Cortex A9-Based iPads, Verizon iPhone, iOS-Based Apple TV Set for 1Q 2011 Launch?

[chrmjenkins]

Yup, but I doubt that we'll see all these performance increases delivered to the next iPad because Apple needs to worry about more than just performance, they need to keep one eye firmly on power consumption as well. I wouldn't be surprised if they'd like to reduce the size of the battery in the next iPad so as to trim some weight off it and that means delivering whatever performance they're targeting at a lower current draw. Obviously the increased IPC of the Cortex A9 will be there, and possibly the Apple engineers will tweak the architecture some more to raise that IPC even further, but I'd be surprised if the clock speed was set much above the current 1GHz, maybe 1.2GHz maximum because, coupled with a 1.25 gain in IPC, that still gives a 50% performance boost over the A4.

- Julian

In essence, I agree with you. Apple has no incentive to give the most performance at the start when they can incrementally improve it and squeak out more generations of the same basic core. Wouldn't surprise me if we saw a launch 45nm core followed by a 32nm revision that ups the clock speed and/or core count.

 

[RMXO]

A diskless Apple TV? Hopefully this means cloud-based iTunes. If not, I would hate to have to stream everything from my computer to the ATV. Especially with crappy network performance.

I feel sorry for the people that have low bandwidth caps if a cloud-based iTunes ever happens using a diskless AppleTV.

 

[shen]

A 7" iPad huh? The iPad itself already has a problem with finding it's niche.

Couldn't agree more. I mean it isn't like they are having trouble keeping them on the shelves. The millions of them sitting unused in the warehouse are a clear sign that Apple screwed up big time on this one.

 

[Ironworker808]

>>>>Wow. Out of all the comments I just read, that might be the most clueless, uninformed statement of all.

Ummmm...Then you must have skipped over this one...

Right... triple the thickness to add a dead-end, mechanical media most people might use once or twice a year.
Brilliant.

 

[Piggie]

Whilst I really love upgrades.

Increasing the power of the iPad so soon is going to be a bit messy isn't it?

Not for Apps (which will just be a bit snappier) but for games.

Are we going to end up with games that will only run smooth on the new iPad and jerky on the old one, or effects that can't be enabled on the old model?

Yes, I want a speed up, but not till it's a worthy one. CPU and GPU, perhaps an iPad twice as fast as it is now.

If we're going to suffer from a slow and fast model, at least make the fast model WORTH writing for.

If it's only a bit faster it's not worth the hassle.

 

[ImperialX]

All this sounds mostly believable, but personally I still don't see the point of a 7-inch iPad... =/

 

[SAD*FACED*CLOWN]

These Verizon rumors are really starting to line up. To me, it seems plausible.

I like the idea of an OLED iPad.

so you really think there will be a newly designed iPhone in a few months? and the metal back thing does not seem dubious to you?

 

[ten-oak-druid]

Apple TV: Sure for some, no disc is an option. Whether cloud based or streaming from a computer. But there should be an option of connecting external hard drives in the event you wish to have your library connected to ATV.

Why not offer options such as:
1. combined ATV/ airport base station with multiple USB ports
2. combined ATV/ time capsule with multiple USB ports
3. ATV with multiple USB ports that allow some functions of an airport base station such as extending a network, printer sharing, HD sharing and time machine backups.

Basically your computers could back up to hard drives connected to (or that are part of) the ATV. The ATV could have the library on one HD and a backup on another (both connected). The back up could be cloud based too if desired. For those who have the cable modem nearby, the ATV could act as the airport router. Others might simply have the device on the network created by a base station but like the time machine HD's (or printers) connected to the ATV. And some might want the ATV to be able to extend a network.

I think Apple should allow flexibility in this device. I guess what I'm saying is the ATV should be dropped as a stand alone device, and the features of the ATV (current and proposed) should be added to the products the airport extreme product line.

 

[iMacmatician]

AMD has two upcoming APUs: Llano and Ontario. December production suggests the Ontario APU which is scheduled for release in about that timeframe.

Fusion still uses the current AMD Hammer architecture, which is why it can't be competitive.

It's not competitive with Nehalem but a number of recently updated Macs are still using Core 2.

Intel has already released CPUs with integrated GPUs that have a MUCH better CPU-part than Fusion

When price and heat put 2 Intel cores against 4 AMD cores (it already does to an extent), Intel won't have as much of an advantage.

and all AMD can do is promote their better GPU. That won't cut it. Fusion will be for low-end, low-margin computers, something Apple doesn't sell and never will.

GPU is becoming more and more important as time goes by. That's one of the aspects of heterogeneous computing. And interestingly enough, Apple is also moving in this direction—that's why they chose Core 2 + 320M in their latest notebooks (and Mac mini) instead of Core iX + Intel graphics.

By the way, Fusion has just been postponed...

Llano has, but Ontario appears to have been pulled in.

omg ... I can't even ...

Fusion is an -> integrated GPU <-, expect current integrated GPU performance, which is maybe similar to Xbox 1 or PS2. It's good for playing Half-Life 2, but not for Crysis at HD resolution with full details.

No. Expect Redwood class performance for Llano (with bandwidth restrictions due to integration).

Ontario has weaker graphics but that Fusion demo AMD had a few months ago used Ontario not Llano.

 

[WLS]

I'm starting to see the strategy here with the 7inch iPad coming out this Fall with the 512 A4 but with the big iPad not getting updated until April (end of 1st quarter) and then getting the new A5 chip (1meg?). This allows them to do a final milking of the A4 product line and clear the stage for the A5
Still an updated iPad mini with the 512 A4, the gyroscope and smaller sharper screen and a camera would be very tempting. It does have to have the GPS/3G card too if I'm going to buy it though.

 

[wizard]

Why? Given the right aspect ratio it could be a very useful tool.

Interesting stuff there. Still can't see the 7" iPad happening myself but you never know.

Not that this report is indicating the right aspect ratio but the fact remains a smaller more portable device could see very high demand. I for one would be very interested.

Dave

 

[nozebleed]

as soon as the retina is used for the ipad im on board. until then, my iphone works

 

[nozebleed]

Not that this report is indicating the right aspect ratio but the fact remains a smaller more portable device could see very high demand. I for one would be very interested.

Dave

me too. i love reading on the iphone4, just a little bit bigger and shi- would be so cash. and of course it would have to be retina display tho

 

[wizard]

Apple really has little choice.

Whilst I really love upgrades.

Increasing the power of the iPad so soon is going to be a bit messy isn't it?

It won't be messy at all and honestly Apple won't have much of a choice. The problem is the competition which will be building things based on A9 chips, advanced ATOM offerings and variants of AMDs Fusion. A single core A8 based machine with barely 100MB of RAM for user apps isn't going to cut it.

Not for Apps (which will just be a bit snappier) but for games.

Anybody with any sense would have recognized the current iPad as an early adopters machine. Besides correctly written software won't have an issue. Also all current games clearly indicate hardware requirements, its the nature of the beast.

Are we going to end up with games that will only run smooth on the new iPad and jerky on the old one, or effects that can't be enabled on the old model?

Of course. I mean really what do you expect. Apple could potentially offer 50% performance increases for the next couple of years. First by going to A9 Cortex and then by orocess shrinks and core additions. A9 has already been demoed on a 22nm process so there is a lot of room to make iPad even snappier.

Yes, I want a speed up, but not till it's a worthy one. CPU and GPU, perhaps an iPad twice as fast as it is now.

I'd suggest that you don't know what you are talking about. IPads biggest problem right now is the lack of RAM which has a very negative impact on what software can be realized on the machine. This early adopter machine needs to be replaced as soon as possible just so the platform can fully realize its potential.

If we're going to suffer from a slow and fast model, at least make the fast model WORTH writing for.

If it's only a bit faster it's not worth the hassle.

Again i don't think you realize just how limited the current iPad is. The RAM update is critical. The processor update actually is less important but even here we could be surprised with an SMP machine. In fact i think dual core is a very good possibility with four cores a more remote possibility.

It is really a question of how Apple wants to compete with all the dual core A9 hardware coming and Intels new ATOMs. From what i'm seeing Apple will need to support at least two hardware threads real quick or end up with pokey looking hardware next year.



Dave

 

[Dr Kevorkian94]

Why would apple switch processors and not just make a better version or there own

 

[chrmjenkins]

Why would apple switch processors and not just make a better version or there own

The A4 isn't their own. The Samsung Galaxy S uses it too (called Hummingbird there). The A4 is simply a modified version of the Cortex A8. Everyone has access to the A8. The A9 is a superior processor and the next step in processing power. No doubt they'll produce a custom version of it too.

 

[Speedy2]

It's not competitive with Nehalem but a number of recently updated Macs are still using Core 2.

When price and heat put 2 Intel cores against 4 AMD cores (it already does to an extent), Intel won't have as much of an advantage.

eh? Core 2 is already better than K8/K10 by quite a margin, both in terms of performance and especially in terms of efficiency (which is why the mobile space became Intel territory). Why do you think the table has turned so quickly after the Core 2 release? It was vastly superior to K8 and is still superior to K10 (albeit not as much).
So when Fusion is released in a few months, it will be even more behind as it is already. Sandy Bridge will be just around the corner then.

4 cores are not an option yet in mobile space, if you want to have some battery life + decent weight. Also, not all applications benefit from 4 cores. A mobile dual core will be most likely clocked higher. Especially games don't care that much about 4 cores.

GPU is becoming more and more important as time goes by. That's one of the aspects of heterogeneous computing.

We've heard that for years now, promoted by (surprise) Nvidia and ATi/AMD, and Apple too. Fact is, that the GPU "revolution" is nowhere to be found in regular computers. Only like 10 applications even support GPU-based calculations and maybe 3 of them do something useful with it. And that hasn't changed for how many years now? 2? 3?
I agree that maybe 5-10 years down the road, high-performance computing will look differently, but that doesn't mean that I can expect integrated GPUs (of all GPUs!) to make any difference for my current user experience whatsover.

And interestingly enough, Apple is also moving in this direction—that's why they chose Core 2 + 320M in their latest notebooks (and Mac mini) instead of Core iX + Intel graphics.

They did that because it was cheaper, and because Steve didn't want to look stupid after he had told us how great the Nvidia chipset is two or three years ago. If Apple were really serious about GPU power, they wouldn't sell us integrated GPUs at all. Even the lowest end dedicated GPUs are so much faster.

No. Expect Redwood class performance for Llano (with bandwidth restrictions due to integration).

Dream on. The slowest dedicated GPU at that time will be faster than Fusion's GPU. That won't be enough for any kind of decent HD gaming experience.

 

[MattInOz]

Apple TV: Sure for some, no disc is an option. Whether cloud based or streaming from a computer. But there should be an option of connecting external hard drives in the event you wish to have your library connected to ATV.

Why not offer options such as:
1. combined ATV/ airport base station with multiple USB ports
2. combined ATV/ time capsule with multiple USB ports
3. ATV with multiple USB ports that allow some functions of an airport base station such as extending a network, printer sharing, HD sharing and time machine backups.

Basically your computers could back up to hard drives connected to (or that are part of) the ATV. The ATV could have the library on one HD and a backup on another (both connected). The back up could be cloud based too if desired. For those who have the cable modem nearby, the ATV could act as the airport router. Others might simply have the device on the network created by a base station but like the time machine HD's (or printers) connected to the ATV. And some might want the ATV to be able to extend a network.

I think Apple should allow flexibility in this device. I guess what I'm saying is the ATV should be dropped as a stand alone device, and the features of the ATV (current and proposed) should be added to the products the airport extreme product line.

I think your right.
AppleTV is just a software layer which could run as nicely on the ARM version of OS X (iOS if you will) as it does on the x86 version. Just need a processor to run power to run it and not stall the background network tasks.

After all if they are building a A5 with dual A9 cores plus the graphic processor core they have in the pipe line that should be more than enough power seeing they don't have to worry about life. Getting a couple of million extra made is helping spread the risk, gives them better control of the system and is offset by the cost of the off the shelf ARM they put in the Airports now.

Putting an AMD or frankly and x86 in the AppleTV revision seems to be a strange move.

I think the rumored Tiny AppleTV is the Airport Express with AirTV upgrade.

 

[MattInOz]

You're wrong, it's actually a full blown x86 iOS compiler.
Unfortunately, after a quick search I've only found a Wikipedia link*, but when you dive into iPhone development, you'll get that information very quickly.

My iPhone books say it, Europe's most-respected and most-read computer magazine, German c't, says it, and the fact that you have to choose between Simulator and iPhone hardware in Xcode before compiling strongly indicates it as well.


* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_SDK
"Along with the Xcode toolchain, the SDK contains the iPhone Simulator, a program used to emulate the look and feel of the iPhone on the developer's desktop. Originally called the Aspen Simulator, it was renamed with the Beta 2 release of the SDK. Note that the iPhone Simulator is not an emulator and runs code generated for an x86 target."

Just to muddy the waters a bit more, I thought iOS and newer Mac OS X programs were complied in the first instance to LLVM and it's that LowLevelVirtualMachine code that is then run on which ever hardware is hosting the runtime.

 

[Imac&SoShouldU]

I believe the verizon rumor...I didn't in the past, However I do now!! It's the same as the never ending ipad rumors....every other week/Year we heard about a possible "itablet"....untill the rumors sparked shreds of truth and then...the "magic" was finally revealed...well...the verizon iphone rumors are drawing to an end and There are bits of truth sprinkled in them. I think were going to see it. cant wait to drop at&t like a bad habit!!!

 

[iMacmatician]

4 cores are not an option yet in mobile space, if you want to have some battery life + decent weight.

AMD already has 25 W quad-core. With 32 nm they will be even cooler. Llano will start at 30 or 35 W for quad-core.

Also, not all applications benefit from 4 cores.

When I'm video encoding I'd like as many cores as possible. Llano is also likely to have Turbo Core.

A mobile dual core will be most likely clocked higher.

Naturally. Llano will clock upwards of 3 GHz.

Especially games don't care that much about 4 cores.

Games? You mean the tasks that use the GPU more than anything?

We've heard that for years now, promoted by (surprise) Nvidia and ATi/AMD, and Apple too. Fact is, that the GPU "revolution" is nowhere to be found in regular computers. Only like 10 applications even support GPU-based calculations and maybe 3 of them do something useful with it. And that hasn't changed for how many years now? 2? 3?
I agree that maybe 5-10 years down the road, high-performance computing will look differently, but that doesn't mean that I can expect integrated GPUs (of all GPUs!) to make any difference for my current user experience whatsover.

You could say the same thing about quad-core CPUs, or even any higher-end CPUs, which Intel right now has the lead over AMD. Coincidentally Apple doesn't use the highest-end CPUs of a lineup in any of their Macs, so where's this "CPU advantage" you have been talking about?

Fact is, Apple doesn't think Intel's GPU cuts it (in contrast to 4 years ago). That's why they moved to NVIDIA (9400M and 320M), and Llano simply makes sense.

They did that because it was cheaper,

Wrong. CPUs used in 13" MBP are priced well within the reach of Arrandale variants.

If Apple were really serious about GPU power, they wouldn't sell us integrated GPUs at all. Even the lowest end dedicated GPUs are so much faster.

Even the 320M has higher specs than much of NVIDIA's low end mobile CPU lineup. Plus, integrated graphics save space. Apple isn't "really" serious about GPU performance, just serious enough to not use Intel.

Dream on.

We'll see when Llano comes out. It will be Redwood performance, to the surprise of all the doubters.

Even Ontario's GPU could exceed Sandy Bridge's.

The slowest dedicated GPU at that time will be faster than Fusion's GPU. That won't be enough for any kind of decent HD gaming experience.

If so, that will be more of a response to Llano (and Sandy Bridge) than anything else.

NVIDIA's smallest Fermi, GF108, is twice the size of the usual lowest end GPU. Where will the market be for low-end GPUs (sub-GF108) once Llano and Sandy Bridge arrive?

 

[MacFly123]

I am VERY EXCITED about the new Apple TV! I love mine now, but I have been waiting for the next level for a while!

Now, IF they Verizon iPhone is different than the iPhone 4 that is as solid of a confirmation that Apple made a hardware mistake as anything could be! And if that is the case I am going to be IRATE along with millions of other people! You better be careful with this Steve! If you do that, I WANT A FREE NEW PHONE!

 

[wizard]

Why not?

AMD's Fusion + iOS???

Makes no sense whatsoever. DigiTimes, next time please come up with some more credible rumours and not some obviously made up nonsense.

I'm not saying that Apple TV is going this route but putting IOS on Fusion would be easy. For all intents the kernel is the same as is at the core of MacOS and the rest of iOS could easily be recompiled to other hardware. It is written in C after all.

What is a problem is that IOS apps are currently ARM binaries. Having to deal with two different binaries would be counter productive.

As to the other speculation an Apple TV without a hard disk is a bit of a joke. Bandwidth cost money for one. Second if you have kids that watch the same video over and over again what is the point of choking the net with all that streaming. Streaming has its place, Youtube being one good example, along with numerous TV shows that only get watched once, but it is not the solution for every viewing need. An Apple TV without storage would go from being a hobby to an occasional affection.

Dave

 

[wizard]

These statements clearly indicate you don't understand the breadth in Fusion.

I was talking about CPUs, not GPUs. (But even when talking about GPUs, I haven't seen an Apple mobile device with an ATI/AMD chip for ... 4 years?, I think 2006 MBPs had ATI chips) Fusion still uses the current AMD Hammer architecture, which is why it can't be competitive. Intel has already released CPUs with integrated GPUs that have a MUCH better CPU-part than Fusion and all AMD can do is promote their better GPU. That won't cut it. Fusion will be for low-end, low-margin computers, something Apple doesn't sell and never will. By the way, Fusion has just been postponed...

As much as I'd like AMD to be a strong competition to Intel, right now they suck CPU-wise.

AMD is working on Fusion hardware with at least two different cores for the short term. In a year or so the could have Fusions with Bulldozer cores. In any event AMd expects to be able to compete with ATOM at the low end and Intels Arrandale and follow ons at the high end.

AMD will be in a good position if Fusion pans out. Obviously it is all speculation at the moment but Intel needs credible competition and AMD is the only player in town.

Dave

 

[wizard]

More like a couple of hundred $$

Apple has developed with the ARM A4 an very cheap own massive platform that is 100% 1080p Full HD capable. Why the hell they should burn millions and millions of $ to port the iOS back to x86 to use the very expensive AMD Fusion platform for the next generation AppleTV?

It likely would only require a recompile on Apples part. Most likely they have iOS running on several different platforms.

As to AMDs Fusion please educate yourself! At least one model in tge line is designed to compete directly with Intels ATOM.

As a side note I see a lot of posts on this forum from people that obviously haven't spent five minutes on AMDs web site. Fusion is a concept not a specific chip. Near term AMD has two members of this family expected to arrive soon.

This rumors are 100% rubbish! They absolutely make no sense. Just very poor guessing to get attention! Poor guys!

Maybe maybe not, but your lack of knowledge here doesn't help support your position. It wouldnt make sense to me to have iOS running on an i86 chipped Apple TV, but it is not a technical issue at all. Considering things like AMDs Ontario an extremely low cost Apple TV is a possibility.


Dave