iPad Pro A9X Shot from Chipworks.

[koyoot]

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/11/27/inside-the-apple-inc-a9x-chip.aspx

Extremely interesting. It looks like it is completely custom core, without automation in process.

 

[KPOM]

Impressive. Apple is getting really good at maximizing ARM. Intel should be getting a little nervous.

 

[Ghost31]

Double post

 

[Ghost31]

Wonder how possible it will be for apple to experiment using ARM chips in their future macbooks. They're getting so damn good

 

[Mystro]

Great inside info. Masterful engineering. I guess the haters of the iPad Pro won't think this is a big deal either. I guarantee this thread will get 1/5th the posts the negative iPad Pro threads get because its positive.

 

[craig1410]

The A9 was impressive but the A9X takes it to a new level. Apple really seem to be getting the hang of this CPU design business...

 

[WilliamG]

I love when Chipworks does stuff like this. My inner (and outer) geek does a happy dance.

 

[cynics]

Interesting to see how this plays out. ARMs incompatibility with other x86 chips and programs would probably kill OS X for me and many users. I could see Apple making a move to an ARM Mac that is severely underpowered in the graphics department with only Apples 1st party support.

 

[KPOM]

Interesting to see how this plays out. ARMs incompatibility with other x86 chips and programs would probably kill OS X for me and many users. I could see Apple making a move to an ARM Mac that is severely underpowered in the graphics department with only Apples 1st party support.

Exactly. This is why talk of an OS X tablet is unrealistic. Even if Apple managed to add touch without creating an Apple version of Windows 8, they'd have to deal with the incompatible architecture. x86 still runs circles around ARM in desktop processor designs, and even the Core M is faster at many tests than the A9X (though the latter gets better GeekBench stats).

 

[cynics]

Exactly. This is why talk of an OS X tablet is unrealistic. Even if Apple managed to add touch without creating an Apple version of Windows 8, they'd have to deal with the incompatible architecture. x86 still runs circles around ARM in desktop processor designs, and even the Core M is faster at many tests than the A9X (though the latter gets better GeekBench stats).

Pulling everything and everyone away from x86 sounds less realistic to me than Intel surpassing ARM in what ARM does best with size, power efficiency and temps.

 

[astroboy888]

Exactly. This is why talk of an OS X tablet is unrealistic. Even if Apple managed to add touch without creating an Apple version of Windows 8, they'd have to deal with the incompatible architecture. x86 still runs circles around ARM in desktop processor designs, and even the Core M is faster at many tests than the A9X (though the latter gets better GeekBench stats).

The iPhone 6s A9 is faster in single core operation than the Core M, the A9X should be multiple times faster.

The multi-core department Core M comes out a bit faster than A9. But A9X should also surpass Core M in multi-core. A9X should be closer to the lower end Core i5 in terms of performance.

However, the true measurement is performance per watt. If you device performance / watt power dissipated A9/A9X should come out on top. Performance is inverse proportional to the power dissipation. The ARM is much more efficient than X86 architecture. In means that performance per watt should be greater. In other words, if Apple were to design the A9 for a larger notebook PC allowing TDP to be slightly higher, the performance should be higher than the equivalent X86 processor.

 

[bt311]

I am not sure what exactly is "positive" about this news. Granted the A9X is an amazing chip but now that we know a bit about A9, A9X seems like a natural extension of it? It is a big chip that is almost 50% bigger than the A9, without additional cores. It did make up for the loss of core (compared with A8X) with a raised frequency and additional graphics resources, but I kind of wish it were a full-blown quad-core. But the chip is huge (~150mm²) so I can understand why it ended up with what it is, and why Apple introduced a new tablet at a much higher price point instead of updating the regular iPad Air. It kind of sucks for those who wanted an updated iPad Air 2, but it is what it is.

However, the true measurement is performance per watt. If you device performance / watt power dissipated A9/A9X should come out on top. Performance is inverse proportional to the power dissipation. The ARM is much more efficient than X86 architecture. In means that performance per watt should be greater. In other words, if Apple were to design the A9 for a larger notebook PC allowing TDP to be slightly higher, the performance should be higher than the equivalent X86 processor.

Not really. When it comes to ARM v. X86, absolute performance matters as long as the power consumption is within reason. If p/W is all that mattered, we would be running everything on Cortex-A7. You need a certain level of performance and capacity before p/W becomes serious for serious workloads. Thankfully Apple is taking its A-series SOC to that direction.