Apple's Next-Generation A8 Chip Said to Top 2 GHz, Remain Dual-Core

[Mackan]

No surprises here. Milk the market on incremental hardware upgrades with total control of software. If we are lucky we get 1.5 GB of RAM this time. A boring time to live in.

Apple could really leapfrog here, both hardware and software wise, but it seems they have no such goals. Only goal is to satisfy the share holders. Depressing, and utterly boring.

 

[robPOD]

I will be finally upgrading my original iPad this fall (almost useless for web surfing as it crashes constantly). People have been complaining about safari reloading even on the newest ipad air.

I don't care if the new processor is lighting fast. I'm hoping for more ram. It will be disappointing to get the latest and greatest if it still has to refresh every web page.

Agreed increased RAM will be absolutely key in getting web usability right.

 

[Michael Goff]

There have only been such huge leaps because ARM was at a low point. It's easier to double a lower number than a higher number.”

That’s silly; the point is not the ARM’s low starting point. It's the rate of growth; advancement over short time and the projection forward..

It has everything to do with it being at such a low point. In the 1990's, Intel made huge leaps as well.

This is misconception is not right. No way Broadwell will be 30% faster than Haswell. Intel has only indicated that it is "up to 30%" more efficient that Haswell. Ie for the same performance, Broadwell will be up to 30% more efficient. Intel has not indicated anything about absolute performance increases.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7318/intel-demos-14nm-broadwell-up-to-30-lower-power-than-haswell

My guess for performance increase is 10-15%.

Even 10-15% keeps it more powerful than the A8. >_>

Oh you shup up! Photoshop is a dog on any processor, even the desktop version. Pretty much anything made by Adobe is. Don't blame the hardware for that.

Look at ios8's Metal API and you'll see where high performance apps are going.

----------



The A7 iPad Air geekbench 3 results are already on par with the mid 2009 macbook pro.

You don't think the A8 will be faster?

I was being sarcastic, as the person who "I responded to was acting as though the A8 was going to be more powerful than a current MBA.

 

[stevejobz]

From reading most of the comments here i would have to agree with most people here that say that the new phone definately needs more RAM. However i think the phone was already not used to its full capacity and could have still done great things with the same processor. But as we know these hardware and software updates are a part of the marketing as much as performance. Customers want to see changes rightfully and we give it to them.

 

[nando87]

Oh you shup up! Photoshop is a dog on any processor, even the desktop version. Pretty much anything made by Adobe is. Don't blame the hardware for that.

This is the great thing about Apple fanboys. If something goes slow, it is due to the software You know, it is supposed to work with no problems, if they put a 2xpowerful cpu and gpu I'm sure it will go better. The only reason they are always skimping on hardware is they want to keep that abusively high margins that harm both consumers and workers, only shareholders can be happy about that. That's why 4,7 screens will come now and not 2 years ago, that's why 2gb of ram will come in the future and not 2 years ago, it's not that they weren't useful before. It's not about ergonomics, about ecology, about jony ive's british accent or power consumption, it's about yields, amortization and 40% margins

My i7 4930k with a r9 290x moves the gallery and the program smoothly. What about that? Maybe, and only maybe, THE IPAD SYSTEM IS NOT POWERFUL ENOUGH for such tasks, don't disguise the words. Fanboys have been saying that the hardware is powerful enough since the iphone 4s and the g5.

It also needs more ram, at least 2 gb. Well, maybe that's too a software problem... they should allow just 1 tab when using safari.

 

[Bahroo]

It's funny how to some what apple does is good enough.
How about more efficient multitasking and load sharing.
How about improved performance when running a lot of apps.

I bet when they come out with a quad core, it will be revolutionary and to make it innovative, they will add 4GB of RAM!

Apple is losing it's technological edge to maximize profits and it's going to bite them in their bottom line quicker than expected.

Id rather have two more powerful cores over 4 weaker cores

Quad cores are not used so much in mobile app today still, they arent incredibly efficient nor parrellel with the cores yet.

Apple A7 cpu cores are so huge 2 snapdragon 800 cores can fit inside one A7 core

Apple a8 is going to be a beast no doubt about it

The 700 mhz jump there claiming is going to be a huge boost in performance off the bat that alone, not to mention other low level tweaks in the architecture like probably even more DRAM, hoping at least 2 gb of ram now, maybe a 128 bit memory interface? Some contextual core like the moto x for new siri function, motion core, brand new ISP, obviously brand new GPU, 4k support and etc

Right now in the mobile space were still pretty much at 2 bigger more powerful dual cores is still better then a quad core till apps start going the multi core direction then quad core becomes the best option over dual core

 

[MacSince1990]

I see you've never run ios 8 on an iPhone 4. Wait until you see what ios 11 will do to your iPhone 5s. Oh lord, give me more CPU!

I'm gonna have to call BS on this.

My Beige G3 shipped with Mac OS 8.5. It ran Mac OS 10.4.11 just fine 8 years later.

The same is true of the 5S; it's exponentially faster than the 4, the same way the Beige was exponentially faster than the very early PPCs and the 68Ks.

 

[koyoot]

Even 10-15% keeps it more powerful than the A8. >_>

Depends on power envelope of CPU. 4.5W CPU will not be faster than 2.5W Apple A8, as we proven before. That 2.5W CPU will be on par with 17W Haswell ULV CPU's from Intel, IF Apple will again double the performance.

Higher power CPU's will be more powerful than A8, in this case, but the difference will not be that big as it is right now. IF Apple will double the performance of the new CPU.

 

[MacSince1990]

Fanboys have been saying that the hardware is powerful enough since the iphone 4s and the g5.

It also needs more ram, at least 2 gb. Well, maybe that's too a software problem... they should allow just 1 tab when using safari.

Every smartphone out there today is powerful enough. Not just Apple's. This wasn't true a few years ago. End of story.

 

[firewood]

THE IPAD SYSTEM IS NOT POWERFUL ENOUGH for such tasks...

Only because you cherry picked the task. For any system, complex enough software plus big enough images will bring it to its knees (even 1000+ node supercomputers on planetary satellite data). Conversely, for any system, efficient software and suitable sized image data will make it zoom (smooth scrolling small photos on an iPhone 4). Your task is in the middle; but some people will want more, and declare your rig to be a pig, some will want less and be happy with the CPU on an iPhone 3Gs.

Note the the A7 in the iPhone 5s is more powerful than processors in multi-million dollar national lab the-best-you-can-buy supercomputers of less than a couple decades ago. Most pro photoshop users (non-billionaires) were happy with less back then.

So. No system is powerful enough for such tasks. Every system is powerful enough for such tasks. If you don't cherry pick at some random point in the middle to make a point.

 

[Michael Goff]

Depends on power envelope of CPU. 4.5W CPU will not be faster than 2.5W Apple A8, as we proven before. That 2.5W CPU will be on par with 17W Haswell ULV CPU's from Intel, IF Apple will again double the performance.

Higher power CPU's will be more powerful than A8, in this case, but the difference will not be that big as it is right now. IF Apple will double the performance of the new CPU.

Except it hasn't been proven and will not be proven until we have both the 4.5w broad well and A8.

 

[fertilized-egg]

No surprises here. Milk the market on incremental hardware upgrades with total control of software. If we are lucky we get 1.5 GB of RAM this time. A boring time to live in.

Apple could really leapfrog here, both hardware and software wise, but it seems they have no such goals. Only goal is to satisfy the share holders. Depressing, and utterly boring.

On the contrary, to the shock of some people Apple went so far to acquire a number of chip design companies, and followed up by making even more investment in recent years.

Financially the prudent thing to the eyes of Wall Street type would've been what others are doing, which is to buy Qualcomm processors or whatever other off-the-shelf processor. Instead Apple bought PA Semi, Intrinsity, etc, and built their own architecture which cost time and money, instead of using the existing ARM architecture.

Under Tim Cook they are even going so far to assembling its own GPU team among other parts - they already are known to be investing into their own display driver chip and flash memory controller.

Thus the actual events contradict your claim: unlike most other phone makers who buy components designed by others, Apple is investing a significant amount of money into making their own parts and making leaps faster than expected.

The most surprising thing to me is Apple didn't milk the Swift architecture used in the A6 chip in A7 but made another jump so quickly with Cyclone. With Cyclone leapfrogging its competition in a number of areas, Apple is not under pressure to make another jump so quickly.

But the question remains, why dual core? My guess is simple. Too much heat and power usage with quad core. One thing Apple doesn't have control over is the actual manufacturing of chips. They have to rely on a fabricator like TSMC, Samsung, Globalfoundries, or whoever that can supply chips with the latest process in a large quantity. No matter how well Apple does design the chip, they are still constrained by the law of physics and economy.

 

[Traverse]

Multiple people saying this doesn't make it any less false.

What so many people seem to be forgetting is that you are STILL comparing a mobile chip to a desktop class chip.

Sure, in some theorized performance test they may one day be within the same area, but that doesn't mean that they are both fully capable. If you took the A7 Chip and put it in a 2009 MacBook Pro (assuming nonexistent compatibility) and ran it side by side with a Core duo 2009 MacBook Pro I think you'd see a clear difference.

Both software and hardware is optimized for Intel in the desktop space. I think it will one day happen (A# on par with average desktop), but I don't think were are nearing that time outside of nonrealistic benchmark tests.

 

[Traverse]

Unfortunately, the people who are sure RAM will solve Safari's problems ignored this. I guess it's some kind of article of faith with them? Not sure, but it's sad because if more people clamored for Apple to fix mobile Safari rather than clamored for more RAM then its more likely Safari would actually get fixed.
.

I absolutely believe that Safari needs software optimization. 1 GB should be enough to keep at least 3 tabs open (which many here claim it can't, I don't have an iPad Air so I don't know).

However, software is not the key system wide. I have the problem on my iPad 3 (1 GB, 32-bit) and on my iPhone 4S where non-safari apps get hacked by iOS due to RAM usages.

Infuriation example! I spent 30 minutes playing a game on my iPad, my friend messaged me so I jumped into the Skype app to send a 4 word reply. I jumped back to my game....which started from the logo screen and I lost all my data.

I've had IM apps get flushed out and I no longer receive updates, every time I open the must app I have a few second lag as it refreshes. And I try to only keep 3-4 apps running at once (even though they are frozen in the background).

Point? Software optimization can help immensely, but iOS' forbiddance of a swap file necessitates another GB of RAM. It may not be a MASSIVE issue now, but as apps gets more complex it will be.

Even if Apple could have an additional 512 MB of RAM for system use and the standard GB for apps could help (although I think iOS routinely goes above 512 MB)

 

[Gudi]

oh so there's literally nothing good about Android? It's just a joke OS?

Yes and yes.

nah. Both iPhone and Android are amazing. Get off your high horse.

There is nothing amazing about a mass-market copycat. Android is just the Windows of smartphones.

 

[MacBH928]

So more RAM will decrease battery life, but it didn't stop Apple from making faster processors and retina displays, do these not affect battery life too?

Desktop level? What's that? The iPad Mini has already passed the performance level of a PowerMac G5 "super-computer" on a desktop.

Are you saying that , technically, an iPad can run OS X Tiger, Final Cut Pro, and Photoshop?

 

[Donoban]

I'm gonna have to call BS on this.

My Beige G3 shipped with Mac OS 8.5. It ran Mac OS 10.4.11 just fine 8 years later.

The same is true of the 5S; it's exponentially faster than the 4, the same way the Beige was exponentially faster than the very early PPCs and the 68Ks.

I see your point, guess we will have to wait n see who is right.

 

[MacSince1990]

I see your point, guess we will have to wait n see who is right.

I think it's actually fairly predictable. Chip speed has been scaling exponentially while iOS's strain on hardware has been climbing relatively slowly.

----------

No surprises here. Milk the market on incremental hardware upgrades with total control of software. If we are lucky we get 1.5 GB of RAM this time. A boring time to live in.

Not going to happen. iPhones only use a single memory chip, and chips come in x^2 bit sizes. Anything other than 1, 2 or 4GB is out of the question.

Apple could really leapfrog here, both hardware and software wise, but it seems they have no such goals. Only goal is to satisfy the share holders. Depressing, and utterly boring.

What uses do you have for a phone with 2-3x the power of existing iPhones? The 5s is already about as powerful as a midrange Core 2 Duo. Upgrade a C2D with enough RAM, a decent video card and fast storage speed and most people wouldn't notice the difference between that and a Quad i7.

 

[firewood]

But the question remains, why dual core?

Because the vast majority of app developers don't know how to program for more than one core, or worse, think they can and write unreliable buggy multi-threaded code. For that reason and more, most functional apps are single threaded. There are a few applications that have embarrassingly parallel compute kernels (photo filters and such), but they are in the minority of total apps.

Thus a few fast cores will make more apps run faster than lots of slower cores. Up until the fast cores get too hot for the power envelope. Then the only way to go is with bunches of less hot cores. But not until one has to.

If Apple can make the next A series processor run cool enough, they don't have to retreat to using bunches of slower cores, which would make most apps run slower (or encourage less capable app developers to write far more buggy apps).

 

[the8thark]

More than enough power for a phone. Although they'll scream they still want "quad core" ask them why?

128k ram is enough RAM for a computer?
Sure in 1984. But in 2014 it's not enough. Just like dual core in a phone is enough in 2014 but in the future it will not be enough.

 

[882188]

Dual core in 2015? Well, i guess people will still buy the iphon cause it's shiny!

 

[the8thark]

Please, tell me why my iPhone needs a quad core processor?

In a few years you will ask: "How did I ever live without a quad-core cpu in my phone?"

 

[nando87]

On the contrary, to the shock of some people Apple went so far to acquire a number of chip design companies, and followed up by making even more investment in recent years.

Financially the prudent thing to the eyes of Wall Street type would've been what others are doing, which is to buy Qualcomm processors or whatever other off-the-shelf processor. Instead Apple bought PA Semi, Intrinsity, etc, and built their own architecture which cost time and money, instead of using the existing ARM architecture.

Under Tim Cook they are even going so far to assembling its own GPU team among other parts - they already are known to be investing into their own display driver chip and flash memory controller.

Thus the actual events contradict your claim: unlike most other phone makers who buy components designed by others, Apple is investing a significant amount of money into making their own parts and making leaps faster than expected.

The most surprising thing to me is Apple didn't milk the Swift architecture used in the A6 chip in A7 but made another jump so quickly with Cyclone. With Cyclone leapfrogging its competition in a number of areas, Apple is not under pressure to make another jump so quickly.

But the question remains, why dual core? My guess is simple. Too much heat and power usage with quad core. One thing Apple doesn't have control over is the actual manufacturing of chips. They have to rely on a fabricator like TSMC, Samsung, Globalfoundries, or whoever that can supply chips with the latest process in a large quantity. No matter how well Apple does design the chip, they are still constrained by the law of physics and economy.

I will repeat again : because 40% P R O F I T M A R G I N

 

[the8thark]

I believe Apple will release the best Mobile CPU at the end of the year, but to think it can power a desktop is far fetched.

Sure it can. Just not a desktop from 2014. These new A series cpus kick the crap out of my old 128MB ram 333Mhz G3 iMac I used to own back in the day. I have to say my iPad (4th Gen) is better in almost every way to that old iMac. Well you'd expect that from a 2012 device.

You can equate the A8 to a desktop it could power. And the most recent year of desktop the current A series chip can power and can be used efficiently will every slowly get closer and closer to the current day. Every year that gap is getting less and less.

 

[fertilized-egg]

I will repeat again : because 40% P R O F I T M A R G I N

Actually if they cared only about profit margin, Apple would be buying Qualcomm chips like everyone else. R&D for chips is quite pricy. Believe it or not, the operational profit doesn't equal the gross profit margin, something that gets lost on many people's thinking and makes me wonder why otherwise very intelligent people often fail to grasp simple straightforward cost accounting concepts.

Plus "dual core" doesn't mean much for the actual cost of the chip. There are octacore chips that cost a lot less than Apple's dual core chips. Apple's chips traditionally uses more die space than their competitors, which directly contradicts your claim of "P R O F I T M A R G I N" not to mention they foot the bill for developing the chips too.

If Apple can make the next A series processor run cool enough, they don't have to retreat to using bunches of slower cores, which would make most apps run slower (or encourage less capable app developers to write far more buggy apps).

I'm still wondering why Apple jumped so quickly with Cyclone. It's almost as if Swift and the A6 chip was an unwanted orphan. Many thought it was a sign Apple was looking hard into making an ARM-powered laptop but the rumor still has Apple making only Intel-based ones in the near future.