This is a great news the way they put things together was an engineering marvel. Just imagine how much spacing saving they made. Next year with that extra space they can put some more. Not the whole empty area so every year we have improvements. This really gets me excited because it means next year we have a faster and better iPad. I can't wait!
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.
A9X Die Photo From iPad Pro Reveals 12-Cluster Graphics, No L3 Cache
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
ARM chips run ARM code. But you would be able to run current applications, in the same way that the x86 version of OS X 10.4 was able to run current PPC applications at that time, namely through CPU emulation. That does, however, mean a speed hit, plus increased complexity and RAM usage. So ARM chips would have to be much faster than X86 chips to make it feasible, and that seems unlikely to happen.
--Eric
I'd be surprised though if the A9X provides enough power to do this reasonably. The reason they were able to go from PPC -> x86 is because PPC was so behind in performance that they could satisfactory run PPC code emulated on x86 without most people ever seeing a performance hit.
IF A9x could do that with intel's x86 architecture in any reasonable way, I would be very surprised (who knows what the future might bring though). An important thing to note is that, the A9X already shows one of the fastest, most powerful CPU's in the ARM camp. However, the Core M is one, if not one of the slowest, lowest power CPU's in the x86 camp. I think Apple still has a long way to go to bring the A series CPU up in power to be able to replace intel in their PC's
This, and just looking back at improvements from 5 years ago, I can't wait to know what will be ready for us in 2020
HA, no problem.Yes, you caught my post before I was quite done with it.
--Eric
My question to Arm developers though. ARM is currently the low cost, low power solution. What if they let ARM work in a higher TDP situation? if you scaled up a A-series CPU to 95w to match that of Intel's desktop parts, could they make a CPU that is close?
what about at 15w? what about 45w?
Or are there other limitations in ARM that prevents such scaling?
Lol, nice baiting...
OS X needs real man CPUs due to its bloat.. not this mobile stuff.
Bloat? You've obviously never heard of Windows.
And obviously you've never used win 8 or 10
I've got a win10 machine on an old piece of HP hardware.
Its eye opening lets say the mess that is OSuXs
It wouldn't be to do with speed in that sense. Anything stored on the cpu's cache can only be read once then it needs to be rewritten. So the process can often be slower if the information needs accessing multiple times.
Still does not explain the frame drops when using this tablet at the Apple store. Instant turn off for me.
If Apple (and some of its customers) weren't so obsessed with thinness and just slapped a Retina screen in a MBA 13 chassis we wouldn't be having this conversation. Even the addition of a fan wouldn't been so bad if it allowed a true Skylake i5/i7 cpu rather than the hapless wonder that is the slow Core M.
That's why the other PC makers started making thin laptops after Apple came out with the MBA?
That's why the MacBook Air has usually had some of the longer battery life in its class (accounting for CPU/GPU)?
That's why your typical PC comes pre-installed with garbage-ware on top of Windows?
Sounds like your buying decisions are based on dubious information...
That technology was sold to IBM, and reportedly not as efficient at emulating/translating CISC instruction sets such as x86. However, many OS X apps written using Xcode might be easily recompile-able by their developers for arm64.
It will give devs more resources to create more graphic intensive games.
ok,,, so choice do u want a better 12-mega pixel camera or bigger display/better resolution.
Your right. who needs a good camera on a professional device anyway....
If the processor can be faster internally, why bother having any cache externally ? too slow/bottleneck.
Your right. who needs a good camera on a professional device anyway....
If the processor can be faster internally, why bother having any cache externally ? too slow/bottleneck.
Last edited:
ARM licenses chip throughout the spectrum, the reason why we hear so much about mobile chips is because that's where the industry is focusing until they can get new material processes scaled up for manufacturing past the 10nm range.
ARM pretty much designs any type of chip you could want, but given mobile and data centers, power efficiency is king.
What areas? Angry birds or other phone apps?
What about Photoshop or Lightroom? Oh wait, LR doesn't run on iOS.
Yes. Inovating the way for ARM. Apple was very wise to pay up to ARM for the rights to tweak the architecture.
ARM will never run Intel x86 code, and Intel x86 will never run ARM code. It's like comparing a toaster and a lamp. Both get warm, both can be used to cook food, but one of those is very inefficient.
The ARM parts started at the "power saving" end of the spectrum, while Intel parts started at "desktops and servers" end of the spectrum, thus the CPU designs have different trade-offs, and having one translate the other is very inefficient.
Intel's low-end low-power parts are worse performers than Apples ARM A-series parts. However likewise, Intel's desktop and server parts blow the A=series out of the water, because the A-series is ONLY a low-power design. Intel's low-power designs are basically crippled desktop designs.
The concept of CPU emulation isn't something that can be sold to anyone; also Rosetta was specifically for emulating PPC on x86. You might want to ask programmers who were around back then if it was ever a matter of "just recompile your code".
--Eric