Although early
erroneous reports placed Apple's
custom A4 chip at the leading edge of ARM-based design, things are slowly falling back to earth. First, we learned that the graphics subsystem was almost certainly the
same PowerVR SGX component found in the iPhone, and now
Ars Technica reports that the actual CPU is the familiar single-core Cortex A8 also found in Apple's handset. That makes the A4 seem an awful lot like an tightened-up, overclocked iPhone 3GS chip, which makes sense, seeing as it was
actually in production in September of last year. So why the need for a custom part? The answer may well be efficiency and power savings: by cutting out extraneous Cortex A8 features and I/O that go unused in the iPad, Apple can further reduce the A4's size and energy draw -- which could be why Steve Jobs said the iPad's chips
"use hardly any power." That might not make a huge difference when tied to a large LCD in a device like the iPad, but
Ars speculates that this strategy combined with some of P.A. Semi's dynamic power optimization tech could result in a hyper-efficient chip for the iPhone somewhere down the line. That would certainly be interesting in the future -- but right now we've got the A4, and we can't wait until the end of the month to properly put this thing through its paces.
posted March 1st 2010 12:37PM
@zomgbbqftw That would have serious potential. Maybe even a Google branded tablet, like those renders shown.
As Ars so eloquently put it, "its the software, stupid!". But still, I cant help but feel dissapointed. The A9's provide an enormous benefit, they are out-of-order processors for one, which is a MASSIVE benefit in itself, and for two they are either dual or quad cores. I cant remember who's specific test it was, but the A9 kept toe-to-toe with Intel's Atom (pinetrail) while consuming so much less power. Two Cortex A9 cores would be a screamer for a device like this, the Cortex A8 not so much. Probably in-line with Snapdragon 1, since both are the same clock speed and based on the same core. Knowing Apple, it probably doesn't have more RAM than a smartphone either, but thats just speculation.
Oh, and I TOTALLY sent this in :-P
@Nitesh
If the iPad processor does the job it's supposed to do with no slowdown and everything reacts as you'd expect it to, then where's your justification for using an A9? I don't think Apple is as dumb as people seem to think they are.
Could the 3GS have used a faster processor? Probably. Is the 600MHz processor it has good enough to make everything you do pretty much instant? Yep. So where's the problem?
Overkill for overkill's sake is stupid. Don't forget that the vast, VAST majority of people who will be buying an iPad are not tech geeks or spec whores like people on Engadget. If the iPad works well, is responsive and reacts like you'd expect it to, then obviously the A8 is good enough.
@Jack Which is exactly why I quoted "its the software, stupid!". I know the internal specs don't matter as much as the overall package, but obviously developers could have so much more to work with if they used the Cortex A9 instead.
@Nitesh
I think you missed my point. When you say "so much more to work with", what exactly are you talking about? If the iPad is already completely responsive and as fast as can be expected, what are you going to gain from going to an A9?
It's obviously not just the software, the hardware has to be good enough to make the software fast enough to be usable. My point is that from all accounts so far, the A4 in the iPad is good enough, as in there's no sluggishness or lagging. So what are you going to gain from going to a faster processor?
@Jack And you missed mine. The iPad looked very responsive, but that was only the OS itself and a select few apps that were shown. Obviously, a developer can do more with on a Core 2 Duo than they can with a Pentium 4, same applies here. More power means more potential for developers to exploit.
@Jack For a pad/phone like device, the current use model isn't very CPU intensive. But you can look at some of the Android apps aimed at higher-end phones (Nexus One) and see how, with a faster processor, they become viable instead of annoying. The photo recognition programs, for instance.
People are just discovering new uses for superphones such as augmented reality, games, better (read: more resource intensive) voice and image recognition, etc.
Granted this doesn't apply to the iPad really given its limited intended use but I can see its competing products -- whenever they surface -- to have such use models. The form factor has a lot of potential -- live video-conferencing with image cleanup and compression on-the-fly for instance. The hardware just needs to reach some kind of critical mass before devs can start thinking about those types of apps.
@Jack
So.. you missed his point entirely?
The product videos and stills show the OS moving at a quick pace.. not 3rd party.. anything. I ditched my 3GS specifically because of how laggy it was (and the SUPER poor call quality), along with the lack of user customization. Most importantly.. how laggy it is. Most "intense" apps, get brutalized on the thing because of it's old hardware, and the iPad will be no different.. literally.
@Mekkakat Good answer. You can simply do MORE with a pound of clay than a teaspoon of it, as bad as this metaphor is.
@Nitesh
I guess the important question is (and one that we likely won't get an answer to), are there applications that are being held back because the hardware isn't up to the job? It's likely that graphically intensive applications will benefit from more power but for everything else I have my doubts that the additional power is necessarily going to deliver much more benefit. In some respects it can be argued that more power will enable more complex applications but is that necessarily what people want on a platform that seems to be designed around the principle of simplicity?
@Kelmon
Aside from more complicated games, I don't see the need for a more expensive processor so long as the rest of the system works smoothly. As we've all seen with the Wii vs. Xbox 360 or PS3, even gaming machines don't sell better when given superior hardware. You would think that processing power would rule all when it comes to games, but you'd be wrong.
Brand recognition + different/innovative/friendly interface + quality software written specifically for the platform = success
@Kelmon I don't think they're being held back to some extent. Lots of people are happy with their apps. But, for devs wanting to develop really good apps that are powerful-but-simple (it probably can be done) and people that care a lot about productivity or tasks (or just wanna play cool games =D), they will want to depend on a more powerful processor. I don't believe it's necessary at all, but it wouldn't hurt to give it a chance.
@Kelmon Looking at the history of the smartphone, I really don't think "principle of simplicity" when it comes to functionality is anywhere close to accurate.
Simplicity kinda went out the door when the phone's primary usage stopped being making calls.
@N900
I think it depends on whether the extra power is used, if it is used for something beneficial to the end-user (basically, anything that makes them enjoy the experience more) and doesn't come with costs that more than offset the benefits. Maybe developers could use the power to make their applications more interesting but that has to be balanced against other factors, like increasing costs to purchase the device, increased size or reduced battery life. I'm very happy to have more power as long as I'm going to be taking advantage of that power and still having a great experience.
@Mekkakat
Sorry, you're delusional. I have a 3GS and it's not sluggish at all. Why was yours sluggish? Did you bother to find out? No, of course not.
As far the rest of you, yes I got his point but you're now making comparisons that are not analogous to this situation, i.e. C2D vs. P4. This is not desktop hardware we're talking about.
You're making a lot of assumptions about the inability of the iPad's chip to be able to handle more intensive tasks, and there has been no indication that it will be anything but completely usable. Do you really think it would choke on live video? I seriously doubt it, since it doesn't choke on local full screen video.
There is a lot of conclusion jumping going on here, when all evidence points to the fact that it will be entirely usable no matter what you throw at it, keeping in mind that this is not a replacement for a netbook or a laptop, as both Apple and reporters everywhere have been telling you for a long time now.
@Jack You say you got the point, but in the same reply you say something that shows you really don't...Did anyone say that it would choke on full screen video? No. All that I'm saying, and take good note of this, is that developers would have more to work with if it had the A9. Thats it. No more, no less. An builder can do more with 10,000 bricks than 5,000, an artist can do more with a pound of modelling clay than a teaspoon of it. Lets leave it at that, mmmkay?
@Nitesh
One word: Flash.
@Jack Why do you think there would be 'no slowdown'? I know it only has to render web pages, and it will be using graphics acceleration to make things like scrolling run smoothly. But some web pages can be quite complex (I work on some which show noticeable performance differences e.g. in JavaScript code when running on more efficient vs. less efficient browsers, and that's on a desktop PC). And a Cortex A8 is much slower than an Atom netbook (which also pretty much only has to render web pages).
I'm sure it is fast enough to do a decent job (and the software will be optimised to use the graphics accelerator which is not always true of other devices), but a faster chip would certainly be a good thing.
It's basically the same processor as an iPhone and the screen is much larger, so it has to do more work. I don't find iPhones slow, but they could be faster.
Doesn't bother me because I don't see any point to the device - I'm looking forward to an ARM-based netbook but I want one with a keyboard please, preferably a bit smaller, and running a real OS rather than a cutdown variant... and with a dual-core A9, not an A8. (Admittedly that last part is mostly because I want to run other things not just web browser - and because I'd like to multitask.)
And yes, I'm typing this now on my Mac... it would be great if that smartbook ran OS X but sadly, it doesn't seem as if Apple ever plan to deliver the full OS on that kind of platform, so I'll settle for Linux.
Does this really matter though for the intended audience?
@AckbarsFist Yes. Consumers might not know about it, but developers have would have more to work with if it used a Cortex A9 instead, and therefore could make more powerful, better looking, more functional etc apps.
@Nitesh
I'd prefer to hear from a developer who is being held back by the A4 processor and what he/she would have done if something more powerful was available before passing judgment on whether a more powerful processor is actually going to make my end-user experience better.
typical, apple slogan:
GET LESS, SPEND MORE....
of course with the latest cortexes, you only send the clock signal to the periphrials that you actually want to use, so the power drain by unused pins/features is very minimal.
@ebgolfin
But this brings us back all the problems of the IT industry's starting years.
proprietary hardware and software, which every company does on their own. No compatibility, no standards. Programs may run well on but for every change in hardware you have to ajust them. Poor developers, who have to rewrite their applications for every new piece of hardware. This evolution coming from apple is worse and my main reason not to buy anything from them...
@WiesiAut
The thing here is that we are talking about devices that are very much in the same vein as game consoles. They are not designed to do every imaginable task, but rather to take a few commonly used tasks and streamline the process. In this respect, the proprietary hardware/software combo has historically produced the best results. The market isn't going to allow more than a few key players to have success.
I also think that the proprietary design gives freedom to developers to concentrate on content without having to worry about compatibility. Take current console games. Sure, the technology behind them is aging and proprietary, but it's familiar and unchanging as well. Now that the architectures have been around for several years, developers have learned their quirks and are able to focus more on the content of their software instead of constantly learning hardware. This is why you don't hear software developers begging console manufacturers to upgrade their specs and release a new generation. It's quite the opposite. It think it can be argued that this type of ecosystem allows the creation of perhaps the most innovative software, as evidenced by the creativity that you seen in the gaming market.
This is also going to work in the iPad's favor. Developers have been working with the iPhone and iPod Touch for several years now and are familiar with the technology. By continuing to keep the iPad hardware similar to the other devices, developers are able to jump in and begin development without being hindered by completely new and/or highly fragmented hardware configurations.
I wonder if you could argue the name "A4" stands for "Apple 4". Based on that, it being a fourth generation chip makes sense - since, in Apple's history, this would be it.
1. Motorola 68k
2. IBM PowerPC
3. Intel x86
4. Apple ARM
- Burp
@burpethead
Apple used a 6502 first.
Cutting out channels of "unused" I/O for efficiency reasons sounds more like gaining greater control over how both developers and end-users are able to interface and modify the device. (Less options to Jailbreak)
Just my opinion though.
So, Stevie said his chips use hardly any power, eh? The next logical step would be for Stevie to finally grace mankind with a perpetuum mobile. Go Stevie, make it happen!
My NetBook has more power, same battery life and it can multi task. Why should I get iPad ?