Of course, it's a flagship phone that isn't even a year old yet.I'll be Keeping my XS Max for a while. I see nothing compelling me to dump it. Maybe in a few more generations.
Last year's A12 is already TSMC's 7 nm.You won’t see a substantial performance upgrade until 2021 when the bionic chip goes with 7nm architecture.![]()
Well, but 855+ has a higher multicore score (not by much, but still)Uh, oh.
This will surely cause anxiety among many. 5,415 single core? That’s an insane result for a phone SoC. What’s the 855+ at? 3,600 or so? There’s even an early rumored 865 score of around 4,150. That’s what the A11 scored.
Well, but 855+ has a higher multicore score (not by much, but still)
Rumor is the A13 is TSMC 7nm+ EUV (where some of the chip is done using EUV).Last year's A12 is already TSMC's 7 nm.
They sort of are. New processes do not offer higher performance anymore (at least not the way it happened before). They do let the designers to pack more transistors on the die and indirectly (by using more cores) increase the performance but only for multi-thread/process scenarios. At least this is my impression about the latest process nodes.No they aren’t
Firstly, unlike iOS, Android is very liberal in allowing concurrent execution of many apps/processes so many core architecture here is very welcome. Secondly, many operations that really need the performance (like image processing) are easily multithreaded.Meaningless when there's no software (on Android anyway) that could actually run all cores at once.
This "stalling" in the A processor performance progress may pour cold water on the dreams of some posters here who expected A processors to overtake Intel/AMD processors in performance very soon.
Just for bragging rights, I'm hoping A13X hits 20000 multi-core in Geekbench 4.Stalling? You think jumping from 4,800 to 5,400 single core is somehow "stalling"? BTW, have you heard of this processor called the A12X? A year old already and it trounces Qualcomms latest & greatest "laptop" SoC, the 8cx. And the A13X is coming up....
They sort of are. New processes do not offer higher performance anymore (at least not the way it happened before). They do let the designers to pack more transistors on the die and indirectly (by using more cores) increase the performance but only for multi-thread/process scenarios. At least this is my impression about the latest process nodes.
This "stalling" in the A processor performance progress may pour cold water on the dreams of some posters here who expected A processors to overtake Intel/AMD processors in performance very soon.
Meaningless when there's no software (on Android anyway) that could actually run all cores at once.
[doublepost=1567485420][/doublepost]
Rumor is the A13 is TSMC 7nm+ EUV (where some of the chip is done using EUV).
A13 is using newer TSMC process than 855+. A12X has 2x the performance cores compared to its phone counterparts and is not suitable for the phones.Stalling? You think jumping from 4,800 to 5,400 single core is somehow "stalling"? BTW, have you heard of this processor called the A12X? A year old already and it trounces Qualcomms latest & greatest "laptop" SoC, the 8cx. And the A13X is coming up....
There is no stalling the A-processor performance. We are talking about the XR-successor here. You should expect much more from Pro.
Second, new processes offer higher performance. It’s just dumb to try to increase processor performance by relying too much on clock rate. Power consumption/dissipation = CV^2f. Increasing f also generally requires increasing V. Bad idea. It’s much better, for anything running on batteries and without a fan, to increase performance by more efficiently using each transistor (increase IPC).
This is not a new phenomena - it’s been going on for years. If all that mattered was clock rate you’d end up with something like the GaAs F-RISC research project at Rensselaer. Super-high clock rates at the time, terrible CPU performance.
Did you read my post? I compared the A12X to the Qualcomm 8cx, which is a processor designed for laptops, not phones. It's the one used in the brand-new Samsung Galaxy Book running Windows on ARM. And the year-old A12X trounces it.A13 is using newer TSMC process than 855+. A12X has 2x the performance cores compared to its phone counterparts and is not suitable for the phones.
There is no stalling the A-processor performance. We are talking about the XR-successor here. You should expect much more from Pro.
Second, new processes offer higher performance. It’s just dumb to try to increase processor performance by relying too much on clock rate. Power consumption/dissipation = CV^2f. Increasing f also generally requires increasing V. Bad idea. It’s much better, for anything running on batteries and without a fan, to increase performance by more efficiently using each transistor (increase IPC).
This is not a new phenomena - it’s been going on for years. If all that mattered was clock rate you’d end up with something like the GaAs F-RISC research project at Rensselaer. Super-high clock rates at the time, terrible CPU performance.
This "stalling" in the A processor performance progress may pour cold water on the dreams of some posters here who expected A processors to overtake Intel/AMD processors in performance very soon.
Of course I read your post. I just did not understand what's the relevance of some other type of processors in the thread where we are talking about phone processors. Qualcomm is a newcomer to laptop CPU design and it's a side kick for them anyways. They already failed at CPU design for servers. Perhaps they are failing at CPU design for laptops now but who cares.Did you read my post? I compared the A12X to the Qualcomm 8cx, which is a processor designed for laptops, not phones. It's the one used in the brand-new Samsung Galaxy Book running Windows on ARM. And the year-old A12X trounces it.
This is the main difference between Apple and Samsung/Qualcomm. Samsung/Qualcomm have always had SoCs with double the cores and higher clocks (1 vs 2, 2 vs 4, 4 vs 8) when compared to Apple (up until recently when Apple went to 6 cores). Yet Apple was able to maintain performance. Apple concentrated on making individual cores faster/more efficient while Samsung/Qualcomm took the easy way out (faster clocks, more cores).
When Apple finally decides to make an 8 core processor we get the A12X, which is substantially more powerful than anything Samsung or Qualcomm have. Apple was smart to concentrate on IPC and more efficient cores and it's paid off.
so based on your logic, are you still rocking an iphone 4s? since you dont need the faster speed for reading your emails and waste of money. Maybe you wanted to say its waste of money to come to iphone 11 from Xs ..but speed improvements are very good and welcomed....and for what....reading your emails faster? For 99.9% of users, a pointless waste of money.
We haven't yet seen an ARM processor from Apple that is actually designed for a laptop with a much bigger battery and larger chassis.
Frankly... I'd be shocked if all they're doing is putting the same A-series chips from their phones into their laptops. That sounds ridiculous, right?
Let's see what their extremely talented engineers can come up with. They've already made some of the best mobile processors... so imagine what they can do in a higher-wattage laptop package!
I'm not counting Apple out just yet...
Samsung and other Android vendors do not make special CPUs for tablets because they do not pretend that tablets are a suitable replacement for laptops. In fact, Samsung often uses cheaper (and less powerful) processors in their tablets compared to their own phones.This is the main difference between Apple and Samsung/Qualcomm. Samsung/Qualcomm have always had SoCs with double the cores and higher clocks (1 vs 2, 2 vs 4, 4 vs 8) when compared to Apple (up until recently when Apple went to 6 cores). Yet Apple was able to maintain performance. Apple concentrated on making individual cores faster/more efficient while Samsung/Qualcomm took the easy way out (faster clocks, more cores).
When Apple finally decides to make an 8 core processor we get the A12X, which is substantially more powerful than anything Samsung or Qualcomm have. Apple was smart to concentrate on IPC and more efficient cores and it's paid off.
Like last year and year before...before the actual event numbers came out...but with around 1200-1300 points different
So lets wait the phones to be out and then see
[doublepost=1567487732][/doublepost]
so based on your logic, are you still rocking an iphone 4s? since you dont need the faster speed for reading your emails and waste of money
Like the already released Samsung Note 10?Rumor is the A13 is TSMC 7nm+ EUV (where some of the chip is done using EUV).
Well, obviously mobile and desktop CPUs are very different. I was just referring to the fact that Apple fans were using the progress in A processor performance as argument that it will be easy for Apple to out-design Intel and now this argument is gone. It does not mean Apple can't design a good desktop CPU but the easy (and flawed) conjectures on the Apple's ability to produce superior desktop CPU will probably stop for now.
The A12 is already utilizing the 7nm process and the A13 will be using 7nm+. The A14 is supposedly going to be using a 5nm process next year.You won’t see a substantial performance upgrade until 2021 when the bionic chip goes with 7nm architecture.![]()
What other new app has really required additional horsepower from our iPhones?