Apple A5X SoC

[runawayprisoner]

Well, I think it's about time we take our minds off the iPad 3 for a second, and... discuss its SoC!

So, what do you think of the new dual-core king? Apple boasts 4x graphics performance of Tegra 3, which is just about right but in my opinions, not so much considering they threw A5 being 2x as fast as Tegra 3 in there. Isn't A5 only about 1.5x faster than Tegra 3?

Also another thing I wanna discuss is... how much RAM do you think this thing has? Mike Capp of Epic Games blurted out during Infinity Blade Dungeons demo that it had "more memory than PS3 or XBox 360". So if I were to trust that, it means this thing definitely has more than 512MB of RAM. But how much more?

The screen has 4x more pixels. I'm pretty sure that that would translate to a 4x increase in interface image size as well, unless I'm missing something. So how much RAM should it have to maintain all those high-res graphics assets at 60fps smooth?

 

[Bateluer]

CPU wise, I would imagine that its probably slower than Tegra 3. Dual vs quad, but do we know the clock speeds on the A5X yet?

On the GPU side, that SGX543MP4(?) will easily clobber the Tegra 3 GPU. Looking at AT'd TF201 review, the Tegra 3 GPU gets beaten pretty easily by the 543MP2 in the iPad 2.

I've heard the 1GB RAM number thrown out a few times as well. Nice bump from the 512MB in the iPad 2. Kinda hoping to see 2GB in some competitor's tablets though, but another discussion that is.

The performance of Tegra 3 has been pretty well documented at this point, and its pretty tame compared to the Snapdragon Krait chips, and will likely be easily outclasses when Krait is paired with the Adreno 320. OMAP5 looks to easily beat it too. Nvidia definitely lost the performance crown. Its embarrassing when your competitor's dual core designs out performance your quad core designs too. But, I suppose I should consider that Tegra 3s coming down the chute in phones are clocked at 1.5-1.6Ghz vs the 1.3Ghz in the TF201. If that extra 200-300Mhz will make any meaningful difference . . . I don't think it's enough to close the performance advantage of the GPU in the iPad 2&3 though.

 

[runawayprisoner]

No confirmation of clock speeds on A5X yet. But I'm sure it'll be the same 1GHz, otherwise they would have touted it as a "new feature".

I'm sure PowerVR SGX543MP4 would leave Tegra 3 behind a sizable amount. But I'm just not sure it's a 4x increase.

On a side note, I'm actually wondering how the iPad 3 stacks up to Vita in terms of graphics performance. Based on what Epic Games showed during the Vita presentation, and what they showed today with Infinity Blade Dungeons, my wild guess is that... iPad 3 may just pull ahead. I have seen what the Vita is capable of, and I'm honestly not very impressed. But it might just be that current Vita games are not so well-optimized yet.

Regarding RAM, I guess 1GB is reasonable. I was kind of hoping for more, though, since it's a 4x increase in pixel count, and thus graphics asset size.

 

[smartpatrol]

PowerVR SGX543MP4 (that's a mouthful) will probably be the king of the hill for a long time to come. Tegra 3 and Snapdragon S4 haven't even caught up to Apple A5 yet, and now Apple is doubling its graphics performance.

 

[smartpatrol]

On a side note, I'm actually wondering how the iPad 3 stacks up to Vita in terms of graphics performance. Based on what Epic Games showed during the Vita presentation, and what they showed today with Infinity Blade Dungeons, my wild guess is that... iPad 3 may just pull ahead. I have seen what the Vita is capable of, and I'm honestly not very impressed. But it might just be that current Vita games are not so well-optimized yet.

I believe it's the exact same gpu as the Vita.

 

[Ravynmagi]

I think that 4x claim from Apple may be from an OpenGL benchmark. Anandtech has an OpenGL benchmark that shows the iPad 2's SGX543MP2 scoring twice as high as the Tegra 3. So I guess I can see a SGX543MP4 reaching up to four times higher than the Tegra 3 on that particular test.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5163/asus-eee-pad-transformer-prime-nvidia-tegra-3-review/3

In other tests the gap is smaller. But still quite sizeable in most. And it's definitely clear the iPad 3's quad core GPU is going to mop the floor with the Tegra 3. And it has to considering the high resolution screen it has.

 

[Deeko]

Well, think of it this way. The Vita has the same GPU, but runs at a much lower resolution. This translates to more available processing power. So while we will see some sharper visuals on the ipad, thanks to its high resolution, the Vita should be capable of pushing more polygons and effects. This all depends on how developers optimize the software, too.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Besides the GPU, there's not much to talk about. The GPU has even been discussed a great deal in the case of the Vita. The only thing that remains to be seen is how it performs with so many pixels to push. I think they could realize a considerable performance increase over the ipad 2 if games were created in the original iPad resolution, but with more eye candy of other types (shader and particle effects, geometry, etc.). If they use the new retina resolution, it seems almost like they'd be treading water in the graphics department.

 

[MrX8503]

Because it has 4x the pixels, I'm thinking performance will be the same compared to the iPad2. CPU wise, I'm hoping Apple upped the clockspeed, but knowing them it might still be 1ghz. I bet Apple had a hell of a time getting the battery life they wanted.

 

[senseamp]

More interested in what Samsung process node they are using, 45nm like A5 or 32nm.
A5 was already a huge SOC die in 45nm, so I am guessing they would want to get it shrunk to 32nm when adding even more graphics cores to it.

 

[Mopetar]

No confirmation of clock speeds on A5X yet. But I'm sure it'll be the same 1GHz, otherwise they would have touted it as a "new feature".

I doubt it. I don't think that they've talked about the clock speed of any of their other SoCs and it wasn't until later when someone got ahold of an actual device that we learned what the actual speed is. They could have very well have given it a bump without mentioning it.

More interested in what Samsung process node they are using, 45nm like A5 or 32nm.
A5 was already a huge SOC die in 45nm, so I am guessing they would want to get it shrunk to 32nm when adding even more graphics cores to it.

If it were still on 45 nm, which is possible given how many they probably want to order, that may explain some of the need for the bigger battery. The display and LTE modems are probably big contributors, but if they needed an even bigger SoC to drive the graphics performance that could eat up plenty of juice as well.

32 nm seems more likely, especially given that they've doubled the number of graphics cores/modules and would want to minimize power draw in as many areas as possible.

I'm more curious about the next iPhone. Traditionally, Apple has just used the same SoC as they did in the iPad, but that seems to be impractical given the sheer difference in graphical power requirements for the two devices. Maybe we'll see a different SoC (A6?) for the next iPhone that has more CPU power, but fewer graphics cores.

 

[Fire&Blood]

That's a reasonable assumption, especially since another iphone resolution bump is less likely than the one we saw with the new ipad, if for no other reason then because of pixel density barrier and battery size difference between ipad/iphone. Then again, a lower clocked A5X for the iphone 5 is just as reasonable. It's not like competition is utilizing chips that smoke the A5/A5X, quite the opposite.

I would like to know more about the A5X though. IIRC, Vita has 128MB VRAM and it performance is similar to a 2005 low-mid range desktop GPU. I didn't watch the announcement (I refuse to install QT) but new ipad (official name?) is very appealing. Apple managed to extend the gap that A5 created before Android got a chance to close it.

 

[runawayprisoner]

Well, think of it this way. The Vita has the same GPU, but runs at a much lower resolution. This translates to more available processing power. So while we will see some sharper visuals on the ipad, thanks to its high resolution, the Vita should be capable of pushing more polygons and effects. This all depends on how developers optimize the software, too.

Vita has the same GPU, but likely different clock speed or configuration. Take VRAM, for instance, which clocks in at 128MB for Vita. Even the iPad 2's GPU can address more than 256MB (it can challenge the CPU to the 512MB available onboard). Like I mentioned, Mike Capp of Epic Games blurted out that the iPad 3 had more memory than a PS3 or XBox 360. If that follows the trend, I wouldn't doubt that the iPad 3 can at least address up to 512MB for video RAM, giving it a 4x RAM advantage over Vita, if nothing else.

I have seen Vita games, and I Just happened to catch a glimpse of Infinity Blade Dungeons as well as Sky Gamblers yesterday. If those games were running at native 2048 x 1536 resolution, it might well be that overall (RAM, GPU, clock speed), the iPad 3 has a slight edge over Vita.

I would like to know more about the A5X though. IIRC, Vita has 128MB VRAM and it performance is similar to a 2005 low-mid range desktop GPU. I didn't watch the announcement (I refuse to install QT) but new ipad (official name?) is very appealing. Apple managed to extend the gap that A5 created before Android got a chance to close it.

It's called iPad, but in the order page, you can see it being called a "3rd generation" iPad. (effectively iPad 3)

As far as the gap goes, it's amazing, yeah. I still can't believe they can get perfect 100% scaling core-by-core like that. They moved from 2 cores to 4 cores, and bam, it's 100% faster. It's the first time I have seen 100% scaling in GPU performance on any platform.

They must have worked on those drivers for ages...

 

[Bateluer]

More interested in what Samsung process node they are using, 45nm like A5 or 32nm.
A5 was already a huge SOC die in 45nm, so I am guessing they would want to get it shrunk to 32nm when adding even more graphics cores to it.

They did double the battery size too, couple be related. If the 45nm process is stable and effective. They'd still need the battery power, and might explain why battery life is identical.

 

[smartpatrol]

Well, think of it this way. The Vita has the same GPU, but runs at a much lower resolution. This translates to more available processing power. So while we will see some sharper visuals on the ipad, thanks to its high resolution, the Vita should be capable of pushing more polygons and effects. This all depends on how developers optimize the software, too.

There's always the option of running at 1024x768. I'd imagine this is the route some of the more demanding games take.

 

[Deeko]

There's always the option of running at 1024x768. I'd imagine this is the route some of the more demanding games take.

Its definitely possible. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot (not all) of developers, in an effort to reduce development time across platforms, ran with similar models, detail levels, etc, but pushed the iPad 3 up to its full resolution. That way, they don't have to change as much between iPhone / iPad 2 / iPad 3 - just crank up the resolution and take advantage of it that way.

Vita has the same GPU, but likely different clock speed or configuration. Take VRAM, for instance, which clocks in at 128MB for Vita. Even the iPad 2's GPU can address more than 256MB (it can challenge the CPU to the 512MB available onboard). Like I mentioned, Mike Capp of Epic Games blurted out that the iPad 3 had more memory than a PS3 or XBox 360. If that follows the trend, I wouldn't doubt that the iPad 3 can at least address up to 512MB for video RAM, giving it a 4x RAM advantage over Vita, if nothing else.

I have seen Vita games, and I Just happened to catch a glimpse of Infinity Blade Dungeons as well as Sky Gamblers yesterday. If those games were running at native 2048 x 1536 resolution, it might well be that overall (RAM, GPU, clock speed), the iPad 3 has a slight edge over Vita.

The extra memory access would make a difference, but at the same time, I would imagine the higher resolution textures, necessary to look good on the higher resolution screen, would eat up a big chunk of that memory.

It will be interesting to see how the two develop over time.

 

[runawayprisoner]

The extra memory access would make a difference, but at the same time, I would imagine the higher resolution textures, necessary to look good on the higher resolution screen, would eat up a big chunk of that memory.

It will be interesting to see how the two develop over time.

While it's true that with more memory, the main point is to hold more texture, I think it is also the case that with more ample memory to work with, developers don't have to render certain things over and over again to conserve memory, thus reducing load on the GPU where they can avoid it.

Take, for instance, the depth of field effect. If the background is relatively static, and if the effect spans a large scene, they can just apply that effect once to the background, and then concentrate horsepower into drawing the foreground instead of going back and re-rendering it every single time. Also take the main character's texture, for instance. If they want to do multiple layers, they can pre-render all layers into one single texture and reference that instead of having to re-combine all smaller textures into a big one over time at every frame.

I'm sure there are many other ways memory can be used, like to pre-calculate static dungeon data so they don't have to be generated in real time, pre-render static dungeon geometry so that the next step is only to apply shading to them, and so on...

If for nothing else, at least that should give sharper and better textures than the Vita. I have seen Uncharted on Vita, and in general, the game is not very impressive. It was running at a lower resolution, textures were very low quality, very few shader effects were applied in real time, and most were pre-rendered, and geometry was very simple. Infinity Blade Dungeons didn't look anything like that, so I'm crossing my fingers...

 

[dagamer34]

Vita has the same GPU, but likely different clock speed or configuration. Take VRAM, for instance, which clocks in at 128MB for Vita. Even the iPad 2's GPU can address more than 256MB (it can challenge the CPU to the 512MB available onboard). Like I mentioned, Mike Capp of Epic Games blurted out that the iPad 3 had more memory than a PS3 or XBox 360. If that follows the trend, I wouldn't doubt that the iPad 3 can at least address up to 512MB for video RAM, giving it a 4x RAM advantage over Vita, if nothing else.

I have seen Vita games, and I Just happened to catch a glimpse of Infinity Blade Dungeons as well as Sky Gamblers yesterday. If those games were running at native 2048 x 1536 resolution, it might well be that overall (RAM, GPU, clock speed), the iPad 3 has a slight edge over Vita.



It's called iPad, but in the order page, you can see it being called a "3rd generation" iPad. (effectively iPad 3)

As far as the gap goes, it's amazing, yeah. I still can't believe they can get perfect 100% scaling core-by-core like that. They moved from 2 cores to 4 cores, and bam, it's 100% faster. It's the first time I have seen 100% scaling in GPU performance on any platform.

They must have worked on those drivers for ages...

Keep in mind that apps aren't allowed full access to all the RAM on the device, considering there is an OS and other apps kept in memory as well. At most, apps will get 512MB to play with, but that's likely pushing it.

Every other time the CPU has had a spec bump, Apple has mentioned it in during the keynote with the 3GS, 4, and 4S. I suspect that the A5X is still on a 45nm process and that the addition of 2 more PowerVR cores increased power drain. This explains why the battery had to be nearly doubled from 25 W-hr to 42.5 W-hr, only to maintain the same battery life.

I do expect a huge jump next year when an A6 would have dual-core Cortex A15 with PowerVR 6 series graphics @ 32/28nm. That would be enough power to handle most tasks normal users do on their computers today.

 

[Bateluer]

http://www.droid-life.com/2012/03/0...your-a5x-was-4-times-faster-than-the-tegra-3/

Might have something to do with the iPad 2 basically mopping the floor with the Tegra 3. Just saying.

 

[runawayprisoner]

Keep in mind that apps aren't allowed full access to all the RAM on the device, considering there is an OS and other apps kept in memory as well. At most, apps will get 512MB to play with, but that's likely pushing it.

Actually, they are allowed access to all of the RAM. There is no limit there. If an app asks for more, the OS will comply. If other apps are in memory, the OS will terminate them.

Every other time the CPU has had a spec bump, Apple has mentioned it in during the keynote with the 3GS, 4, and 4S. I suspect that the A5X is still on a 45nm process and that the addition of 2 more PowerVR cores increased power drain. This explains why the battery had to be nearly doubled from 25 W-hr to 42.5 W-hr, only to maintain the same battery life.

If we take that the new screen has yet another backlight, it would make sense. Dual backlight = twice the power consumption for the screen. Last year, the iPad 2 screen clocked in at about 2.5W power consumption at max brightness if I recall correctly, so the new screen may chug along 4W easily with 2 backlights, meaning with just the screen on, the new 42.5WHr battery will run dry in 10 hours.

I do expect a huge jump next year when an A6 would have dual-core Cortex A15 with PowerVR 6 series graphics @ 32/28nm. That would be enough power to handle most tasks normal users do on their computers today.

Unfortunately, this is one area where I believe Apple still needs to clarify. They need to start taking the iPad seriously and introduce professional apps for it, so that other app makers would follow. Right now, the iPad is acting more like a companion to a computer and then as an entertainment device rather than a full-blown standalone computer.

With all of the horsepower of the A5X, I don't doubt that it can be used for extreme applications such as CAD, or Photoshop (Adobe already released one, I believe). It's comparable to what the G3/G4 was back in the days, but with a lot more graphical processing performance. It's silly to let all that go to waste. The new iWork and iLife updates seem to indicate that Apple wanted to head that way, but I think they could have done more.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

Apple ought to release a version of Xcode for iOS. That would be a useful tool for a lot of professionals and it would also lower the start up cost for new developers since they could only need to buy an iPad to start making apps vs needing a $1000+ Mac as well.

The Android SDK was already more accessible since it's cross platform but there is also a version out now that can run on an Android tablet directly with no need for a pc.

 

[dagamer34]

Actually, they are allowed access to all of the RAM. There is no limit there. If an app asks for more, the OS will comply. If other apps are in memory, the OS will terminate them.



If we take that the new screen has yet another backlight, it would make sense. Dual backlight = twice the power consumption for the screen. Last year, the iPad 2 screen clocked in at about 2.5W power consumption at max brightness if I recall correctly, so the new screen may chug along 4W easily with 2 backlights, meaning with just the screen on, the new 42.5WHr battery will run dry in 10 hours.



Unfortunately, this is one area where I believe Apple still needs to clarify. They need to start taking the iPad seriously and introduce professional apps for it, so that other app makers would follow. Right now, the iPad is acting more like a companion to a computer and then as an entertainment device rather than a full-blown standalone computer.

With all of the horsepower of the A5X, I don't doubt that it can be used for extreme applications such as CAD, or Photoshop (Adobe already released one, I believe). It's comparable to what the G3/G4 was back in the days, but with a lot more graphical processing performance. It's silly to let all that go to waste. The new iWork and iLife updates seem to indicate that Apple wanted to head that way, but I think they could have done more.

Apps are not allowed to access "all" of the RAM. If an app asks for too much, a low memory warning is sent, and if an app ignores that, it is terminated. Apps do not get to parade around as if they are the only important thing needed to be kept in memory.

Discussion link: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6044147/memory-limit-and-ios-memory-allocation-in-iphone-sdk

As for whether Apple should have more professional apps or not, the problem has less to do with power and more to do with input method. Attempting to shove even an old version of Photoshop from the late 90s would be disastrous because of the lack of precision inputs. Inventing new and useful controls to replace a mouse and keyboard does not come out of thin air.

 

[dagamer34]

Apple ought to release a version of Xcode for iOS. That would be a useful tool for a lot of professionals and it would also lower the start up cost for new developers since they could only need to buy an iPad to start making apps vs needing a $1000+ Mac as well.

The Android SDK was already more accessible since it's cross platform but there is also a version out now that can run on an Android tablet directly with no need for a pc.

I actually think if you are out to make serious money, spending $600 on the cheapest Mac Mini shouldn't be that significant of an investment compared to the amount of time, money, and energy that goes into making an iOS app. As much as Apple should be open to everyone for developing iOS apps, they do not need a deluge of people making "Hello World" apps and trying to stick it on the store. There's enough crap up there already.

 

[runawayprisoner]

Apps are not allowed to access "all" of the RAM. If an app asks for too much, a low memory warning is sent, and if an app ignores that, it is terminated. Apps do not get to parade around as if they are the only important thing needed to be kept in memory.

Discussion link: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6044147/memory-limit-and-ios-memory-allocation-in-iphone-sdk

Uh, read the highest rated comment.

The general idea is that... the system reserves a certain amount of RAM for its kernel and other things, so obviously, you are right in that not all 1GB would be useable.

But it's not 512MB max. There is no limit. The limit is set because the GPU also needs to reserve a certain amount of system RAM for it to use as VRAM. When an application requests more memory, and none is available because the GPU is taking it up, the OS will try to close down other apps before it returns a NULL for memory requests.

If the app does not have enough memory to operate (NULL returned for more memory), it'll simply crash, unless the developer handles it somehow.

Low memory warning, on the other hand, are sent to background apps, not foreground (currently running) apps. I think you are getting mixed up there. Low memory warnings are sent to background apps so that they know to free up memory. If they can't free up memory, they'll have to close down. They are given a small window to comply to the free memory request. If they can't, the OS will force them to close.

As for whether Apple should have more professional apps or not, the problem has less to do with power and more to do with input method. Attempting to shove even an old version of Photoshop from the late 90s would be disastrous because of the lack of precision inputs. Inventing new and useful controls to replace a mouse and keyboard does not come out of thin air.

It's actually simpler than that. They don't want to bring professional apps to iOS because the general pricing has gone down to $9.99 or around $19.99 to below now. If they suddenly come out with a $599.99 suite of professional apps, nobody would buy them, and so... it doesn't justify the amount of resources and time spent to develop something like that.

But if nobody starts churning those out, then we are left with $9.99 apps that are almost professional, but still not useful enough.

 

[Red Storm]

Shouldn't we have one "official 3rd Gen iPad thread" the same way we (try to) do with most other devices on this forum?