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.
Photo of iPad 3 Logic Board with "A5X" System on a Chip
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/9A406)
To all those talking about "how powerful" the iPad 3 is going to be, you are missing the point of this post!
A5X is implying that this WONT be an A6 chip and thus not quad core. If this is true, which I'm thinking it could be photoshopped, then this is a big negative.
I'm still buying one, but I'll be jelous when the quad core A6 version comes out a year later and blows the A5X iPad 3 out of the water in speed.
To all those talking about "how powerful" the iPad 3 is going to be, you are missing the point of this post!
A5X is implying that this WONT be an A6 chip and thus not quad core. If this is true, which I'm thinking it could be photoshopped, then this is a big negative.
I'm still buying one, but I'll be jelous when the quad core A6 version comes out a year later and blows the A5X iPad 3 out of the water in speed.
A dual core would seem to make more sense than a quad core in terms of power consumption and the number of things you'll be doing on the iPad at any one time.
People shouldn't expect desktop performance from a portability oriented device unless they want to sacrifice significant battery life. An iPad wouldn't be as useful if it didn't have the battery life that it does.
My iMac does many different things at one time, it makes sense for a desktop to have that much power because battery life isn't a concern. As long as the iPad does everything very quickly with few hangups then it should be fine.
Unless there is some great leap in battery technology there is always going to be a trade off between power and battery life.
The retina quality display is going to improve the iPad experience by making everything look amazingly detailed, vibrant and easier to view. As a media consumption and light duty work device it's pretty near everything it needs to be.
People shouldn't expect desktop performance from a portability oriented device unless they want to sacrifice significant battery life. An iPad wouldn't be as useful if it didn't have the battery life that it does.
My iMac does many different things at one time, it makes sense for a desktop to have that much power because battery life isn't a concern. As long as the iPad does everything very quickly with few hangups then it should be fine.
Unless there is some great leap in battery technology there is always going to be a trade off between power and battery life.
The retina quality display is going to improve the iPad experience by making everything look amazingly detailed, vibrant and easier to view. As a media consumption and light duty work device it's pretty near everything it needs to be.
Not really. 4 slower cores would provide better battery life. With tweaks to the OS, you wouldn't have to be using 4 things at once to see benefit. They could split one task over 4 cores if they wanted to, speeding things up, lowering heat, and improving battery. This could also open the door to better multitasking instead of the Mac OS 8 style multitasking they're using now.
On a laptop however, id rather 2 fast cores over 4 slower ones as devs are slower to make use of other cores and OS's are still behind on core management. iOS however is a bit different.
Not... really.
A dual core that has the ability to switch down to 800Mhz from 3.2Ghz uses less power than a quad that has the same ability. (This is assuming that the cores don't have the ability to completely power off, i.e. p = 0). However, the additional switching circuits and what not will still consume a tad more power than if they weren't there at all.
And you can't just split one task over four cores, some things are linearly threaded and hence *can't* be split over cores...
People missed what I thought was a big clue in a Macrumors post from about 4 months back. People found some strings in iOS that referenced new chips (not devices, but chips.) The article noted that the first A4 had something like 1,1 (again this isn't referencing the iPad itself, I know those get those type of designations too) and that the A5 had a 2,1 reference and the "new chip" showing up in strings was 2,2. To me I think that was a clue that Apple's new iPad would NOT have a quad core processor as I think the full version number jumps reference increasing cores, and was a big clue that this is an up clocked version with a much stronger GPU.
I'm NOT going to be disappointed either way as long as the performance of the iPad 3 is class leading, even with the mega resolution screen and I have no reason to doubt Apple is confident it will be, even if it is dual core and Android tablets go 4 core this year.
I'm NOT going to be disappointed either way as long as the performance of the iPad 3 is class leading, even with the mega resolution screen and I have no reason to doubt Apple is confident it will be, even if it is dual core and Android tablets go 4 core this year.
Thats not quite how GPUs work.
And thats an understatement. The big reason for 'AMDs failings' is because its not easy getting software to split their workload across multiple cores. AMDs focus on multicores is the very reason they are losing in the desktop and laptop CPU market.
For example, the following must be done in a single thread/core:
2+2=A
A+3=B
B+A=C
C*B+A=D
etc.
And workloads like this is done in computer software all the time.
This results in a performance advantage on a dual-core over a quadcore, and even a single-core over a quadcore. This is the reason why Intel's budget-processor i3 2100 works so well for normal and office users, and even in video games (which by their nature are highly sequential). The difference between it and a stock i7 2600 is tiny in most software. The total computer power of the 2600 is about double that of the 2100 - but in most software the measured difference in output (FPS, time to get stuff done) is less than 5%. And keep in mind that the 2100 is still clocked lower, which is whats responsible for the majority of that difference.
Last edited:
It looks legit, but it doesn't tell us anything specific aside from the date of make and the layout of the board. A5X might mean X-tra cores, it might mean it is just an A5 with some additional circuits added to boost video. Who knows? Could be a prototype and A5X becomes A6 when in full production.
However, it's good to see these leaks. Just a few more days until expected unveiling.
However, it's good to see these leaks. Just a few more days until expected unveiling.
just improved, im glad
now release it already!!
Exactly. It may or may not be a quad core, but i'm happy they are taking steps forward.
Last edited:
I bet this A5X will be a 1.2-1.5GHz chip. In my opinion, I think it's best for Apple to wait until iPad 4 to release a quad core A6.
really. why would apple call this a 2s? i dont care about names, but the upgrade is so big that i cant imagine apple calling it a 2S. rather 3, and a 3S later.
They're not going to give it a new design and call it the 3S. All the iPhones ending with "S" retained the exact same design.
Although I see you've gotten dinged a few times for this comment, it actually makes sense. The LTE version would be the iPad3 coming out later in the year, just in time for the holiday marketing blitz.
As long as it's as slick and smooth as the ipad 2 with no slow downs or stuttering then who really cares what's underneath?
Android users get hung up on spec's quad core this quad core that but does it make an excellent user experience? no the software does that.
A point in case my friend brought a Transformer Prime and the next day he took it back and kept his iPad 2 which is only a lowly 'dual core'
Android users get hung up on spec's quad core this quad core that but does it make an excellent user experience? no the software does that.
A point in case my friend brought a Transformer Prime and the next day he took it back and kept his iPad 2 which is only a lowly 'dual core'
