Qualcomm Marketing Executive Calls Apple's 64-Bit A7 Chip a 'Marketing Gimmick'

[scottsjack]

Wow, say something less than enthusiastic about an Apple product and it starts a firestorm of fans whining, moaning and throwing mud.

It is true, 64-bit mobile is definitely directed to the future. There might be a few minor benefits now but mainly the iPhone 5S is the first example of tech that will make future phones and tablets more powerful and therefore more useful.

For right now it is mostly a "cool new, cutting edge" thing. Apple fans like being part of an imagined new paradigm. Browsing forums will demonstrate that the Apple Paradigm is a kind of religion to some.

Back to the 64-bit A7. I bought a 32GB iPhone 5c. Why? Same radios (WiFi, LTE & BT), same great looking but dinky screen and same or similar OK-but-not-that-great headphone DAC/amp. The stuff I really wanted is essentially the same between the three iPhone 5 models.

I am looking forward to my next iPhone being a wireless AC, wider-screen 64-bit model but for now the new OS is mainly just a cool thing to tell your friends that you have.

 

[subsonix]

It does not change anything. Even if those are listed in ARM64 spec they have nothing to do with the bit-ness of the architecture. They can be implemented in 32-bit architecture too.

It doesn't matter because you get both as a consequence of ARM64. They can not be implemented in the 32-bit architecture because that would be a non-standard extension, not ARM spec.

 

[hexor]

http://mikeash.com/pyblog/friday-qa-2013-09-27-arm64-and-you.html

 

[jamesryanbell]

same great looking but dinky screen

You really think it's that small? I've used friends' phones that have way bigger screens, but the size of the devices get silly after a while (latest Note for example). I think the screen size is fine.

 

[Glideslope]

Well, well,well......

Very interesting reaction. I think some people are looking 10 years down the road and getting a little nervous. Just a little.

 

[SidedTech]

Anyone else here realize that he was saying it was a marketing gimmick from Apple, not in general? Yes, 64 bit is great, but it won't do anything different for a 5S.

64 bit will do A LOT of difference overall, but with a phone like the iPhone where customization ends at the wallpaper, and speed is measured by FPS in proprietary games like Inifinity Blade, it won't do much.

For Apple, and in this round, it IS a marketing gimmick that isn't really usable yet.

Unfortunately the Apple fans don't even bother to look at what he was actually saying, which makes sense considering I would be bitter too if I stuck to Apple's proprietary grip on phone hardware/software.

----------

You really think it's that small? I've used friends' phones that have way bigger screens, but the size of the devices get silly after a while (latest Note for example). I think the screen size is fine.

I agree with this. After 4.2" it becomes hard to use the phone with one hand. Hell even my 5 was a LITTLE bit hard to reach the top of the screen. Now I have a Nexus 4, and holy crap I have to use 2 hands to use it sometimes.

Unless the bezel is non existent, 4 inches is a good size.

 

[840quadra]

I need to further back than 2001? I don't think so. Also, I think you perhaps misunderstand the reason for the analogy. It has little to do with what is and isn't true about architectural limitations and more to do with Apple's penchant for misleading marketing collateral. Sure, every company does it to some extent, but Apple has been notoriously bad about it when it comes to the performance shell game. If anything, however, the fact that it isn't Apple claiming that 64-bit inherently leads to better performance, but instead is other people glossing over the details and making that (false) claim, is at least somewhat comforting.

While I do understand where you are going with your analogy , however, I still don't feel it fits at all.

As you indicated in your post, the problem at hand, stems from the fanbase, and certain editorial work, all based on vague mentions of 64-bit in Apple's marketing. Sure Apple mentions 64-bit quite often in their marketing, but they also don't go directly into claiming it is the 5s Key to faster performance. There is no Apple rhetoric catching up with itself, as there was no false information marketed in this round. They market the phone as being much faster than it's previous version, which appears to be true.


For those that don't remember ( I am not claiming you are in that camp), The MHz Myth tagline was brought up by Apple, in an attempt to explain that performance in computing has more to do with other factors, than just it's processor clock speed. At the time their PowerPC (G4 era) systems had half the clock speed as their intel rivals, however they did achieve similar overal performance in real life situations. As a concept, a great way to use marketing to help educate potential new customers.

What Apple did wrong is take their comparisons and examples much too far, including tactics of showing graphs highlighting how much faster their systems were against a curated selection of Intel rivals. At the same time, they didn't show examples of when the Pentium machines exceled in their own way.

The current iPhone situation is not even close to being similar. Apple is currently producing and marketing a phone & OS that is 64Bit, and much faster than their own previous model. There are no graphs on their site showing speeds of their devices over Android (or other platforms), and there was no dog and pony show comparing Android and iPhone speeds during the keynote address.

 

[Ries]

As so often, completely missed the point. The benefit of the 64-bit CPU is not that it is, you know, 64-bit. The main point lies in the increased register count and extended instruction set. The reason we are seeing better performance with the Apple's A7 in 64-bit mode is mostly because the compiler can pack more data into the registers, thus reducing expensive RAM access. If the chief marketing officer of Qualcomm is not aware of these architectural changes then I must really fear for Qualcomm's future...

P.S. The absolutely same thing is also true for the desktop PC 64-bit transition. With the difference that the memory address pressure did become more pronounced there. Still, there are very few client applications which actually need an address space of more then 4GB (and the fact that the vast majority of windows applications are still 32-bit proves it).

P.P.S. From reading this thread is becomes painfully clear that A7 critics here never programmer in assembler or looked at the ARM instruction set. For example, this quote


The 64-mode offers more registers, wider registers (which is important for SIMD floating-point operations!) and more instructions. How are you going to compensate for these things when running 32-bit code, which has NO way to express them? Of course, they could have designed an additional 32-bit instruction set that contains all these new features. It wouldn't help the existing applications either, as they still must be recompiled to take advantage of it.

Deleted, misread the whole thing

 

[gnasher729]

Isn't it true that only apps designed to run on 64 bit will benefit? So we would see little or no benefit until most apps are upgraded?

It's not "designed to run on 64 bit". It's "compiled for 64 bit". To do that, all the developer does is set a switch in Xcode 5 to produce both 32 bit and 64 bit code, and that's it. When the iPhone 5S was introduced, they showed a major application that took all of two hours to change it from 32 bit to 32/64 bit with huge speed advantages.

 

[rlhamil]

Part of the problem is that "64-bit" can mean (at least) any or all of the following:

• 64-bit address references (not to imply that all 64 bits are actually implemented!)
• 64-bit integer registers (without pairing registers)
• other architecture changes, including a larger number of registers
• 64-bit data fetches

Even without more than 4GB of RAM, the total effect can be a significant performance boost, although more cache might be needed to offset the larger integer data and address references; and the size of executables will tend to be larger because of those.

Without being aware of just what is involved, discussion of 64-bit can be misleading. But there are enough reviews showing improved performance for the A7 that even if much of that would still be present in 32-bit mode, I don't see any intent to deceive, maybe a little hype, but also posturing among those looking to score points by exaggerating the significance of the hype.

 

[AidenShaw]

...
For another, a lot of apps already need 64-bit "long long" variables in many places, a 64-bit chip can do these operations much more efficiently.

Actually, a 64-bit CPU may be only slightly faster at 64-bit integer arithmetic, compared to a modern super-scalar OoOE 32-bit CPU.

 

[mytdave]

disingenuous and factually wrong

Mr "we didn't get ours out first" Qualcomm exec sounds a bit sore. That's fine, be sore, but don't lie. Apple's 64bit chip is a big deal, and no, it's not just about accessing more than 4GB of RAM.

Apple's chip is significantly faster than the previous generation, and it's not because it's 64bits, but it's because in order to support a 64bit architecture you end up doubling the number of general purpose and floating point registers. That makes a huge difference.

The new chip also has a faster memory bus and new SIMD units, among other things. All of this is because of the architecture change. So moving to 64bit did result in a huge performance boost, but not just because of the number of "bits".

 

[mabhatter]

Jesus. Do you not understand that improved benchmarks, yes clock-for-clock, have absolutely nothing (inherently) to do with using 64-bit architecture?

Edit: Here, since people apparently can't figure out basic stuff, here's an article that quotes Apple itself. Note the not-so-subtle-but-apparently-still-hard-for-people-to-grasp distinctions about where performance does and does not come from: http://techland.time.com/2013/09/13/why-in-the-world-would-you-need-a-64-bit-smartphone/

Even if there wasn't a specific gain from 32 bit to 64bit, the 64bit programming instructions for the new chip exposes more advanced features, and simplified them. That's easier to IMPLEMENT than having two different instruction sets for slightly upgraded 32bit chips.

The BIGGEST reason Apple would move to 64bit ASAP is that OSX and its add on kits are all 64bit since the G5 PPC days. It's not necessarily the "same" 64bit instructions, but Apple wants to pour more and more SOFTWARE RESOURCES into iOS. Resources already in commercial use on OSX.

This reduces the amount of work Apple has to do to build software that works on OSX and iOS. When Apple shifted from PPC to intel they demonstrated they were VERY SKILLED at cross platform development and VERY SKILLED at playing the long game in being prepared to shift platforms on short notice... So the question is not why is 64bit useful to consumers? The REAL question is what cards does Apple hold for the NEXT iOS devices 2-3 years AND for the future of the MacBook line?

 

[iBoffin]

64-bit.

- It's got what plants crave.
- It's got electrolytes.

 

[Ubuntu]

Why doesn't my smart phone need more than four explain

Because most phones don't have more than 4GB of RAM. I'm not disagreeing with Apple introducing the 64 bit CPU and there will still be other advantages, but the man has a point in that it's not something needed right now, Apple is just getting ahead of the game - which is awesome.

 

[mdelvecchio]

Don't get it twisted.
The A7 64 bit architecture is currently faster due to changes in the pipeline and overall architecture. Currently there are no 64 bit apps, so you cannot demonstrate any improvement due to 64 bit.

So yes, it is marketing hype.

Mike Ash disagrees with you.

http://www.mikeash.com/pyblog/friday-qa-2013-09-27-arm64-and-you.html

...also, there are currently 64-bit apps. apple's, infinity blade, etc.. as mike explains utilizing apple's 64-bit architecture is more than gaining memory addresses over 4gb. read it.

 

[BSben]

When Apple introduced the new iPhone they used the word future a lot. So my guess is that the iPhone 6 will actually really use it a lot more, but by then most apps will be written for 64-Bit , so there is no waiting time to use the new tech. The thing is that somebody had to be the first one to implement it, and Apple took the opportunity to show it off. They obviously were right to do it, as Samsung just days after Apple's announcement said they would introduce 64-Bit, and now we have the company calling it a Gimmick wanting to follow suit.
It is weird how companies try to ridicule each other, and at the same time copy the products they ridicule.

 

[john123]

While I do understand where you are going with your analogy , however, I still don't feel it fits at all.

Reading the rest of this post, I see what you are saying and actually completely agree with you. I don't really "fault" Apple here at all, and I concur that their claims are reasonable (whereas we all know that wasn't really the case back in 2001, at least for the majority of use cases). It's in line with a couple of my earlier posts here, too.

The reason I cited the analogy actually was less about the extent to which Apple was or is intellectually disingenuous, and more about the extent to which a subset of users:
A) Accept marketing collateral at face value, without discounting it appropriately
B) Misappropriate carefully worded claims in marketing collateral to extend the claims

I was completely unclear about this in my original post (my fairly-snotty remark about users was at the beginning, while talking about the Megahertz Myth was at the end), so my bad. I certainly agree that from the perspective of simply evaluating Apple's claims, the 64-bit A7 and the Megahertz Myth aren't remotely comparable.

 

[CausticPuppy]

I'd say it's future proofing if anything...

Absolutely. Not only does the 64-bit architecture provide a bit of a boost for current apps (due to a more efficient architecture and not just because it's 64-bit per se), it also sets Apple up for years down the road when mobile devices will need > 4GB memory.

Apple will have already been long established on a 64-bit platform by then.

Android is going to have a harder time switching to 64-bit if google just waits for 4GB to become a limitation (and they're already slapping 2GB in devices).


Skate where the puck is going to be.

 

[john123]

Part of the problem is that "64-bit" can mean (at least) any or all of the following:

• 64-bit address references (not to imply that all 64 bits are actually implemented!)
• 64-bit integer registers (without pairing registers)
• other architecture changes, including a larger number of registers
• 64-bit data fetches

The more I read and post in this thread, the clearer it's become to me that a lot of the "disagreements" are semantic in nature. You did a really eloquent job here of separating out the pieces. I think if we all used the same vocabulary and separated out the pieces like this, we'd probably (mostly) end up in agreement.

 

[mdelvecchio]

Anyone else here realize that he was saying it was a marketing gimmick from Apple, not in general? Yes, 64 bit is great, but it won't do anything different for a 5S.

you didnt read ash's explanation of why you're wrong, did you?

http://www.mikeash.com/pyblog/friday-qa-2013-09-27-arm64-andyou-.html

Adding it all together, it’s a pretty big win. My casual benchmarking indicates that basic object creation and destruction takes about 380ns on a 5S running in 32-bit mode, while it’s only about 200ns when running in 64-bit mode. If any instance of the class has ever had a weak reference and an associated object set, the 32-bit time rises to about 480ns, while the 64-bit time remains around 200ns for any instances that were not themselves the target.

In short, the improvements to Apple’s runtime make it so that object allocation in 64-bit mode costs only 40-50% of what it does in 32-bit mode. If your app creates and destroys a lot of objects, that’s a big deal.

...ill take his word over the marketing manager of a competitor. or yours.

 

[JulianL]

Mike Ash disagrees with you.

http://www.mikeash.com/pyblog/friday-qa-2013-09-27-arm64-and-you.html

...also, there are currently 64-bit apps. apple's, infinity blade, etc.. as mike explains utilizing apple's 64-bit architecture is more than gaining memory addresses over 4gb. read it.

Yup. You and hexor (who posted a link to the Mike Ash article a few posts ago) get it. I wish a few more people commenting on 64 bit would do a bit more reading to try and understand the issues. Mike Ash's article is an excellent starting place.

 

[mdelvecchio]

Because most phones don't have more than 4GB of RAM. I'm not disagreeing with Apple introducing the 64 bit CPU and there will still be other advantages, but the man has a point in that it's not something needed right now, Apple is just getting ahead of the game - which is awesome.

http://www.mikeash.com/pyblog/friday-qa-2013-09-27-arm64-and-you.html

Adding it all together, it’s a pretty big win. My casual benchmarking indicates that basic object creation and destruction takes about 380ns on a 5S running in 32-bit mode, while it’s only about 200ns when running in 64-bit mode. If any instance of the class has ever had a weak reference and an associated object set, the 32-bit time rises to about 480ns, while the 64-bit time remains around 200ns for any instances that were not themselves the target.

In short, the improvements to Apple’s runtime make it so that object allocation in 64-bit mode costs only 40-50% of what it does in 32-bit mode. If your app creates and destroys a lot of objects, that’s a big deal.


today.

 

[LiquidSpikes]

You know what is a marketing gimmick?

Advertising a Quad core processor clocked 2.3Ghz, yet totally being beat by a competitor with almost half of those specs.

 

[aDRock1154]

Absolutely. Not only does the 64-bit architecture provide a bit of a boost for current apps (due to a more efficient architecture and not just because it's 64-bit per se), it also sets Apple up for years down the road when mobile devices will need > 4GB memory.

Apple will have already been long established on a 64-bit platform by then.

Android is going to have a harder time switching to 64-bit if google just waits for 4GB to become a limitation (and they're already slapping 2GB in devices).


Skate where the puck is going to be.

That's exactly what I was thinking. This guy is out of his mind thinking it's a "marketing gimmick".