The SGX543MP can scale up to 16 cores. The NGP (PSP2) features the same chip in a 4-core version (SGX543MP4).
Because this is a tile-based renderer it scales per core.
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.
iPad2 to have A4 processor?
- Thread starter WLS
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The SGX543MP can scale up to 16 cores. The NGP (PSP2) features the same chip in a 4-core version (SGX543MP4).
Because this is a tile-based renderer it scales per core.
Agreed. iOS seems to make up for a lot of the Apple's hardware "shortcomings" on the mobile platforms. What is the point of having bleeding edge hardware if it can't even play pong for more then 3 mintues before needing to be recharged?
Never thought about the Nano. Why throw expensive multi-core processors into an affordable touchscreen? That would be counterproductive.
The ones who don't care a jot about specs, namely the average Joe consumer, the type of which, probably outnumbers the likes of you and me by a factor of 100/1.
Yes, that'd suck, because I want both a killer user experience and killer specs too, but Apple knows how to drip-feed us the spec upgrades.
I have an ipad right beside me and it IS a bit slow. A lot of things like viewing PDFs, webpages, even menus, are a tad slow and jerky. Infinity blade taxes this thing 100%, and even swinging the camera around when stationary is laggy and stutters. PDF viewing is full of lag and checkering. I think a lot more ram and a faster cpu (dual core preferably) would make the exact same experience much more seamless and enjoyable, and you can't argue with that. This thing was designed and released as a very basic, single tasking, app launching, oversized iPod touch. Developers are taking it and slowly making it into something more, and the iPad is really showing it's age early (largely due to the measly 256 megs of ram).
People who keep saying 'good enough as it is' are probably apple shareholders who WANT apple to screw over consumers, increase margins, and make them a few more bucks. Your opinions on a consumer forum should be void, and I consider them as such. Why wouldn't people want the latest technology and the fastest, most seamless experience possible? Just because you are so simple minded as to not see the possible benefit of a dual core processor and lots more ram, why should everyone else (and developers most importantly) be hindered by that sort of thinking?
Let me just say this... If apple uses a single core A8, then you can effectively think of the iPad as the "iPad 0.5". A marketing and technology beta test, with the iPad 1 coming out soon (what most people would call the 'iPad 2'). Then, hopefully in September if the rumours are correct (and if apple does release a pitiful 'iPad 2' with a single core A8 CPU and a low resolution camera) there will be an 'iPad 3' (effectively the iPad 2, as i'm calling it) with beefy specs and a higher resolution display.
Most of apples customers are technologically stupid, and buy products because they are very pretty, fashionable, stable, and easy to use (fair reasons for buying the products). This doesn't mean apple can't actually try and do some cutting edge stuff.
People who keep saying 'good enough as it is' are probably apple shareholders who WANT apple to screw over consumers, increase margins, and make them a few more bucks. Your opinions on a consumer forum should be void, and I consider them as such. Why wouldn't people want the latest technology and the fastest, most seamless experience possible? Just because you are so simple minded as to not see the possible benefit of a dual core processor and lots more ram, why should everyone else (and developers most importantly) be hindered by that sort of thinking?
Let me just say this... If apple uses a single core A8, then you can effectively think of the iPad as the "iPad 0.5". A marketing and technology beta test, with the iPad 1 coming out soon (what most people would call the 'iPad 2'). Then, hopefully in September if the rumours are correct (and if apple does release a pitiful 'iPad 2' with a single core A8 CPU and a low resolution camera) there will be an 'iPad 3' (effectively the iPad 2, as i'm calling it) with beefy specs and a higher resolution display.
Most of apples customers are technologically stupid, and buy products because they are very pretty, fashionable, stable, and easy to use (fair reasons for buying the products). This doesn't mean apple can't actually try and do some cutting edge stuff.
I decided I wanted an iPad about a month ago, and have been anxiously awaiting the refresh -- so much so that I have been checking the rumors pretty much every day. You could say I was excited.
Now, not so much. A single core A4 combined with the possibility of Netflix, Amazon, Pandora etc leaving the App store because of the pricing restrictions is more than enough for me to get a Honeycomb tablet. Don't get me wrong -- I would prefer an iPad 2 if it has reasonable specs. But an outdated processor is not going to cut it.
And for those who say the Xoom can't touch the iPad: the price is $600 for the 32 gb wifi only dual core, dual camera (8 megapixel) 1gig RAM version with USB ports. If Apple releases a single core A4 iPad 2 with 512 megs of mem and a 1 megapixel camera, they'd better chop the 16 gb wifi only price to $300 or so. And if their new pricing causes Netflix etc to remove their apps? Game over.
Now, not so much. A single core A4 combined with the possibility of Netflix, Amazon, Pandora etc leaving the App store because of the pricing restrictions is more than enough for me to get a Honeycomb tablet. Don't get me wrong -- I would prefer an iPad 2 if it has reasonable specs. But an outdated processor is not going to cut it.
And for those who say the Xoom can't touch the iPad: the price is $600 for the 32 gb wifi only dual core, dual camera (8 megapixel) 1gig RAM version with USB ports. If Apple releases a single core A4 iPad 2 with 512 megs of mem and a 1 megapixel camera, they'd better chop the 16 gb wifi only price to $300 or so. And if their new pricing causes Netflix etc to remove their apps? Game over.
Wait. YOU are an Apple customer. You own an iPad. Does that make you a technologically stupid person? Or... ?
I get kind of tired of hearing how iOS products are fashionable, pretty, blah blah. They want something that works, does what they want it to do, and is easy to use. I guess you probably don't have a TV or a gaming console or a toaster because those are just too easy and stable and fashionable.
Game over for you maybe. Still, it's clearly you just fishing for excuses to not get one and buy something else. If iPad had an A4 that was twice as powerful, or even just 50% more, you think that's out-dated? Grow up and just think about what really needs that power in a tablet device...nothing.
Did you read my post? I am dying for an iPad. I don't want an Android tab. But underspec'd with the possibility of losing streaming apps kills it.
I've used the iPad 1 plenty. What could benefit from more speed? PDFs. Web browsing (esp. javascript-heavy sites). Games. Plus, the current programs are written with the limitations in mind. But mostly my problem is that when they do introduce the dual core A5s, the programs written for it will kill the single core ones -- like trying to run iOS 4 on the iPhone 3g.
And you obviously have no idea how processors work. An A4 that is merely up-clocked 50% will require over 50% more power. There is no way they will do that.
You both need to read more rumor's
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=ipad+2+dual+gpu&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Should be enough rumors there for you, including links to threads here
Last edited:
If I understand correctly, Android is Java, iOS is Cocoa. Java is byte-coded object files, while Cocoa is Objective-C compiled native. Even with Jazelle, I have a hard time understanding how Android would not require a higher processor spec than iOS. In the end, the differentiator will not be the CPU but the GPU. When iPad really needs 32-valve DOHC, it will get it, right now, maybe not so much.
Android os itself is written in C it's a Linux kernel but the apps run in dalvik which allows them to be architecture agnostic. You can still program native apps with NDK but thats usually used for games.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
Which means Java. Obviously the underlying system is not going to be Java, that is quite simply not doable. But all the apps are Java, in a Dalvik-specific coding, which means they will require more CPU power than just native C or Objective-C. Which one is more stable/secure is a matter of debate. Presumably the Android Java APIs are sufficiently modified that they eliminate the original caveats (that warn that Java is not fault-tolerant and should not be used for mission-critical applications).
For me, I think the Apps need to do the talking.
If graphically more advanced apps run on one platform than the other, or apps run faster on one platform that the other, then that's the platform I would prefer.
Irrespective of what was used to initially write the code.
Apple has seem to do just fine with 'ancient technology' in their laptops and make a gadzillion dollars.
Features are not equal to benefits. What something does is not the same as what it specs say that it CAN do.