-Core Graphics as well, it'll probably be to do with the new Retina HD Display.
----------
I am also an iPad 3 owner, and really, I had not experienced any real issues until iOS 7. Apple's mistake with that wasn't so much to do with the GPU, but rather not upgrading the CPU to A6. Also, it's not do do with the OS, the reason why iOS 8 is slow on the iPad 3 is because it's now a pretty old device. iPad 3 has run 4 versions of iOS (5,6,7 & 8) and has the same CPU as an iPad 2. So significant slowdown was to be expected.
Hello mister troll, why don't you go back to under the bridge?
----------
Higher clock and 2GB RAM is basically confirmed. I doubt a 6 core GPU though.
Then again, Apple being Apple, they could pull a fast one on us
[/COLOR]
Higher clock and 2GB RAM is basically confirmed. I doubt a 6 core GPU though.
Then again, Apple being Apple, they could pull a fast one on us
Do you think Quad-Core GPU instead? I would have presumed that, just based on previous chipsets. However, people had instantly Six Core so I think that's where that rumour came from. Personally I think 6 core could be overkill.
6 cores really aren't necessary at all. That would destroy battery life for no reason and Apple is know for being conservative in terms of "numbers" for specs. Besides all the people that are saying 6 cores will come are people that don't understand Apple.
You're right about the Quad-Core GPU in the regular A8, which I was surprised about! I suspect it could be 6-core then, unless is just stands for a faster clocked graphics chip compared to the chip in the iPhone 6?
It is hard to say "it is unnecessary", when for graphics workloads it is always fine to throw more "cores" and then run the whole GPU at a lower clock speed to achieve better performance (vertical v. horizontal scaling, eh), well, at the same power budget. It just depends on what the SOC architects prioritize in the complex balancing.