Apple A5X SoC

[dagamer34]

apple took the hit one year because they can't buy 32nm and better CPU's in the quantities they are asking for. next year expect apple's CPU's to be A LOT more power efficient

There aren't any shipping 32nm chips from Samsung, even the relatively simple 4212, which is a due shrink of the current 4210 in the Galaxy S II. Maybe two years ago they were strongly hoping to be using 32nm in the new iPad, but those plans got ruined well over a year ago in my opinion.

 

[smartpatrol]

I don't think its going to be that simple. How are they going to cool it? How are they going to support both a power hungry CPU and a high resolution display? I don't know the TDP of the A5X, but I don't think its 7W like the display is. Even if they were able to get this to work, A5X is here and now, an AMD APU alternative would be anywhere from months to a year away. Knowing AMD, probably never.

Seems like its a lot more work than its worth. It would be easier to go with ARM or use Intel Medfield.

Yup. Look at that Windows 8 developer tablet Samsung released a few months back with a Core i5 processor. It's 2 pounds, gets 3.5 hours of battery life, and has vents and a fan.

IMO, we still have another year or two before even the most efficient ultrabook/netbook x86 CPUs will be suitable for tablets. And even then, there is no guarantee that they'll be a match for ARM/PowerVR/Qualcomm's competition.

 

[runawayprisoner]

Not necessarily, Windows 8 should lead to Ivy Bridge and Trinity powered tablets which would easily dethrone A5X.

By the time Windows 8 tablets come around, the iPad 4 would already be lumping the horizons. PowerVR G6 series might be in tow, which will again leapfrog GPU performance. It's said to be 20x current PowerVR SGX performance, so you can bet that it'll dwarf anything Sandy Bridge has to offer.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

By the time Windows 8 tablets come around, the iPad 4 would already be lumping the horizons. PowerVR G6 series might be in tow, which will again leapfrog GPU performance. It's said to be 20x current PowerVR SGX performance, so you can bet that it'll dwarf anything Sandy Bridge has to offer.

I wouldn't bet on it. Even the SGX543MP4 is basically crap by desktop standards and the Ivy Bridge gpu looks pretty good at this point. Besides even if A6 had a gpu twice as fast as IB the massive difference in cpu performance would still give Ivy Bridge an advantage in gaming.

 

[MrX8503]

I wouldn't bet on it. Even the SGX543MP4 is basically crap by desktop standards and the Ivy Bridge gpu looks pretty good at this point. Besides even if A6 had a gpu twice as fast as IB the massive difference in cpu performance would still give Ivy Bridge an advantage in gaming.

Why are you comparing a mobile SOC to a desktop CPU? My car is also faster than my bike. There's a purpose and use for everything, Ivybridge for a tablet aint it. Just like cramming fans and a full OS into a tablet doesn't work.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

Why are you comparing a mobile SOC to a desktop CPU? My car is also faster than my bike. There's a purpose and use for everything, Ivybridge for a tablet aint it. Just like cramming fans and a full OS into a tablet doesn't work.

Because Windows 8 combined with Intel's 22nm process should make x86 tablets a reality in the near future. ARM is more than half a decade behind x86 on the cpu front so an Ivy Bridge tablet is something that is very interesting to those of us who want the best performance.

 

[runawayprisoner]

I wouldn't bet on it. Even the SGX543MP4 is basically crap by desktop standards and the Ivy Bridge gpu looks pretty good at this point. Besides even if A6 had a gpu twice as fast as IB the massive difference in cpu performance would still give Ivy Bridge an advantage in gaming.

CPU isn't a huge factor in gaming unless you are doing a lot of physics simulations, or you are playing a real time strategy game. GPU is a far higher requirement.

Mobile Ivy Bridge GPU doesn't look to be that impressive because nVidia's old GeForce 320M (the integrated one that was only available to Mac) is still matching it somewhat in performance, and that chip is very old now. Desktop Ivy Bridge is a good upgrade, though.

I think you are overestimating Ivy Bridge GPU. Even if the chip looks impressive on paper, it has been known for a long while now (and Sandy wasn't an exception) that Intel simply sucks with drivers, and one way or another, they always find a way to hamper the GPU.

In terms of performance, PowerVR SGX543MP4 is actually doing more than what Sandy GPU could ever do. I know that for a fact because Sandy GPU can't play most games even at 1280 x 800 resolution with every single shader effect turned off, unless it's a game from before 2005. In contrast, PowerVR SGX543MP4 is whizzing by at 2048 x 1536. Even disregarding what the chip is doing in the iPad 3, I'm sure you'll find PS Vita games that look way better than what Sandy GPU can pull off. Mobile Ivy isn't here yet, but from what I have seen so far, it won't be that huge a leap.

 

[alent1234]

Because Windows 8 combined with Intel's 22nm process should make x86 tablets a reality in the near future. ARM is more than half a decade behind x86 on the cpu front so an Ivy Bridge tablet is something that is very interesting to those of us who want the best performance.

what is the average selling price of an intel CPU? $150? $200?

the bill of materials for a 16GB wifi ipad is $250 when ipad 2 shipped. i read the 3 is a little higher but don't know the number.

unless the windows 8 tablets come in at the same price they are dead in the water.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

CPU isn't a huge factor in gaming unless you are doing a lot of physics simulations, or you are playing a real time strategy game. GPU is a far higher requirement.

Mobile Ivy Bridge GPU doesn't look to be that impressive because nVidia's old GeForce 320M (the integrated one that was only available to Mac) is still matching it somewhat in performance, and that chip is very old now. Desktop Ivy Bridge is a good upgrade, though.

I think you are overestimating Ivy Bridge GPU. Even if the chip looks impressive on paper, it has been known for a long while now (and Sandy wasn't an exception) that Intel simply sucks with drivers, and one way or another, they always find a way to hamper the GPU.

In terms of performance, PowerVR SGX543MP4 is actually doing more than what Sandy GPU could ever do. I know that for a fact because Sandy GPU can't play most games even at 1280 x 800 resolution with every single shader effect turned off, unless it's a game from before 2005. In contrast, PowerVR SGX543MP4 is whizzing by at 2048 x 1536. Even disregarding what the chip is doing in the iPad 3, I'm sure you'll find PS Vita games that look way better than what Sandy GPU can pull off. Mobile Ivy isn't here yet, but from what I have seen so far, it won't be that huge a leap.

The HD 3000 gpu in Sandy Bridge is competitive with the 320m so the substantially faster gpu in Ivy bridge should easily beat it. Also the desktop version being better does not make sense, Mobile Core i3, i5, and i7s get the HD3000 while most desktop chips get the slower HD 2000.

The SGX 543 MP4 can handle those resolutions because the games it is running are incredibly primitive compared to their pc counterparts. The HD3000 can run Left 4 Dead 2 at 1366x768 with very high settings and Battlefield Bad Company 2 on low at the same res. Those two games make stuff like Infinity Blade 2 look like a bad tech demo in comparison.

CPU is absolutely a factor in high end gaming. good luck playing Battlefield 3 on high settings if you are running a Athlon x2.

 

[dagamer34]

what is the average selling price of an intel CPU? $150? $200?

the bill of materials for a 16GB wifi ipad is $250 when ipad 2 shipped. i read the 3 is a little higher but don't know the number.

unless the windows 8 tablets come in at the same price they are dead in the water.

The Tegra 3 is about $25. An Intel CPU is an order of magnitude higher at around $200 for a chip worth sticking into a tablet. I'm sure costs will have to come down as Intel hasn't really had true competition in the mobile space for a while, it's been competing against itself.

The real problem for Intel is that we don't need super powerful CPUs in tablets, we need better GPU performance. Their chips aren't well suited for that kind of market.

 

[runawayprisoner]

The HD 3000 gpu in Sandy Bridge is competitive with the 320m so the substantially faster gpu in Ivy bridge should easily beat it. Also the desktop version being better does not make sense, Mobile Core i3, i5, and i7s get the HD3000 while most desktop chips get the slower HD 2000.

The SGX 543 MP4 can handle those resolutions because the games it is running are incredibly primitive compared to their pc counterparts. The HD3000 can run Left 4 Dead 2 at 1366x768 with very high settings and Battlefield Bad Company 2 on low at the same res. Those two games make stuff like Infinity Blade 2 look like a bad tech demo in comparison.

CPU is absolutely a factor in high end gaming. good luck playing Battlefield 3 on high settings if you are running a Athlon x2.

HD 3000 GPU in Sandy Bridge is actually not competitive with 320M at all, no matter how much Intel would like you to believe so. 320M still outperforms HD 3000 by far. For instance, the MacBook Air 2010 13" model can play Crysis 2 on low settings like a breeze at 1024 x 576. The 2011 13" Air can't even play the game right at 800 x 600. It's where CPU is not a limitation that HD 3000 rears its ugly head.

And the desktop version is better because it has better cooling than the mobile version. The mobile chip doesn't scale up as much because it's limited by the thermal envelope of the whole chip. Frequency only scales in mobile when Turbo Boost kicks in, which doesn't happen most of the time.

As far as games go, I think Infinity Blade 2 is a bad example. Try Infinity Blade Dungeons, or Sky Gamblers Supremacy.

Sky Gamblers Supremacy legitimately does look like Tom Clancy's HAWX at low settings, and to be able to handle a game like that at 2048 x 1536 is no small feat.

And yeah, CPU is a factor in high end gaming, but you're not going to be able to run Battlefield 3 on even low settings in most ultraportable laptops, so why even mention it? In fact, the game requires a GPU with 512MB VRAM or more and something beyond Radeon HD 6750M on a laptop to even run okay at low settings. And I personally think it's a bad example of CPU limitation because many games of the same class, take Modern Warfare 2 for instance, don't require such crazy high-end hardwares to play well.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

HD 3000 GPU in Sandy Bridge is actually not competitive with 320M at all, no matter how much Intel would like you to believe so. 320M still outperforms HD 3000 by far. For instance, the MacBook Air 2010 13" model can play Crysis 2 on low settings like a breeze at 1024 x 576. The 2011 13" Air can't even play the game right at 800 x 600. It's where CPU is not a limitation that HD 3000 rears its ugly head.

And the desktop version is better because it has better cooling than the mobile version. The mobile chip doesn't scale up as much because it's limited by the thermal envelope of the whole chip. Frequency only scales in mobile when Turbo Boost kicks in, which doesn't happen most of the time.

As far as games go, I think Infinity Blade 2 is a bad example. Try Infinity Blade Dungeons, or Sky Gamblers Supremacy.

Sky Gamblers Supremacy legitimately does look like Tom Clancy's HAWX at low settings, and to be able to handle a game like that at 2048 x 1536 is no small feat.

And yeah, CPU is a factor in high end gaming, but you're not going to be able to run Battlefield 3 on even low settings in most ultraportable laptops, so why even mention it? In fact, the game requires a GPU with 512MB VRAM or more and something beyond Radeon HD 6750M on a laptop to even run okay at low settings. And I personally think it's a bad example of CPU limitation because many games of the same class, take Modern Warfare 2 for instance, don't require such crazy high-end hardwares to play well.

Looking at the Macbook Pro 2011 vs the 2010 model the HD 3000 is clearly competitive with the 320m, there is usually a ~5fps difference which is negligible considering the Ivy bridge gpu is several times more powerful than the HD3000.

All of those games are still very basic compared to Left 4 Dead 2.

Modern Warfare 2 is not in the same class as BF3, it's based on an ancient DX9 engine and doesn't have destructible environments, large maps, vehicles, and a whole host of graphics features.

 

[MrX8503]

Because Windows 8 combined with Intel's 22nm process should make x86 tablets a reality in the near future. ARM is more than half a decade behind x86 on the cpu front so an Ivy Bridge tablet is something that is very interesting to those of us who want the best performance.

Ivy Tablet isn't going to happen. You're talking about an entirely different market and comparing two different uses. We'll have Win8 tablets sure, but its not going to be using an Ivy. The A5X has a powerful GPU, get over it.

 

[Mopetar]

I don't think so. For Apple to go any farther, they would need to move to the Series 6 GPU, and I don't think those will be ready for integration until Q2 '13 at the earliest. I don't think moving to a 544 or 554 makes any sense. I suppose they COULD add more cores, but I don't know if it's necessary.

Or they shrink the die using a 32 or 28 nm process and increase the clock speeds. Compared to the Tegra, the A5 and A5X have fairly low GPU clocks and there's probably room to increase that if they really wanted to do so. The other alternative is just using the same cores at the same speed (which does make a lot of sense from certain perspectives) and just getting a smaller, more power efficient SoC.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

Or they shrink the die using a 32 or 28 nm process and increase the clock speeds. Compared to the Tegra, the A5 and A5X have fairly low GPU clocks and there's probably room to increase that if they really wanted to do so. The other alternative is just using the same cores at the same speed (which does make a lot of sense from certain perspectives) and just getting a smaller, more power efficient SoC.

Tegra's ULP Geforce isn't a good frame of reference for gpu clocks since it's architecture if very different from a PowerVR gpu and therefore could be capable of very different clock speeds.

 

[runawayprisoner]

Looking at the Macbook Pro 2011 vs the 2010 model the HD 3000 is clearly competitive with the 320m, there is usually a ~5fps difference which is negligible considering the Ivy bridge gpu is several times more powerful than the HD3000.

Don't read the reviews is what I'll say. Actual user here, and GeForce 320M in the 2010 model is still better. Try games like Mirror's Edge, Devil May Cry 4, or Street Fighter IV, or Need For Speed Shift 2 and then tell me if those 2 GPUs are in the same league.

Also to note, Left 4 Dead and all Source-based games are more CPU-bound than GPU-bound. You can run Left 4 Dead even on a GeForce 9400M at all High settings @ 1920 x 1080 even.

Modern Warfare 2 is not in the same class as BF3, it's based on an ancient DX9 engine and doesn't have destructible environments, large maps, vehicles, and a whole host of graphics features.

Then try Crysis 2. It doesn't require exorbitant amount of CPU power, either.

No matter how you try to spin it, BF3 is a poor excuse for high CPU utilization in a game.

 

[Steelbom]

Well, Anand's results are in. Quad-channel memory! Who woulda thunk?

And performance at 2048 x 1536 isn't so bad, either. Looks like this'll be the benchmark for mobile GPU performance for a while.

Indeed... it's pretty powerful.

The results are in, overall the A5x gets stomped pretty badly by the Tegra3 in CPU tasks, narrowing it down to the GPU the 4x results don't seem to show up for any of the benches. In one of the GLBench results they show the A5x to be ~3x faster, but some of the primitive tests in GLBench show Tegra3 to be 5x-7x faster then the A5x.

GLBenchmark Pro shows a close to 2x improvement over the Tegra 3 for the iPad 2, and the iPad 3's twice as powerful graphically as the iPad 2, so that's where they'd be getting that 4x number from. It's unlikely you'll actually see that unless you're at higher resolutions though, which is why it appears to be less, I'd bet it's bottlenecked by the CPU at 1280x720.

I'm not sure why some of those primitive tests show the Tegra 3 to be faster... the iPad 2 gets beaten quite badly in some of them, yet it dominates in others. The PowerVR SGX543MP2 is more powerful on paper, so I wonder why that is...

Also, the GPU doesn't have enough power to run games at the native resolution based on what Anand stated. I'm sure something like AngryBirds would run just fine, but more demanding games seem like they are getting scaled.

Side note- nice that Apple managed to get close to the level of contrast offered by the hyper expensive Kindle Fire with their new wunder display.....

There are games already running at 2048x1536. Real Racing 2, Sky Gamblers: Air Supremacy does too I believe, Infinity Blade 2 runs at 1.4x the iPad 2's resolution (which is a bit less than 1536x1152 which happens to be exactly double the pixels) and I know The Bard's Tale runs at 1536x1152. These games will look good nonetheless.

 

[PrayForDeath]

Modern Combat 3 looks surprisingly good on the new ipad. Very sharp textures.

 

[Steelbom]

Modern Combat 3 looks surprisingly good on the new ipad. Very sharp textures.

I think it's running at 2048x1536. It looks pretty great on the iPhone 4S... the textures are nice.

 

[runawayprisoner]

It is running at 2048 x 1536. Stutter-free.

You can see polygon edges, but the textures and resolution are two things that you can't deny about that game.

Anyway, got a chance to try Sky Gamblers today on a newly acquired iPhone 4S. Doesn't seem like visuals improved on the iPad 3 over iPhone 4S, but the iPad 3 did seem like it ran Sky Gamblers at a resolution lower than native. Sky Gamblers on iPhone 4S looks a lot sharper and with the same amount of visual effects that I can see.

 

[Steelbom]

It is running at 2048 x 1536. Stutter-free.

You can see polygon edges, but the textures and resolution are two things that you can't deny about that game.

Anyway, got a chance to try Sky Gamblers today on a newly acquired iPhone 4S. Doesn't seem like visuals improved on the iPad 3 over iPhone 4S, but the iPad 3 did seem like it ran Sky Gamblers at a resolution lower than native. Sky Gamblers on iPhone 4S looks a lot sharper and with the same amount of visual effects that I can see.

It's pretty sweet...!

Ah yeah, lower res huh? That's too bad. It's a neat game though...

 

[BenSkywalker]

It is running at 2048 x 1536. Stutter-free.

You can see polygon edges, but the textures and resolution are two things that you can't deny about that game.

If you can poly edge aliasing, it is not running at native resolution.

Ivy Tablet isn't going to happen. You're talking about an entirely different market and comparing two different uses. We'll have Win8 tablets sure, but its not going to be using an Ivy. The A5X has a powerful GPU, get over it.

The A5X compared to any desktop GPU is absurdly weak, to a ludicrous degree. The A5x has 2GTexel fill, that is the same the Ti4200 which was a mid range card...... ten years ago. Keep things in the context in which they belong. The A5x is absurdly weak, it does extremely well in the ultra portable SoC market.

GLBenchmark Pro shows a close to 2x improvement over the Tegra 3 for the iPad 2, and the iPad 3's twice as powerful graphically as the iPad 2, so that's where they'd be getting that 4x number from.

nVidia can say that the Tegra 3 is seven times faster then the A5x, we have seen a bench that backs this up. What we haven't seen is the 4x faster numbers that Apple's PR department came up with. Waiting to see those.

WTF, I have edited this post several times now, "see" is showing between can and polygon, but not when I save it.......

 

[runawayprisoner]

If you can poly edge aliasing, it is not running at native resolution.

Care to elaborate?

The A5X compared to any desktop GPU is absurdly weak, to a ludicrous degree. The A5x has 2GTexel fill, that is the same the Ti4200 which was a mid range card...... ten years ago. Keep things in the context in which they belong. The A5x is absurdly weak, it does extremely well in the ultra portable SoC market.

If we go by GTexels as a metric, then the Radeon HD 4850 must be absurdly weak compared to the GeForce 9800GTX. Keep in mind they are both desktop class so there is no unfair comparison here. The HD 4850 has only 25GTexels fill rate compared to the 9800GTX at ~43GTexels.

Can you show me where the 9800GTX is ~1.5x faster than the HD 4850?

nVidia can say that the Tegra 3 is seven times faster then the A5x, we have seen a bench that backs this up. What we haven't seen is the 4x faster numbers that Apple's PR department came up with. Waiting to see those.

Wait until 1920 x 1200 tablets start shipping. Anand did note this in his review:

The bigger worry is what happens when the first 1920 x 1200 enabled Tegra 3 tablets start shipping. With (presumably) no additional GPU horsepower or memory bandwidth under the hood, we'll see this gap widen.

Here:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5688/apple-ipad-2012-review/15

 

[MrX8503]

The A5X compared to any desktop GPU is absurdly weak, to a ludicrous degree. The A5x has 2GTexel fill, that is the same the Ti4200 which was a mid range card...... ten years ago. Keep things in the context in which they belong. The A5x is absurdly weak, it does extremely well in the ultra portable SoC market.

Your bike is absurdly slow compared to my motorcycle. You were wrong about the screen quality and you were wrong about performance. Sorry.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Care to elaborate?

Poly edges are sub pixel in accuracy. To make edge aliasing non visible to the human eye the best approach is to make the pixels smaller then the eye can discern on an individual basis. If you do this, you eliminate visible poly edge aliasing, unless of course you can't display the image at the native resolution. If you are seeing edge aliasing, the game isn't running at the native resolution.

If we go by GTexels as a metric, then the Radeon HD 4850 must be absurdly weak compared to the GeForce 9800GTX. Keep in mind they are both desktop class so there is no unfair comparison here. The HD 4850 has only 25GTexels fill rate compared to the 9800GTX at ~43GTexels.

Can you show me where the 9800GTX is ~1.5x faster than the HD 4850?

Which metric would you like me to use? Compute power where desktop GPUs have been in the TFLOP range for years? Geometric throughput? Which metric? No matter which you decide on, the A5X is going to be utterily humiliated to an absurd degree. Having monster specs for a SoC doesn't mean it is in the league of even the weakest current desktop GPU.

Wait until 1920 x 1200 tablets start shipping. Anand did note this in his review:

Those benches won't change, they are primitive throughput- perhaps I should say those benches shouldn't change because they are primitive throughput.

You were wrong about the screen quality and you were wrong about performance.

I was quite clear long before we had any of the details on what matters in a quality display. Contrast was at the top of my list, well before we had any reviews of the new iPad. The reviews are in, the new iPad loses to the dollar store quality Kindle Fire in the most important metric. You can take the word of someone who can't tell the difference between bilinear and trilinear at a glance- based on your comments you wouldn't be able to either.

As far as performance- the benched back me up, across the board actually. You can keep your devotion going, the performance data spells out exactly what I said. With both at their native resolution the new iPad has inferior performance to the iPad2 in anything GPU intensive.