- Mar 11, 2000
- 23,752
- 1,285
- 126
I haven't seen that rumour. Where did you see that, and is the source at all reliable?Rumor is A10X is on TSMC 10nm, so could actually be smaller/similarly sized.
I haven't seen that rumour. Where did you see that, and is the source at all reliable?Rumor is A10X is on TSMC 10nm, so could actually be smaller/similarly sized.
I haven't seen that rumour. Where did you see that, and is the source at all reliable?
In any case, you can't really say Apple makes the best microprocessors when their chips are a measly 4W TDP. .
No, they design all sorts of chips at all sorts of price points . Maybe you meant flagship processors, not chips. Keep in mind, most computers sell for < $600.But it helps for them that they're designing chips that the only go in >$600 products.
This is not a big.LITTLE design and it would not directly have been affected by the jack. Apple's design appears to use a unified cache between all four cores and they added a fast hardware switch to allocate a thread to the appropriate core. It just might be that all four cores can run simultaneously. With threads that don't contain any conditional branching or complex floating point operations going to the more efficient cores. That makes a lot more sense to me.Was this to make room for the big.LITTLE since they need additional room for the additional hardware? Or, if I recall correctly from the presentation, they had a haptic feedback engine near the bottom of the phone. Did this take its place?
This is so far-fetched that I just don't see it being possible. You basically need the hardware to be aware of everything that is traditionally part of the kernel scheduler. How would this controller be aware of threads? You still need information from the kernel at which point it's arguable what the advantage to do this in hardware is?What's interesting to me is Apple moving traditionally kernel level decision making onto the processor. So can Fusion also mean the hardwiring of key parts of the Mach/BSD kernel onto the A10 (not to mention the runtime engine.) Something I've always expected to happen. So I suspect, we haven't heard half the A10 story yet.
If that Geekbench result is legit, it should be noted that Geekbench is still seeing two cores.This is not a big.LITTLE design and it would not directly have been affected by the jack. Apple's design appears to use a unified cache between all four cores and they added a fast hardware switch to allocate a thread to the appropriate core. It just might be that all four cores can run simultaneously. With threads that don't contain any conditional branching or complex floating point operations going to the more efficient cores. That makes a lot more sense to me.
Should be interesting to see more details unfoldIf that Geekbench result is legit, it should be noted that Geekbench is still seeing two cores.
This is so far-fetched that I just don't see it being possible. You basically need the hardware to be aware of everything that is traditionally part of the kernel scheduler. How would this controller be aware of threads? You still need information from the kernel at which point it's arguable what the advantage to do this in hardware is?
I still think the controller is a hardware DVFS governor which at the same time decides discrete switching (only either one of the two is active) between pairs of little and big cores. Again it seems the OS only sees 2 cores here so for me this makes the most sense.
Woah, when Apple makes 4W high-end chip, it gets lauded as the highest engineering achievement of mankind."Measly 4W" - That's what is amazing, so much performance at that level.
Try to put Intels 4W high-end chip in a 140 gram smartphone. Well, actually no need to try that, I can tell you it won't work well.Woah, when Apple makes 4W high-end chip, it gets lauded as the highest engineering achievement of mankind.
When Intel makes 4W high-end chip with 50% higher peak performance and performance per watt than A10, no one gives a [censored].
Fanboyism much (also looking at those 3 likes).
Only because it isn't designed for it.it won't work well.
This is a really lame response. Apple didn't force anybody to buy the 16GB version, it was mearly an offering. As you said, it was the minimum.
I don't know how offering options to consumers makes a company "the worst".
Only because it isn't designed for it.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8515/quick-look-at-core-m-5y70-and-llama-mountain
Llama Mountain, 7.2mm thick (BDW-Y).
iPhone 7, 7.1mm thick.
The old "make people pay more for what should be standard" line in the guise of "offering options". Apple should have damn well been at 32gb for a few years now but we both know they would have lost some 64gb sales.
And yes your next counter is probably something along the lines of "Capitalism, maximizing profits etc"... You can save that. My response was to the guy claiming everything should be included in a "flagship" phone in the first place.
The old "make people pay more for what should be standard" line in the guise of "offering options". Apple should have damn well been at 32gb for a few years now but we both know they would have lost some 64gb sales.
And yes your next counter is probably something along the lines of "Capitalism, maximizing profits etc"... You can save that. My response was to the guy claiming everything should be included in a "flagship" phone in the first place.
Interesting point. Ironically though, the 400 MHz result had higher scores.Just a theory now that we have A10 details: could the first leaked result be showing the two slower cores clocks? ~400MHz sounds about right for low-power cores and 2GB ram could be for iPhone7 vs 7+.
Why would it be double? A9 isn't even close to double:Those scores indicate more throttling than A9. The MT score is not even double that of the ST score.
Considering that doubling the score is the theorical maximum they could do, I find that fine.Those scores indicate more throttling than A9. The MT score is not even double that of the ST score.
TBH, 32GB is still ridiculous. I'm not just pointing at Apple. The savings on NAND by these phone manufacturers is crazy. Not to say the laptop market is any better, both have their problems. But phones should come with at least 128GB, just like laptops. In the post just above that, you even said:Apple is there now, at 32GB base. Does this make it more likely that you're going to buy the next iPhone, or were you never a potential Apple customer anyway?
Premium phone should also have premium storagy. Enough said.A premium phone should have a premium processor.
What scores do Intel processors have (I'm not really all that much into benchmarking)?BTW, there are now 4 different iPhone 7 models listed there at Geekbench.
iPhone9,1 (2 GB): 5592 / 3382
iPhone9,2 (3 GB): 5552 / 3418
iPhone9,3 (2 GB): 5495 / 3379
iPhone9,4 (3 GB): 5363 / 3233
Legit or not I don't know. If not, then they're some pretty reasonable fakes.
You can look here: http://browser.primatelabs.com/processor-benchmarksWhat scores do Intel processors have (I'm not really all that much into benchmarking)?