Apple A9x chip discussion

[monstercameron]

Details are still coming out. What we know is that it is made for the ipad tank.
Will update the op as new info comes out.

...The A9X in the iPad Pro is a doozy, packing up to 80 percent better performance than the A8X from the iPad Air 2. It's a champ beyond raw computational power, too, with twice the graphics and storage performance as well as double the memory bandwidth. Supposedly, the A9X is more powerful than 80 percent of portable PCs released in the past yea...

http://www.engadget.com/2015/09/09/apple-a9x-processor/

 

[sm625]

If generational performance leaps continue to be 80% a year then eventually it is going to leapfrog intel.

 

[Snafuh]

If generational performance leaps continue to be 80% a year then eventually it is going to leapfrog intel.

It might be a quadcore CPU. This already adds 33% (theoretical) performance. Apple can't add more cores every year so their improvements will decline, too.
One more core, 10% better IPC and a clock bump to 1.9Ghz and we have 80% more performance. It will be an impressive chip.

 

[.vodka]

That is probably built on one of the 14/16nm FF nodes we've been hearing about for a while.

Looking forward to some actual performance numbers.

 

[MrTeal]

I wonder how they define "Desktop-class" CPU and "Console-Class" GPU.

 

[nvgpu]

Apple confirms it's built on FINFET process.

M9 motion coprocessor on-die now instead of seperate chip.

 

[liahos1]

looking forward to the skylake core m and a9x comparisons. The pricing on the ipad pro is surface pro 3 tier.

 

[Arachnotronic]

That iPad Pro seems drool-worthy. I'd take that over a Surface Pro any day...

 

[Fjodor2001]

I wonder how they define "Desktop-class" CPU and "Console-Class" GPU.

If it's Desktop-class, maybe Apple eventually will migrate Mac Book Air to the A* CPU too. That should save them a lot of money, using their own CPU. Also CPU does perform very well, and has good perf/watt.

 

[Arachnotronic]

If it's Desktop-class, maybe Apple eventually will migrate Mac Book Air to the A* CPU too. That should save them a lot of money, using their own CPU. Also CPU does perform very well, and has good perf/watt.

No, but I could see Apple basically trying to push Mac users to the iPad Pro.

 

[liahos1]

That iPad Pro seems drool-worthy. I'd take that over a Surface Pro any day...

I use windows because a most of my on the go productivity apps (bloomberg professional for example) are only on windows. I think if I could get something with a core m7 with 8 gb and 256gb of space I'd get that in a surface pro 4.

 

[Nothingness]

No, but I could see Apple basically trying to push Mac users to the iPad Pro.

I wonder if they won't simply drop MBA and either push people to MBP or iPad Pro depending on their needs.

 

[iSkylaker]

That is probably built on one of the 14/16nm FF nodes we've been hearing about for a while.

It would be the first thing mentioned in those slides.

 

[krumme]

No, but I could see Apple basically trying to push Mac users to the iPad Pro.

I agree.
But 1 year ago the argument was also core was far superior. Its irrelevant today. Hell it might even be faster than core m.

 

[Fjodor2001]

I agree.
But 1 year ago the argument was also core was far superior. Its irrelevant today. Hell it might even be faster than core m.

So what's stopping Apple from migrating to A* CPU on MBA now? x86 compatibility issue, since A* is ARM based?

Remember that Apple has changed ISA before, when they moved from PPC to x86.

There could probably be a lot gained by having all Apple products on the A* CPU.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Actual performance.

 

[kimmel]

They've been claiming desktop class performance for a few years now. A term which literally means nothing yet everyone gets all excited about.

 

[krumme]

So what's stopping Apple from migrating to A* CPU on MBA now? x86 compatibility issue, since A* is ARM based?

Remember that Apple has changed ISA before, when they moved from PPC to x86.

There could probably be a lot gained by having all Apple products on the A* CPU.

My guess mba is a little dying market.

 

[krumme]

Its crazy this apple progression. Damn thieves - its their fault my tab s2 is on old 20nm lol.

 

[kimmel]

My guess mba is a little dying market.

My guess is you are wrong. As long as we are just guessing.

 

[Sweepr]

I agree.
But 1 year ago the argument was also core was far superior. Its irrelevant today. Hell it might even be faster than core m.

Intel is quoting 2x as fast as Apple A8X CPU performance for Skylake-Y (probably Core m7-6Y75).
I agree with Snafuh, I think Apple added a 4th core here so while multi-core performance might not be too far Core M should still win ST performance metrics.

From a hardware perspective iPad Pro is a very interesting device and I'm crossing my fingers for a similar Core m7 + Windows 10 design from the PC OEMs.

Ps: No word on 2GB RAM for the iPhone 6S? Please don't ruin such an awesome phone with 1GB RAM limitations Apple.

 

[Arachnotronic]

My guess mba is a little dying market.

ROFL, no.

 

[Face2Face]

Intel is quoting 2x as fast as Apple A8X CPU performance for Skylake-Y (probably Core m7-6Y75).
I agree with Snafuh, I think Apple added a 4th core here so while multi-core performance might not be too far Core M should still win ST performance metrics.

From a hardware perspective iPad Pro is a very interesting device and I'm crossing my fingers for a similar Core m7 + Windows 10 design from the PC OEMs.

Ps: No word on 2GB RAM for the iPhone 6S? Please don't ruin such an awesome phone with 1GB RAM limitations Apple.

I wonder how many transistors are crammed into the A9X? I mean the A8X has 3 billion. From what I'm reading the Broadwell based Core M has 1.3 Billion. Nothing yet released about Skylake, that I can find. I don't think the Gen 9 HD 515 GPU in Core M 6Y's will beat whatever PowerVR has cooking in the A9X. Regardless, the Broadwell based Core M has always been pretty terrible at gaming due to the 4.5w TDP limit. I don't think that will change with Skylake?

 

[Khato]

I wonder how many transistors are crammed into the A9X? I mean the A8X has 3 billion. From what I'm reading Core M Skylake has 1.3 Billion.

There's a good reason why Intel stopped publicly disclosing transistor counts, and it's not because they're lower. It's a meaningless metric to the end-user and can't be used to compare between companies anyway since there are a number of different ways to count 'transistors' with wildly varying results.

 

[Roland00Address]

Apple says their cpu with the a9x is 1.8x the speed of last years model

So lets say 4th core adds 33% theoretical performance increase

That still means they need to gain an addition 35% via cpu architecture gains and clock speed. I am curious how much is architecture and how much is moving to a 14nm or 16nm process.

----

I have not watched the presentation but did they give us any hints to allow us to know if its Samsung or TMSC for the Ipad Pro Chip?