Thanks for posting this, which includes a calculation I had been wondering about: the 40% increase Apple touted for the A15 mini over the old A12 mini. As I suspected from the vague way they talked about the A15, it seems the A15 is going to have little if any speed boost over the A14.That’s not really surprising. I was more surprised that Apple was comparing the A15 to the competition instead of the A14 like they normally do.
![]()
Has Apple hit a wall with the A15 processor?
Apple touted the A15's performance in vague terms. That could be a sign that Apple made a crucial decision about the A15's performance and battery life.www.macworld.com
The A15 is an enhanced 5nm process over the A14 which allows for greater transistor density. Transistor density is usually a precursor to performance. The A14 has 11 billion transistors versus the A15 at 15 billion transistors, so some of that should translate to performance improvement. For comparison, the A13 was a 7nm chip like the A12 but still gained a 20% performance boost.Same 5 nm process this year as last. A15 similar performance to A14. This is not a coincidence. "Designing" is not as important as the manufacturing process.
Apple Silicon "magic" comes from TSMC, not Apple's chip team.
The A15 is an enhanced 5nm process over the A14 which allows for greater transistor density. Transistor density is usually a precursor to performance. The A14 has 11 billion transistors versus the A15 at 15 billion transistors, so some of that should translate to performance improvement. For comparison, the A13 was a 7nm chip like the A12 but still gained a 20% performance boost.
According to Apple's website, ProRes is available to all Pro models - it's just that the 128 GB versions can only do 1080p30fps, while the rest can do 4k30fps.According to Mashable, Recording in Apple ProRes requires at least 256 GB of storage.
The whining never ceases.Oh no this isn't good. Queue the whining in 3-2-1...
I think they only do this for spec sheet boasting, not because the phones actually need it. It's iPhones that slow down over time with updates, not Android.
Getting to the point where upgraded processing power is not noticeable or utilized with everyday/average type usage.Thanks for posting this, which includes a calculation I had been wondering about: the 40% increase Apple touted for the A15 mini over the old A12 mini. As I suspected from the vague way they talked about the A15, it seems the A15 is going to have little if any speed boost over the A14.
which, honestly, is fine. I have an A12 device (iPad Air 3), A13 device (iPhone 11, for work), and A14 device (iPhone 12 mini, personal). I don’t know about FPS gaming or whatever, but in everyday use, I cannot distinguish among the speed of the three chips.
That's why for iPhone with 2 GB or less or RAM, I would personally recommend a Restore (e.g., from scratch) update to the latest iOS version.
It's not that. It's because they're using the same node process as the A14. Manufacturing process determines performance, not "design". Apple can't squeeze out more performance if the manufacturing process doesn't allow it.Getting to the point where upgraded processing power is not noticeable or utilized with everyday/average type usage.
3 GB for 9th Gen iPad and 4 GB for the new Mini.Do we know about the RAM in the new iPads?
Is it even?Not a big surprise, is it? An S year in all but the name.
First time they've ever done that, which means we're actually hitting a ceiling on Y-o-Y performance. That's not good.I did think it was odd for them not to compare it to last years A14. Will be interested to see what the bench marks show when it's released.
It’s really quite a shame that the “S” model hasn’t gotten such a bad reputation. Ironically, the iPhone 3GS was the most substantial improvement in the performance of iPhones ever. Up to 100% faster, and this at a time when loading a web page could easily take 60 seconds. Cutting that by 30 s made such a difference. Nowadays you’ll rarely even notice an improvement.Not a big surprise, is it? An S year in all but the name.
First time they've ever done that, which means we're actually hitting a ceiling on Y-o-Y performance. That's not good.
Not a big surprise, is it? An S year in all but the name.
It’s really quite a shame that the “S” model hasn’t gotten such a bad reputation. Ironically, the iPhone 3GS was the most substantial improvement in the performance of iPhones ever. Up to 100% faster, and this at a time when loading a web page could easily take 60 seconds. Cutting that by 30 s made such a difference. Nowadays you’ll rarely even notice an improvement.
Incremental release year in general, no major improvements worth upgrading to from 12 Pro
I’m the first to complain about Apple’s proposed spyware, but I’ve never ran into any problem with my 12 Pro Max’s 6GB RAM. 🤷♂️
Cinematic video mode is cool, too bad its gimped and only does 1080 30p. Useless for anything serious.As said by me and many others, there's really nothing special from the event, except maybe Prp-motion, that's it.
Seems like longer battery life, three new camera lenses, larger sensor, a 120Hz display, ProRes option, updated chip, and max capacity of 1TB makes it arguably a significant update. I'll be jumping from an 11Pro, so I guess it's bigger for me.Well S years are usually the time Apple has more of a focus on internal specs and not design change. So could be considered a disappointment for some. I’d care more about RAM in an iPad though.
Will be interesting to see how well it sells. Just like a car, if Apple doesn’t put a new fender on the design no one seems to be as interested.
Cinematic video mode is cool, too bad its gimped and only does 1080 30p. Useless for anything serious.
Knowing Apple what do you thinkYeah, same amount of RAM, OK, but... is it faster DDR5 RAM or is it still DDR4X memory?
Incremental release year in general, no major improvements worth upgrading to from 12 Pro