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.
First Multi-Core Mobile Platform Demonstrated
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is a surprise to you?
Steve Job openly broadcasted this from stage in summer 2007.
Mobile platform is where the money is at--phones, iPods, etc. Apple will go with the money, like anyone. They'll have to return to their non-mobile computers in time, but they were going to slow down for a couple years.
+1
I don't know how small those mini display ports are but if you can fit one on the iPhone then all of a sudden apple isn't selling phones anymore, it's selling ultra-small, ultra-portable computers. They could hit or create an entire new customer base that doesn't need or can't afford a new computer but does need a phone and internet surfing device/word processor.
The iPhone really *could* be revolutionary, *again*, if apple goes this direction.
The beautiful thing about the iPhone is that, at $200, how can you NOT upgrade every two years? Also, why DISPOSE of your outdated iPhone,... it's still be better than the iPod touch -- use it as such or give it to a family member. It would make an excellent way of introducing family/close friends to the iPhone (and to Apple).
No, I don't.
Free?! You DO realize that AT&T pays Apple about $400 for every phone sold for a mere $200. You're getting a very expensive piece of kit for about $8 a month over the course of 2yrs,... hardly something to be looking a gift horse in the mouth, I say. I would imagine that, in a couple of years when AT&T's 5 year exclusive contract runs out and Apple can sell to everyone that you'll get your wish and the carriers will eat the whole amount. Until then, I think $8/mo. is worth the upgrading.
Of course, with a screenname like Free loader,…
No problem!
It's hard to enumerate where ARM cores are used now, they're 'shipping' around a billion every quarter these days. 'Shipping' because they're licensed out, and ARM often don't know where they're used, only that they're getting licensing revenue (which for the ARM7s is probably cents per device). It'll soon get to the point where the average person has over 10 ARM CPUs on their person during the day.
According to Apple's 2008 SEC revenue filing, MacBooks make up 8.7B, Ipod 9.1B and iPhone 1.8B. MacBooks ARE mobile and there's no doubting they are where the money is for Apple. They would be foolish to leave the MacBook in the dust technology wise. Expect quad+ core MB/MBP also in June/July with the release of Leopard.
For those that are interested, Texas Instruments just announced their OMAP 4xxx which will feature multiple cortex a9 cores. They are putting volume availability at H2 2010, reinforcing the notion we won't see any A9 parts until 2010. For what it's worth, they also mention 45nm versions of the omap 3xxx series (the pre uses the 34xx, a 65nm version). They claim 25% power savings and 75% better graphics with these new chips.
So, seeing 45nm A8 parts from apple this summer could definitely happen, and they would have one leg up on the pre when it comes to battery life.
http://www.eetimes.com/rss/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=214200173&pgno=1
So, seeing 45nm A8 parts from apple this summer could definitely happen, and they would have one leg up on the pre when it comes to battery life.
http://www.eetimes.com/rss/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=214200173&pgno=1
I hear these A9 Cortex cores will be using a special instruction set optimized for the ifart. It's called the cortexfarter and should bring multifarting and switching between farts to a new level of speed. If these cores go into the iphone we are going to have ourselves not just a smart fart phone, but a premium ultra mobile fart powerhouse.
I've been listening to fart-app comments for weeks and now it's gotta be said:
If you want to hear the ultimate riff on the subject, get Andy Andrews' CD "My Life So Far" and listen to "Baseball, boys and bad words."
It's a 16:08 jewelry-store of laughs, but the four minutes starting at 11:40 are the counter where the rarest, brightest gems are displayed. I dare you to listen and then say your time wasn't well spent.
disclaimer: I'm an atheist and the album/cut I'm endorsing is by a Christian motivational speaker. If either of those facts turns you off (though there's no evangelizing or even proselytizing in the cut), too bad. The brave will listen to it and decide for themselves--and never regret it. If you're really brave, listen from the start of the cut so the finely constructed comedy can build up even better to the eventual four-minute punchline (no, it's not a four-minute sound effect: it's a hilarious demonstration of humor that makes an iFart app pathetic in comparison, yet linked by subject matter). Do it!
I will definately give it a go. I am not turned off by the christian thing, although an agnostic myself, there are far worse things to be turned off by.
Count the processors in the current iPhone!
First; you need to realize that there are a number of ARM processors in the current iPhone already. Sure they are embedded in different support chips but the are still processors.
Second; each ARM processor is extremely small relative to any desktop processor. Some ARM processors have less than 40,000 transistors compared to millions or possibly billions in a desk top processor. So a quad core chip where one or more cores is applied to applications processing is a snap with ARM.
This highlights an important issues that many might not be aware of, not all the cores in these systems will need or have to run the same OS. One or more could be running a realtime OS for baseband processing for example. A desktop system shouldn't be seen as an analog to how tasks on a cell phone would be handled.
As to desktop machines Apple could have quad cores in their desktops today if they wanted. These are a completely different class of processor though. It is a bit like comparing a 4 cylinder automobile with an airplane for transportation. A dual core ARM for example would implement that many more transistors than the original 68000 used in the first MACs. Granted the new Cortex processors are a bit bigger than ARMs current popular processors but the point remains.
The other thing to realize is that an ARM processor takes up little space on a die thus their popularity in SoC designs, ASICs and programmable logic. It isn't a question of how a high integration design will come to iPhone but when.
Dave
First; you need to realize that there are a number of ARM processors in the current iPhone already. Sure they are embedded in different support chips but the are still processors.
Second; each ARM processor is extremely small relative to any desktop processor. Some ARM processors have less than 40,000 transistors compared to millions or possibly billions in a desk top processor. So a quad core chip where one or more cores is applied to applications processing is a snap with ARM.
This highlights an important issues that many might not be aware of, not all the cores in these systems will need or have to run the same OS. One or more could be running a realtime OS for baseband processing for example. A desktop system shouldn't be seen as an analog to how tasks on a cell phone would be handled.
As to desktop machines Apple could have quad cores in their desktops today if they wanted. These are a completely different class of processor though. It is a bit like comparing a 4 cylinder automobile with an airplane for transportation. A dual core ARM for example would implement that many more transistors than the original 68000 used in the first MACs. Granted the new Cortex processors are a bit bigger than ARMs current popular processors but the point remains.
The other thing to realize is that an ARM processor takes up little space on a die thus their popularity in SoC designs, ASICs and programmable logic. It isn't a question of how a high integration design will come to iPhone but when.
Dave
You may not believe it, but multiple cores, used properly, will make the battery last longer.
Yeah, they absolutely should. With core disabling and clock throttling enabled, you should definitely see an improvement in battery usage. Here's hoping the innovations in the new 17 MBP trickle into the new iphone design as well.
alright! can't wait for the new iphone coming this summer. i hope these processors are ready in time
Now if only commodore can get on board, we can really open up this technology and bring it on home Obama was right, this is change I can believe in. With the new stimulus package and the multi-core technology, the level of jobs that this phone can complete just increased ten fold. And to think..all this came from a man named Steve Jobs.
Obama was right, this is change I can believe in. With the new stimulus package and the multi-core technology, the level of jobs that this phone can complete just increased ten fold. And to think..all this came from a man named Steve Jobs. That's what Mi¢ro$oft will be doing with WinMo or whatever new "iPhone killer" they're planning to crap out.One shouldn't assume that an SMP based ARM chip will be used like a desktop.
Second; you can't assume that the SMP hardware would be used like it is on a desktop. It would be possible and even likely that one or more cores would be running an embedded reatime OS to handle baseband processing and such. Qualcomm even had a description of such an arraingement on their web site. That is not to say Apple will do thing that way just that it is possible.
Notably a high performance SMP core could potentially reduce the number of processors in the current iPhone. There is a lot of hedging here with words like could and might but that simply acknowledges that Apple has all sorts of paths it could follow here. The only thing that really needs to remain the same on the next iPhone is the user API. The trend in the industry though is to embed a lot of intelligence into pheripherial devices these days, even the lowly came chip these days has built in processing capability.
The biggest fear I have is that Apple moves a lot of external functionality on to the system processor and doesn't increase the RAM allotment in a significant way. As much as it needs a faster CPU iPhone also needs more RAM.
Right now many of us consider the iPhone's performance as bareable. Just recieving an E-Mail while in Safari can have a big impact on the user interface. Only part of this is due to the lack of RAM. Which brings up another point, a custom chip can provide for larger cache and possibly on chip RAM.
Each time more performance is made available on a given device the broader the software portfolio becomes. A faster more capable iPhone simply means that Apple could realize a device that many of us dream about.
Dave
A higher integration device would save you power by default. That is one of the big advantages to having everything on one die as it eliminates a lot of current lost to line drivers.
Second; you can't assume that the SMP hardware would be used like it is on a desktop. It would be possible and even likely that one or more cores would be running an embedded reatime OS to handle baseband processing and such. Qualcomm even had a description of such an arraingement on their web site. That is not to say Apple will do thing that way just that it is possible.
Notably a high performance SMP core could potentially reduce the number of processors in the current iPhone. There is a lot of hedging here with words like could and might but that simply acknowledges that Apple has all sorts of paths it could follow here. The only thing that really needs to remain the same on the next iPhone is the user API. The trend in the industry though is to embed a lot of intelligence into pheripherial devices these days, even the lowly came chip these days has built in processing capability.
The biggest fear I have is that Apple moves a lot of external functionality on to the system processor and doesn't increase the RAM allotment in a significant way. As much as it needs a faster CPU iPhone also needs more RAM.
Well for the simple minded apps the iPhone is OK today. The problem is it is a good platform for running more advanced apps that could use the performance. Even the packaged apps like Safari and Mail could use a bit more horse power.
Right now many of us consider the iPhone's performance as bareable. Just recieving an E-Mail while in Safari can have a big impact on the user interface. Only part of this is due to the lack of RAM. Which brings up another point, a custom chip can provide for larger cache and possibly on chip RAM.
Well if limited functionality Apps is all that you run then that is your problem. Personally I want to see the functionality of the included apps increase and to do so requires more processor power. Power that is delivered by a faster CPU and more RAM. Apple may not like this but even Safari on iPhone has limitations that need to be overcomed that require more performance to implement.
Each time more performance is made available on a given device the broader the software portfolio becomes. A faster more capable iPhone simply means that Apple could realize a device that many of us dream about.
Dave
Dave,
I fully get everything you are saying, but I think you were reading into my comment way to much. I was being cynical. I would love to have mutli-core technology on the iphone. I was griping about the battery, but from the posts it looks like this would help to increase the battery life which is cool. Hopefully with this ...apple will consider allowing apps with more access (thereby icreasing functionality) to the iphone since now it should have the capability to handle more resource intensive tasks.
And we were wonderin if the mini is dead?
The next iphone/ipod is the next mini w/dock containing video card & ports.
The next iphone/ipod is the next mini w/dock containing video card & ports.
This NVIDIA Tegra looks nice.
http://www.9to5mac.com/nvidia-tegra-apple
And I totally agree with 'wizard', the iPhone needs more RAM!!!
http://www.9to5mac.com/nvidia-tegra-apple
And I totally agree with 'wizard', the iPhone needs more RAM!!!
Not going to happen. Why go through the trouble of licensing ARM and Img Tech cores and buying PA semi if they don't intend to fully utilize them?This NVIDIA Tegra looks nice.
http://www.9to5mac.com/nvidia-tegra-apple
And I totally agree with 'wizard', the iPhone needs more RAM!!!
Looks very interesting.
Although I have no interest whatsoever in an iPhone (A $2000+ contract!?!), most iPhone features leak over to the iPod Touch, and that's important to me, since I have plenty of interest in getting the next generation.
Just wondering: will this mean there might be multiple apps running at once in the next generation?
Although I have no interest whatsoever in an iPhone (A $2000+ contract!?!), most iPhone features leak over to the iPod Touch, and that's important to me, since I have plenty of interest in getting the next generation.
Just wondering: will this mean there might be multiple apps running at once in the next generation?
Like some others, I too doubt there is a significant need for a quad core ARM as the main system processor unless some of the functionality of the other custom ARMs are brought into the main OS and done by the main CPU. I think Apple wouldn't want to do that though since it'll probably make the iPhone more like a regular computer and easier to crack. For certain functions, it makes sense to isolate them to their own firmware and run them on custom, separate, low-power processors.
Personally, I think the best way to balance performance and power consumption would be to just use a dual-core ARM9 as the main processor and a new PowerVR SGX with OpenCL acceleration rather than a quad core CPU. Applications that would see benefits on quad core are mainly media apps that would see better acceleration on GPGPU anyways, and for applications that don't benefit from quad cores, which are most of them, a dual core will be more power and space efficient.
Personally, I think the best way to balance performance and power consumption would be to just use a dual-core ARM9 as the main processor and a new PowerVR SGX with OpenCL acceleration rather than a quad core CPU. Applications that would see benefits on quad core are mainly media apps that would see better acceleration on GPGPU anyways, and for applications that don't benefit from quad cores, which are most of them, a dual core will be more power and space efficient.