Since Apple has called their X chips by name I can't see why they wouldn't call the A7 an A7X if it really were one. Interesting point about the spec increase.
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.
All iPads iPad A7 Really A7X in Disguise?
- Thread starter macduke
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Are you going to get it if it only has 1GB of ram? I'm coming from an iPad 2 so it would be a good upgrade, but I'm also fully aware that this would be the third generation in a row with 1GB and I'm also fully aware of how "great" my iPad 2 runs on iOS 7 with only 512MB of ram. iOS 8 will probably be fine but what about iOS 9? It will probably run but will it lag like the iPad 2? I don't really like buying new iPads so often. I specifically held out last autumn when the 4 came out because of the 1GB of ram and knew I could get more life out of it if I waited another yearthat and my iPad 2 seemed to be running ok. Now my iPad 2 is not running ok so I need a new iPad!
I would think the a7 in the new pads would be a faster chip then the 5s dues to the fact it's pushing 4x as many pixels.
Actually, the A7 in the iPhone 5S is powerful enough to push 4x as many pixels as it is similar in graphics spec to the A6X in the iPad 4. So it's capable. What we're saying is that Apple is advertising the iPad Air as being 2x as fast as the A6X in the previous model. That's kind of crazy to think about and potentially opens other doors for chipset differences such as more RAM.
Hope I'm explaining all of this clear enough!
I am coming from an iPod Touch 4G with 256Mb of RAM so it would still be a great upgrade. It is just I don't want my first iPad to be discontinued so early.
I just done an Apple Chat and asked them about the RAM. They say that they do not know/do not have access to that information.
Actually, the A7 in the iPhone 5S is powerful enough to push 4x as many pixels as it is similar in graphics spec to the A6X in the iPad 4. So it's capable. What we're saying is that Apple is advertising the iPad Air as being 2x as fast as the A6X in the previous model. That's kind of crazy to think about and potentially opens other doors for chipset differences such as more RAM.
Hope I'm explaining all of this clear enough!
Here is the image (sorry, time taken to create twitter account).
https://twitter.com/MartinAppleGuy/status/393085366611091458/photo/1
It won't be discontinued for a year at least. Just like the iPad 4. But, even if it's discontinued it will continue to get iOS updates for a few more years.
Actually, the A7 in the iPhone 5S is powerful enough to push 4x as many pixels as it is similar in graphics spec to the A6X in the iPad 4. So it's capable. What we're saying is that Apple is advertising the iPad Air as being 2x as fast as the A6X in the previous model. That's kind of crazy to think about and potentially opens other doors for chipset differences such as more RAM.
Hope I'm explaining all of this clear enough!
Your thought process makes sense.
Since Apple is (often correctly) accused of not being a sticker about specifications, it is quite possible they have a higher performance version of the A7 specifically for the iPad.
The only other option would be, that the chip inside the iPhone 5S is slightly detuned (not enough to call it a celeron
) in the phone, as compared to the iPad. I am doubting the later, as chipworks have already dissected the current unit and didn't mention anything about it being intentionally crippled.
Just thought I'd follow up in my post with something I posted elsewhere:
The iPad A4 had 256MB, the iPod Touch A4 had 256MB, the Apple TV A4 had 256MB. But the iPhone 4 A4 had 512MB. This was also when iPads released about 6 months before iPhones, but it goes to show that things don't always line up evenly.
Now consider this: The iPad 2 A5 was claimed to be 9x faster than the A4 chip in the original iPad:
But the iPhone A5 was only 7x faster:
So same, "non-X" A5 chip, but clearly had different specs.
Taking it one step further, the A6 and A6X both had the same amount of ram: 1GB. But the A5 had 512MB and the A5X had 1GB. There isn't a clear pattern that has been established. Apple does whatever they want.
The fact remains that Apple claims 2X GPU performance in the iPad A7 over the A6X in the previous generation. The A7 in the iPhone 5S has never benched anywhere near thatand Apple's claims are usually pretty accurate, if not conservative.
The iPad A4 had 256MB, the iPod Touch A4 had 256MB, the Apple TV A4 had 256MB. But the iPhone 4 A4 had 512MB. This was also when iPads released about 6 months before iPhones, but it goes to show that things don't always line up evenly.
Now consider this: The iPad 2 A5 was claimed to be 9x faster than the A4 chip in the original iPad:
But the iPhone A5 was only 7x faster:
So same, "non-X" A5 chip, but clearly had different specs.
Taking it one step further, the A6 and A6X both had the same amount of ram: 1GB. But the A5 had 512MB and the A5X had 1GB. There isn't a clear pattern that has been established. Apple does whatever they want.
The fact remains that Apple claims 2X GPU performance in the iPad A7 over the A6X in the previous generation. The A7 in the iPhone 5S has never benched anywhere near thatand Apple's claims are usually pretty accurate, if not conservative.
Some very good observations and digging there. Now I'm really hoping we'll get a teardown before Nov 1st.
Doing a quick calculation
If the Retina Mini is a G6430 at 400MHz it would have around 154 GFlops
If the Retina Mini is a G6630 at 300MHz it would have around 173 GFlops
If the Retina Mini is a G6630 at 250MHz it would have around 144 GFlops
If the Air was G6630 at 400MHz it would have around 230 GFlops.
If the Air was G6630 at 350MHz it would have around 202 GFlops.
So perhaps the Mini is a G6630 clocked at 250 or 300Mhz and the Air is clocked at 350 or 400Mhz. The mini could also be a 6430 clocked at 400Mhz.
Looking at this graphic from imagination tech the developer of the PowerVR GPU the 6 series has a theoretical maximum clock speed of around 600MHz.
If the Retina Mini is a G6430 at 400MHz it would have around 154 GFlops
If the Retina Mini is a G6630 at 300MHz it would have around 173 GFlops
If the Retina Mini is a G6630 at 250MHz it would have around 144 GFlops
If the Air was G6630 at 400MHz it would have around 230 GFlops.
If the Air was G6630 at 350MHz it would have around 202 GFlops.
So perhaps the Mini is a G6630 clocked at 250 or 300Mhz and the Air is clocked at 350 or 400Mhz. The mini could also be a 6430 clocked at 400Mhz.
Looking at this graphic from imagination tech the developer of the PowerVR GPU the 6 series has a theoretical maximum clock speed of around 600MHz.
Last edited:
Yes; you are very correct. I believe the iPad Air will be the G6630 GPU most likely clocked at 350Ghz. That was with my math too.
CPE wise:
The A7 in the 5S was 2X faster that the A6 SoC
The A7 in the Air is 2X faster that the A6X SoC
The A6X was 100Mhz faster than the A6 and the variable has increase by 2 so the A7 in the iPad Air should be clocked at 1.5Ghz (200Mhz increase).
So we are looking at an A7X in all but name.
So my presumptions are:
1.5Ghz A7 SoC
G6630 GPU running at 350Mhz
2Gb of DDR3 RAM
You are wrong though.
It is S5L8960x aka A7 for them all, be it iPhone 5s, iPad Mini with Retina or the iPad Air.
The iPhone 5s were twice as fast as the iPhone 5 at the same clock speed, so the iPad Air will probably be clocked at exactly the same as the 4th generation iPad (1.40 Ghz) to be twice as fast as its predecessor.
Looking through the explanations given here, it's logical to think that the A7 in 2013 iPads are different than those in iPhone 5S.
But if it's really different, why wouldn't Apple advertise iPad's A7 as A7X? Marketing is Apple's forte so not advertising such higher clocked chip would be a really bad move.
But if it's really different, why wouldn't Apple advertise iPad's A7 as A7X? Marketing is Apple's forte so not advertising such higher clocked chip would be a really bad move.
Pixels are bigger, means lets more light through, means less powerful backlight needed.
So the Air is probably in the neighborhood of the PS3, in terms of Gflops. That's impressive.
No one knows if it's a physical difference or just a difference in clock speed. I am also wondering if Apple wants to move away from talking too much about the specs.
The GPU of a PS3 is 176Gflops. So quite a bit over. A PS Vita is only 7Gflops. So the G6630 running at 350Mhz, which I think is most likely, (which is 202GFlops), then it is more like a PS3 and 3 PS Vita's
----------
Wrong. I won't try explaining though as you never understood my first post. And the A7 is different.
----------
Can we just wait for teardowns in a week! Please
Wrong. I won't try explaining though as you never understood my first post. And the A7 is different.
Can we just wait for teardowns in a week! Please
It surely doesn't hold you back. The iPad Air has references for the S5L8960X, MDM9615 and WTR1605L, according to Brian Klug from AnandTech fame.
the x always denoted quad core GPU, isn't the a7 already quad core gpu? maybe thats why there not calling the iPad chip A7X.
That's true. But still, giving explanation (or hint if they don't want to spend time on technical details) on these iPad's A7 being different or better than iPhone's would give them some marketing advantage.
The reason for the 9X and 7X difference is one was clocked at 250mhz and the other at 200mhz.
----------
The A7 only has 1 core with 4 Clusters on that 1 core.
since the display is so high res it would make since to allocate more ram, especially since GPU and CPU share RAM.