- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,414
- 8,356
- 126
P.S. Apple was working on this in theory at least at some point. This is from their patent filing:
motorola atrix already did this. no further patents should be issuable.
P.S. Apple was working on this in theory at least at some point. This is from their patent filing:
Well regardless, here is Apple’s patent filing for it.motorola atrix already did this. no further patents should be issuable.
As will the AMD crowd x10 if zen 2 increases performance by 15%.If Intel pulled a %15 increase people would be drooling all over the place. ;-)
As will the AMD crowd x10 if zen 2 increases performance by 15%.
If Intel pulled a %15 increase people would be drooling all over the place. ;-)
motorola atrix already did this. no further patents should be issuable.
Nope. Kirin 980 are:Yes. There is a Huawei though, also 6.9 billion transistors.
Kirin 980 which is Cortex A76. Also 2 big and 4 LITTLE cores.
That aside, I don't think Apple would ever release something like that as they change the form factor of their phones way too often. Unless you get the computer and the phone at the same time, they probably won't be compatible and upgrading one, means that you lose the ability to use it with the other.
That's because Intel hasn't had a 15% jump in a long while, so it would be big for them. Apple typically sees more than 15% so it feels like a disappointment. Everything is relative.
Didn't the Atrix just dock the phone with the laptop? It looks like the Apple patent wants to use the phone as a trackpad. Also, patents don't cover general ideas, but implementations. You can have two patented solutions that accomplish the exact same thing, but if the implementations are different, it's possible for both patents to be valid with neither infringing on each other or preventing someone else from coming up with a third, independent implementation.
That aside, I don't think Apple would ever release something like that as they change the form factor of their phones way too often. Unless you get the computer and the phone at the same time, they probably won't be compatible and upgrading one, means that you lose the ability to use it with the other.
Thx. I’ve fixed my post.Nope. Kirin 980 are:
- 2x A76 @ 2.8 Ghz
- 2x A76 @ 2.2 Ghz
- 4x A55 @ 1.8 Ghz
Are octacores
Do know. Could be the 11x is targeted toward the next iPad. That, or Apple just skipped it this generation to maximize A12 production.
I think it's pretty clear that they've concluded that (at least for now) the tablet market can be served well enough through updates every two years rather than every year. (And they're probably correct; the iPad Pro is still a beast...)
This will probably set a template for the ARM Macs as well. Doing the numbers, people claim Apple Mac volumes are not large enough to support custom SoCs for Macs, but that sort of thinking ignores a variety of ways you can save money. One obvious way is, as I've suggested, to update the SoC every two years. Obviously you'll use the core already designed for iPhone+iPad, though likely with tweaks around the uncore to improve scaling to more CPUs. Finally you use something like EMIB or AMD's interposer, so that you have a single baseline Mac SoC (maybe 4big+4small cores) and you use, I don't know, one in low end laptops, two in pro laptops, and mac minis, three in iMacs, 4 in iMac Pros, 8 in Mac Pros)?
Precisely. If i am looking at the available IP from ARM scaling is trivial. DSU supports up to 8 cores (A55, A75, A76) per cluster with 256bit CHI or ACE coherent system ports. Now when licensing the coherent interconnect as well i can connect several DSU clusters coherently and voila - i have a 16, 32 or 64 core ARM system just with licensed IP plugged together. For memory controller i have quite a few options from ARM, Cadence and Synopsis as well.
Not "amusing". More like a double standard. I though there were *two* x86 manufacturers that should be trying to compete with Apple/ARM. I dont really consider it a huge achievement to make a big improvement simply because your previous product was so bad.AMD achieving parity with Intel in single core would be a monumental achievement....Why wouldn't they after a decade of despair?
Poke pun at it if you find it amusing....Internet cpu forum meltdown....I can't wait to read the silly comments when it happens.
Not "amusing". More like a double standard. I though there were *two* x86 manufacturers that should be trying to compete with Apple/ARM. I dont really consider it a huge achievement to make a big improvement simply because your previous product was so bad.
For iPhone 10,x (which uses the A11 from last year), the Geekbench 4 scores are around 4300 / 10850 on a good day. Clock speed is 2.4 GHz.
For iPhone 11,x (which is A12 from this year), the best available Geekbench 4 scores are about 4800 single core and about 11350 multi-core.
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/search?utf8=✓&q=iphone11
This represents a speed boost of around 5-10% give or take a bit. Clock speed appears to be 2.5 GHz, which is 4.2% higher. So it would appear at least in Geekbench so far, there is not that much of a performance increase, and much of that speed boost is actually due to a clock speed increase.
Note that this is very limited data so take this with a grain of salt. I expect the Geekbench 4 scores to increase with time by as much as about 5% due to expected variation, and if so, that would go along with Apple's claim of about a 15% big core speed boost.
I suspect a good chunk of the increase in transistors (from 4.3 billion transistors to 6.9 billion transistors) may be due to the Neural Engine and the GPU.
there's the whole "obvious" issue. it's a dock. one dock is as obvious as any other.Didn't the Atrix just dock the phone with the laptop? It looks like the Apple patent wants to use the phone as a trackpad. Also, patents don't cover general ideas, but implementations. You can have two patented solutions that accomplish the exact same thing, but if the implementations are different, it's possible for both patents to be valid with neither infringing on each other or preventing someone else from coming up with a third, independent implementation.
For iPhone 10,x (which uses the A11 from last year), the Geekbench 4 scores are around 4300 / 10850 on a good day. Clock speed is 2.4 GHz.
For iPhone 11,x (which is A12 from this year), the best available Geekbench 4 scores are about 4800 single core and about 11350 multi-core.
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/search?utf8=✓&q=iphone11
This represents a speed boost of around 5-10% give or take a bit. Clock speed appears to be 2.5 GHz, which is 4.2% higher. So it would appear at least in Geekbench so far, there is not that much of a performance increase, and much of that speed boost is actually due to a clock speed increase.
Note that this is very limited data so take this with a grain of salt. I expect the Geekbench 4 scores to increase with time by as much as about 5% due to expected variation, and if so, that would go along with Apple's claim of about a 15% big core speed boost.
Nope. Kirin 980 are:Nope. Kirin 980 are:
- 2x A76 @ 2.8 Ghz
- 2x A76 @ 2.2 Ghz
- 4x A55 @ 1.8 Ghz
Are octacores
Sounds about right. 4.2% clock speed boost and roughly 10% IPC boost - which is inline with the claimed 40% efficiency gain. Any larger clock speed boost would diminish the power gain for 7nm.
Actually Apple says "Up to 15% faster".
Indeed, I missed by 200 Mhz. Seems that they downclocked again.Nope. Kirin 980 are:
-2x A76 @ ~2.6 GHz
-2x A76 @ ~2.0 GHz.
-2x A55 @ ~1.8 GHz.
On the flip side, scores usually improve once people actually have units in-hand. Why? Probably because people turn off everything they can in the OS and then repeatedly run the bench, in order to generate better scores.Top score to top score I'm seeing 13% in Int and 15% in FP. In multi-core the difference is 6% for Int and like 2% for FP.
Geekbench is probably the most optimistic as it runs for a few seconds per sub-test.