I knew they wouldn't be able to deliver 2x CPU performance every year forever, but anything less than 50% is kinda disappointing. I wouldn't hold my breath for huge GPU gains either, but I am a bit more optimistic here. 1GB is a bummer considering these are late 2014 64-bit devices, there's no other way to look at it. I'll stick with my A7 devices and wait for 2015 16nm A9.
Seems like a 16% bump. Meh. I guess they are focused more on their NFC stuff for this iteration.
What is the relevance of this? The hardware doesn't matter to the vast majority of consumers, for any brand. This applies to other industries too, like cars.Realistically as an Apple product the specs won't even matter. There will be droves lining up to buy one weeks before they are even available :sneaky: A good number of consumers loyal to Apple wouldn't even understand the specs if you told them. Number one metric of import is: does it have a white apple with a bite out of it on the product followed by does someone else have one and now I must also have one.
Disappointing? I think we may be getting spoiled.
That's Core 2 / Phenom II X2 level performance. It's more powerful than most netbooks and/or Atom/Kabini systems. That's insane.
http://browser.primatelabs.com/processor-benchmarks
In a CELL PHONE.
(And yes, I realize there are competitive ARM parts from other manufacturers, many of which are even quad-core. It's not just Apple working freaking miracles.)
What is the relevance of this? The hardware doesn't matter to the vast majority of consumers, for any brand. This applies to other industries too, like cars.
Since we're here for the hardware, why not discuss that?
next one will have 1.5GB probably
2GB is definitely a puzzling choice, but since Apple packages it in their A-series SoCs, there likely just isn't room for more without increasing the package size.
That's Core 2 / Phenom II X2 level performance. It's more powerful than most netbooks and/or Atom/Kabini systems. That's insane.
As mentioned, the #1 problematic use memory wise is a core app written by Apple - Safari.
It seems esp. bad with 64-bit iDevices, presumably because 64-bit apps and OS require more memory.
Considering they delivered close to 2x the performance over the past few years, I'd say a 15-20% bump (10% at same clocks) and no RAM increase is disappointing. That's not to say A7/A8 performance is disappointing, but Tegra K1 Denver, Core M, Exynos 5433 and a bunch of 2015 mobile ARM SoCs should be able to outclass it.
You can't increase performance if you can't lower the power consumption. You can't increase CPU performance per clock if you can't extract more ILP. Both things are hardly possible anymore. If Intel can't double performance every year, why could Apple?
Apple fans will pull excuses from everywhere about why it's the optimal amount of RAM, but the same people would laud Apple's foresight and brilliance if three months later they release iphone 6.1 with 8GB of RAM.
Even more annoying is Apple announcing its things at the same time as IDF, quite immature of them.Yeah, I am a little surprised that there wasn't a live blog from either/both the Apple Event and IDF.
Nope. 64-bit.Current IOS and apps are 32 bit. If Apple doesn't put 2 GB in the next iPad models, that would really be a bummer - having tabs swapped out to flash storage is lame, IMO.
Apple claims 25% CPU, 50% GPU. So A8 won't be the fastest SoC this time around.
Also, really annoying that AT isn't doing a live blog.
You can't increase performance if you can't lower the power consumption. You can't increase CPU performance per clock if you can't extract more ILP. Both things are hardly possible anymore. If Intel can't double performance every year, why could Apple?
Yet some people though they would somehow keep doubling performance every year and beat Intel's low-power x86 chips in a few years.