Qualcomm Backs Off 'Marketing Gimmick' Comments About the A7's 64-Bit Benefits

[Taz Mangus]

See, I'm surprised that they haven't released a 64-bit Snapdragon chip yet... Apple is no where near cracking that 4gb RAM mark, but all these Android OEMS keep stuffing more memory into their devices. You'd think they would be more anxious than Apple to go 64 bit.

The Android phone manufacturers are more concerned about adding that .1" screen real estate and adding CPUs that have higher clock rates and more cores. After all you have to claim something important with Android phones. The puck has now moved and everyone is going to follow to where they think it will stop moving.

 

[DJJAZZYJET]

He probably read my comment and thought 'Oh snap he's right'.

 

[gnasher729]

So "gimmick" is always the wrong word. Was Apple premature in rolling this out now? It depends on a lot of things; I imagine every cell-phone manufacturer has a different timeline. But, I would think that a processor manufacturer would be eager to satisfy its customers' requirements.

There is a subtle and slightly complicated reason to introduce 64 bit as possible.

The 64 bit ARM architecture has changed. 32 bit ARM had many features that were quite useful, but limited the clock rate. A pure 64 bit ARM processor could run at higher clock rate with the same technology. A mixed 32/64 bit ARM processor as Apple uses right now doesn't because the 32 bit part would fail, but Apple _could_ build a processor running at higher clock rate, but using more cycles for 32 bit code.

Right now that would be a bad idea, because lots of apps are 32 bit only. Not today, but in a year or two, consumers would benefit from a chip designed that way, if 64 bit apps run 25% faster and 32 bit apps run 25% slower. And the earlier 64 bit chips are introduced, the earlier that change can be made.

 

[WilliamLondon]

Marketing person comments on something technical and is totally wrong. Nothing to see here.

Just as typical as techie types spouting off about marketing.

 

[Renzatic]

The 64 bit ARM architecture has changed. 32 bit ARM had many features that were quite useful, but limited the clock rate. A pure 64 bit ARM processor could run at higher clock rate with the same technology.

Where are you getting this info from? Unless there's something weird about ARM I'm not aware of, 64-bit has literally zero to do with your clock rates.

 

[vsighi]

??????????? So why am I suppose to be impress by this??????��

Look at the SAMSUNG specs for that smartphone and wander when you will ever see that inside an iPhone

 

[john123]

this guy simply came over like a jealous child who didn't know what he was talking about.

You really didn't address a single thing I said. Sigh...

I don't understand why being a fan of any product—Apple or otherwise—is sometimes mutually exclusive with being objective.

----------

Just as typical as techie types spouting off about marketing.

As someone who's been paid an awful lot of money to work in both, I'll add that when it comes to publicly traded companies, a marketing person usually has at least passable knowledge, and any techie person high enough to be quoted on record in a publication (usually) has enough marketing knowledge not to be totally clueless.

 

[opinio]

They need a PR guru.

 

[osofast240sx]

Look at the SAMSUNG specs for that smartphone and wander when you will ever see that inside an iPhone

No disrespect but you must be like 12 years old especially if you cannot understand that at this point specs are not relevant. So what exactly will that phone do that the iPhone wont? Plus it's no secret that Apple has been looking into flexible/curved displays for a while now. I get it you like Samsung!

 

[Renzatic]

No disrespect but you must be like 12 years old especially if you cannot understand that at this point specs are not relevant.

Unless those specs happen to mention a whole bunch of bits. Like...you know..64 of 'em. Then it's innovation at its finest.

 

[tbrinkma]

Most people are missing the point here.

If there is anyone more worried than Apple about NOT making this look like a marketing gimmick, it is Qualcomm. They sell those chips, for christ sakes, and they want to sell more of them! What else did you expect them to say?

Of course, there IS a technical reason to move to 64bit in mobile devices. I think Apple has done it in part because ARM8 is more power efficient (and in case you didn't know, that's a big deal for computing devices), and ARM8 is 64bit only. That's one good reason. AND in ADDITION, it is a really good marketing gimmick because most people won't notice that the 64bits themselves are not providing any benefit whatsoever. They just think OMG 64BIT MY PHONE IS MORE FUTUREPROOF, not realizing THAT's a marketing gimmick, and not realizing the real benefit.

So there, two sides to the coin.

But there is a technical reason to move to 64-bit that *is* something users will be able to see. The 64-bit ARM instruction set, is more efficient with many operations than the 32-bit instruction set was. This translates to a noticeable speed improvement for users. The exact same effect was visible when AMD released their first 64-bit x86-64 architecture chips. The exact same code, compiled for 64-bit, generally ran about 20% faster than when it was compiled for 32-bit. From what I've read, the effect is actually larger for the ARM 32-bit/64-bit recompile.

----------

But technically speaking it is BS. Apple does not advertise arm64 they advertise 64 bitness of their CPU which are two different things. Intel 32 bit chip (and even arm 32 bit chip) may have all those extra hardware accelerations without being arm64.

Actually, no, they can't. The majority of those "hardware accelerations" are *because* of the fact that the ARM CPU is 64-bit. The 32-bit ARM instruction set can't make use of those improvements because the instruction set doesn't *contain* the additions that made those improvements possible.

As a note, Apple also informs people that their 64-bit processor is an ARM processor. So, even your attempt at 'technically speaking' fails that basic threshold. Apple does, indeed, advertise that they are using a 64-bit ARM processor. You're trying to split hairs with a 2x4, it's not going to work.

 

[tbrinkma]

I thought x87 was a type*. That was me making a joke about it.

*Edit: typo. Now that was ironic.

Ironically, 'x87' was actually an additional part that could make your computer faster. Specifically, a math co-processor which was optional back in the 286 & 386 days. You'd by a 287 co-processor to give improved floating point performance to your 286 box, and a 387 to do the same to your 386 box. They went by the wayside with the 486, which included that silicon in the CPU itself, and the Pentium sealed the fate of external math coprocessor chips right up until non-fixed shaders brought GPUs into play for that purpose.

 

[D.T.]

Ironically, 'x87' was actually an additional part that could make your computer faster. Specifically, a math co-processor which was optional back in the 286 & 386 days. You'd by a 287 co-processor to give improved floating point performance to your 286 box, and a 387 to do the same to your 386 box. They went by the wayside with the 486, which included that silicon in the CPU itself, and the Pentium sealed the fate of external math coprocessor chips right up until non-fixed shaders brought GPUs into play for that purpose.

I sold a ton of math-co-pros along with copies of Lotus 1-2-3 when I was in high school

 

[Renzatic]

But there is a technical reason to move to 64-bit that *is* something users will be able to see. The 64-bit ARM instruction set, is more efficient with many operations than the 32-bit instruction set was. This translates to a noticeable speed improvement for users. The exact same effect was visible when AMD released their first 64-bit x86-64 architecture chips. The exact same code, compiled for 64-bit, generally ran about 20% faster than when it was compiled for 32-bit. From what I've read, the effect is actually larger for the ARM 32-bit/64-bit recompile.

Not true at all, and for the very same reason I explained in the other thread. There wasn't a massive, across the board speed increase. In fact, only a rare few computationally heavy programs saw a boost. Otherwise, everything ran about the same. Occasionally you'd get something that ran a little better, rarely something that ran a little worse. It certainly wasn't the 20% gain you're talking about.

Think of it like this, the vast majority of programs you're using in OSX and Windows are still compiled for 32-bit. There are only a handful of true 64-bit applications. If 64-bit gave a free and easy 20% performance increase just by the simple sake of being, everyone and their grandmother would've been recompiling their apps the very instant they were able to.

edit: though I should add that the OS itself does take advantage of 64-bit. Though it's not so much a performance booster there, so much as it tends to be more efficient. You won't see much of a speed increase, but it's also less likely to be bogged down when chewing through a lot of data.

 

[vsighi]

Unless those specs happen to mention a whole bunch of bits. Like...you know..64 of 'em. Then it's innovation at its finest.

64-bit A7 processor is just Apple "marketing gimmick" for consumers like you with a low expectation that think of a 64bit IOS as pure INNOVATION AT ITS FINEST

 

[Renzatic]

64-bit A7 processor is just Apple "marketing gimmick" for consumers like you with a low expectation that think of a 64bit IOS as pure INNOVATION AT ITS FINEST

CONSUMERS LIKE ME? You don't say... :O

 

[vsighi]

No disrespect but you must be like 12 years old especially if you cannot understand that at this point specs are not relevant. So what exactly will that phone do that the iPhone wont? Plus it's no secret that Apple has been looking into flexible/curved displays for a while now. I get it you like Samsung!

Also to answer you question like a 12 years old " So what exactly will that phone do that the iPhone wont? "...actually a bunch of things Samsung's phone can do that the iPhone 5S can't. Take a look.

1. It has a built-in infrared blaster that can be used as a universal remote to control your TV. (The IR blaster is that little black dot at the top of the phone.) The phone also has a special app that pulls in data from your cable or satellite provider and can suggest shows you may like to watch.

2. It has a near field communication (NFC) chip that lets your phone talk to other devices with NFC. This means you can use your phone to make mobile payments, swap content like photos between phones just by tapping them together, or pair your phone with a stereo with a tap.

3. You can add extra storage to your Galaxy S4 if you insert a standard Micro SD card. They're pretty cheap too. You can add an extra 32 GB of storage for about $20.

4. It has a replaceable battery, which is a major benefit for some people. No smartphone has a perfect battery, so it's nice to have the option to replace it if you're running low on power.

5. It can play full 1080p HD video, something the iPhone and many other top-tier smartphones still can't do.

6. It has a 5-inch display, which is a full inch larger than the display on the iPhone 5S.

7. You can play games, share photos, and stream the same song with other Galaxy S4 phones wirelessly using an app called Group Play. The app connects you to other phones over a Wi-Fi connection. The iPhone 5S only lets you swap basic stuff like photos, links, and contact information.

8. Its camera app has a lot of neat tricks. For example, you can automatically erase a blurry figure from the background or make your own animated GIFs. The iPhone 5S camera just has slow-motion video and some Instagram-like filters.

9. A feature called Smart Stay keeps your Galaxy S4's display lit while you're looking at it. It can detect your eyes using the front-facing camera. This is a very useful feature because it can prevent your screen from going dark while you're reading something.

10. It uses a standard micro USB plug to charge and sync with your computer. These plugs are much easier to find than Apple's special Lightning port on the iPhone 5S.

11. It can run two apps at the same time on the same screen.

 

[osofast240sx]

Also to answer you question like a 12 years old " So what exactly will that phone do that the iPhone wont? "...actually a bunch of things Samsung's phone can do that the iPhone 5S can't. Take a look.

1. It has a built-in infrared blaster that can be used as a universal remote to control your TV. (The IR blaster is that little black dot at the top of the phone.) The phone also has a special app that pulls in data from your cable or satellite provider and can suggest shows you may like to watch.

2. It has a near field communication (NFC) chip that lets your phone talk to other devices with NFC. This means you can use your phone to make mobile payments, swap content like photos between phones just by tapping them together, or pair your phone with a stereo with a tap.

3. You can add extra storage to your Galaxy S4 if you insert a standard Micro SD card. They're pretty cheap too. You can add an extra 32 GB of storage for about $20.

4. It has a replaceable battery, which is a major benefit for some people. No smartphone has a perfect battery, so it's nice to have the option to replace it if you're running low on power.

5. It can play full 1080p HD video, something the iPhone and many other top-tier smartphones still can't do.

6. It has a 5-inch display, which is a full inch larger than the display on the iPhone 5S.

7. You can play games, share photos, and stream the same song with other Galaxy S4 phones wirelessly using an app called Group Play. The app connects you to other phones over a Wi-Fi connection. The iPhone 5S only lets you swap basic stuff like photos, links, and contact information.

8. Its camera app has a lot of neat tricks. For example, you can automatically erase a blurry figure from the background or make your own animated GIFs. The iPhone 5S camera just has slow-motion video and some Instagram-like filters.

9. A feature called Smart Stay keeps your Galaxy S4's display lit while you're looking at it. It can detect your eyes using the front-facing camera. This is a very useful feature because it can prevent your screen from going dark while you're reading something.

10. It uses a standard micro USB plug to charge and sync with your computer. These plugs are much easier to find than Apple's special Lightning port on the iPhone 5S.

11. It can run two apps at the same time on the same screen.

1. And IR blaster are you serious that has to be a better solution for my living room, I already had that I don't want that anymore give me a better solution
2. NFC is a chip set not a feature. I can do all those same features without a NFC chip. Try again.
3. Third party wireless external storage devices are way better for me. Plus with iCloud and 128 GB iPad all my storage needs are met.
4. My mophi juice pack duo will charge my phone up to six times this is a nonissue
5. Studies have shown that most people can't tell the difference between 720 P and 1080 P on a 32 inch television, another nonissue but it is nice to have 1080 P
6. Okay so you have a choice of a different size phone when I want to different size phone or a different size experience I go to my iPad mini
7. Gimmicks
8. Apples third-party camera apps will destroy anything from android
9-11. Your just reaching. Buy nice try#

 

[everything-i]

You really didn't address a single thing I said. Sigh...

I don't understand why being a fan of any product—Apple or otherwise—is sometimes mutually exclusive with being objective.

Ok this guy makes out that Apple's 64bit processor is just a gimmick. Well as I said how else do they market their new processor architectures advantages. They chose the '64 bit' badge because it is something that ordinary folks can comprehend. Then this guy proclaims that their new processor is all marketing and gives little or no real advantages to users. This is demonstrably a falsehood as can be proved by the performance improvements seen when running code on the new chip. The fact that some people are so pedantic that they take the term '64 bit' to mean something other than what is actually delivered by this new processor is not a problem with Apple's marketing. I am not an automatic fan of any product and take any product at face value. The iPhone5 was in my opinion an example of poor industrial design for instance and that is a statement that can be defended. However in this case I see an attempt to denigrate a device and its marketing for no real reason and that is where I am coming from. Qualcomm's marketing guy's comments do not stand up with relation to Apple's implementation but are an attempt to use a crude generalisation to indicate that Apple's marketing in relation to this processor is less than honest. It was a, poorly thought out, low shot and I am not surprised they are now backtracking.

 

[john123]

Then this guy proclaims that their new processor is all marketing and gives little or no real advantages to users. This is demonstrably a falsehood as can be proved by the performance improvements seen when running code on the new chip. The fact that some people are so pedantic that they take the term '64 bit' to mean something other than what is actually delivered by this new processor is not a problem with Apple's marketing.

You have it entirely, 100% backward. Please re-read his comments. He didn't say that the new processors have no advantage—just that 64-bit in and of itself doesn't afford performance advantages (it doesn't; performance improvements come from the architectural changes, as already discussed).

As for what people take "64-bit" to be, it's you that's expanding upon the definition, not the other way around. The CMO's wording was carefully designed to refer strictly to the difference between 64 bits versus 32 bits, ceteris paribus. Again, he wasn't talking about the processor, or the new registers, or instruction sets, or anything like that.

The fact that you flipped around the facts to suit your narrative is exactly why I questioned whether you wear rose (or apple) colored glasses.

 

[everything-i]

You have it entirely, 100% backward. Please re-read his comments. He didn't say that the new processors have no advantage—just that 64-bit in and of itself doesn't afford performance advantages (it doesn't; performance improvements come from the architectural changes, as already discussed).

As for what people take "64-bit" to be, it's you that's expanding upon the definition, not the other way around. The CMO's wording was carefully designed to refer strictly to the difference between 64 bits versus 32 bits, ceteris paribus. Again, he wasn't talking about the processor, or the new registers, or instruction sets, or anything like that.

The fact that you flipped around the facts to suit your narrative is exactly why I questioned whether you wear rose (or apple) colored glasses.

That isn't what I am saying at all, Apple is not marketing 64bit computing they are advertising their processor so my statement is accurate. The CMO's words may have been chosen carefully to avoid litigation but his intent is still clear and it was an attempt to make Apple's marketing seem fanciful which it is not. Some people have chosen to be pedantic and present some theoretical 32 vs 64 bit all things equal argument which is not what Apple is marketing so why argue it. Even if it were there are still some benefits of having 64bit datapaths and more wider registers. However what we actually have is Apple's 64bit implementation vs Apple's and others 32bit implementations which has provided real demonstrable benefits. There is no getting away from the fact that this was an attempt to discredit Apples claims and it has backfired which is why they are back peddling now. You suggest that I am flipping round facts but all the press that this received backs up my statement and his words were received as a negative toward the validity of Apples marketing. If he knew what he was talking about it was a poor attempt at a low blow, if he didn't then he was just having a go at Apple for no reason. Either way he now looks a fool.

 

[AllieNeko]

Nope. Completely false.

Not completely false, but mostly misleading.

How on earth are you claiming that what I say is completely false? It's completely true. 64-bit words are larger than 32-bit words, so 64-bit applications use more RAM. Additionally, binaries are even worse since to support both they require two copies of the compiled binary in storage.

----------

Actually he was WRONG.

You don't need more then 4GB in order for apps to take advantage of the improvements gained by A64. You are getting this confused with x64. The fat binaries, from what I have read, produced by Xcode are not that larger.

I didn't claim you need more than 4GB, I claimed you needed MORE RAM for any given application as well as more storage space.

 

[i4m]

Like others have said I really don't think we will see the difference now or even next gen but you might as well prepare for the future.

That is a new approach for Apple, they usually wait until a technology "matures" first.

 

[Taz Mangus]

Additionally, binaries are even worse since to support both they require two copies of the compiled binary in storage.

The instruction set on A7 is still 32Bit. Arguments could be passed as 64Bits but the code size will not change that much.

I didn't claim you need more than 4GB, I claimed you needed MORE RAM for any given application as well as more storage space.

Okay. I got the impression that you were trying to use the old more then 4GB argument about A64.

If you have not seen this: http://www.realworldtech.com/arm64/

 

[Taz Mangus]

The 64 bit ARM architecture has changed. 32 bit ARM had many features that were quite useful, but limited the clock rate. A pure 64 bit ARM processor could run at higher clock rate with the same technology. A mixed 32/64 bit ARM processor as Apple uses right now doesn't because the 32 bit part would fail, but Apple _could_ build a processor running at higher clock rate, but using more cycles for 32 bit code.

There is no relation between clock speed and 32/64Bit. Both the A6 and A7 are underclocked. Apple chooses to underclock the CPU for reasons of battery life and heat. The A7 actually uses a 32Bit instruction set.