Photo of iPad 3 Logic Board with "A5X" System on a Chip

[whooleytoo]

In gaming, the old rule of thumb was a faster CPU was for more complex scenes/more complex models; while a faster GPU was needed for higher resolutions.

Could it be Apple will just use a more powerful GPU to cater for the far higher resolution of the new screen, with little or no CPU boost? So a game for the iPad 3 would have the same scene & model complexity, just with higher resolution and the same framerate. That could help reduce fragmentation for iOS developers between the iPad 2 & 3.

 

[Inconsequential]

You understand that Unix know how to use multithreaded software?
Just do a top on your iPad and you will see at least 40 processes running.

That is why a quod core 1ghz will beat a 1.5ghz dual core on Unix, especially with Apples Grand Central dispatch.

Scaling over many processors is a windows problem and for people who believe that they only use one program at a time.

lol!

Just because 40 processes are running, does not mean a quad is better than a dual :roll eyes:

If you also top, you would see a load average, these are the values for my MBP and MP, which I have been doing the same things with for the last hour:

MacBook Pro Load Average (Dual Core): 0,47,0.57,0.56
Mac Pro Load Average (Quad Core): 0,25, 0.49, 0.50

They have the same amount of processes going ~97. Difference? Negligible. The dual has the slightly higher values because it has to do the same amount of processing over two cores. This does NOT however necessarily make it faster/better.

Assuming the same generation of CPU:
A 3GHz dual would be faster than a 2Ghz quad in single threaded situations.
A 2GHz quad would be faster than a 3GHz dual in multi threaded situations.

 

[peb123]

iPad3 = iPad2S

I'm laughing at these iPad3 is an iPad2S if it does not have a quad core processor.

Are you the same people that said the iPad2 was an iPad 1.5 because it did not have a retina display, just a measly dual-core processor upgrade?

So really the iPad 3 is an iPad 1.5S !

Shame on you Apple for selling us an iPad 1.5S for the price of an iPad3!

 

[d0vr]

Are you the same people that said the iPad2 was an iPad 1.5 because it did not have a retina display, just a measly dual-core processor upgrade?

I'd say it was more like a 1.8 to be honest, so I guess rounding it makes it a 2.

 

[smulji]

Actually, now i'm not so sure of my original bet that it's Quad Core Cortex A9. I had my thinking cap on last night, and if we use a bit of logic we can conclude that the A5X will be either of three variations of processor.

The question is; what do Apple's AX designations signify? More cores? Architecture improvements? Or improvement in general? We can't really say because looking at the AX processor history, number of cores and architecture has changed each time.


Option 1: Say they generally mean an increase in cores. By this logic, it would mean the A5 is still a dual core, but something else apart from the number of cores has improved, hence the X. X could either mean a speed bump, or an architecture change...
Meaning either a Dual-Core A9 '+' (Most likely. Same as iPad 2 with speed dump) or a Dual-Core A15 (Unlikely as they'd probably save the A15 jump for the A6 as it's a big improvment)


Option 2: Say they tend to signify architecture changes instead. The A4 was A8, the A5 was A9, so the future A6 should be A15 by this logic. This would suggest the A5X is the same A9 architecture as the A5, but the X meaning something else has improved...
Perhaps the number of cores.. Quad-Core A9. Or if not the cores and not the architecture, it could only be a Dual-Core A9 again (with speed bump), as the above scenario also predicts.


Or in a very unlikely case, the A5X might simply be an early prototype, and they may have gone A6 after all. Following the key changes in Apple's AX naming scheme, the A6 would logically be a Quad-Core A15, increases in both cores and architecture. But that would be way too soon/unnecessary yet, and Apple like to drip-feed us.


tl dr: My crazy (and probably overcomplicated) logic predicts it's either one of these processors, in order of likelihood: Dual-Core A9 Speed Bumped, Quad-Core A9, or Dual-Core A15.

Ahhh all these A numbers, i'm done now. K thanks bai

There is one scenario you left out that I think is worth mentioning. I do agree branding the processor A5X would mean the same architecture as the Cortex A9 + some improvements. But I think those improvements could come in the form of a beefier GPU. So the A5X could still use the same dual-core Cortex A9 CPU architecture (probably faster clockspeed) but with a much improved dual-core GPU architecture, probaby utilizing the PowerVR Series 6 (aka "Rogue") architecture. So maybe the X stand for much faster graphics.

 

[Menel]

I said that the only reason why it has metal on it would be because it's a heatsink. If it's a heatsink, it'd also need a fan to dissipate the heat.

It could easily be a heatsink/heatspreader for mating the IC to the rear metal chassis of iPad.

1. no it's not a 'heatsink' in the classic sense, but it's going to be more efficient than the black ceramic packaging.
2. no the metal chassis of iPad is not an ideal heatsink in that it has no ribs, etc, but it's metal, large surface area, and exposed to ambient air, so it's likely better than naught.

 

[peb123]

I'd say it was more like a 1.8 to be honest, so I guess rounding it makes it a 2.

No its still a 1.8 unless it has upgraded cameras. Then its a 2! Thats 0.1 for each camera. So if only one camera is upgraded its actually a 1.9.

 

[fertilized-egg]

What I'm expecting:
March 7: iPad 2S.

Isn't the fact that we'll very likely see a Retina display eliminate the chance of a "S" release? I'm guessing a faster clocked dual core processor with a faster GPU, perhaps going to SGX543MP4.

 

[borgqueenx]

Isn't the fact that we'll very likely see a Retina display eliminate the chance of a "S" release? I'm guessing a faster clocked dual core processor with a faster GPU, perhaps going to SGX543MP4.

Doing it the apple way, i hope it will beat any other device.
Thats the gpu of the vita right? Is there something better apple may have included? Can someone list some possibilities?

 

[fertilized-egg]

Doing it the apple way, i hope it will beat any other device.
Thats the gpu of the vita right? Is there something better apple may have included? Can someone list some possibilities?

Yes, SGX543MP4 is what Sony is using for Vita although we don't know what the clockspeed the chip will be running at.

The better one would be PowerVR Series 6 Rogue. http://www.anandtech.com/show/5364/powervr-series-6-rogue-gpus-released-to-licensing But it probably won't be here until 2013.

It's very unlikely Apple will move to any other graphics partner at this point and thus I'd guess Apple will stick with PowerVR.

 

[ABadSanta]

They don’t. There’s a slew of people on this board (and this thread specifically) that know little-to-nothing about processor architecture (and how it relates to power consumption , performance, the OS, etc.)



Awesome.



Great assessment. Dual/quad/clock/threads/cores ... at the end of the day will an iPad 3 give me an outstanding experience from the display quality to the [perceived] performance? If the answer is yes, it’s a winner.

haha thanks for the quote. I feel like a lot of people here are people who think "more cores = better" unconditionally. They don't realize that clock speed, how the software maximizes those cores, and other components also contribute to the entire user experience.

 

[borgqueenx]

Yes, SGX543MP4 is what Sony is using for Vita although we don't know what the clockspeed the chip will be running at.

The better one would be PowerVR Series 6 Rogue. http://www.anandtech.com/show/5364/powervr-series-6-rogue-gpus-released-to-licensing But it probably won't be here until 2013.

It's very unlikely Apple will move to any other graphics partner at this point and thus I'd guess Apple will stick with PowerVR.

thats the only GPU thats better?
Well then i hope apple chooses desame one as in the vita. Else the vita will be better then the ipad 3(in 3d power only ofc) wich will not be the way i like it from apple(always one step ahead)

 

[MenosX6]

Maybe Macroscalar

Maybe Apple is baking a whole new CPU. I say this because Apple obtained a full ARM instruction set license, and that they recently filed for the trademark "Macroscalar" (CPU Architecture) in the US and in Hong Kong China. Maybe this new architecture will help them compete with future tablets launching this year.

Cortex A15? Those are not happening until the 2nd Quarter.

Oh and regarding the "A5X"...this could be a PROTOTYPE, it clearly says it was manufactured almost 3 MONTHS ago...gosh. Let's forget about it already.

 

[iSee]

In gaming, the old rule of thumb was a faster CPU was for more complex scenes/more complex models; while a faster GPU was needed for higher resolutions.

Could it be Apple will just use a more powerful GPU to cater for the far higher resolution of the new screen, with little or no CPU boost? So a game for the iPad 3 would have the same scene & model complexity, just with higher resolution and the same framerate. That could help reduce fragmentation for iOS developers between the iPad 2 & 3.

That's a really good point. As I said before, I think iPad apps are rarely using three or more cores for any length of time, and therefore 2 faster cores are much better than 4 slower ones.

But as you point out games are the reasonable counter argument. It's not necessarily more complex scenes & models, but better AI, richer/deeper environments and simulations, maybe add-ons like voice control, etc. Games are obviously huge for iOS, so Apple may see this as a good enough reason to pay the price ($ + size and/or battery life) for quad core. Probably a pretty small percentage of games could really benefit, but those will tend to be the marquee games.

 

[borgqueenx]

Maybe Apple is baking a whole new CPU. I say this because Apple obtained a full ARM instruction set license, and that they recently filed for the trademark "Macroscalar" (CPU Architecture) in the US and in Hong Kong China. Maybe this new architecture will help them compete with future tablets launching this year.

Cortex A15? Those are not happening until the 2nd Quarter.

Oh and regarding the "A5X"...this could be a PROTOTYPE, it clearly says it was manufactured almost 3 MONTHS ago...gosh. Let's forget about it already.

3 months sounds about right for production of the ipad 3.

 

[firewood]

In gaming, the old rule of thumb was a faster CPU was for more complex scenes/more complex models; while a faster GPU was needed for higher resolutions.

Could it be Apple will just use a more powerful GPU to cater for the far higher resolution of the new screen, with little or no CPU boost? So a game for the iPad 3 would have the same scene & model complexity, just with higher resolution and the same framerate. That could help reduce fragmentation for iOS developers between the iPad 2 & 3.

Because Apple wants most apps to be compatible with the millions of existing iPad 2 devices sold, e.g. with the same scene complexity, the next iPad may well be only dual core, since that seems to be plenty on the current iPad 2.

The GPU, however, may go quad or octo core to up the number of pixel shaders (only so many per GPU core), simultaneous tiles in flight, and the fill rate, if the pixels actually increase by 4X.

e.g. games with the same number of polys, but higher res textures.

 

[llamaswill]

Theory

Well, Apple just dropped the "Mac" from "Mac OS X", and they are competing w/ Windows 8, which runs on tablets as well as PC's. In addition, Apple is approaching a point at which they would run out of names and get to OS X 11.x. So what would they do? "OS X" is a well known and powerful advertising name and a tool that they want to keep.

So, they want something that includes something and then "X". It has to be able to run something like OS X, and have a touch screen to compete with Windows 8.

Just a theory, but why not a very fast tablet known as the iPad X running something like iOSX 10.8?

Also, OS X and iOSX would be parallel, adding features and benefiting each other. For example, in 10.8, most of the apps being added are from iPad, NOT iPhone and iPod touch.

All of these things combined seem to point to an iPad X with the new and improved "A5X" processor and running iOSX. I'm not sure if it's realistic, but it sounds like a good product and really awesome to use.


A note: I don't know enough about processors to be able to tell if this would be at all realistic as an actual product, I'm just theorizing about what A5X could mean. If anyone who knows more about this realizes that it makes no sense, just reply.

 

[Icemilk]

To those throwing the name 'iPad 2S' around—

The 3GS and 4S were named as such because they looked exactly like their predecessors externally, but with added oomph under the hood. From what we think we know about the upcoming iPad, we can gather that it'll potentially have an updated enclosure, a more impressive display, updated back camera, the possibility of LTE, and an updated SoC. (Let alone the pure speculation that it'll include more RAM and additional flash memory options.)

Sounds like a full number jump to me. Even if it only has the three updates we seem to have apparent confirmation of: New SoC, new enclosure, and Retina display.

As with the A5X (or whatever the chip will actually be), we can bet our money that Apple will certainly not make the iPad any less efficient, no matter how many processor cores or which version GPU it'll use.

And it won't run OS X. Apple says Mountain Lion will be taking some cues from the iPad. Not the other way around. It'd be awkward and weird and would inhibit the iOS ecosystem and Apple's app control. And I have a feeling Apple couldn't care less what Microsoft is doing with Windows.

Mac OS X runs on Macs. Or, more streamlined: OS X runs on Macs. Classic Apple brand simplification. Dig it?

 

[Darlo770]

There is one scenario you left out that I think is worth mentioning. I do agree branding the processor A5X would mean the same architecture as the Cortex A9 + some improvements. But I think those improvements could come in the form of a beefier GPU. So the A5X could still use the same dual-core Cortex A9 CPU architecture (probably faster clockspeed) but with a much improved dual-core GPU architecture, probaby utilizing the PowerVR Series 6 (aka "Rogue") architecture. So maybe the X stand for much faster graphics.

Totally agree with you. I did in fact think about that scenario, i should have listed it. It does seem highly likely actually. We shall see soon!

 

[borgqueenx]

The powervr series 6 are not yet produced massively? Its so new i dont think apple had time to put it in production. Or am i wrong?(i wanna be)

 

[tmarks11]

Apple could make a retina version of the iPad by packing The same resoution in a 7" form factor! No need for faster graphics processor, everyone who wants higher pixel density could just buy the smaller form factor...

 

[DenisAuermann]

hmm

In gaming, the old rule of thumb was a faster CPU was for more complex scenes/more complex models; while a faster GPU was needed for higher resolutions.

Could it be Apple will just use a more powerful GPU to cater for the far higher resolution of the new screen, with little or no CPU boost? So a game for the iPad 3 would have the same scene & model complexity, just with higher resolution and the same framerate. That could help reduce fragmentation for iOS developers between the iPad 2 & 3.

Hmm, a very interesting point of view. I think you might be onto something

 

[tmarks11]

so, once Steve is out of office, everything starts to leak... If we assemble all the leaked pictures together we have a definite idea of what iPad 3 is inside and outside.

that was what a lot of people thought about the"iphone 5" before the last iphone event.

Remembered how that worked out for all the pundits who thought they knew everything there was to know.

Either Apple has a strong misdirection department, or their are a bunch of fans who somehow twist wishful thinking into declarations of cold hard facts.

 

[DenisAuermann]

Interesting

Well, Apple just dropped the "Mac" from "Mac OS X", and they are competing w/ Windows 8, which runs on tablets as well as PC's. In addition, Apple is approaching a point at which they would run out of names and get to OS X 11.x. So what would they do? "OS X" is a well known and powerful advertising name and a tool that they want to keep.

So, they want something that includes something and then "X". It has to be able to run something like OS X, and have a touch screen to compete with Windows 8.

Just a theory, but why not a very fast tablet known as the iPad X running something like iOSX 10.8?

Also, OS X and iOSX would be parallel, adding features and benefiting each other. For example, in 10.8, most of the apps being added are from iPad, NOT iPhone and iPod touch.

All of these things combined seem to point to an iPad X with the new and improved "A5X" processor and running iOSX. I'm not sure if it's realistic, but it sounds like a good product and really awesome to use.


A note: I don't know enough about processors to be able to tell if this would be at all realistic as an actual product, I'm just theorizing about what A5X could mean. If anyone who knows more about this realizes that it makes no sense, just reply.

I definitively see a possibility. People don't take into consideration the iPad competition, Windows 8 is the first full fledged OS running on a tablet. Apple is def aware of this. The obviously want to pack as much power and features to remain on top. I can see a simpler version of OS X running on an iPad in the future

 

[Icemilk]

I can see a simpler version of OS X running on an iPad in the future

It's already running on the iPad. It's called iOS.