Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

WSJ: Thinner iPad and Retina iPad Mini Expected on Tuesday

Michael CM1 said:
Ah, still wish I could afford to get a new one. Why? Because. The only actual good reason I have is I would love to ditch all of my 30-pin cables now. But that's not worth the $400 difference from selling an iPad 3 to getting and iPad 5 32GB.
Click to expand...

damn i own an ipad 3 and can think of a ton of good reasons to upgrade to the 5,far more than just ditching the 30 pin cable.
 
DollaTwentyFive said:
This is where I show my ignorance as it pertains to processors. The A7 runs the retina display on the iPhone 5S. So is it that the A7 processor needs even more power because the iPad screens are much larger? Again, please forgive my lack of knowledge on this subject. I'm trying to understand how all of this works.
Click to expand...

"Retina" is essentially a higher DPI screen. Usually the pixel count is being doubled which requires more processing power. The pixel resolution of a retina iPad is 2048x1536 while the iPhone 5/5s display is 1136x640. The current iPad Mini uses a 1024x768 resolution by utilizing the A5 (the same processor found in the iPhone 4S). Notice the similarity of the 5/5S and iPad Mini display. The only reason Apple used the A5 on the Mini was because it didn't need the extra power for a retina screen. We would have seen an A5X in the Mini had they originally included a retina display.

It wouldn't be a surprise to see Apple use an A7X on a new iPad while sticking to an A6X on the Mini. It keeps the cost lower while not interfering with the sales of iPad and a large enough gap to convince users to upgrade to the regular iPad. The 5c is a perfect example that you can use an "older" processor while still provide a fluid experience. I don't think Apple is worried about providing 64 bit support on the Mini. I believe that the 5c supports that theory.
 
Chuck-Norris said:
one article says no retina ipad mini, anothe says will LOL
Click to expand...

I believe WSJ over any analyst/blog rumor. But my question is A7 vs A7x. If the resolution is the same why use different processors? My guess is that iPad mini will usher in a new screen resolution or both will use the A7 chip.

----------
auero said:
"Retina" is essentially a higher DPI screen. Usually the pixel count is being doubled which requires more processing power. The pixel resolution of a retina iPad is 2048x1536 while the iPhone 5/5s display is 1136x640. The current iPad Mini uses a 1024x768 resolution by utilizing the A5 (the same processor found in the iPhone 4S). Notice the similarity of the 5/5S and iPad Mini display. The only reason Apple used the A5 on the Mini was because it didn't need the extra power for a retina screen. We would have seen an A5X in the Mini had they originally included a retina display.

It wouldn't be a surprise to see Apple use an A7X on a new iPad while sticking to an A6X on the Mini. It keeps the cost lower while not interfering with the sales of iPad and a large enough gap to convince users to upgrade to the regular iPad. The 5c is a perfect example that you can use an "older" processor while still provide a fluid experience. I don't think Apple is worried about providing 64 bit support on the Mini. I believe that the 5c supports that theory.
Click to expand...

It would be a mistake to offer a non 64 bit processor in the mini especially if your upgrading the display.
 
iSunrise said:
The A6X has the same GFLOPS like an A7 and an A7 is WAY more power-efficient than an A6X. Also, it has a WAY faster CPU (Cyclone vs. Swift). I think you need to think about that again. What you wrote doesn´t make any sense at all. The only possibility to solve that would be to shrink the A6X to raise it´s power-efficiency, which is NEEDED for the mini (and cut some costs along with it), because of the smaller battery and the rumored Retina display.
Click to expand...
The costs are cuting themselfs after one year in production and the demand for A6X chips is zero after iPad 4 is going out of production.

Reasons to use A6X:
- chepaer costs (the fab exists and isn't used for anything else)
- good enough (the chip is capable of running the Retina iPad 4)
- short-term availability (the same chip isn't used in iPhones)

Reasons to use A7:
- pushing the 64-bit transition (and showing Android the finger)
- creating higher demand from customers (people love higher numbers)
- unifying chip lineup (one chip design to rule them all)
- much faster cpu speed (more idle time, better battery life)
- lower power consumption thanks to 28nm process (more battery life)
- smaller chip size allows for smaller logic board (more room for battery)
- thinner and lighter devices (more battery life = smaller battery = less weight)
- cheaper battery production costs (smaller battery = less raw materials used)

Because of battery life the A7 might be needed to realize a Retina display in the iPad mini form factor at all. In the long run using the same chips in iPhones and iPads will help reduce development and production costs. Being a company focused on what is more important in the future not so much in the present, I call it confirmed by logic:

The Retina iPad mini will have an A7 chip right now.
 
cdmoore74 said:
I believe WSJ over any analyst/blog rumor. But my question is A7 vs A7x. If the resolution is the same why use different processors? My guess is that iPad mini will usher in a new screen resolution or both will use the A7 chip.

----------



It would be a mistake to offer a non 64 bit processor in the mini especially if your upgrading the display.
Click to expand...

Aureo is correct though, it makes more sense to use A6X for Apple than a 64bit processor the same as the full size iPad, much more sense. Just like the 5C.
 
Anyone else tired of these non-stop should/could/expected posts?
Can't we just wait until tomorrow and then talk about what's actually real?
 
v0lume4 said:
If they both have the same resolution, I'm trying to determine why they both wouldn't have the A7X... The iPad 3 used the A5X because it kinda had to, is that not right?
Click to expand...

Differentiation. A7 might easily be enough of a jump over A5X and maintain battery life. And, the chip won't be as good for games/graphics as its big brother. So why not?
 
cdmoore74 said:
I believe WSJ over any analyst/blog rumor. But my question is A7 vs A7x. If the resolution is the same why use different processors? My guess is that iPad mini will usher in a new screen resolution or both will use the A7 chip.
Click to expand...
There´s a couple of reasons that make sense, I will mention just two of them:

1) The mini has a smaller casing and therefore battery and together with a Retina screen, you would need to optimize power-usage a LOT. If there´s no IGZO-magic involved, the mini just hasn´t enough juice to drive an A7X at it´s current battery life. The only possibility would be for Apple to lower the frequencies of an A7X and put it into the mini. However, even then the SoC itself would still be as big. So, why not go for an A7 in the first place?

2) The A7X will be pretty expensive to produce (28nm HKMG) and Apple isn´t likely to just throw away their current very high margins on most of their products. So, why not go for an A7, again (small, extremely power efficient)?

Gudi said:
The Retina iPad mini will have an A7 chip right now.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

The only thing we don´t really know is how limited Apple is with their current A7-production right now. But then again, putting an A7X into the mini would create WAY too much volume, which would make this situation even worse.
 
Last edited:
Gudi said:
The Retina iPad mini will have an A7 chip right now.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The A7 GPU is as powerful, or more than the A6X, so it's more than capable of handling the new retina screen. The thing I'm most skeptical about is the memory interface, as it is 128-bit wide on A5X and A6X, but only 64-bit wide on A7. But the A6X is too hot and power hungry for the thin iPad mini.
 
iSunrise said:
The A6X has the same GFLOPS like an A7 and an A7 is WAY more power-efficient than an A6X. Also, it has a WAY faster CPU (Cyclone vs. Swift). I think you need to think about that again. What you wrote doesn´t make any sense at all. The only possibility to solve that would be to shrink the A6X to raise it´s power-efficiency, which is NEEDED for the mini (and cut some costs along with it), because of the smaller battery and the rumored Retina display.

Also, what some people don´t seem to grasp:

The X doesn´t mean anything other than an extension to the A7 SoC (X = eXtended) towards more powerful graphics (because of the 2048x1536 resolution). The A7 already has 4 Rogue clusters that are extremely powerful compared to the old PowerVR 5 series cores. There is absolutely no correlation between the X and Retina other than the fact that you need more GPU performance to drive more pixels. The A7 is almost a bit too powerful (graphics wise) for a smartphone like the 5s. This thing is a monster and only needs to drive a 1136x640 resolution.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected :)
 
asdtfdr said:
Agreed. The A7 GPU is has powerful, or more than the A6X, so it's more than capable of handling the new retina screen. The thing I'm most skeptical about is the memory interface, as it is 128-bit wide on A5X and A6X, but only 64-bit wide on A7.
Click to expand...
Good catch. Yes, bandwidth may be limiting a bit, but then again, it´s LPDDR3 vs. LPDDR2 in the older Apple SoCs, so that may be mitigated a bit.
 
MrDom74 said:
Why... or how so?

If the Mini 2 has the M7 processor then it's pretty much obvious it has to have the A7 processor - of sorts.
Click to expand...

I would predict that the Mini stays a generation behind in terms of SOC. So the Mini 2 will get the same CPU/GPU that's in the iPad4 (and not M7 processor).
 
DanielDD said:
Apple is not going to make an iPad Mini with more DPI than the iPad.

That's for sure. Sorry to disappoint you guys
Click to expand...
The iPhone 5s has an even higher PPI. Not sure where you get your ideas from. Actually, a new mini Retina would be about the same PPI as an iPhone 5/5s.

iPad:
Display size: 7.76" × 5.82" = 45.16in² (19.71cm × 14.78cm = 291.37cm²) at 263.92 PPI, 0.0962mm dot pitch, 69652 PPI²

iPhone:
Display size: 3.48" × 1.96" = 6.84in² (8.85cm × 4.99cm = 44.14cm²) at 325.97 PPI, 0.0779mm dot pitch, 106256 PPI²

iPad mini (Retina):
Display size: 6.32" × 4.74" = 29.96in² (16.05cm × 12.04cm = 193.27cm²) at 324.05 PPI, 0.0784mm dot pitch, 105009 PPI²
 
Gudi said:
What does that even mean? There is no 64-bit iPad 4 and if there was one, it would have a different instruction set changing the speed of every operation. How could it be the same in CPU performance? The A7 doubled the CPU speed of the A6 and the A6X in the iPad 4 had the same CPU as the A6.

In my book the A7 should be a notably improvement over the A6X. Both Retina iPads have the exact same number of pixels, why should one need a better GPU than the other? And if there is in deed an A7X, why not give it to both iPads? You can't save money with giving the iPad mini "only" an A7 either..
Click to expand...

Couple of reasons that spring to mind:

1) Battery, space and heat issues. The A5X and A6X have historically been big beasts needing lots of power compared to their non-X counterparts and generating quite a bit of heat. None of that is good news when you're trying to shoehorn it into a Mini enclosure. While I'm sure they'd rather not deal with them in the iPad chassis either even in its smaller form there's a lot more internal volume to play with.

2) Assuming that an A7 can indeed run a Retina display for a moment the A7X shifts targets for the first time. In the past it was required, now it's a luxury. For Apple it makes a lot of sense to start pushing the 'desktop application' line harder on the bigger device as Windows-powered tablets start to improve. I can see that being an attractive option for Apple especially as it would give a clear marketing message separating out Mini and iPad.

Maybe it's best to put it this way. iPad Mini = Macbook Air. iPad = Macbook Pro. Nice, simple, straightforward message to get across with every choice being pretty good and a clear temptation to get customers to upgrade.
 
RMo said:
Do you really think that will happen? Looking at Activity Monitor in my desktop, only about 50% of the processes are 64-bit, and many of those are ones associated with the OS. Of the ones that are third-party applications, many still have a 32-bit executable I could launch if I wanted to (do a "Get Info" and see if there's a checkbox)--or needed to, which is why Safari, for example, still gives you the option.

Since the benefit to 64-bit apps on mobile seems less clear than it does on the desktop right now, I'd expect this transition to happen even more slowly. This is in addition to the fact that the 5s is currently their only 64-bit-capable product, whereas Macs have been 64-bit since the Core 2 Duo (2008 or so?). For comparison, iDevices from that age are ancient now and, for example, don't support the latest OS. I expect the same will be the case with today's devices when (if?) 64-bit becomes the norm on mobile.
Click to expand...

The desktop transition from 16-bit/32-bit to 64 bit took a lot of time.

Mainly due to backward compatibility and the sheer number of legacy apps in business built applications - ie not shrink wrap apps.

Here we have a different set of circumstances. Apps are ring fenced and controlled by Apple.

The move to 64-bit will take a year to 18 months.

At anytime Apple wish to mandate 64 bit they can do so via the app store.

In addition the usage life of phone apps is significantly shorter than desktop apps. People roll them over fairly quickly and of the ones with some life in the them they are updated automatically via the app store.
 
DanielDD said:
Apple is not going to make an iPad Mini with more DPI than the iPad.
That's for sure. Sorry to disappoint you guys.
Click to expand...
Retina is not about more DPI but the exact doubling of pixels in both dimensions, allowing for an easy transition for app developers and users alike. The benefits of having the exact same amount of pixels in iPad and iPad mini outweigh any problems from having to push so many pixels through an iPad mini. We knew how many pixels the iPad mini 2 would have, when we heard that the iPad mini 1 had half (or a quarter of) the pixels of the Retina iPad 3. Sorry guy but there is absolutly no doubt about this. The only question was, is the pixel doubling coming this year or next year? The existence of A7s quad-core gpu capabilities hinted at this is the year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back