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

[dazed]

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

Most people don't care what's powering the device. All that matters is is it fast enough for their needs. This spec race is just silly and bares no relation to how good a device will be.

****** software will always be ****** software, no matter how many cores it runs on.

 

[Marc-SP]

Dualcore is still fine, just give us 2GB RAM this time!

I am surprised by your (and many others) comment about the 2GB of RAM. I always heard that Apple iOS products are extremely optimized, and therefore they are not memory hogs like Android. Also, "Specs don't not matter. It just works".
I know what I am saying sound trollish, but seriously, are newer Apple devices less optimized, or are Apple users becoming less complacent than before? I mean, we are talking about the latest flagship tablet from Apple having RAM related issues =:-}

 

[Gudi]

Most people here won't admit that. I don't care how optimized iOS is, 1 GB of RAM for almost anything in the 2nd half or 2014 is hard to defend. (but they still will)

No problem, here you have it.

I'm not joking! This is what you really get, when you don't optimize for size, weight, energy and heat.
More cores, more memory, more gigahertz and no compromises whatsoever.

 

[Abazigal]

I think we're at the point where iOS hardware is outpacing the software. A8 will be wicked fast (approaching Macbook Air speeds in terms of raw processing power), but there are very few apps that can even use the A7 to its full potential.

The iPad 2 is still quite popular. App developers are probably still developing for the A5 processor, so expect only a few top-end games to come anywhere close to taxing that processor.

 

[Gudi]

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.

How about optimizing for mobile? Multitasking is not the most important part of mobile computing. What Apple does is not just good enough, it's the best possible at each point in time. In the beginning that meant no multitasking at all. The iPhone was better not in spite but because it had no multitasking. Now it is better because it has no quad core.

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!

I bet when they come out with a quad core smartphone, the circumstances will have changed dramatically and the downsides of such a move will have lowered considerably. More of the same is hardly innovative.

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

If anything, Apple is losing its design taste. It's technological advantage is only ever increasing. Not making a quad-core didn't save them much money but size, heat and energy. Because they went for 64-bit first, they improved single-threaded performance not multi-threaded. Which just emphasizes the importance of single-tasking in a smartphone.

 

[Tech198]

only dual core ?

Come on Apple, there are quad-core phones out there..

We'll they may not use all cores,s why do we have quad-core machines then ?

Same thing... While iOS may not be there yet, it will be because of all the sensors, and big iOS is becoming since the simple days of iOS 6.

A quad-core chip running slower is still faster than a dual core running faster.

 

[adnbek]

There are smartphones with octa-core processor (MTK6592) which cost less than $200 without a contract.

Yes, you heard it right: octa-core! for less than $200. stopped real innovation after Jobs death

So real innovation = more cores. Got it.

I suppose innovation is buying generic off-the-shelf CPUs like its competitors? You realize Apple DESIGNS their own chips and they've been lauded for having the most efficient and optimized designs for ARM SoCs.

Basically, I don't believe you even know the definition of the word innovation.

only dual core ?

Come on Apple, there are quad-core phones out there..

We'll they may not use all cores,s why do we have quad-core machines then ?

Same thing... While iOS may not be there yet, it will be because of all the sensors, and big iOS is becoming since the simple days of iOS 6.

A quad-core chip running slower is still faster than a dual core running faster.

You both need to stop being such core whores. (is that a term? ) It means nothing if the cores can't even be fully utilized by most software. Most will run on one or two cores max and when testing speeds on a per-core basis there is no comparison between Apple and its competitors.

At the time of release, the A6 stomped every processor of its generation. Same with the A7. Pretty sure the A8 will leave every other mobile CPU in the dust as well. So what exactly is the problem? If the A8 beat out the quad-core and octa-core chips out there in every metric, who cares how many cores it has?

 

[Tech198]

All i'm saying is while most phones now are quad core, Apple is behind the times here regardless of usage.

Head onto gsmarea, then tell me about quad core phones.

I know Apple likes to take heir time, but this has been long enough don't you think.. ?

If Apple said "quad core in iPhone 7" everyone would be happy.

 

[Gudi]

There is a concept called "race to sleep", where a faster processor can have the effect of making your device – counterintuitively, I agree – more power efficient. So even if software doesn't commonly utilize the horsepower of the A7, all software is still taking advantage of the A7's greater performance: by finishing tasks sooner so that the device can go into a low-power state, giving you better battery life.

This. I like to stress the fact, that all apps run twice as fast on the A7. Sometimes a feature like slow-motion absolutely requires the additional speed, but more often the benefit of a faster processor is not so obvious to the user. Nevertheless it is still there.

A4 = 45 nm / 800 MHz / 512 MB (iPhone 4)
A5 = 45 nm / 800 MHz / 512 MB (iPhone 4s) first dual-core
A6 = 32 nm / 1.3 GHz / 1 GB (iPhone 5)
A7 = 28 nm / 1.3 GHz / 1 GB (iPhone 5s) first 64-bit
A8 = 20 nm / 2.0 GHz / 2 GB (iPhone 6)
A9 = 14 nm ?

Beginning with the A6 every year of Apples own A-series SoC was a process shrink.
In Intels terminology it is making: Tick - Tick - Tick - Tick ...

This is much more important for performance than core count and memory size.

 

[deconstruct60]

....
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.

The OS X kernel development is on a 64 only path ( Apple dropped the 32 bit kernel going on two versions ago with 10.8 ). iOS and OS X have shared infrastructure. That would be simpler (and more cost effective ) for Apple if they are both the same.

Throw on top the better instruction set with ARM 64 and it is very clear why Apple wasn't pissing around on 32 ARM for longer than necessary. Apple has a compiler team so they don't have to wait for the compiler to catch up either and while still having very clear insights into what the new one is good and weak at.

If look at majority of folks slow-rolling ARM 64, they generally don't have an major in-house compiler team.

Final issue is that the core ARM designs for 64 bit are targeted to the newer, smaller processes more so than the older stuff. So if want to jump quicker to new processes.... 64 bit stuff was the path. Apple has large enough contract order size and the bank account to push onto new process faster than most.


But if stick to the superficial aspects of 64 bit --> larger memory addresses ... yeah there is little to no motivation there at all.

 

[NT1440]

A quad-core chip running slower is still faster than a dual core running faster.

....No.

For the love of god do some research in hardware/software integration before you embarrass yourself like that again.

NO ONE has tailored more power and performance from "lesser" hardware than apple.

 

[2IS]

No problem, here you have it.

Image

I'm not joking! This is what you really get, when you don't optimize for size, weight, energy and heat.
More cores, more memory, more gigahertz and no compromises whatsoever.

Except he only asked for more RAM, which every iOS device would benefit from. The complexity of apps and the OS is increasing at a faster rate than optimization alone can keep up. More ram is necessary. I wish people would stop deluding themselves that Apple always makes the finest decisions, because they do not. A 1GB iPad Air is a prime example.

 

[dagamer34]

I get that doubling won't happen forever. But Apple has been on dual core since the A4 and only last year went to 64-bit....what accounts for the doubling the other two years?

I'm simply stating that given past evidence its plenty likely we could see another doubling of raw benchmark scores making the A8 comparable to current Intel i5 chips in the MBAs. Doubling the last 4 years hasn't affected battery life noticeably to this point. Moving to a smaller die process coupled with the larger casing and battery means more power efficiency.

This is Apple we're talking about - I think people underestimate all they do in both the hardware and software to optimize performance and efficiency.

I obviously don't know any of this for sure - its speculation like any of the other posts here. But I think I make a pretty good case.

Holy **** no. You are pulling things out of thin air. I don't see how you think it's possible to have a CPU with a 2W TDP outperform one with a 15W TDP. Do you think Intel is that terrible at making chips? If so, Apple would have replaced them years ago with their own custom designs.

And you need to be careful using benchmark scores as a proxy for performance, especially across different CPU architectures, because the weighting system of the score can bare zero resemblance to what a real-world app uses.

----------

This. I like to stress the fact, that all apps run twice as fast on the A7. Sometimes a feature like slow-motion absolutely requires the additional speed, but more often the benefit of a faster processor is not so obvious to the user. Nevertheless it is still there.

A4 = 45 nm / 800 MHz / 512 MB (iPhone 4)
A5 = 45 nm / 800 MHz / 512 MB (iPhone 4s) first dual-core
A6 = 32 nm / 1.3 GHz / 1 GB (iPhone 5)
A7 = 28 nm / 1.3 GHz / 1 GB (iPhone 5s) first 64-bit
A8 = 20 nm / 2.0 GHz / 2 GB (iPhone 6)
A9 = 14 nm ?

Beginning with the A6 every year of Apples own A-series SoC was a process shrink.
In Intels terminology it is making: Tick - Tick - Tick - Tick ...

This is much more important for performance than core count and memory size.

Problem I see is no OEM vendor can rely on die shrinks forever. Should that list continue, we get 10nm (2017?), then 7nm (2019?). Of course, that's 5 years away, but it's not indefinite.

 

[brendu]

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

I doubt it. I still live without one in any of my computers and they run perfectly fine. The GPU is far more important than a quad core cpu.

 

[Vladislav]

I doubt it. I still live without one in any of my computers and they run perfectly fine. The GPU is far more important than a quad core cpu.

This! Remember that 13 inch Macbook Pro (Pro) also uses only dual core CPU, not quad.

 

[Taz Mangus]

A quad-core chip running slower is still faster than a dual core running faster.

Nope.

----------

At the time of release, the A6 stomped every processor of its generation. Same with the A7. Pretty sure the A8 will leave every other mobile CPU in the dust as well. So what exactly is the problem? If the A8 beat out the quad-core and octa-core chips out there in every metric, who cares how many cores it has?

And from what I understand (and I am sure someone will correct if I am incorrect) the octacore processors were (2) quad core processors where only one processor would operate at a time.

 

[Michael Goff]

Nope.

----------



And from what I understand (and I am sure someone will correct if I am incorrect) the octacore processors were (2) quad core processors where only one processor would operate at a time.

Yep, the big.LITTLE idea.

 

[skratch77]

Nope.

----------



And from what I understand (and I am sure someone will correct if I am incorrect) the octacore processors were (2) quad core processors where only one processor would operate at a time.

Nope all 8 can be used for max performance

 

[MattInOz]

To me the interesting question on RAM in the A8 is not the amount but will it be non-volatile instead of volatile RAM.

There has been a lot development with MRAM and a lot of it seems to be centered a round using TSMC for fabrication. Including using MRAM on die to replace other memory cells in custom SoC's

I mean a move like that would improve speed and battery life and is something you expect Apple and the other SoC makers to move as soon as ready.

 

[MrX8503]

Nope all 8 can be used for max performance

I don't think so. I believe its only 4 at any 1 time. You have a link?

 

[Rodster]

I am surprised by your (and many others) comment about the 2GB of RAM. I always heard that Apple iOS products are extremely optimized, and therefore they are not memory hogs like Android. Also, "Specs don't not matter. It just works".
I know what I am saying sound trollish, but seriously, are newer Apple devices less optimized, or are Apple users becoming less complacent than before? I mean, we are talking about the latest flagship tablet from Apple having RAM related issues =:-}

Quite true, in fact I have many of the same games on iOS and Android. All the iOS games run buttery smooth on my iPad 2, whereas a good portion of them run choppy on my Galaxy Tab 4 which has decent hardware and 1.5GB of ram.

 

[fertilized-egg]

Nope all 8 can be used for max performance

I don't think so. I believe its only 4 at any 1 time. You have a link?

You guys are opening a whole new can of worms. Samsung's implementation of the ARM big.LITTLE with their first A15 Exynos went wrong somewhere and the processor, although theoretically capable of running all cores, couldn't do so. There were a lot of discussions on this, such as http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2191850 and http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=61267

In short, the first octacore mobile processor as advertised by Samsung wasn't really octacore, it could run only four cores at a time.

With this in mind, when Mediatek released their octacore processor, they claimed their ARM A7(yuck) octacore chip was the first "true" octacore mobile processor.

 

[MrX8503]

You guys are opening a whole new can of worms. Samsung's implementation of the ARM big.LITTLE with their first A15 Exynos went wrong somewhere and the processor, although theoretically capable of running all cores, couldn't do so. There were a lot of discussions on this, such as http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2191850 and http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=61267



With this in mind, when Mediatek released their octacore processor, they claimed their ARM A7(yuck) octacore chip was the first "true" octacore mobile processor.

I stated that it can't run more than 4 cores simultaneously.

 

[skratch77]

Samsung is on like it's 4th revision of the octacore and the first batch could only do 4 at a time.it's been well over a year that all 8 cores can be used for max performance

 

[skratch77]

http://m.gadgets.ndtv.com/mobiles/news/samsung-exynos-5-octa-chips-refreshes-with-hmp-to-use-all-8-cores-at-once-417179