Apple A12X: 4 Big, 4 Small cores

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
6,184
172
126
#1
It has 10 billion transistors.

I think he said 35% faster in single thread and 90% in multi compared to the previous iPad Pros. Plus the new GPU has 7 cores.

Not bad.
 

dark zero

Platinum Member
Jun 2, 2015
2,507
8
61
#3
This is unavoidable... That chip could easily replace a Core i5 or even a Dual i7 Chip...

And if the GPU is as strong as an XBox One S... Poor nVIDIA... If Apple launches now a console, they would destroy the Switch at once!
 

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
4,445
372
126
#4
If Apple launches now a console, they would destroy the Switch at once!
I doubt it would destroy the Switch as there have been any number of more powerful consoles released for generations of Nintendo products. What they all lack is Nintendo's line of titles.
 
Apr 27, 2000
11,175
690
126
#5
Who brought up the Switch? Nintendo will just move to the TX2 if/when they do a hardware update for that platform.

The real question is: when will Apple get serious about using their X chips in desktop/desktop-like form factors? With extra I/O and RAM?
 

french toast

Senior member
Feb 22, 2017
919
5
106
#6
This is a watershed moment, the first time an apple SOC can outright best any other 15w product across the board.
Nvidia/intel/AMD/Qualcomm/HI silicon/Mediatech can't compete on performance.

I make it a couple of years before they make the switch to ARM fully.
 

StinkyPinky

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2002
6,355
42
126
#7
A12X looks unbelievable. I think at this point it is inevitable that Apple will switch to ARM for their laptops reasonably soon.

Speaking of ARM, has anyone seen any comparisons of the Kirin 980 and A12? They're both 7mn, interested to see how they compare.
 

Glo.

Platinum Member
Apr 25, 2015
2,623
12
106
#8
This is unavoidable... That chip could easily replace a Core i5 or even a Dual i7 Chip...

And if the GPU is as strong as an XBox One S... Poor nVIDIA... If Apple launches now a console, they would destroy the Switch at once!
They already did released new console...

Its called iPad Pro.
 

dark zero

Platinum Member
Jun 2, 2015
2,507
8
61
#9
They already did released new console...

Its called iPad Pro.
But a True Console is needed. Nintendo would be outright killed by Apple if they do that.

Also.... Puting that on an Apple TV with some overclock would make it a brutal beast capable to play Console grade games.
 

linkgoron

Golden Member
Mar 9, 2005
1,864
66
106
#10
10 billion transistors puts it at more than twice the 8 core Ryzen (4.8 billion) and the Snapdragon 845 (~5 Billion).
 

Glo.

Platinum Member
Apr 25, 2015
2,623
12
106
#11
But a True Console is needed. Nintendo would be outright killed by Apple if they do that.

Also.... Puting that on an Apple TV with some overclock would make it a brutal beast capable to play Console grade games.
Not with 4GB's of RAM. 8 GB's would make this chip capable of running 1:1 stuff from PS4 and Xbox One S.

iPad Pro can work as a console, as it can connect any Bluetooth device including - console pads. There are a few pads with MFI.
 

plopke

Senior member
Jan 26, 2010
212
4
101
#12
I might not ever have owned a apple product in my life , the relentless progress in CPU design/performance out of Apple is impressive , i might actually jump on the band/rumor wagon that they will indeed be making their own notebooks cpus as early as 2021. .
 

IEC

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
Jun 10, 2004
13,527
276
136
#13
A12X looks beastly. And the new iPad Pro looks to check all my boxes for what I want in a mobile device.
 

scannall

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2012
1,329
145
136
#14
I guess this answers the doubters concerns that Apple couldn't scale up to more cores...
 
Mar 10, 2006
11,719
119
126
#15
Amber Lake-Y in the MacBook Air looks really bad compared to this monster. Nice job, Apple!
 

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
4,001
122
126
#16
10 billion transistors puts it at more than twice the 8 core Ryzen (4.8 billion) and the Snapdragon 845 (~5 Billion).
Which is an important realization many completely miss. Apple can do it because that SOC goes into exactly 1 product line: iPad which all cost an arm and leg just like the iPhones. Intel, QQ, Mediatech,... all need to design for much cheaper devices and hence such huge dies are a huge no-go. It's nothing new you can get performance by throwing more silicon at a problem but at higher cost obviously.

And I still doubt Apple will replace x86 in mac line simply for the fact that they lack the needed scale there to create multiple dies. There is no way to serve the mac market with just 1 die, especially not mac pro. So if they go ARM, Apple will need to ditch some products. That is entirely possible.

And what about all the devs developing x86 software on mac books? That is a fairly large amount of user base which you will loose.
 
Oct 14, 2003
5,912
133
126
#17
And what about all the devs developing x86 software on mac books? That is a fairly large amount of user base which you will loose.
If they do this, they'll go all ARM and announce few main applications being ported to the new computers.

If there's one company that'll break compatibility to move to a new, better chip, it's Apple.

Their dies aren't particularly big either. 120mm2 is smaller than 6 core Coffeelake.
 

Entropyq3

Junior Member
Jan 24, 2005
5
0
76
#18
Which is an important realization many completely miss. Apple can do it because that SOC goes into exactly 1 product line: iPad which all cost an arm and leg just like the iPhones. Intel, QQ, Mediatech,... all need to design for much cheaper devices and hence such huge dies are a huge no-go. It's nothing new you can get performance by throwing more silicon at a problem but at higher cost obviously.

And I still doubt Apple will replace x86 in mac line simply for the fact that they lack the needed scale there to create multiple dies. There is no way to serve the mac market with just 1 die, especially not mac pro. So if they go ARM, Apple will need to ditch some products. That is entirely possible.

And what about all the devs developing x86 software on mac books? That is a fairly large amount of user base which you will loose.
Why shouldn’t they still develop x86 software on macs? They simply output an x86 binary just like now, the only difference being that they test run it on Windows running on an emulated x86 if they do that part of the work on the same machine. Seriously, this is a non issue.

Boot camp for Windows gaming is a bigger issue, being more performance critical. Even that though is minor in the overall scheme of things. And remember a change would bring benefits as well.
 

Etain05

Junior Member
Oct 6, 2018
7
0
16
#19
This is extremely impressive. If the touted single-core performance improvement of 35% is true for Geekbench, this chip will score around 5250 (the 3900 score of the A10X + 35%), which would be 10% more than the just released A12. Could the A12X be clocked at 2,7GHz?

Also, I know that many people do not like comparing mobile-desktop with Geekbench, but that's the best we have right now till Andrei gets this chip in his hands. The A12X would come incredibly close to the very best Mac as far as single-core performance goes, the 2017 27-inch iMac with the Intel Core i7-7700K, which scores 5675 (or 8% higher, while having a turbo clock speed of 4,5GHz, or around 65% higher). Even using the more recent i7-9700K, the score would increase to just 6250 (less than 20% more than the A12X), almost entirely thanks to a 9% increase in the turbo clock speed to 4,9GHz.

This reinforces my expectations that in 2 years at most Apple will surpass Intel in single-core performance. I anxiously await Andrei's analysis of the A12X.
 
Apr 27, 2000
11,175
690
126
#21
There is no way to serve the mac market with just 1 die, especially not mac pro.
AMD's entire Ryzen/Threadripper/EPYC lineup is essentially based on one die, at least for all 14nm and 12nm products. Why can't Apple do the same thing?

And what about all the devs developing x86 software on mac books? That is a fairly large amount of user base which you will loose.
What about all the devs who produced Power software for macs? When Apple tells you it's time to redo all your code, you do it or you fall off the bandwagon. The majority of Apple devs develop for iOS anyway. It will not come as a major shock to anyone if they announce that you'll have to port all your applications over to Swift.
 

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
226
96
#23
I guess this answers the doubters concerns that Apple couldn't scale up to more cores...
That sounds like a strawman. They already had 6 core in the new iPhones.

Adding more cores is a simple option everyone can do. I have been following these discussions for ages. I have never seen anyone state that Apple couldn't add more cores.
 

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
4,001
122
126
#24
Why shouldn’t they still develop x86 software on macs?
Because you normal develop on the same platform you are targeting. Do you develop linux stuff on a windows laptop? Hardly. And for testing you will then need a second device that is x86 compatible. Why not develop on that device to begin with?

AMD's entire Ryzen/Threadripper/EPYC lineup is essentially based on one die, at least for all 14nm and 12nm products. Why can't Apple do the same thing?
Fair enough. They could go full chiplet design. But is that even possible with big.little?
 

scannall

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2012
1,329
145
136
#25
That sounds like a strawman. They already had 6 core in the new iPhones.

Adding more cores is a simple option everyone can do. I have been following these discussions for ages. I have never seen anyone state that Apple couldn't add more cores.
Starting when they released their first 64 bit part, and every iteration after that as their performance crept up to laptop/desktop performance you would have the usual cast of characters suggesting that they could never get high clocks or high core counts. The last couple of iterations those voices have been somewhat subdued.
 


ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS