Are you guys saying you don't expect the next iPhone to have a significant speed increase from the 3GS?
iPhone 3GSS!! Where SS Stands for Super Speed
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.
Possible Details on Apple's ARM-based 'A4' Chip?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
iPhone 3GSS!! Where SS Stands for Super Speed
WTF?
The kernel for the "iPhone OS" is the same kernel as OS X. It is designed to multi-task just fine (as does the iPhone with Apple apps). OS X even runs just fine on an 8 core (multiprocessor).
I would love that too, but I wouldn't want 1/4 the battery life.
lol.. true but if the ipads battery life is anything to go by (10 hours with video playback supposedly) then it should be alright.. although saying that.. those figures with the customary pinch of salt thats required for battery ratings these days, so maybe 8 hours give or take.. that will be alright in my book
PTP
iPhone OS (and Mac OS) is built on the Mach kernel and you really can't find an existing OS with better multitasking functionality.
These are incorrect 'facts' and assumptions.
First of all Mac OS and iPhone OS do not run a Unix kernel they actually use the Mach kernel and incorporate BSD functionality from there such as IO, the kernel is in no way Unix.
Secondly it is widely known that the Unix kernel is a much better system for multitasking and scheduling than the Windows kernel so even if your first assumption was correct your point makes no sense.
Incorrect. Apple is viewing the iPhone, iPod Touch, and now iPad as typical consumer devices where 99% or more of the people do not use multitasking and it would be a BAD thing. More people would be starting an application, then moving to open another one, forgetting about the first and having their battery drain than there are people that would actively use multitasking. There is absolutely ZERO restriction in the OS and scheduling to support multitasking it is completely a user experience design they have made.
Also interesting to note how Apple openly advertises its CPU speeds on its laptop and desktop models (and surprisingly on the iPad), while the competition (which prides itself on hardware spec comparisons) simply tells you their laptop features the "Intel Core2Duo 5200."
Strange days indeed are upon us.
Because the last time Apple make a CPU, CPU makers weren't hitting the current speed limits we have now on CPU's? Speed isn't the only thing that makes CPU's fast theses days..
implementation of A4 chips
maybe Apple does not want anybody to install a real OS on the tablet. I mean, with the Intel Chip, I think it would be possible to install a real OS
maybe Apple does not want anybody to install a real OS on the tablet. I mean, with the Intel Chip, I think it would be possible to install a real OS
I gave the information in my original post. If Apple were to use the ARM Mali-50 that would give it a 1M poly/sec vertex rate and 100M pixel/sec fillrate ... compared to the 28M poly/sec and 800M pixel/sec fillrate with the PVR SGX535 in the iPhone 3GS.
So unless people believe that the iPad has 1/28th the vertex processing power of the iPhone 3GS I guess the Mali-50 isn't much of a "fact"
For heavens sake, it has pthreads, it has NSThreads, it has NSOperation, it has everything that MacOS X 10.5 has. The iPhone OS does exactly as much multitasking as Apple wants. And it should be obvious that it is perfectly capable of multitasking as it is, or how do you think does the music player and the phone work at the same time as other applications?
Apple has very valid technical reasons for not allowing multiple applications other than iTunes and the phone to run at the same time. That has been discussed again and again and again. And the iPhone OS _is_ MacOS X with all the unneeded bits removed.
Phone is an application with a hardware interface. Get rid of that app, switch to VoIP app, and you get rid of one hardware component, and amortize another one better. The need for multi-core, and the ability to use it well, are both things Apple is pretty focused on. The types of "threads" that are well suited to multi-core are things like video encoding. Running 4 apps and some background tasks akin to widgets probably works better on 1 core per app, even if that core itself has 2-3 threads per cycle. But if you ever look at a task list on a Mac, you have perhaps 30-40 tasks running and a few more "apps", some of which are idle.
The iPhone and iPad have perhaps half as many threads running, but that's still a lot and the average chip speed is 1/3 to allow battery life even with wireless vs wired access and not being plugged into power.
The whole purpose of having a closed system like the iPhone and iPad it to tightly control and greatly minimize background tasks and the sheer number of running apps, so crippled hardware is sufficient. Crippled in terms of Ghz and Kwh, not recency of technology.
Steve is all about "minimalist". He wants to keep Reddy Kilowatt far away from his products.
Rocketman
I am hoping by year 3 of the new Apple server farm, we have a "proxy server" for each device on the network, to schedule updates to the remote device only on need and demand, to substantially reduce traffic "noise". Hi Steve.
The iPhone and iPad have perhaps half as many threads running, but that's still a lot and the average chip speed is 1/3 to allow battery life even with wireless vs wired access and not being plugged into power.
The whole purpose of having a closed system like the iPhone and iPad it to tightly control and greatly minimize background tasks and the sheer number of running apps, so crippled hardware is sufficient. Crippled in terms of Ghz and Kwh, not recency of technology.
Steve is all about "minimalist". He wants to keep Reddy Kilowatt far away from his products.
Rocketman
I am hoping by year 3 of the new Apple server farm, we have a "proxy server" for each device on the network, to schedule updates to the remote device only on need and demand, to substantially reduce traffic "noise". Hi Steve.
Mac OS X kernel is called XNU and it's based on combination of Mach and BSD. XNU also stands for X is not Unix.
Also interesting to note how Apple openly advertises its CPU speeds on its laptop and desktop models (and surprisingly on the iPad), while the competition (which prides itself on hardware spec comparisons) simply tells you their laptop features the "Intel Core2Duo 5200."
Strange days indeed are upon us.
That might be because Apple laptops usually have outdated CPU compared to competition. By using Ghz rather than actual CPU name Apple might be trying to hide this fact. There is more to CPU performance than just frequency. CPU model provides all information (including frequency, cache size, power consumption etc.)
So, first it was the war against buttons (as in one button mouse) and now the threads/processes?
iPhone OS is based on the same kernel as Mac OS X, and perfectly capable of multitasking, they just don't allow common applications to become background apps. so together with the fact that only one can be on top the app has to quit to switch programs. Or more accurate, after pressing the home button the app is hidden and then told to terminate. (but interestingly it is first running in background for a few secs
)The iPhone OS is fully multi-tasking already, it is a Unix based OS. Apple decision to only allow one user application to run at a time has nothing to do with the iPhone OS not being a multi-tasking kernel. It is simply what they have chosen to allow user applications to run.
Sorry yes I should have stated what I meant in more detail. While the OSX kernel is XNU the actual systems needed for a proper multitasking environment are all taken care of by the Mach microkernel portions (pre-emptive multitasking, IPC, thread/process, etc). XNU is effectively using Mach as the kernel with portions of BSD now moved out of user space and incorporated into the Mach kernel. (which is why my post mentioned Mach using BSD functionality)
yea, and not a single iPhone app would work, NO thanks,
better apple is including a low power ARM cpu to allow iPhone apps to run in dashboard even when the MacBook is turned off.
No matter what anybody says about it being only 1GHz, I have yet to come across a single review site that has tested it, and not called it 'blazingly fast'.
um... no. not really.
it's just a reference design... not just a "pre-designed solution" (not that that would be an immediate negative) ... PA Semi has been designing a custom version of that chip BASED on the design, not EXACTLY like everyone else.
that's why they went and bought pa semi in the first place. if it was all designed for them, why would they need all that expertise?
there is alot more to the design that you are giving credit.. the foundry isn't really that big a deal.
you could just as easily say apple with have "as good or better" chips than everyone else, and be as accurate. which is to say, not very. or rather, unknowable.
While we do not know the details but I believe that the original source indicates that Apple used Macro blocks provided by ARM. They way it works, ARM works with, say, TSMC and provides a complete design for the core and GPU. Then TSMC customer builds SOC chip instantiating the macros and possibly adding additional blocks. Given the time past since the introduction of A9 core it is almost certain that Apple used standard implementation.
So, first it was the war against buttons (as in one button mouse) and now the threads/processes?
I think we can all agree he has won that war and can hoist his flag up the hill.
Rocketman
No, but some of the people at PA worked on StrongARM - Dan Dobberpuhl (PA's founder) was the lead designer.
StrongARM wore the MIPS/mW crown for quite a while back in the day...
Jim