mazz0
macrumors 68040
I'm looking forward to Windows X in general (have to use Windows at work). Exposé and proper virtual desktops, finally!
iPad Air 2 Benchmark Points to A8X Chip With Triple-Core 1.5 GHz CPU, 2 GB RAM
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm looking forward to Windows X in general (have to use Windows at work). Exposé and proper virtual desktops, finally!
nick42983
macrumors 6502a
I already have that in mind. You do know that you cannot virtualize OS built for a completely different architecture, right?
Apple can only emulate x86 software on top of ARM and ARM is a simpler architecture compared to x86, which means you need to put in a LOT of more CPU in order to run it at the same speed as the current x86 chip. That will kill all the power benefits of even using ARM in the first place.
If it was possible to virtualize Windows this well, Microsoft could've done this on WindowsRT but they didn't.
Parallels and VMware don't have much experience in emulating an OS on top of a completely different CPU arch. Please show me links to their ARM-virtualization of x86 products, which technically isn't possible. Emulation probably but not virtualization.
Passing virtualized x86 instructions onto x86 hardware while still hard, is much easier than to translate the same call on top of ARM chips that doesn't work the same way. The translation itself would drastically be slow, especially with hardware-accelerated instruction sets of x86 that doesn't exist on ARM.
Last edited:
MyopicPaideia
macrumors 68020
I fully understand the concepts and challenges, but both QEMU and Eltechs' VM solution ExaGear Desktop for running x86 guests on ARM hosts have really come a long way already. It is definitely not far off, and I'm willing to bet Apple has their own running in a test lab somewhere that is better than both of these.
Apple is clearly doing more than testing the waters here with this. OS X 10.9 Mavericks has ARM code embedded in it, and can actually be installed on an iPad Air with no hacks or jailbreaking involved using the official Mavericks Installer from Apple. Source Presumably 10.10 Yosemite also has an ARM version embedded in it.
Last edited:
Burger Thing
macrumors 65816
Impressive specs. But I will give the iPA2 a miss. For what I do with the iPad, browsing, email, videos, etc, my Air serves me well. For any serious work I found iOS way too limiting and the at times fiddley touchscreen input way too cumbersome. Without a massive software upgrade and rework of iOS I don't really see a point of the hardware's horsepower. Your mileage may vary of course.
you would have to extrapolate from the ipad air.
is the ipad air 2 twice as fast as the ipad air? let's say it is, but it'll still lose to broadwell and haswell.
MyopicPaideia
macrumors 68020
Yup, but Haswell is only 1 year old, and Broadwell is starting to trickle out. This is faster than or in par with Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge.
Then imagine a desktop version of the A8X.
chrmjenkins
macrumors 603
The big story is that a 1.5 GHz Cyclone+ core is just as fast as a 2.2 GHz K1 core with a wider execution path. A8X has process advantage but not that doesn't come into factor here.
Phillyfinest89
macrumors regular
Hmm.. this is now tempting me to retire the old iPad 2 and get and Air 2
That my friend is what you call a great upgrade lol.
stylinexpat
macrumors 68020
Hopefully now every time one switchs between Safari tabs it will not have to reload again.
...and the battery life?
True, no matter how fast you make these devices, it may be a performance gain from the last, but if content/apps/pro apps are limiting factor, u can do whatever u like, users will still use a desktop.
I believe this will never change. We won't even get to a point (no one needs a desktop since we can do all professional stuff on iOS with exact features intact.)
True, no matter how fast you make these devices, it may be a performance gain from the last, but if content/apps/pro apps are limiting factor, u can do whatever u like, users will still use a desktop.
I believe this will never change. We won't even get to a point (no one needs a desktop since we can do all professional stuff on iOS with exact features intact.)
You do know that there are 2 K1 processors out there right?
Nvidia Shield Tablet K1 (32-bit) (2.2 GHz) (4-Cores)
Nexus 9 K1 (64-bit) (2.5 GHz) ( 2-Cores)
I'm all for iPad being king, but at least compare it to the right competitor.
Also, the score that is being shown by Apple insider is not true at all (For the Nexus 9 that is).
It has a higher single core score than the A8X.
http://gizmodo.com/nexus-9-benchmarked-as-powerful-as-a-2012-mac-pro-1647454837
Tegra K1 64 bit Edition (Dual-Core)
Single Core: 1903
Multi Core: 3166
EDIT: While running in 32-bit mode.
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/1014854
chrmjenkins
macrumors 603
Yup, I can read. Thanks for checking.
2.5 GHz is not the nominal frequency in the Nexus 9, as reflected in the quoted chart. As Anandtech and others have commented, probably a conscious change for performance/heat/battery life balance. Regardless, a frequency change doesn't change the IPC of the core, which was the point of my comment.
I'm eager to see their result in 64-bit mode.
Last edited:
rGiskard
macrumors 68000
Can't wait to see x-rays of this A8X. Maybe quad core with one core disabled? Probably a hexa core PowerVR. Impressive!
Now it makes sense why the A8 performance increase was meh but it's efficiency increase was crazy. Apple's true focus was an efficient quad core design.
So next year once yields are improved we can expect a quad core maxiPad and perhaps an Air 3.
----------
Ummm, 2GB RAM is very little memory.
----------
2GB doesn't give you space for many more tabs in memory.
The real issue is Safari's caching behavior. That is probably due to two things: first is the amount of NAND in low end models, second is NAND endurance which is a result of Apple going cheap on NAND. All tablet makers go cheap on NAND, otherwise tablets would be far more expensive.
Now it makes sense why the A8 performance increase was meh but it's efficiency increase was crazy. Apple's true focus was an efficient quad core design.
So next year once yields are improved we can expect a quad core maxiPad and perhaps an Air 3.
----------
2gb of RAM. FINALLY we can stop all of the complaining about memory!
Ummm, 2GB RAM is very little memory.
----------
2GB doesn't give you space for many more tabs in memory.
The real issue is Safari's caching behavior. That is probably due to two things: first is the amount of NAND in low end models, second is NAND endurance which is a result of Apple going cheap on NAND. All tablet makers go cheap on NAND, otherwise tablets would be far more expensive.
Last edited:
Trius
macrumors 6502a
LOL at these forums. Yes, if you are running Windows 7, 2gb of RAM is very little memory. Yes, if you are running OSX, 2gb of RAM is very little memory. It's all relative people. My current iDevices handle all of my tasks with 1gb of RAM with no problems. If you are so obsessed with specs, you are on the wrong platform.
rGiskard
macrumors 68000
Maybe you don't do much with your devices.
Anyways it must be nice not to be obsessed with specs. I guess you can just stick with the original iPad and be content, yes? After all, the later ones only added "specs".
UnfetteredMind
macrumors 6502
I think you missed the point of my post. It was in response to someone asking what the new complaints would be all about now that the iPad Air 2 actually has 2GB of RAM.
Thanks. Any issues it has is software related, not hardware. For what I use it for, it's a great tablet.
rotation
macrumors member
Apple needs to drop x86. Intel can't even bring a 20% increase in IPC over 2 years, and now they can't manufacture chips on 14nm.
If intel has become so lazy and uninspired with it's x86 dominance then Apple needs to leave. Intel will happily suck down 50% margins on their processors and develop nothing new.
Now, with Cyclone, Apple has surpassed intels best offerings in IPC and power consumption. Enough said, x86 was better than PowerPC but right now x86 is holding Apple back just like IBM did with PowerPC.
----------
Intel is using power manipulation to switch power states and frequencies in milliseconds, which lets them briefly run that processor at 12W TDP.
They are winning benchmarks with this tech, but in reality they can't compete on IPC and the benchmarks don't reflect the horrible throttling that Core M suffers from. Core M is garbage.
Google Yoga 3 pro. It's hilarious that you post Lama Mountain, not even a real product.
If intel has become so lazy and uninspired with it's x86 dominance then Apple needs to leave. Intel will happily suck down 50% margins on their processors and develop nothing new.
Now, with Cyclone, Apple has surpassed intels best offerings in IPC and power consumption. Enough said, x86 was better than PowerPC but right now x86 is holding Apple back just like IBM did with PowerPC.
----------
Intel is using power manipulation to switch power states and frequencies in milliseconds, which lets them briefly run that processor at 12W TDP.
They are winning benchmarks with this tech, but in reality they can't compete on IPC and the benchmarks don't reflect the horrible throttling that Core M suffers from. Core M is garbage.
Google Yoga 3 pro. It's hilarious that you post Lama Mountain, not even a real product.
Brian Buttplug
macrumors member
Hi Henry,
Have you heard me complain about anything?
And now it IS confirmed it has 2 GB of RAM.
Cheers,
-Brian
Trius
macrumors 6502a
I do plenty.
Right now, on my iPad mini, I'm running VPN, remote desktop, Safari, Spotify, Wifi is on, Cellular is on, Siri is on... etc. All on a paltry 1gb of RAM, Blasphemous, right?!
If the original iPad ran iOS 8 as intended, sure. Why wouldn't I be content with it? New features and software updates require more resources from the hardware. When new software is released, it is custom tailored to the specific hardware it is running on. These are sealed devices (dare I say disposable..?) that are constantly refreshed. I am confident that the new iPhone next year will run as well or better than the one I have now.
The only time one needs to obsess over 'specs' is when they are in an environment with a heavily fragmented hardware selection.. (Windows, Android, Linux etc..) Because those are your major focus points. Get the best hardware available so it runs the software the best.
I don't ignore the specs, but I'm not oblivious to the notion that Apple's engineers are able to optimize the OS to run as intended on the hardware provided.
rGiskard
macrumors 68000
If you can do all that with 1GB RAM, imagine what you'll be able to do with 2GB RAM. At the very least you'll have a smoother experience using iOS with more RAM.
I personally can't wait for more efficient RAM so we can rock 8GB RAM on our iPads. However, given the choice, I'd opt for faster, higher-endurance NAND in greater quantities so apps can more aggresively cache data (looking at you, Safari). I'd even pay a bit more for such NAND.
With NAND amounts of like 64, 128, 256 GB, and at least 5000 P/E cycle endurance (desktop spec NAND), Safari could handle a a few dozen tabs and simply cache them locally.
Hi Henry,
Have you heard me complain about anything?
And now it IS confirmed it has 2 GB of RAM.
Cheers,
-Brian
Lol. I'm very happy to see Apple doing this.