Next-Generation iPhone to Use A6 System-on-a-Chip?

[lukarak]

Considering you obviously have no idea what you are talking about, let's get you on the right track before this gets way over your head.

First off, iPads are tablets, which are bigger and pack more power in them than phones.

Second, whenever Apple has upgraded their CPU in their mobile devices (A4, A5, A5X, etc.) they have always added more and more power to them each time.

Third, ever since the iPad originally came out, they have continually put the new CPU in the iPad first, and then put the same one in the iPhone with less power.

So considering those three basic points that history has clearly shown us, please, try you very best to make an argument where Apple will put an A6 in the next iPhone.

It really doesn't matter what argument you have for it because it will be absolutely stupid and won't make sense.

A number increment on the chip means additional power. It always has. So give me one good solid argument why Apple is going to change that now. Oh right, there is no good argument.

If anything, Apple would put just another A5 in the next iPhone. They will not bring in a new CPU and have their CELL PHONE slower than their FULL SIZED TABLET. That would be absolutely ridiculous. And there were already reports of the A6 incorporating a quad-core CPU. And if those are true, there is no way Apple will put the A6 in a phone before a full sized tablet. That is why the A6 won't debut until next year.

So please, try and convince me that Apple will make their cell phone more powerful than their full sized tablet.

Apple will put the A5X in the new iPhone. History has shown us that clearly. As for the specifics of power consumption and how many GPU cores they have running, that is still up for debate. But if previous rumors of the A6 being quad core are true, there is no way it will be in the iPhone before the iPad.

Who said it was going to be an A6? I'm just saying that the fact that Apple previously put an underclocked iPad chip in the iPhone (twice now) doesn't mean squat now since their GPU demands are drastically different, which wasn't the case in the previous generations. And that is just fact, however you try to spin it.

Let me repeat that for you. History means squat with the devices now having drastically different resolutions.

They just won't put quad GPU inside, without upgrading the CPU. And if something is going to be 'quad core', it will be the CPU first, then the GPU in the iPhone. Most likely, it will be neither, and i certainly hope so since it would destroy thermals, 32 nm or not.

The next iPad will be getting the A15 based chip, and probably series 6 GPU, both of which are not available now so in that part you are right.

Also, when you say that

Apple will put the A5X in the new iPhone. History has shown us that clearly. As for the specifics of power consumption and how many GPU cores they have running, that is still up for debate.

you show us that clearly you don't know what you are talking about.

A5X means having a quad core graphics. That's their brand name for that chip. If they reduce it to two gpu cores, it's not an A5X anymore, but an A5.

The iPad 3 is also a good candidate for a refresh, with the 45 nm power monster that was forced on them in the spring and the need for a dock redesign. Maybe we'll see a die shrunk iPad 3 as well. It would not be a classic apple though, but who knows. 6 months is not all that bad.

 

[strausd]

Not buying that. They'll shrink the die on the A5 and give it a clock bump. No way they'll put a quad core GPU in the iPhone.

You obviously didn't read what I said. I specifically said the amount of cores is up for debate, meaning unknown.

Who said it was going to be an A6? I'm just saying that the fact that Apple previously put an underclocked iPad chip in the iPhone (twice now) doesn't mean squat now since their GPU demands are drastically different, which wasn't the case in the previous generations. And that is just fact, however you try to spin it.

Let me repeat that for you. History means squat with the devices now having drastically different resolutions.

Putting an underclocked chip in the iPhone more than once means that is the only thing we have to go on at the moment. The fact that past decisions mean nothing to you is kinda pathetic.

They just won't put quad GPU inside, without upgrading the CPU.

Holy crap, you are funny. You realize that is exactly what they did to the iPad, right? They didn't improve the CPU even one bit. The CPU is still the exact same as in the iPad 2. No changes there. Which just proves one of my earliest points that the only thing that really matters in tablets is the GPU. And that is because the majority of tasks you will be doing on a tablet is graphical. Tell me, how often are you rendering high res video on an iPad that needs major CPU power? Oh right, never.

And if something is going to be 'quad core', it will be the CPU first, then the GPU in the iPhone.

Wow. You really think that the CPU is more important than the GPU? Tell me, what is the average iPhone user more likely to do, render a video in the iMovie app or play a game?

You're wrong again. Surprise surprise.

Most likely, it will be neither, and i certainly hope so since it would destroy thermals, 32 nm or not.

In this statement, you are basically saying you want the iPhone to always stay dual core CPU and dual core GPU. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. So you don't want technology to ever advance? That is pretty sad.

And WHEN, not if, quad-core GPUs and CPUs are put in the iPhone, do you really think Apple would not try to decrease the heat produced by the CPU? You really don't understand anything, do you?

Apple has always worked to provide a good balance of performance and heat. What evidence do you have that says they will stop now? That is ridiculous. And just the fact that your statement above means you don't want technology to advance at all is pretty sad in my mind.

The next iPad will be getting the A15 based chip, and probably series 6 GPU, both of which are not available now so in that part you are right.

Is there any proof of what you are saying? Because the A15 is still a dual core CPU and I have already shown you some other rumors where people have been talking about quad-core CPUs in the next iPad.

A5X means having a quad core graphics. That's their brand name for that chip. If they reduce it to two gpu cores, it's not an A5X anymore, but an A5.

You clearly know nothing.

Apple just put that name to it because they have to have a name that is new or people will think it is too similar to the previous version.

 

[Geckotek]

You obviously didn't read what I said. I specifically said the amount of cores is up for debate, meaning unknown.

The amount of cores is NOT up for debate. A5x = 4 core GPU. Apple won't use a quad core GPU and disable cores when they have a working A5 that will cost less to produce and will already have the necessary config.

 

[strausd]

The amount of cores is NOT up for debate. A5x = 4 core GPU. Apple won't use a quad core GPU and disable cores when they have a working A5 that will cost less to produce and will already have the necessary config.

They would never do that. Too many consumers would go "Whaaaaaa? They didn't change the CPU?"

They are going to put a new name to the CPU. And there is nothing that means the A5X must have 4 cores.

 

[Menel]

Or a die shrunk 32nm A5 like the iPad2,4 has test run

*shrug* who knows, but from photos A6 sounds likely!

Would be really cheap if they renamed the die shrunk A5 from iPad2,4 to A6.

I think this is more and more likely. Lots of proof.

History. iPad gets SoC trialed first.
iPad got A4 first.
iPad 2 got A5 first.
iPad 3 got A5X first, but that's too much GPU for the small iPhone screen. But the iPad 2,4 did get 32nm A5 first.

History 2. iPhone and 3G. Same Samsung ARM architecture. 3GS and 4, same CortexA8 architecture. So I think it's reasonable to assume 4S and 5 will both be based on the same CortexA9 architecture. It takes a LOT of engineering time to develop and qualify a new micro architecture. mimicking the Intel Tick/Tock.

A6 has no real meaning. They could certainly apply it to a clock bumped, die shrunk A5 with more RAM.

Ideally they call it A5S... but that... just looks bad from a marketing perspective.

 

[Colpeas]

why would you buy a 4s last week in the first place? return it

a) My 3G broke last december and I was left without an iPhone ever since
b) This 4S was on sale for a good price
c) iPhone 5 (or whatever you call it) probably won't be available in czech republic until mid-october.
d) I bought it completely aware that iPhone 5 will be released soon. Didn't like the new design.
e) I ain't going to return it. iPhone 5 looks odd and 4S is powerful enough (I was using the old crappy 3G for Christ sakes!).

 

[x-evil-x]

a) My 3G broke last december and I was left without an iPhone ever since
b) This 4S was on sale for a good price
c) iPhone 5 (or whatever you call it) probably won't be available in czech republic until mid-october.
d) I bought it completely aware that iPhone 5 will be released soon. Didn't like the new design.
e) I ain't going to return it. iPhone 5 looks odd and 4S is powerful enough (I was using the old crappy 3G for Christ sakes!).

as long as your happy its all that matters...

 

[MythicFrost]

I think this is more and more likely. Lots of proof.

History. iPad gets SoC trialed first.
iPad got A4 first.
iPad 2 got A5 first.
iPad 3 got A5X first, but that's too much GPU for the small iPhone screen. But the iPad 2,4 did get 32nm A5 first.

History 2. iPhone and 3G. Same Samsung ARM architecture. 3GS and 4, same CortexA8 architecture. So I think it's reasonable to assume 4S and 5 will both be based on the same CortexA9 architecture. It takes a LOT of engineering time to develop and qualify a new micro architecture. mimicking the Intel Tick/Tock.

A6 has no real meaning. They could certainly apply it to a clock bumped, die shrunk A5 with more RAM.

Ideally they call it A5S... but that... just looks bad from a marketing perspective.

The A6 should be a quad-core Cortex A9 with SGX543MP2 (+20% clock speed) graphics and 1GB of RAM, on Samsung's 32nm HKMG process.

I read an article a while ago that said the A5X was plan B for the iPad 3, and that Apple originally intended to use a quad-core processor. Even though Apple missed it with the iPad 3, I think they will do it with the iPhone 5.

 

[yow.]

• A6 chip with dual Cortex A15 + dual-core rogue series 6 (G6200), both underclocked (iPhone 5)
  
• A6x chip, same, but quad-core rogue (G6400) (iPad 4)

This puts Apple in a different class from everything else, again, which is they should be. It changes the game. Yes, it breaks their rhythm, but this time it's different because the competition is catching up, and forcing their hand. And maybe, just maybe the A15 + Rogue are ready...

They definitely won't use quad-CPU because it doesn't translate into user experience. If they do use a quad-CPU, just for marketing, it means they have truly lost their way.

 

[gto55]

Preparing for the iPhone Next: Rumors Analyzed


http://www.anandtech.com/tag/iphone
While we typically don't comment on rumors we don't know to be true at AnandTech, we often get requests to help set rational expectations ahead of major iDevice launches. The shroud of secrecy around major Apple launches can pave the way for both sensible and unrealistic conclusions.
Given the growth of Apple's iPhone/iPad devices, it has become increasingly difficult for suppliers in the chain to remain mum about any changes. Similar to how we often get early access to CPUs, motherboards and other components out of Taiwan, it has become increasingly commonplace to see leaks of iDevice components out of the big ODMs in China.

Trends are pretty easy to spot in the table. With the exception of the first iPhone, the industrial design appears to be on a 2-year cadence. The CPU and GPU architectures are also on the same 2-year cadence. From a silicon standpoint even the cellular architecture is trending towards the same 2-year cadence, with a few notable exceptions (e.g. GSM/CDMA iPhone 4 divide).

Based on historical trends alone it's pretty easy to conclude that we'll see a 4th generation chassis, a pair of ARM Cortex A9s and a PowerVR SGX 543MP2 under the hood. Add the assumption of LTE (a reasonable one to make) and you have a pretty believable story. It turns out the currently available evidence helps corroborate this, but let's dig through what's out there to see how this all fits.
Chassis & Display

The chassis is largely a known quantity by this point. Enough examples out of China have surfaced to support the current working theory of a 4-inch diagonal (16:9) display in a slightly taller chassis with roughly the same width. Put simply, it's a new taller aspect ratio, which also has the consequence of including a larger 4-inch, 640 x 1136 display. The result is a change only in one dimension for developers to worry about.

​

The other big rumored change is a move from on-cell touch sensing (which places the drive and detect ITO layers above the LCD assembly) to an in-cell touch solution. In-cell being the operative word because the drive layers are integrated into the LCD gating (or use it natively), or on the color filter layer. There's some debate about what counts as on-cell and in-cell that isn't quite settled, but ultimately what it boils down to is a thinner display stack that will contribute significantly to the reduction in overall device thickness that is rumored for the upcoming iPhone.
While the industrial design remains quite similar at a high level, there do appear to be some major changes. Where the 4 and 4S designs used front and back glass with an external metal band for support, the leaked designs out of China feature a metal unibody construction with cutouts for RF windows at top and bottom. There's enough evidence of this from the CNC machine marks visible on examples, and moreover moving to a larger form factor requires a beefier chassis.

Black regions at top and bottom are likely RF window cutouts​

With top and bottom RF windows (which appear to be glass) there shouldn't be any implications on antenna performance for cellular. If you followed our coverage of the evolution of Apple's cellular antenna design from the iPhone 4 GSM, to 4 CDMA, to 4S, you'll notice that this is a clear next step, largely inheriting the top/bottom antenna split from the 4S which fully mitigated deathgrip. Interestingly enough the exterior band appears to have a different chrome finish rather than the matte stainless steel of previous designs.

Bottom flex cable, annotations ours​

Other things like moving the 3.5mm headphone jack to the bottom of the device and the mini 9-pin dock connector are fairly well corroborated by leaks with components that all fit together inside the case. Interestingly enough, parts indicating the mini dock connector and relocated headphone jack have been circulating for nearly 4 months.


http://www.anandtech.com/show/6196/preparing-for-the-iphone-next-rumors-analyzed

 

[iEvolution]

Would make sense considering processor specs are what have essentially separated the iPhone from the iPod Touch.

A5 for the iPod Touch, A6 for the iPhone.

The question is, if the iPhone were to get the A6 processor what would the supposed iPad Mini get?

 

[Menel]

Would make sense considering processor specs are what have essentially separated the iPhone from the iPod Touch.

A5 for the iPod Touch, A6 for the iPhone.

The question is, if the iPhone were to get the A6 processor what would the supposed iPad Mini get?

They will all get a variant of the A6.

New cheaper to manufacture 32nm, CortexA9, 543MP2/544MP2.

iPod touch could get a single core version like the AppleTV 3, where iPod Mini and iPhone get dual cores.

iPad next year will get the real next gen cpu, CortexA15, which will then migrate into iPhone 5S. Still crossing my fingers for now, but it's not looking likely.

 

[RBR2]

Would make sense considering processor specs are what have essentially separated the iPhone from the iPod Touch.

A5 for the iPod Touch, A6 for the iPhone.

The question is, if the iPhone were to get the A6 processor what would the supposed iPad Mini get?

I don't know that it makes sense to continue production of an older, less efficient, more expensive processor. You must remember that only Apple is using these.

 

[chrmjenkins]

They will all get a variant of the A6.

New cheaper to manufacture 32nm, CortexA9, 543MP2/544MP2.

iPod touch could get a single core version like the AppleTV 3, where iPod Mini and iPhone get dual cores.

iPad next year will get the real next gen cpu, CortexA15, which will then migrate into iPhone 5S. Still crossing my fingers for now, but it's not looking likely.

I too would love A15 and Rogue, but I'd proscribe their chances at 10% and 1% respectively.

Also, we won't see the 544MP2. The 544 is just two 543 cores mashed together with some DirectX support. That's why the iPad 3 didn't use it.

 

[applehippy]

My bad, I should have probably made my sarcasm clearer

woops sorry

 

[William Gates]

Alright, pay up all of you A5X in the iPhone 5 evangelicals.

 

[oliversl]

I mean, you will ask for the iPhone in the store as "The New iPhone". The same as the iPad3, it is called "The New iPad", even in official literature:
http://www.apple.com/ipad/compare/

It might be called the new "iPhone", but it will never be called "The New iPhone".

 

[Menel]

I mean, you will ask for the iPhone in the store as "The New iPhone". The same as the iPad3, it is called "The New iPad", even in official literature:
http://www.apple.com/ipad/compare/

It might be called the new "iPhone", but it will never be called "The New iPhone".

Yes, indeed. Thank you for proving my point with a link to their literature.

The lower case 'new' as an adjective, (e.g. my new car, my new pair of shoes).
Not an upper case 'New' as part of the name, (e.g. New Hampshire, New York).

 

[ccraig13]

You sir would be incorrect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chreIG-6NXo

Back on topic.

A6 would be very nice as long as the battery life is close to my iPhone 4. I can go for two days with that thing if i have to.

Um... no I'm right. I said a W12 could fit and didn't think a V12 could fit.