Dual core or Quad core processor?

I voted for Quad Core. Have to wish for the best.

 

I vote, I don't have a clue until next month when its announced. Guess this and guess that is just a waste of peoples time on these forums, but boy do they like to. They tried to guess the iPhone 5 release and got an iPhone 4S instead, disappointing many. So I'll just wait until the announcement.

 

What in heavens name are you talking about? Your participating just like the rest of us.

 

If I had to pick between quad core and retina display, I would choose retina display. The iPad 2 had power to spare with the dual core. I'm not sure how a retina display will affect that though.

 

If it comes with a dual core there might be some justification with calling it a 2S but I'm expecting a quad. I don't see a reason for Apple to cheap out if they are going for the retina upgrade. Either way it'll be a "Take My Money Now!" situation. I've seen some arguments that say a dual core with a seriously upgraded GPU will work just fine. We shall see.

 

CPU: Dual-core next gen ARM (e.g. CortexA15)
GPU: Quad-core next gen PowerVR
RAM: 1GB

Would be massively hotness IMO.

Screw the quad core CPU, not relevant for mobile apps IMO.

 

CPU possibilities:

- Dual Core 1 GHz Cortex A9 (like A5)
- Dual Core 1.* GHz Cortex A9 (clocked higher than the A5)
- Dual Core 1 GHz Cortex A15 (huge performance gains at same clockspeeds)
- Quad Core 1 GHz Cortex A9 (multitasking and multi-core-aware apps profit from this)
- Quad Core 1 GHz Cortex A15 (all apps (both single core and multi-core) will benefit from this, multitasking profit, cortex A15 profit).

I only see two real possibilities: the dual core 1 GHz A15 variant, or a quad core Cortex A9 1 GHz variant.

GPU? The current iPad 2 has a dual-core GPU. I think they will either use a quad-core version of this GPU, or a completely new one.

 

This is what I hope to see too. The CPU is already plenty powerful for everything. It's the GPU that apps really use, especially games.

Also, doing it this way will cut down power usage to save battery...

 

I have posted my predictions in another topic, and for the sake of argument I'm posting it here, too.

Well, best-case scenario would be this:

- 1 GB of RAM
- A quad-core Cortex A15 processor
- PowerVR Series 6 GPU

The Cortex A15 architecture gives huge performance gains compared to the Cortex A9, at the same clockspeeds.

The A6 will certainly will be manufactured on a 32nm-production line since Samsung is only going to produce chips on a 32nm production line this year (assuming Apple stays with Samsung). This means lower heat-generation, more battery-efficient (ór same energy usage for (much) higher performance).

Worse-case scenario:
- 512 MB of RAM
- A dual-core Cortex A9 processor (like the A5 chip), only higher clocked (like 1.1 to 2 GHz).
- Same GPU

---------------------------------
What I really think Apple will do:

- 1 GB of RAM
- A quad-core Cortex A9 processor*
- Quad-Core variant of the current GPU found in the A5 (instead of dual core)

* There's also a possibility that the A6 chip is a dual core processor based on the Cortex A15 architecture. The Cortex A15 architecture gives a lot of extra performance at the same clockspeeds compared to previous architectures. The reason why I think it's going to be a Cortex A9 quad-core CPU, is simply because most rumours are talking about quad-core and only one source about dual-core.

** In all honesty, GPU-wise everything is possible. They could use the same GPU. They could use a quad-core variant of the current GPU. They could go with the PowerVR 6 series in either dual-core or quad-core variants.

In fact, we really know nothing about the iPad 3. The onliest things that seem 'certain' now:

- 2048 by 1536 display (literally every source is talking about such a display)
- Similar design (based on the photographs)
- Bluetooth 4.0 (iPhone 4S supports it)
- GLONASS (iPhone 4S supports it)

We don't know nothing about the cameras. Nothing about the CPU. Nothing about the GPU. Nothing about the RAM. Nothing about Siri yes or no. Nothing about FaceTime HD. Nothing about storage (16, 32 and 64 GB or 32, 64 and 128 GB models). Nothing about connectivity (LTE?). Nothing about any other possible features.

We all have some sort of an idea: a better display, a faster CPU and GPU and better cameras, but we don't know anything exactly.

 

I like the idea of that dual core Cortex A-15 with it's low power features and speed increases linked with a PowerVR G6 graphics which is like 20 times faster than the current iPad2 GPU.
That would be an awesome beast.

 

Any chance they will go with a quad core Cortex A-9 and a quad core version of the current PowerVR SGX543MP2 ?? I would not think that combo would impress.
That makes me hope the report from Verge is right. If it's gonna be a dual core then it most likely will be the Cortex A15
http://www.macrumors.com/2012/02/08/the-ipad-3s-a6-processor-to-be-dual-core/

 

I'd like to see the dual core Cortex A15. I just wonder if it is ready yet. It seems to be just coming available from Samsung in Q2. Maybe that means available for everyone else while Apple had it earlier? The quad core seems to be still in the future.

 

i bet apple will throw in a dual-core, and people will bitch like crazy, and it will work perfectly.

 

Look at the competition!

I'm hoping for a quad-core. Just look at the competition!!

Asus started going down with a quad-core processor last year already and I'm pretty sure the rest of the companies are developing one too for release this year.

But since it's Apple and they always lag behind (spec wise terms), it's going to be a higher powered dual-core UNFORTUNATELY.

I smell something that wreaks of 'laggy gameplay'!

 

I think people will be disappointed with a Cortex A15 1 GHz dual-core processor, because people will think the performance has not changed. Quad-core just 'sounds' better.

If Apple is going to make use of a dual-core processor based on the Cortex A15 architecture, than I think they will probably advertise it like "xx as powerful as the A5 chip".

Again, best-case scenario would be a quad-core Cortex A15 processor, but at this point, I think, that would be impossible.

Oh, and there is no doubt a dual-core 1 GHz Cortex A15 processor is much better than a quad-core 1 GHz Cortex A9 processor. The first one will boost performance for all applications. A quad-core Cortex A9 processor, would only be benefitial for multi-core aware apps - and most apps in the App Store are single-core and some dual-core.

 

Worth a read...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-57373707-64/a-quad-core-ipad-3-not-so-fast/?tag=mncol;txt

 

Dual or Quad for me are mere numbers. Till the time the iPad 3 works fast, has no lag (like the iPad 2 but with better graphics and all), I'll be a happy buyer.

 

It will be dual core because the cost, size, power consumption, and effort of adding two more general purpose cores will far out weigh the benefits for a device like the iPad.

Just because 4 is greater than 2 doesn't mean a quad core CPU makes the iPad better

 

But will it be a dual core Cortex A15 or an optimized dual core Cortex A9 with a speed bump??
If Apple needs to save money after the Retina screen then they might choose the latter. I hope not

 

Apple is not known for including gimmick features which have almost zero value for the end user experience. There will be a time when quad cores are useful in a tablet, but that time is not now.

Apple will only use quad core if they can get it at about the same price as dual core and only if it has no negative effects on the user experience, ie. shorter battery life, higher temperatures of the casing etc..

I vote dual core.

 

You really have no idea. iOS has GCD architecture that allows an app to optimize its performance for an arbitrary number of cores, from one to a zillion and a half. Any app that wants ideal performance will be written for GCD so that it will not have to be recoded to run well on iPad 9.

Apps that would not especially benefit from parallel processing will just not benefit. But iOS also runs more than one process at a time, so more cores might improve the performance of the underlying OS.

 

The performance of iOS (as a system) is just fine. Sure multiple cores is better for multitasking, but two cores do just fine right now.

I was talking about the performance of the apps, which is the most important aspect. iOS itself works just fine with two cores, and it might work even better with 4 cores, but 4 cores are only useful for very few apps. It is very difficult for ONE app to make use of multiple cores, so a quad-core processor only matters for developers who have the skills to develop multi-core aware apps. THAT is why a dual core Cortex A15 processor is much better than a quad-core Cortex A9 clocked at 1 GHz.

Quad-core is only useful for developers with the knowledge and skills and for true multitasking.

An upgrade to the Cortex A15 architecture (for two cores) benefits EVERYTHING. ALL apps. ALL processes in the background. Everything.

That is why I would prefer a dual-core 1 GHz processor with the Cortex A15 architecture over a quad-core 1 GHz processor based on the same Cortex A9 architecture. Simply because the first one benefits everything.

 

I am saying that the number of cores is less relevant with Grand Central Dispatch. If a program can benefit from multi-processing, iOS (and Mac OS X 10.6+) abstracts core-awareness away. A program can be written in "blocks" that GCD will balance across cores. It does require skill to write asynchronous code that runs well, but not as much as it would with explicit core-aware threading.

Now a programmer can write for efficiency and let the system distribute the load across what processing resources are available, and when extra cores are unneeded, they can be down-clocked or put to sleep to conserve power.

But this is not to say that I personally think they are going quad. iPad is not targeted toward breath-taking performance but toward the broader consumer market that mostly does not care about wowspecs. This coming iPad will probably improve the GPUs but leave headroom for CPU upgrades later. If they massively increase display resolution, the GPUs will take the heaviest workload. And RAM, they almost have to go to a gig of that.