Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 13th Sep 2017 16:40 UTC
Apple

With the iPhone X revealed, we really have to start talking about its processor and SoC - the A11 Bionic. It's a six-core chip with two high-power cores, four low-power cores, and this year, for the first time, includes an Apple-designed custom GPU. It also has what Apple calls a Neural Engine, designed to speed up tasks such as face recognition.

Apple already had a sizeable performance lead over competing chips from Qualcomm (what Android phones use) in single-core performance, and the A11 blasts past those in multicore performance, as well. Moreover, the A11 also performs better than quite a number of recent desktop Intel chips from the Core i5 and i7 range, which is a big deal.

For quite a few people it's really hard to grasp just how powerful these chips are - and to a certain extent, it feels like much of that power is wasted in an iPhone, which is mostly doing relatively mundane tasks anyway. Now that Apple is also buildings its own GPUs, it's not a stretch to imagine a number of mobile GPU makers feeling a bit... Uneasy.

At some point, these Apple Ax chips will find their way to something more sizable than phones and tablets.

Order by: Score:
Performance
by zaxx386 on Wed 13th Sep 2017 16:56 UTC
zaxx386
Member since:
2017-09-13

Source of the A11 compared against recent desktop chips is suspect at best.

It is a twitter table with no explanation for where the numbers come from, no references at all. It amazingly shows the Intel Core i7 just besting the Core i3 series. I think someone manufactured data to get attention.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Performance
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 13th Sep 2017 17:22 UTC in reply to "Performance"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Nothing suspect about it. That's Jeff Atwood, and those are GeekBench numbers. you can look them up yourself.

https://browser.geekbench.com

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Performance
by leech on Wed 13th Sep 2017 17:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Performance"
leech Member since:
2006-01-10

I always thought the problem when benchmarking hardware is that for fair comparisons you would also need to be running the same software. I mean you could have a hardware platform that could seduce women for you, but if the software running it would only work in polygamous communities, it wouldn't be very useful....

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: Performance
by Kochise on Wed 13th Sep 2017 18:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Performance"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

edit : (same as above)

Edited 2017-09-13 18:40 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Performance
by Licaon_Kter on Wed 13th Sep 2017 18:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Performance"
Licaon_Kter Member since:
2010-03-19

Better link: https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/search?utf8=%E2%9C%...

Now, if these are true, Qualcomm CEOs will flip some tables. ;) ;) ;)

I love competition, better tech for Android in the end. ;)

Reply Score: 3

v RE[3]: Performance
by darknexus on Wed 13th Sep 2017 20:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Performance"
RE[4]: Performance
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 13th Sep 2017 20:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Performance"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

You're not wrong, but you do have to admit that the power is wasted a bit on an iphone due to the efficiency and restrictions on background tasks.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Performance
by JLF65 on Thu 14th Sep 2017 02:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Performance"
JLF65 Member since:
2005-07-06

ARM @ 24 MHz


Yeaaaaaah. Something tells me that the software isn't handling the new iPhone correctly, making ANY figures suspect.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Performance
by Alfman on Thu 14th Sep 2017 00:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Performance"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Thom Holwerda,

Nothing suspect about it. That's Jeff Atwood, and those are GeekBench numbers. you can look them up yourself.


You can't always take benchmarks for granted, it takes time for independent benchmarks to confirm the results. I was browsing geekbench results and I was surprised at how inconsistent the results were even for different runs on the exact same CPU.

For example:
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/3988183
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/3988073

These huge discrepancies could mean there's a problem with the benchmark, or they're being bottlenecked by components other than the CPU, in which case it's not a good benchmark to use to strictly compare CPU performance.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Performance
by Drumhellar on Thu 14th Sep 2017 05:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Performance"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Exact same CPU, but different OS (OS X 10.12 vs 10.10) In this, every single sub-benchmark is faster on the newer version of OSX, without exception.

That probably has more to do with it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Performance
by bryanv on Thu 14th Sep 2017 15:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Performance"
bryanv Member since:
2005-08-26

Anyone else remember when a new OS X release meant that your existing hardware preformed _better_?

Yeah, I sure do miss those days.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Performance
by shyouko on Fri 15th Sep 2017 07:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Performance"
shyouko Member since:
2005-12-31

Those improvement mostly came from Apple and community's improvement of the gcc PowerPC port, so people so said.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Performance
by Alfman on Sat 16th Sep 2017 00:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Performance"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Drumhellar,

Exact same CPU, but different OS (OS X 10.12 vs 10.10) In this, every single sub-benchmark is faster on the newer version of OSX, without exception.

That probably has more to do with it.



Could be that, or maybe different memory or some other arcane mainboard controller... who knows, we're not given enough data. If I owned these devices, I would conduct my own tests to get to the bottom of it.

However my point was that regardless of the reason for the discrepency, the mere fact that these wide discrepancies exist is in itself a sufficient reason to question the accuracy of geekbench as a measure of CPU performance.

In other words, this evidence proves that one can not assume the geekbench scores are representative of CPU performance unless it's the only variable that changed.

I'm curious to revisit this in the future to see where it goes!

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Performance
by bert64 on Sat 16th Sep 2017 03:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Performance"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

Thermal throttling...
Power throttlijng...
Background tasks...

Many factors could affect benchmark results.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Performance
by tylerdurden on Wed 13th Sep 2017 21:28 UTC in reply to "Performance"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

From a microarchitectural standpoint Apple's high performance cores are excellent, they really are that close to the contemporary lake core in IPC.

They're not going to outperform an i7 (it has more cores + SMT), but they're certainly giving a run for their money to the low power dual core i3s and i5s.

The performance of the iPad pro is quite eye opening, when compared with a microsoft surface tablet. The CPU performance diference is down to single digits/error margin. And have much better GPU performance, with a lower overall power consumption.

Their cost is significantly lower than the deep mobile intel parts. Hell, thank goodness that Apple is not selling those chips to 3rd parties, that would be problematic for intel.

I don't like apple as a company or care much for their products. But credit where credit is due, they basically came out of nowhere and they're now one of the top CPU/GPU architecture outfits in the world.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Performance
by tidux on Wed 13th Sep 2017 23:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Performance"
tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

That's exactly why I do want them sold to third parties. Imagine a blob-free A11 based laptop for Linux, or a convertible that runs Android.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Sidux
by Sidux on Wed 13th Sep 2017 17:51 UTC
Sidux
Member since:
2015-03-10

Rome was not built in a single day.

Reply Score: 2

v But...
by shotsman on Wed 13th Sep 2017 18:14 UTC
Expect ARM Powered Macbook
by vermaden on Wed 13th Sep 2017 18:28 UTC
vermaden
Member since:
2006-11-18

Apple will soon introduce ARM powered Macbook along with merging iOS and macOS into one single system, for iPhone, iPad, Macbook, iWatch and iEverything.

Reply Score: 3

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Arm powered macbook, yes. IOS on a macbook, no. It will still be MacOs. They are related in many many ways, and the distinction may slowly disappear, but large differences will remain for some time due to the difference in capabilities and expectations for the platforms.

Now macbook air / ipad pro is kind of melding into an in between state. Which is horrifying ungodly creation, that I would burn at the stake, if It wasn't so oddly beautiful. Like unicorn that mated with a crab.

Reply Score: 3

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

The macbook air is probably going the way of the dodo. I'd bet there's an iPad pro with official keyboard solution in the near future as a replacement.

Reply Score: 4

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Do you think they'll stick with the iPad name? I'm guessing something Odd like iPad X or Macbook Air X or maybe even Bionic X with a Bionic X pro.

Bionic X being IOS and Bionic X pro being MacOs, but otherwise indistinguishable. Sort of like the Surface RT / Surface Pro.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Expect ARM Powered Macbook
by Darkmage on Wed 13th Sep 2017 22:18 UTC in reply to "Expect ARM Powered Macbook"
Darkmage Member since:
2006-10-20

Good luck getting Photoshop, and all the other apps other than the iLife suite and Apple's own software on that though. Microsoft has had no big successes on ARM and Apple hasn't shown that it can convince vendors to support multi-platform chips yet. Sure going PPC to Intel was smooth enough, but that was migrating towards the most popular chip brands not away from them.

Reply Score: 3

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

but that was migrating towards the most popular chip brands not away from them.


ARM is by far WAY more popular than Intel and x86.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Expect ARM Powered Macbook
by JLF65 on Thu 14th Sep 2017 02:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Expect ARM Powered Macbook"
JLF65 Member since:
2005-07-06

Only for phones and pads or the like. Not for laptops, and CERTAINLY not for desktops.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Expect ARM Powered Macbook
by Kochise on Thu 14th Sep 2017 02:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Expect ARM Powered Macbook"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

I'm not sure if you are aware that st, atmel, nxp, xilinx, allwinner, mediatek, rockwell, whatever runs on ARM, not on x86. The world is not just desktop, pads and smartphones. Ask yourself what your tv, car or even fridge runs on.

Edited 2017-09-14 02:52 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Darkmage Member since:
2006-10-20

I am, 100% aware of the popularity of embedded applications and systems. I am also aware that Linux has completely failed to make a dent into desktop market share. This idea that people will magically drop Photoshop to take up Krita and GIMP is false. AND in the interest of full disclosure, I only use Linux systems at home and where possible at work. I've been using Linux for 16 years now. I can compile my own kernels, and I write my own desktop software using GTK. I also live with an artist who would burn the house down before giving up Photoshop and the Autodesk suite of programs. This idea that ARM will magically take over everything is a fantasy from people that hate Intel. Legacy applications are a massive driver of IT purchasing decisions. Sure ARM is popular on mobile/tablet devices where content is consumed and barely created, raw capture is one thing, deep editing is another. ARM isn't going to suddenly storm into workstations and servers because people want it to.

Edited 2017-09-14 04:24 UTC

Reply Score: 4

woegjiub Member since:
2008-11-25

It's not going to matter much what CPU it's running soon enough.

You may not have noticed, but there are proof-of-concept in-browser versions of the heavy hitters like CAD and photoshop.

With either wasm or electron, it's trivial to use the full extent of a platform's power, and do you really think Adobe is going to keep letting their software get pirated like it does?

Google office and MSOffice Online are only the start, it's all going completely subscription-based - and what better way than by requiring everyone use an OTA-updated universally compatible app?

Hell, look at desktop and mobile already - huge percentages of modern software are webapps in wrappers.


Even if you don't see the writing on the wall for desktop apps, there are large numbers of "professionals" for whom an ipad pro is already sufficient. Stick a keyboard on it and resurrect the "iBook" branding or something, and you really think the Adobes of the world are going to stand around while competitors like Sketch eat their breakfast?

Edited 2017-09-14 05:00 UTC

Reply Score: 2

shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

Ah, the mythical Web based thingy.

Naturally it relies upon an always on internet connection that charges by the bit for data going over it.

So there I am on a shoot and take a whole bunch of images with my new Nikon D850 (47MP). Say around 24Gb for a decent day in the field.
1) How long to copy that lot up to the cloud for the cloud version of Lightroom to work on it?
2) How much will that cost me from the middle of the Amazon rain forrest? Do you want an extra arm with that?

Sure, for a lot of people the cloud/web versions will work. But for a huge percentage of Photographers out of the studio? Forget it.
Have laptop, will travel and process images.

Reply Score: 4

ahferroin7 Member since:
2015-10-30

With either wasm or electron, it's trivial to use the full extent of a platform's power


Haha, no.

You can't even use the full extent of a platform's power in Java (at least, if you plan on compiling to JAR files instead of native executables), using it in Electron is a complete joke, and anyone trying to say otherwise either is being paid to do so, or has no idea what that many levels of indirection does to performance. Electron is why VS Code and Discord's Desktop app get such crap performance compared to natively compiled tools. The same has conventionally applied to things built on Adobe AIR and Mozilla's XULRunner.

WebAssembly makes things better, but it's still limited in performance because of the translation overhead.

Portability is the enemy of performance. Portable builds of software written using Java, or a CIL language, or even things like WebAssembly, are all interpreted code, not machine code. That hurts performance. In fact, the only case I've ever seen where that can perform better is Lua, and that only applies in very specific situations where the algorithm being used happens to be more efficiently implementable in Lua's interpreter runtime than whatever native runtime you're comparing it to.

By the same virtue, iOS is so efficient because it's single platform. macOS is as well. Conversely, Android supports at least 3 CPU architectures, not accounting for varying bit width (x86, MIPS, and ARM), and it runs on a kernel that supports a lot more (SPARC, POWER, SH, Alpha, HPPA, M68k, S/390, RISC-V, and more than a dozen architectures most people have never heard of).

Note that I'm not saying that portability is bad, just that it's not always the best answer (especially if it's not a client node you're running on).

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Expect ARM Powered Macbook
by Kochise on Thu 14th Sep 2017 05:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Expect ARM Powered Macbook"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Then why is there ARM based server ? At least attempts ? What is so particular to x86 that ARM cannot do ? It plays video and game, display pictures and the internet, can be used for office use, even lightweight clients runs on ARM.

The virtual machines (Net, Java) and JIT makes things so easy to port or even run any kind of software on ARM it is baffling you believe it won't work because desktop linux failed. I'm pretty sure Adobe could port Photoshop and whatever suits them if they find an economical interest doing so.

I was a 68k fanboy but turned agnostic because flaws in x86 were slowly removed and because the cpu implementation isn't really important provided it counts reliably and accurately. Pretty sure ARM will slowly take over the world, sooner or later. I'm not even sorry for the 50 year old x86.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Expect ARM Powered Macbook
by Sidux on Thu 14th Sep 2017 07:31 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Expect ARM Powered Macbook"
Sidux Member since:
2015-03-10

RISC/ARM has been available for decades. Even Apple was not using Intel x86 cpus. The main reason they did this was for compatibility purposes and attracting lots of developers.
Main problem with Unix these days is that Linux does pretty much everything at fraction of a cost.
IBM, Oracle, HP and I guess even Apple are fully aware they have to let it go at some point.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Expect ARM Powered Macbook
by tidux on Wed 13th Sep 2017 23:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Expect ARM Powered Macbook"
tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

Thanks to Linux, FreeBSD, OpenJDK, and Free Software in general, there's already a bunch of applications that compile and run on ARMv8/arm64. If there's no Adobe on ARM, people will learn GIMP or Krita. Office suites, browsers, dev tools, media players, and basic desktop stuff all work fine on ARM. It's pretty much like where x86 desktop Linux was six or seven years ago, PLUS all the Android stuff that could conceivably run in an emulator or chroot.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Expect ARM Powered Macbook
by zima on Fri 15th Sep 2017 12:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Expect ARM Powered Macbook"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

If there's no Adobe on ARM, people will learn GIMP or Krita.

You're joking, right?

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Expect ARM Powered Macbook
by Kochise on Fri 15th Sep 2017 17:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Expect ARM Powered Macbook"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

And people will install linux because windows is proprietary and spy on them.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Expect ARM Powered Macbook
by zima on Fri 15th Sep 2017 18:15 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Expect ARM Powered Macbook"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

And miniscule portion of people will install linux because windows is proprietary and spy on them.

Fixed that for you...

People were OK with most past Windows editions, so Windows beeing prioprietary is of no concern to them. As for spying - Google is also spying on people, and they happily use Google services regardless / I don't see you predicting an exodus away from Google.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Expect ARM Powered Macbook
by tidux on Fri 15th Sep 2017 18:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Expect ARM Powered Macbook"
tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

I'm not, actually. That's why Adobe will recompile for ARMv8 sooner or later. Photoshop already had ports to m68k and PowerPC for prior generations of Apple hardware. Apple laptops and mobiles will sell well for the foreseeable future, and companies will chase those profitable consumers.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Expect ARM Powered Macbook
by zima on Fri 15th Sep 2017 18:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Expect ARM Powered Macbook"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

With this post, I agree. But above, when asking if you're joking, I was reffering to the idea that if Photoshop isn't available on ARM, people will switch to GIMP or Krita...

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Expect ARM Powered Macbook
by tidux on Sun 17th Sep 2017 20:29 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Expect ARM Powered Macbook"
tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

They will, if Apple does it. Apple fans are going to stick with Apple platforms regardless of nearly anything, and they have money. That's why Apple's ISVs are willing to chase them across six hardware architectures (m68k, ppc32, i386, amd64, ARMv7, ARMv8) and dozens of OS revisions.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Expect ARM Powered Macbook
by zima on Sun 17th Sep 2017 21:41 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Expect ARM Powered Macbook"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Though GIMP or Krita wouldhardly be part of that ecosystem... (I can see another commercial app largely displacing Photoshop if it weren't available)

Reply Score: 2

Comment by yoshi314@gmail.com
by yoshi314@gmail.com on Wed 13th Sep 2017 20:11 UTC
yoshi314@gmail.com
Member since:
2009-12-14

apple is not going to compete on the market with their pricing, no matter what insane tech magic they whip out.

and i highly doubt they will license their tech to other companies. either they won't do it, or the licensing will drive the pricing to absurd levels.

if anything, this may either drive competition or create a market for top-end phones. that is, if people actually can handle the pricetag on this model.

Edited 2017-09-13 20:13 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by yoshi314@gmail.com
by fmaxwell on Thu 14th Sep 2017 07:05 UTC in reply to "Comment by yoshi314@gmail.com"
fmaxwell Member since:
2005-11-13

apple is not going to compete on the market with their pricing, no matter what insane tech magic they whip out.


Since Apple doesn't sell chips, how do you know what their pricing would be? And why would it be so hard to command a high price for a chip that is likely twice as fast as the competition while being more energy efficient?

As to pricing of finished goods, there is no direct way to compare Apple's prices to those of other vendors, because you're not just buying hardware. When you buy an iPhone, you automatically get free and timely OS upgrades, the development of which is funded from your purchase. You get access to AppleCare, the best support available in the industry. You get access to carry-in service, support, and training at Apple stores all over the world. And you get a product that holds its resale value much better than competing products. How do you compare that to the price of an Android phone?

Reply Score: 2

yoshi314@gmail.com Member since:
2009-12-14

i just guess at their pricing given their markup on their products.

android phones tend to have budget models, which are cheap. and these models are good enough for what i want out of them. i just moved on from android 2.x phone, mostly because screen was broken.

i'd rather pay significantly less for a device that will last just as long. i do not need all the bells and whistles.

also, your perception of apple support is probably predicated on being in us. i live in a different part of the world, and situation is not quite as you describe, and apple's pricing is just plain ridiculous.

Reply Score: 2

bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

Apple are building high end processors, such processors would never be put into budget models of anything
There are plenty of low end budget processors available, and their performance is inferior. People are often willing to pay more for a superior product.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by raom
by raom on Wed 13th Sep 2017 20:39 UTC
raom
Member since:
2016-06-26

I'm very surprised to see ARM with such single-core performance and at such low TDP's. It might be worth it building an ARM machine for emulators in the near future.

Reply Score: 2

Apple to "apple"?
by QandA on Thu 14th Sep 2017 01:57 UTC
QandA
Member since:
2017-09-14

I am not sure if it is an Apple to Apple comparison. Are we trying to compare RISC(ARM) and CISC(x86) architecture, isn't it?

https://www.quora.com/What-are-CISC-and-RISC-architecture-How-do-the...

Edited 2017-09-14 01:58 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE: Apple to "apple"?
by Ford Prefect on Thu 14th Sep 2017 10:02 UTC in reply to "Apple to "apple"?"
Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

These chips all still compute the same numbers for us. You can run GNU/Linux on ARM and use most of the same software as on x86. Also the ARM processors are 64bit now, just like x86.

So it is fair to compare the performance of these chips. Maybe there are some technicialities in the Geekbench score computation that make the comparison unfair? Also I would like to mention that performance/watt is probably the more interesting score these days than raw performance. Which should be even more advantageous for the ARM processors. In theory an apple to apple comparison is possible.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Apple to "apple"?
by JLF65 on Thu 14th Sep 2017 15:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Apple to "apple"?"
JLF65 Member since:
2005-07-06

Pure benchmarks have always had a problem with working better on some architectures than others, making some CPUs look better than they are. The best benchmarks are a large group of actual tasks: how long to encode this video; how long to compress this file; how long to crunch this block of data; how long to reformat this document; how fast does this game run. Most sites have gotten much better about this.

Reply Score: 3

Smartphone could be your only PC
by fabrica64 on Thu 14th Sep 2017 14:03 UTC
fabrica64
Member since:
2013-09-19

Real innovation would be Apple turning an iPhone into a full PC, using iOS on mobility and macOS with wireless display, mouse and keyboard in office.
Technically is quite simple and Apple has the capability to realize a good hybrid OS
Really surprised nobody is doing that.
Microsoft tried it but apparently nobody is interested in something that would potentially hurt PC/tables sales.

Edited 2017-09-14 14:09 UTC

Reply Score: 2

bryanv Member since:
2005-08-26

Right?!

Because the only way I'm going to pay $1000 for a phone, is if for another $400 in peripherals I can have it replace (completely) my $1500 laptop I use for development.

I would imagine some sort of clamshell dock device that I carry with a bigger screen, full keyboard, and a batterypack.

Reply Score: 3

Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03
Kancept Member since:
2006-01-09

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Atrix_4G

The Atrix did it before that, and the Palm Folio as well (not a phone, though).

Reply Score: 1

But what does this numbers tell us?
by C5523 on Thu 14th Sep 2017 16:24 UTC
C5523
Member since:
2013-04-08

Does this mean if Photoshop ever release a ARM version it would be the same performance level against i3 model?

Or this high performance is related to how apps are compiled and run in the iOS world? (almost like cheating).

They could perfectly optimize it for iOS instruction set and that's it. The benchmark shows incredible results but it would be unusable outside iOS/iPhone SDK/Compiler/whatever.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by leos
by leos on Thu 14th Sep 2017 16:40 UTC
leos
Member since:
2005-09-21

For quite a few people it's really hard to grasp just how powerful these chips are - and to a certain extent, it feels like much of that power is wasted in an iPhone, which is mostly doing relatively mundane tasks anyway.


AR is mundane? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw9MPZoPqCQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7DYC_zbZCM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lFeT6lo78s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIPfpGCxONQ

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by leos
by Jonteponte7112 on Fri 15th Sep 2017 20:33 UTC in reply to "Comment by leos"
Jonteponte7112 Member since:
2015-04-28

How telling that you get no response to this comment on the Apple hatefest that is OSnews. What I don't understand is why everyone and their dog has been superhyped on VR for years when anyone with an interest in technology and half a brain understands that AR vill be a thing on mobile years before VR is going to.

Basically all the negative analysis of the new iPhones being completely "meh" have left out the AR story. Even going to great lenghts trying to make a case for all that power not really being needed in a mobile phone. They (meaning Android phones I guess) are apparently "good enough" as is.

Has the techworld gone mad?

Reply Score: 0

Sabon
Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple is building their own CPUs and GPUs ---specifically--- to leave everyone else in the dust.

Now that they are designing their own CPUs and GPUs, they can now go down whatever path they want and unless Google starts doin the same, Android phones are going to start dropping further and further back and very quickly.

Why? Companies that design CPU and GPU chips only want to make just enough improvements and not a bit more that will keep the vast majority of their customers coming back to them over and over again.

Compare this to Apple. They don't want small gains in performance and reduced power consumption. They want to push the envelope hard to walk/run away from the competition using the combination of hardware and software to create an increasingly large performance gap.

The bigger this gap is, the better it is.

Eventually I expect them to make every part of their devices, even cameras and and sound and everything you can think of.

The very LAST thing they would ever want, is to license out their chips to other companies allowing them to duplicate their products.

Edited 2017-09-14 19:51 UTC

Reply Score: 0

bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

Manufacturers of CPUs and GPUs may want to work that way, but they can only do so because their competitors are doing the same.
If Apple are producing massively superior hardware, then there will be demand for competitive designs from other suppliers, as well as reduced demand for the inferior designs.
Other manufacturers will be forced to step up their designs to compete with Apple, in the same way Intel have tended to step up their game shortly after AMD do.

Reply Score: 3