There's a video of an iPad Pro 2018 exporting a video faster than in a MBP 15" 2018, both on same quality. The only downside there was the OS and file management that was unefficient but since you are actually critisizing the comment of the fellow talking about an ARM in a Mac (hence a desktop OS to do those tasks) my point stands still. If that was already happening in an iPad with a reduced thermal envelope and battery compared to a laptop, now imagine a MBP without those limitations and a chip specially designed for higher TDP and performance. Yes, Macs will eventually carry ARM and by the time it happens when they see the performance people will stop laughing at that
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.
Apple's A14 Chip Rumored to Become First Arm-Based Mobile Processor to Exceed 3GHz
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There's a video of an iPad Pro 2018 exporting a video faster than in a MBP 15" 2018, both on same quality. The only downside there was the OS and file management that was unefficient but since you are actually critisizing the comment of the fellow talking about an ARM in a Mac (hence a desktop OS to do those tasks) my point stands still. If that was already happening in an iPad with a reduced thermal envelope and battery compared to a laptop, now imagine a MBP without those limitations and a chip specially designed for higher TDP and performance. Yes, Macs will eventually carry ARM and by the time it happens when they see the performance people will stop laughing at that
I’d say by May we should have a definitive answer, production usually starts in July for the iPhone. What I’m thinking, production actually will probably be on time, the iPhone 12 will release for 2020, but it might push out till November instead of a September launch. As far as the March/April release For the ‘entry level’ iPhone that was rumored to release, will probably be a silent release, maybe early summer.
Of course there is throttling at the extremes. There's no free lunch in engineering. Which is all about making a series of acceptable trades.
Apple is meeting my preferences and requirements producing a quiet, thin, and lightweight easy to travel with laptop over sheer CPU performance. And I'm willing to pay top dollar for a laptop that meets my needs.
If one needs the highest sustained CPU performance 100% of the time I suspect there are thick 6-7 pound noisy gaming laptops that will meet their needs.
The good news is one can choose the right laptop based on their requirements. Not a biggie.
Last edited:
Of course it will. Running at 3+ GHz on a phone would kill the battery in a few hours.
Apple’s engineers that are responsible for flying back & forth to China & testing iPhones & setting up manufacturing ramps have been on lockdown for the past two months. I’d be surprised if the iPhone 12 is not released until November at the earliest.
I’d say they still hold the keynote as scheduled in September, but just announce the official launch to be subsequently later due to C/19. From a financial standpoint, I don’t think it’s Apples priority/concern at all right now, more or less, trying to determine the future of where/when they can release various products given all the circumstances, is probably the bigger picture.
In the end, I have to ask what does it mean to me the user?
Since the iphone 5 days and these device could do practically the same, read twitter, view instagram, instant message, browse the web, read emails. I am not against faster speeds, just wondering what will I get different?
I still don't believe this, the G5 at the time was supposed to a pro machine that produces 3D games and Movies on it, I just can't believe the iphone could do that.
Since the iphone 5 days and these device could do practically the same, read twitter, view instagram, instant message, browse the web, read emails. I am not against faster speeds, just wondering what will I get different?
I still don't believe this, the G5 at the time was supposed to a pro machine that produces 3D games and Movies on it, I just can't believe the iphone could do that.
Yeah ... pretty much all MacBooks are throttled to all crap.
Meh... Unless they start talking about A14X for a new iPad coming (that will have greater power due to 3Ghz+)... I say meh. 😂😉
You've started out with the conclusion you want and you're working back, bending the facts to fit your conclusion. You keep saying "stingy". Consider that a bigger reason for the comparatively lower RAM complement is a combination of iOS being more frugal in its use of RAM than Android, and more RAM taking more power to keep refreshed and thus eating into battery life. People seem to really like the long battery life on the newer phones. Apple will probably slowly ramp up the amount of RAM in iPhones, but they're unlikely to reach 12GB any time soon.
Last edited:
And the newest Samsung has 16 GB ... which is ridiculous.
Yeah, what for exactly? Seems to me like Samsung is just brute-forcing Android at this point, let hardware fix the software's problems. Meanwhile, you can still buy laptops with just 2 or 4 GB of RAM. Astounding.
Out of curiosity, what do people do with their phones that benefits from these processor speeds? I can understand that it is useful in an iPad. Probably just me getting old and can't be arsed to use a phone for anything processor intensive
You underestimate your workload. Scrolling fast through Facebook, applying filters on photos, heck even taking photos and videos alone is getting more and more processor intensive these days. Zero shutter lag, Focus Pixels, the automatic lighting circumstance recognition - it all benefits from processor speeds. Nothing you do on your phone won't benefit from it, regardless how much or little.
People mentioning throttling... there's quite some throttling in phones which have a very tight enclosure, when used in a macbook there'll be less throttling needed since there's room for fans and when used in a desktop even less is needed. So it really depends on how it's used and with what cooling.
This. And people are using throttling in other circumstances, too, like if an Intel processor isn't reaching its full Turbo potential all the time, but is way beyond the GHz the product actually promises. Or when Apple limits the battery access in older phones so that random shutdowns do not happen. A random shutdown is clearly the less desirable outcome compared to a bit slower phone...
I wouldn't put too much faith into this report.
The writing sounds like that of a giddy teenage boy.
Geekbench doesn't actually know the frequency on unreleased iOS devices, though. It takes reasonably guesses.
Sounds good. The highest recorded Intel chip is 1412, so this would be a 17% lead compared to that. Which isn't entirely impossible, but given the limited thermal headroom of the Apple chip, seems fairly optimistic.
[automerge]1584345397[/automerge]
Maybe if Swift actually got its concurrency story going…
The writing sounds like that of a giddy teenage boy.
Geekbench doesn't actually know the frequency on unreleased iOS devices, though. It takes reasonably guesses.
Sounds good. The highest recorded Intel chip is 1412, so this would be a 17% lead compared to that. Which isn't entirely impossible, but given the limited thermal headroom of the Apple chip, seems fairly optimistic.
[automerge]1584345397[/automerge]
Maybe if Swift actually got its concurrency story going…
First, I hate the Geekbench 5 scale... like mixing F with C.
Second, my main concern is RAM. iPhone 8 has 2GB of RAM, now that larger and more performant apps can benefit from increased RAM now. Limiting it hinders performance and causes unnecessary paging and cache miss.
I hope Apple can remove the concept of RAM altogether. Replacing RAM with enhanced L3 and distributed L4 cache on the chip, that is, on the processor die, inside A-series SoC. This can drastically improve battery life, memory throughput and bus delay. This will also be cheaper as it shrinks the PCB, eliminates RAM supplier premium, and it increases the die size, but that is actually a good thing because as CPU-cores become more performant, clocks higher, and contain more cores, thermal limit (TDP) kicks-in a lot faster. If we increase the die size (less thermal density for better colling action), while shrinking the lithography (7nm->5nm, consume less power, smaller size), we would end up with a lot of unused silicon real estate, which is a waste of space, lowers yield (as bigger die means more likely to get a dust particle, fewer chips per silicon wafers/disks), and massively increases material cost. But if you think about it, RAM is also silicon, specifically, they are just MOSFET logic gates, built on exactly the same material as the CPU die. If we use the extra space and scatter L3 and L4 cache on the processor die among the compute cores, that can not only shorten the memory bus length, and therefore, delay, but also equalize the thermal distribution in the processor die. RAM is nowhere as hot as the cores and each cache block can be run at variable clock frequency based on load and they don't have to match the clock speed of the cores they work with, which saves power dynamically. This is not possible on external RAM modules even if they are soldered on the PCB.
Second, my main concern is RAM. iPhone 8 has 2GB of RAM, now that larger and more performant apps can benefit from increased RAM now. Limiting it hinders performance and causes unnecessary paging and cache miss.
I hope Apple can remove the concept of RAM altogether. Replacing RAM with enhanced L3 and distributed L4 cache on the chip, that is, on the processor die, inside A-series SoC. This can drastically improve battery life, memory throughput and bus delay. This will also be cheaper as it shrinks the PCB, eliminates RAM supplier premium, and it increases the die size, but that is actually a good thing because as CPU-cores become more performant, clocks higher, and contain more cores, thermal limit (TDP) kicks-in a lot faster. If we increase the die size (less thermal density for better colling action), while shrinking the lithography (7nm->5nm, consume less power, smaller size), we would end up with a lot of unused silicon real estate, which is a waste of space, lowers yield (as bigger die means more likely to get a dust particle, fewer chips per silicon wafers/disks), and massively increases material cost. But if you think about it, RAM is also silicon, specifically, they are just MOSFET logic gates, built on exactly the same material as the CPU die. If we use the extra space and scatter L3 and L4 cache on the processor die among the compute cores, that can not only shorten the memory bus length, and therefore, delay, but also equalize the thermal distribution in the processor die. RAM is nowhere as hot as the cores and each cache block can be run at variable clock frequency based on load and they don't have to match the clock speed of the cores they work with, which saves power dynamically. This is not possible on external RAM modules even if they are soldered on the PCB.
An iPhone with A13 (about 5W TDP) scores 1330 in single-core. The MacBook Air with Amber Lake-Y (7W TDP) scores 758.
With Ice Lake-Y, that gap will hopefully shrink. But right now, given similar thermal constraints, Apple is way ahead.
[automerge]1584346043[/automerge]
The phone division was eventually sold by Google to Lenovo.
The CPU division was spun off long before that as Freescale, which is now at NXP (itself a spin-off from Philips).
The cellular networking equipment division ended up at Nokia, who have basically gobbled up half the market — Alcatel, Lucent / Bell Labs, Siemens, Motorola. All that's left is basically Nokia, Ericsson, Huawei.
Motorola's other telecom equipment stuff still exists under the Motorola brand, though.
[automerge]1584346203[/automerge]
Doesn't change that Apple was the first to ship a 64-bit ARM processor.
Last edited:
