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 A4 Processor is Based on Cortex A8, Not A9?
- Thread starter t0mat0
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The GPU can have a huge effect on video / graphic presentation and processing depending on how the software utilizes it. In the case of full OS X, Core Image, and Quartz Extreme algorithms can be completely offloaded to the GPU, freeing up cycles for the main CPU to handle more general processes. The result is a much snappier system.
However, since we would need actual details on what is inside this SOC, how the software sees / uses it, nobody is going to be able to give you the hard numbers for the GPU speedup on the iPad.
Off-topic, but how much do you think I could get for a 2.4ghz early 2008 MBP 15" with a 256mb 8600M GT, 4gb ram, 500gb hd, a 93% health battery and a 37% health battery, with hardly any cosmetic damage? I also have a 26" H-IPS 1920x1200 monitor (DoubleSight brand, believe it's a Phillips panel) that cost $700 new and has a small scratch on the lower part of the screen.
Here is what I'm thinking of replacing it with:
27" iMac Quad-core (maybe wait until they phase out Core 2 duo for cheaper?)
32gb iPad
How much extra do you think I'd have to throw with it? Thanks.
Let me try to explain what he meant.
Apple has made a custom piece of silicon to match the needs of the iPad. They alone make this decision, not you. Apple knows what is needed to drive this device, seeing as they designed and developed the iPad from the ground up.
Making arbitrary comparison between A8 and A9 is superficial. Having the latest chip in the iPad doesn't specifically make the user experience better. You do not have the knowledge that Apple does as to what it takes to drive this device, versus the compromises that might ensue, such as price and battery life.
So, to sum it up in layman's terms for you, the A9 is not "more better".
In other words, if Apple decides to add a weaker CPU, it's because it's in our best interest, and we will benefit greatly from it.
You're getting back to the "more better" thing.......
I'm saying Apple knows things about this device you don't. Maybe you don't want to admit this, but the fact remains.
Of course Apple's videos of the device were all FAKED!
They showed FLASH support! HAHA!
I think Steve Jobs is testing the wonders and magic of his famous "Reality Distortion Field" with this product unlike even Harry Potter has ever attempted! LOL
This device is supposed to replace or be better than a PC NETBOOK, yet costs more, and yet isn't even compatible with FLASH websites & basically every website you go to uses FLASH unless you live in Steve Jobs "Reality Distortion Field" world LOL
The processor thing, in my opinion, is the LEAST of The iPAD's worries.
It's going to be interesting to see how this device does. In my mind, it has too many issues...
A) No FLASH support on a device that is supposed to be a computer, NOT a HUGE iPOD.
B) No multitasking. And this processor rumor just adds insult to injury there too, no doubt.
C) No Mac or PC software support & requires developers to create all new apps that are basically iPhone/iPOD Touch apps.
On the plus side is the iTUNES/iPhone App store, which seems to lately be Apple's standard crutch for success. Only iTUNES & the App Store could fuel such a crappy device to be hugely popular.
Maybe I'll be proved wrong, but I honestly think this device will not fly.
Everyone, even me, seems to want one, but keeps finding out more and more things the device cannot do!
The Reality Distortion Field only lasts so long except for the fanboys here.
I'm thinking more like waiting for Revision B or C for the iPAD.
And I bought an iPhone on Day 1 for the record.
The only way I know would be to run some kind of custom diagnostic and benchmarking software. Being a custom chip, you can't just look at it to see. Maybe if you broke the chip, but then, being a custom chip, functional units can be rearranged.
It's geology, not meteorology. You can't say they really had enough time to do a full analysis of all the seismic data and inspect the underwater faults to make that determination. They probably didn't even have an hour to make the call.
I'm not the same person who said more better.
What you say makes no sense. The A9 is better than the A8, and the ipad would have been more powerful if it had an A9, because of the fact. There's no way Apple could have made it better with and A8 than an A9, and that's just common sense.
So in the future, when the next generation of Ipads use the A9, are those going to be worse than the current ones? The A4 is not a good name.
I really don't think this is that surprising. For Apple's first recent foray into CPU SoC design, it would have been extremely aggressive enough to try to go with the latest Cortex A9 dual core and try to get it to market before everyone else. It makes sense as a transition to use the Cortex A8, which they already have experience with in the 3rd gen devices and may be able to leverage previous agreements to co-operate with Samsung on, as a way to get their feet wet before moving on to something they can take more ownership on.
Let me ask you, why not buy a Tegra 2 tablet, it's many times more powerful and can do a whole lot more, USB, SD Card 1080p on hdtv (575p for Ipad) and the one I saw costs $325.
Anger management needed?
If you do not like the iPad than do not buy it!
It is going to be great for what it is supposed to be. It is an advanced media consumption device with a certain amount of creativity in the mix.
No dektop applications have been designed to favor a finger touch environment.
All Apps being specifically written to meet iPADs needs is a good thing not a bad thing!
Simple answer...
I DON'T DO WINDOWS!
I do have Windows PCs for business reasons, but I use them only when I absolutely have to. LOL
EDIT: Oh and COMCAST is going to block QAM HDTV access nationwide soon, so 1080p HDTV from a PC or Mac will soon be a thing of the past. Yes, the FCC is letting them do it and it's already been done in several markets.
Tegra 2 is not Windows though. Windows can't run on it. But if it's an OS thing, then I get it.
What intended purpose would that be? For me that has been a question that has never been answered.
The problem with your statement is that potentially this product could be outdated in a short period of time because it is using a year old processor. What happens with future OS upgrades that adds more features? My 3G is already much slower in OS 3.0 than in 2.x.
Another problem is what kind of features are coming in iPhone 4.0 with only a minimal upgrade in the processor? If multitasking is too much of a problem with the 3GS, then there is a very good chance we won't see it in OS 4.0 if the A4 makes its way too the iPhone.
Wow, people are getting worked about a article based on someones opinion. A flawed opinion at that.
He states in the article that that he has sources, well that is all fine and good. Doesn't make it true. Just like they had sources that the ipad was running a MALI ARM GPU. Wrong.
The ARM Cortex A9 runs cooler and improves battery life. The A8 runs hotter and does not. That says it all right there. Sums it up quite nicely.
Apple's #1 reason for being quiet about the A4 is because they don't want their competitors to know the details of what's inside. That's always been Apple's #1 reason for being secretive, not some conjured up belief that Steve Jobs is sitting in Cupertino happy with the fact that he knows something most do not.
Thats utter non-sense. ARM licensed its CPU and GPU technology to Apple. That's it. Out of that technology, Cortex-A9 is intended for manufacturing in advanced manufacturing process such as 45nm, 40nm, 28nm and so on, while Cortex-A8 doesn't have advanced video processing capabilities that Cortex-A9 has. What does that tell you?
No TV out? Are you serious. This is straight from Apples website for the specs for the ipad.
Support for 1024 by 768 pixels with Dock Connector to VGA Adapter; 576p and 480p with Apple Component AV Cable; 576i and 480i with Apple Composite AV Cable
That alone makes the article suspect. Give me a break.
He states in the article that that he has sources, well that is all fine and good. Doesn't make it true. Just like they had sources that the ipad was running a MALI ARM GPU. Wrong.
The ARM Cortex A9 runs cooler and improves battery life. The A8 runs hotter and does not. That says it all right there. Sums it up quite nicely.
Apple's #1 reason for being quiet about the A4 is because they don't want their competitors to know the details of what's inside. That's always been Apple's #1 reason for being secretive, not some conjured up belief that Steve Jobs is sitting in Cupertino happy with the fact that he knows something most do not.
Thats utter non-sense. ARM licensed its CPU and GPU technology to Apple. That's it. Out of that technology, Cortex-A9 is intended for manufacturing in advanced manufacturing process such as 45nm, 40nm, 28nm and so on, while Cortex-A8 doesn't have advanced video processing capabilities that Cortex-A9 has. What does that tell you?
No TV out? Are you serious. This is straight from Apples website for the specs for the ipad.
Support for 1024 by 768 pixels with Dock Connector to VGA Adapter; 576p and 480p with Apple Component AV Cable; 576i and 480i with Apple Composite AV Cable
That alone makes the article suspect. Give me a break.
So can I infer from that very good explanation that multitasking is the chief advantage of the A9 and this is the explanation why there will be no multitasking for this generation of the IPAD if it uses the older A8?
Wow - where to start. First, iPad is NOT a computer. If you'd been paying attention, the iPad is a device meant to live between a mobile phone and a computer. Apple targeted it for those people who wanted a device that could display web content better than both of those devices, could be used to read books better than both of those devices, could be used to watch movies better than both of those devices, could be used to share photos and slides better than both those devices. They also targeted hand-held gaming in sort of a weak way (more to say, yeah the App-store games will also play on it, mostly because it was easy to do).
You can argue whether or not it succeeds on any of those fronts, but you cannot argue that it isn't a very good computer - it isn't meant to be a computer.
As regards Flash. Yes, many many web sites use Flash - most of them to display advertisements. Myself? I don't miss it at all. I actively block it on my desktop computer. I'm perfectly happy without Flash content on my iPod Touch, and I don't think I'd miss it on an iPad. My younger kids like some of flash games, so they would rather have a cheap laptop than an iPad. My oldest prefers the App store games on his iPod touch. He might like an iPad.
Flash is not the end-all be all of web content.
I don't miss multi-tasking on my iPod Touch. I wouldn't miss it on the iPad. Why? Because I wouldn't expect the iPad to behave like a computer because it isn't one. Sometime you need to read the book "The inmates are running the asylum". If you understood the concepts there, you'd understand why apple doesn't want these devices to be "computers". Multi-tasking is valuable on devices that are supposed to behave like computers, not so much on devices that aren't.
I'm making a purchase soon. I'll be buying an MBP. Why not an iPad? Because I need a portable computer. I need to boot into windows and run visual studio for presentations. My wife needs to be able to play DVDs on it - not downloaded movies but just standard DVDs that you rent from the library. I'll need standard Mac-capabilities too - including a multitasking OS. I need computer-like functions - so I'm getting a computer.
If all I needed was a device that allowed always on internet connectivity, viewing of all my media, and light content creation, I'd seriously consider an iPad.
There are some things that need to be taken into consideration.
For example, reports from people using the device when it was unveiled all said that it was really fast to use.
A 1GHz A8 isn't an anaemic CPU, sure it's slower than an equivalent A9, but with proper hardware support on the side for graphics, video, security, and so on, it will be enough.
I'm certain that this ARM based A4 is Apple's "let's see if we can make our own SoC" chip. They probably started this project before the PA Semi purchase, probably in 2007 or even 2006. There were probably lots of issues when designing it, leading to the purchase of PA Semi for long-term SoC product development. I wouldn't be surprised if it was highly delayed either, or if it uses too much power for a phone, hence the first use in an iPad.
Graphically, it will probably be using an SGX540 if Apple have any sense. Also clocked higher than the SGX535 in the iPhone when running stressful 3D applications. Both of these should make the 5x higher pixel count less of a worry.
It might also have a higher memory bandwidth - most ARM SoCs have a small thin memory bus - 16-bits or 32-bits. Upping this to 64-bits, and including a decent amount of memory (512MB at least) could allow the CPU and GPU to breathe better than other SoCs, leading to performance improvements.
Lastly, I'm sure the flash memory they're using is faster than that in the iPhone. Faster app startup times will leave people thinking the device is fast, when in fact it's only a small part that is faster.
For example, reports from people using the device when it was unveiled all said that it was really fast to use.
A 1GHz A8 isn't an anaemic CPU, sure it's slower than an equivalent A9, but with proper hardware support on the side for graphics, video, security, and so on, it will be enough.
I'm certain that this ARM based A4 is Apple's "let's see if we can make our own SoC" chip. They probably started this project before the PA Semi purchase, probably in 2007 or even 2006. There were probably lots of issues when designing it, leading to the purchase of PA Semi for long-term SoC product development. I wouldn't be surprised if it was highly delayed either, or if it uses too much power for a phone, hence the first use in an iPad.
Graphically, it will probably be using an SGX540 if Apple have any sense. Also clocked higher than the SGX535 in the iPhone when running stressful 3D applications. Both of these should make the 5x higher pixel count less of a worry.
It might also have a higher memory bandwidth - most ARM SoCs have a small thin memory bus - 16-bits or 32-bits. Upping this to 64-bits, and including a decent amount of memory (512MB at least) could allow the CPU and GPU to breathe better than other SoCs, leading to performance improvements.
Lastly, I'm sure the flash memory they're using is faster than that in the iPhone. Faster app startup times will leave people thinking the device is fast, when in fact it's only a small part that is faster.