The claim about Xbox One/PS4 was related to GPU, while Core M claim was related to CPU. Had it been otherwise, close to PS4 might as well mean cat core CPU performance.
The claim about Xbox One/PS4 was related to GPU, while Core M claim was related to CPU. Had it been otherwise, close to PS4 might as well mean cat core CPU performance.Close to Core M means a lot slower than Xbox One/PS4.
Since A9/A9X got 2xbandwidth and the speedup isnt specified. Then people should be really careful in where the performance comes from. It could also simply be vector instructions.
GPU will be way faster too. HD 5300 in the Broadwell Core M gets 22.9 fps and 60.5 fps in Manhattan and T-Rex offscreen respectively. iPad Air 2's A8X gets 37.6 fps and 71.4 fps respectively.
Intel claims that in 3DMark Sky Diver, Skylake will be 40% faster. If that carries onto GFXBench, and assuming A9X is 2x A8X, A9X graphics will be 134% faster. That's 2.34x. I believe if that carries true everywhere that means Iris 540(15W, eDRAM 48EU) performance.
Quad core 45W, mobile Sandy Bridge performance. A Quad core Haswell 4900MQ gets 13k while 4670K Desktop gets 13k too. 8K does quality as desktop performance.
Not sure how accurate this year's performance claims are (we'll have to wait and see) .. but last years performance increase claims were underestimated.
Apple claimed up to 40% increase in CPU and up to 2X graphics increase when comparing a8X and a7 in the iPad Air.
Well CPU increase by more than 75% in geekBench multicore and >50% in several other multicore benchmarks mainly because of increase in core counts.
GPU increase by 2.5X in gfxBench Manattan offscreen using same drivers. from 13fps -> 32.5fps.
The a8X actually got another increase to 37.5fps with a driver upgrade (this driver upgrade did not increase a7 performance). And using Metal got 41fps.
So - Apple does not have a history (at least going by last year's claims) of over inflating the performance claims.
GPU vs CPU part.
A8X also doubled the memory speed over A7. From the looks of it, A9X will have ~50GB/sec bandwidth.
PS3 is still selling. So yeah Apple is not wrong there in claiming console class GPU. They never said PS4 class GPU. :biggrin:
Thats why PR slides like this cant be trusted. And even if it compares to something, it may only be in a very narrow spectrum.
Based on what?The A9X seems purpose-built for the iPad Pro, and Apple seems to have done a great job. Kudos to them :thumbsup:
I wonder if the A9X will use Wide I/O memory. Else it must have quad LPDDR.
Based on what?
What I find to be interesting is that while most companies prefer to avoid overly-large dies, Apple has no qualms over nuking the competition with gpu-size mobile chips. No doubt, they are paying dearly for the ability, though they certainly can pay for it without a second thought.
A8x is already tops as far as tablet SoCs go, it's not s stretch to imagine that A9x is as impressive as claimed.
Let me understand this. The A8X is 50% larger than Core M and is fabricated on either the world's most expensive foundry technology or the world's most expensive non Intel fabrication technology. It outperforms Core M CPU by 38% (8000/5800). Golly gee and all but at face value that sounds like one hand clapping. Once again, a bigger, more expensive SoC performs better than a smaller, cheaper chip. Testing may reveal it actually is better than it sounds, but the converse is also possible. At least efficiency should improve.
The price Intel sells the Core M for is quite obscene. And people get on Apple over their margins.
The price Intel sells the Core M for is quite obscene. And people get on Apple over their margins.
Do we know that price? Like, I know it is listed on Ark, but I also know that Ark isn't what things actually sell for.
Do we know that price? Like, I know it is listed on Ark, but I also know that Ark isn't what things actually sell for.
Let me understand this. The A8X is 50% larger than Core M and is fabricated on either the world's most expensive foundry technology or the world's most expensive non Intel fabrication technology. It outperforms Core M CPU by 38% (8000/5800). Golly gee and all but at face value that sounds like one hand clapping. Once again, a bigger, more expensive SoC performs better than a smaller, cheaper chip.
Those dumbed down slides are an insult to any smart brain interested in how stuff works.Thats why PR slides like this cant be trusted. And even if it compares to something, it may only be in a very narrow spectrum.