Apple A5X SoC

[Steelbom]

I'm hoping we'll see a dual-core or quad-core Cortex A15 processor in the next iPhone and iPad, and PowerVR SGX600 series graphics. On top of that, I'm wanting a 4-4.6 inch 1440x960 display for the iPhone 5, as well as 1GB of RAM, preferably LPDDR3.

The A5X will most definitely not be in the next iPhone, it'll have the A6.

 

[bearxor]

I'm hoping we'll see a dual-core or quad-core Cortex A15 processor in the next iPhone and iPad, and PowerVR SGX600 series graphics. On top of that, I'm wanting a 4-4.6 inch 1440x960 display for the iPhone 5, as well as 1GB of RAM, preferably LPDDR3.

The A5X will most definitely not be in the next iPhone, it'll have the A6.

The SGX600 won't be ready this year, and it might not be ready for early 2013.

1440x960 also won't happen, as it will cause fragmentation. 1920x1280 would be the next step up, but honestly Apple is just fine with a 960x640 screen, even with a slightly larger screen.

iPhone 5 dream scenario:
4.3" 960x640 display, DC A6 processor that uses A15 @ 800mhz, SGX543MP2, 1GB of RAM, unibody design, same 8MP camera as the 4S, upgraded front camera to 1.3MP.

iPhone 5 likely scenario:
3.5" 960x640 display, DC A5 on 32nm running at 1.2-1.5ghz, SGX543MP2, 1GB of RAM, unibody design, same 8MP camera as the 4S, same .3MP front camera as currently used.

 

[Eug]

That's all you could pick apart from my post?

"A15", "A15 like"; who gives a hoot? It still has A15 performance.

I agree with the other guy. Calling Krait A15 makes no sense at all.

iPhone 5 dream scenario:
4.3" 960x640 display, DC A6 processor that uses A15 @ 800mhz, SGX543MP2, 1GB of RAM, unibody design, same 8MP camera as the 4S, upgraded front camera to 1.3MP.

iPhone 5 likely scenario:
3.5" 960x640 display, DC A5 on 32nm running at 1.2-1.5ghz, SGX543MP2, 1GB of RAM, unibody design, same 8MP camera as the 4S, same .3MP front camera as currently used.

My iPhone 5 dream scenario:
3.8" to 4.0" 960x640 display, Quad-core 32 nm A6 processor that uses A15 (2) + A7 (2), 1 GB RAM, same 8 MP camera as 4S, and an upgraded front camera.

iPhone 5 likely scenario:
3.5" or 3.8" to 4.0" 960x640 display, dual-core A5X-lite processor on 32 nm, 1 GB RAM, same 8 MP camera as 4S, and an upgraded front camera.

 

[dagamer34]

That's all you could pick apart from my post?

"A15", "A15 like"; who gives a hoot? It still has A15 performance.
No need to get your panties in a wad.

In fact, I'll keep saying that just to annoy the Grammar Nazi police.

This isn't Engadget or The Verge. This is AnandTech. I can't just let factually incorrect statements like that slip when other people read them. That's how misinformation spreads. I didn't mean to attack you.

 

[dguy6789]

I agree. While Snapdragon S4 is intended to compete with A15, it's not an A15 so we shouldn't call it that.

 

[runawayprisoner]

My iPhone 5 dream scenario:
3.8" to 4.0" 960x640 display, Quad-core 32 nm A6 processor that uses A15 (2) + A7 (2), 1 GB RAM, same 8 MP camera as 4S, and an upgraded front camera.

iPhone 5 likely scenario:
3.5" or 3.8" to 4.0" 960x640 display, dual-core A5X-lite processor on 32 nm, 1 GB RAM, same 8 MP camera as 4S, and an upgraded front camera.

Based on recent rumors, I think iPhone 5 likely scenario is more like this:
4.0" 1152x640 screen (same width, 20% taller, so the whole device remains the same size), no home button, dual-core A5 (no X) on 32nm with 1GB of RAM, same cameras as 4S all around (no HD FaceTime camera until iPad 4), and 4G/LTE on Verizon/AT&T/Sprint...

 

[Eug]

4.0" 1152x640 screen (same width, 20% taller, so the whole device remains the same size)

Personally I think that's wishful thinking (but not impossible).

In any case, by my calculations, a 3.8" 960x640 screen would be possible without increasing the overall phone size too much, if the bezel width were reduced, and it would keep the pixel density above 300.

no home button

That would suck.

 

[runawayprisoner]

Personally I think that's wishful thinking (but not impossible).

In any case, by my calculations, a 3.8" 960x640 screen would be possible without increasing the overall phone size too much, if the bezel width were reduced, and it would keep the pixel density above 300.


That would suck.

No, it's not wishful thinking. It's been partially confirmed by John Gruber, and as a developer, I think 1152 x 640 makes sense because:

It allows 192 extra vertical pixels, which brings the aspect ratio closer to 16:9.

192 pixels is exactly 1/5 the current vertical pixel pitch of the 3.5" Retina Display. In other words, it's linear scaling. To put it into a different context, Apple is currently displaying 4 x 5 icon grid on the home screen. With a 1152 x 640 screen, they can display 4 x 6 icons. The pixel math and scaling is perfect.

It does not change the physical size of any UI element, so no app has to be rewritten to take advantage of it.

It allows Apple to keep the same physical dimensions of the iPhone, or in fact, they may just be able to shrink it further since they don't have to deal with a home button anymore. One-handed operation is just as good as the last iPhone.

192 extra pixels means Apple can use it to display a virtual home button, the multitasking bar, Siri, or any other thing they want to put on there.

And those are the reasons why I think a 4" 1152 x 640 display makes sense.

 

[lothar]

I'm hoping we'll see a dual-core or quad-core Cortex A15 processor in the next iPhone and iPad, and PowerVR SGX600 series graphics. On top of that, I'm wanting a 4-4.6 inch 1440x960 display for the iPhone 5, as well as 1GB of RAM, preferably LPDDR3.

The A5X will most definitely not be in the next iPhone, it'll have the A6.

You sure do have unreasonably high expectations...
Next iPhone? Not a chance.
Next iPad? Yes, that is very likely to happen.

 

[Eug]

No, it's not wishful thinking. It's been partially confirmed by John Gruber, and as a developer, I think 1152 x 640 makes sense because:

It allows 192 extra vertical pixels, which brings the aspect ratio closer to 16:9.

While I did think it's an interesting idea (and one that some of us talked about years ago), and I did like the near 16:9 part of it, claiming John Gruber "partially confirmed" it is going too far in the description of his blog post.

 

[dagamer34]

No, it's not wishful thinking. It's been partially confirmed by John Gruber, and as a developer, I think 1152 x 640 makes sense because:

It allows 192 extra vertical pixels, which brings the aspect ratio closer to 16:9.

192 pixels is exactly 1/5 the current vertical pixel pitch of the 3.5" Retina Display. In other words, it's linear scaling. To put it into a different context, Apple is currently displaying 4 x 5 icon grid on the home screen. With a 1152 x 640 screen, they can display 4 x 6 icons. The pixel math and scaling is perfect.

It does not change the physical size of any UI element, so no app has to be rewritten to take advantage of it.

It allows Apple to keep the same physical dimensions of the iPhone, or in fact, they may just be able to shrink it further since they don't have to deal with a home button anymore. One-handed operation is just as good as the last iPhone.

192 extra pixels means Apple can use it to display a virtual home button, the multitasking bar, Siri, or any other thing they want to put on there.

And those are the reasons why I think a 4" 1152 x 640 display makes sense.

As a developer, you should know that unlike Android and Windows Phone which were inherently designed for multiple aspect ratios, iOS leans heavily on 3:2 aspect ratio. That is guaranteed to break almost all apps in one way or another. Fiddling with the aspect ratio is even worse than screen resolution as changing the resolution only requires new image assets and a scaling factor (though integers are heavily preferred). When you change the aspect ratio, that means that almost all apps have to consider a 3:2 as well as a 9:5 ratio meaning extra development work for a programmer = pain in the ass.

 

[Steelbom]

The SGX600 won't be ready this year, and it might not be ready for early 2013.

I see, how do you know this?

1440x960 also won't happen, as it will cause fragmentation. 1920x1280 would be the next step up, but honestly Apple is just fine with a 960x640 screen, even with a slightly larger screen.

That's not true, any increment of the base resolution (480x320) will not cause fragmentation. Only higher resolution images will be required. (Apps aren't coded for 960x640 for the iPhone 4+, they're coded for 480x320 points.)

iPhone 5 dream scenario:
4.3" 960x640 display, DC A6 processor that uses A15 @ 800mhz, SGX543MP2, 1GB of RAM, unibody design, same 8MP camera as the 4S, upgraded front camera to 1.3MP.

iPhone 5 likely scenario:
3.5" 960x640 display, DC A5 on 32nm running at 1.2-1.5ghz, SGX543MP2, 1GB of RAM, unibody design, same 8MP camera as the 4S, same .3MP front camera as currently used.

I think we'll see a larger iPhone this year, it's just had a 3.5 inch display for so long. I'd love a 4.4 inch model with a 1440x960 display (393 PPI), as well as a single PowerVR SGX 600 series GPU. Such a high resolution wouldn't really be possible if the 600 series isn't available, unless of course they just let current games retain the same size.

You sure do have unreasonably high expectations...
Next iPhone? Not a chance.
Next iPad? Yes, that is very likely to happen.

I don't. There will be some smartphones out this year with a dual-core processor similar to that of the A15, if not the A15 itself, no? So why shouldn't Apple be able to develop at the very least a dual-core variant of the A15 for the iPhone 5. That aside, it was like six months ago that Imagination Technologies announced some of the licensees for the PowerVR SGX600 series graphics, so why wouldn't Apple be able to get one ready for the iPhone 5? I hope they will.

>>>>>

This is what I was talking about with the 600 series, the quote below is from an article published on Jan 10 2012:

PowerVR Series6 has already secured eight licensees, and been delivered to multiple lead partners. Among the PowerVR Series6 partners announced so far are ST-Ericsson, Texas Instruments, Renesas Electronics and MediaTek.

PowerVR Series6 GPU cores are available for licensing now.

Link

I expect Apple to be one of those. I don't know whether they're able to have a 600 series GPU ready in a seventh or eight month time frame, but I sure hope they can.

 

[bearxor]

I see, how do you know this?

...

it was like six months ago that Imagination Technologies announced some of the licensees for the PowerVR SGX600 series graphics, so why wouldn't Apple be able to get one ready for the iPhone 5? I hope they will.

This is what I was talking about with the 600 series, the quote below is from an article published on Jan 10 2012:

Link

I expect Apple to be one of those. I don't know whether they're able to have a 600 series GPU ready in a seventh or eight month time frame, but I sure hope they can.

No doubt Apple is a licensee of the 600 series. But the Series 6 was just released by PowerVR to licnesees in January. Look at some previous history. It took the 543MP2 2 years to make it in to a device. It took the SGX535 about a year. A Series 6 just isn't going to realistically be ready in six months. Of course, anything is possible but, if I were you, I wouldn't be holding my breath.

That's not true, any increment of the base resolution (480x320) will not cause fragmentation. Only higher resolution images will be required. (Apps aren't coded for 960x640 for the iPhone 4+, they're coded for 480x320 points.)

This isn't true. Any resolution other than doubled from the current would cause developers to have to target specific resolutions. You're right in that it doesn't matter right now because 960x640 s doubled from the original resolution and thus can be pixel doubled. If you had odd-ball resolutions, even if they were still 3:2, existing assets would have to be pixel blurred to fill out the screen or run in a window smaller than the LCD. Not going to happen.

I think we'll see a larger iPhone this year, it's just had a 3.5 inch display for so long. I'd love a 4.4 inch model with a 1440x960 display (393 PPI), as well as a single PowerVR SGX 600 series GPU. Such a high resolution wouldn't really be possible if the 600 series isn't available, unless of course they just let current games retain the same size.

Keep in mind that when Apple went from the iPhone 3GS to the iPhone 4, the GPU stayed the same (SGX 535) and only the RAM and clock speed of the processor really changed. Given that the 543MP2 can drive a 1024x768 display just fine, I'd suspect there'd be no problems with it also driving a 1440x960 display (not that I think a resolution other than 960x640 is going to happen in the next iPhone).

There will be some smartphones out this year with a dual-core processor similar to that of the A15, if not the A15 itself, no? So why shouldn't Apple be able to develop at the very least a dual-core variant of the A15 for the iPhone 5.

The A15 was released to licensees early in 2011. By the time the next iPhone rolls around, it will be around 18 months. I also believe Samsung has shown off some A15 silicon in the last couple of months. That's why I think A15 is likely for iPhone 2012.

A7, OTOH, was just released to licensees in October of 2011. I don't suspect we'll see Big.LITTLE until 2013.

You guys can be hopeful, but you need to be a little more realistic.

BTW, Apple, the naming of your SOC's and the naming of ARM's instruction sets is about to get REALLY confusing (Though I guess we SHOULD be calling it Cortex-A15).

 

[Steelbom]

No doubt Apple is a licensee of the 600 series. But the Series 6 was just released by PowerVR to licnesees in January. Look at some previous history. It took the 543MP2 2 years to make it in to a device. It took the SGX535 about a year. A Series 6 just isn't going to realistically be ready in six months. Of course, anything is possible but, if I were you, I wouldn't be holding my breath.

We don't know how long it took Apple though before they were able to prep a 543MP2 for the iPad 2. It could've been a year, six months, no one knows.

This isn't true. Any resolution other than doubled from the current would cause developers to have to target specific resolutions. You're right in that it doesn't matter right now because 960x640 s doubled from the original resolution and thus can be pixel doubled. If you had odd-ball resolutions, even if they were still 3:2, existing assets would have to be pixel blurred to fill out the screen or run in a window smaller than the LCD. Not going to happen.

That's not true, because the applications coded by developers are 480x320 points, not 960x640. It'll work at 1440x960, 1920x1280, 2400x1600, etc., all that is required is higher resolution images. It's exactly the same as what happened from 480x320 to 960x640.

Here's a simple example:

You've got a 11, 12, 10, 10 (xywh) button, at 480x320 the scaling factor is 1, and it translates literally as 11, 12, 10, 10, at 960x640, the scaling factor is 2, and it translates as 22, 24, 20, 20, at 1440x960, the scaling factor would be 3, and it would translate to 33, 36, 30, 30. You just can't increase the resolution by anything but a multiple of 480x320, else you get an uneven scaling factor and as you said it's very blurry and horrible looking.

Keep in mind that when Apple went from the iPhone 3GS to the iPhone 4, the GPU stayed the same (SGX 535) and only the RAM and clock speed of the processor really changed. Given that the 543MP2 can drive a 1024x768 display just fine, I'd suspect there'd be no problems with it also driving a 1440x960 display (not that I think a resolution other than 960x640 is going to happen in the next iPhone).

The clock speed of the SGX 535 increased in the iPhone 4 though. And the SGX543MP2 is at a higher clock speed on the iPad 2, if it were powering a 1440x960 resolution display, which is exactly twice the pixels, we'd see half the frame rate in high end games like Infinity Blade 2, if it was only using an MP2.

The A15 was released to licensees early in 2011. By the time the next iPhone rolls around, it will be around 18 months. I also believe Samsung has shown off some A15 silicon in the last couple of months. That's why I think A15 is likely for iPhone 2012.

A7, OTOH, was just released to licensees in October of 2011. I don't suspect we'll see Big.LITTLE until 2013.

You guys can be hopeful, but you need to be a little more realistic.

BTW, Apple, the naming of your SOC's and the naming of ARM's instruction sets is about to get REALLY confusing (Though I guess we SHOULD be calling it Cortex-A15).

Hopefully that turns out to be true, it'll be a significant performance boost.

 

[runawayprisoner]

While I did think it's an interesting idea (and one that some of us talked about years ago), and I did like the near 16:9 part of it, claiming John Gruber "partially confirmed" it is going too far in the description of his blog post.

He wrote:

methinks Colin wasn't merely guessing or idly speculating

As a developer, you should know that unlike Android and Windows Phone which were inherently designed for multiple aspect ratios, iOS leans heavily on 3:2 aspect ratio. That is guaranteed to break almost all apps in one way or another. Fiddling with the aspect ratio is even worse than screen resolution as changing the resolution only requires new image assets and a scaling factor (though integers are heavily preferred). When you change the aspect ratio, that means that almost all apps have to consider a 3:2 as well as a 9:5 ratio meaning extra development work for a programmer = pain in the ass.

No, it's not a pain at all. Apple can keep the 3:2 aspect ratio with the new screen if they decide to use the extra 192 pixels merely for virtual buttons. That'll leave exactly the same physical screen real estate and resolution that developers have come to know for the past 5 years. In other words, nothing has to change to take advantage of the new screen.

The thing you need to consider here is this: it's the very same Retina Display. Only now stretched 20% longer. Apple can safely consider it a bigger display and shut people up while in reality, it doesn't really make anything physically larger. It just means they are fitting more in.

 

[bearxor]

That's not true, because the applications coded by developers are 480x320 points, not 960x640. It'll work at 1440x960, 1920x1280, 2400x1600, etc., all that is required is higher resolution images. It's exactly the same as what happened from 480x320 to 960x640.

Here's a simple example:

You've got a 11, 12, 10, 10 (xywh) button, at 480x320 the scaling factor is 1, and it translates literally as 11, 12, 10, 10, at 960x640, the scaling factor is 2, and it translates as 22, 24, 20, 20, at 1440x960, the scaling factor would be 3, and it would translate to 33, 36, 30, 30. You just can't increase the resolution by anything but a multiple of 480x320, else you get an uneven scaling factor and as you said it's very blurry and horrible looking.

Ok, so at what point does this prevent fragmentation?

I'm not arguing that 1440x960 isn't 3 times the resolution of 480x320. I'm not arguing that, currently, developers only have to target 480x320 and include high-res images.

What I am saying is:

1440x960 also won't happen, as it will cause fragmentation.

or

If you had odd-ball resolutions, even if they were still 3:2, existing assets would have to be pixel blurred to fill out the screen or run in a window smaller than the LCD.

That's exactly what I said and I stand by it. As it stands, developers can create 480x320 apps and they will run perfectly on a iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPad, iPad 2 and iPad 2012 because they all have either 480x320 resolutions, double 480x320 resolution or enough resolution to create a virtual 960x640 window.

If Apple introduced a 1440x960 resolution screen, developers will have to target that screen resolution totally separately and it will require existing apps to either be run in a virtual 960x640 window on the device itself or be blurred out to fill the screen in lieu of new artwork. Right now, you can make only 480x320 assets if you want and the device will scale perfectly it has exactly double the resolution.

I never said anything about 1440x960 resolution not working. Obviously, if you create new artwork for the higher resolution, it's going to work fine.

The only thing I'd see as a remote possibility with regards to increased screen resolution is 1152x640 if Apple uses virtual buttons like ICS. I just don't see it happening.

 

[Eug]

4.4" seems like it would be too wide, at least for 3:2 aspect ratio (which I think they'll keep for the iPhone 5).

 

[Steelbom]

Ok, so at what point does this prevent fragmentation?

I'm not arguing that 1440x960 isn't 3 times the resolution of 480x320. I'm not arguing that, currently, developers only have to target 480x320 and include high-res images.

What I am saying is:

or


That's exactly what I said and I stand by it. As it stands, developers can create 480x320 apps and they will run perfectly on a iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPad, iPad 2 and iPad 2012 because they all have either 480x320 resolutions, double 480x320 resolution or enough resolution to create a virtual 960x640 window.

The app itself is 480x320 points, and includes images for 480x320 and 960x640, the latter with the "@2x" tag, if the developer is using those APIs which has iOS automatically choose the higher resolution images for you. For everything else, such as the UI, iOS handles the rendering at a higher resolution. You've no control over it.

On the iPad, iPhone apps run pixel double, which is essentially upscaling or stretching. That's not how iPhone apps work on iPhone, they scale to the higher resolution. (Or in other words, are rendered at the higher resolution.)

Regarding the assets, the same thing that happened with the iPhone 4 displaying 480x320 assets would happen here, but with 960x640 assets. They'd just be stretched, as any image is already when you set it to fill an area larger than its own resolution.

If Apple introduced a 1440x960 resolution screen, developers will have to target that screen resolution totally separately and it will require existing apps to either be run in a virtual 960x640 window on the device itself or be blurred out to fill the screen in lieu of new artwork. Right now, you can make only 480x320 assets if you want and the device will scale perfectly it has exactly double the resolution.

I never said anything about 1440x960 resolution not working. Obviously, if you create new artwork for the higher resolution, it's going to work fine.

The only thing I'd see as a remote possibility with regards to increased screen resolution is 1152x640 if Apple uses virtual buttons like ICS. I just don't see it happening.

That's the part that I have a problem with, they wouldn't have to target the new resolution at all. It would be exactly the same as what happened from 480x320 (3GS) to 960x640 (4), all apps are automatically rendered at the higher resolution by iOS. All that would be required is higher resolution images, carrying a "@3x" tag. And then that's it.

 

[lothar]

I don't. There will be some smartphones out this year with a dual-core processor similar to that of the A15, if not the A15 itself, no? So why shouldn't Apple be able to develop at the very least a dual-core variant of the A15 for the iPhone 5. That aside, it was like six months ago that Imagination Technologies announced some of the licensees for the PowerVR SGX600 series graphics, so why wouldn't Apple be able to get one ready for the iPhone 5? I hope they will.

>>>>>

This is what I was talking about with the 600 series, the quote below is from an article published on Jan 10 2012:


Link

I expect Apple to be one of those. I don't know whether they're able to have a 600 series GPU ready in a seventh or eight month time frame, but I sure hope they can.

Because licensing a future product and shipping an actual product are 2 different things.
PowerVR 6 most likely won't be shipped in any SoC product until early next year.

That link/quote you gave is completely worthless and doesn't give any time frames.
What is the launch time frame of SoC's featuring PowerVR 6 GPUs from ST-Ericsson, Texas Instruments, Renesas Electronics, MediaTek, and Apple?

Sorry, I just don't see PowerVR 6 shipping in any SoC product(including Apple's) within the next 6 months or less(June to October time frame of the iPhone launch) unless they delay the iPhone launch.
The iPad4 will be launched in February/March next year. That is enough time for PowerVR 6 to be ready and is very possible that it would be featured in the next iPad.

 

[dagamer34]

The app itself is 480x320 points, and includes images for 480x320 and 960x640, the latter with the "@2x" tag, if the developer is using those APIs which has iOS automatically choose the higher resolution images for you. For everything else, such as the UI, iOS handles the rendering at a higher resolution. You've no control over it.

On the iPad, iPhone apps run pixel double, which is essentially upscaling or stretching. That's not how iPhone apps work on iPhone, they scale to the higher resolution. (Or in other words, are rendered at the higher resolution.)

Regarding the assets, the same thing that happened with the iPhone 4 displaying 480x320 assets would happen here, but with 960x640 assets. They'd just be stretched, as any image is already when you set it to fill an area larger than its own resolution.

That's the part that I have a problem with, they wouldn't have to target the new resolution at all. It would be exactly the same as what happened from 480x320 (3GS) to 960x640 (4), all apps are automatically rendered at the higher resolution by iOS. All that would be required is higher resolution images, carrying a "@3x" tag. And then that's it.

Ditto. Think about game routines that implicitly depend on a 3:2 ratio. They'd have to be recoded to support a new ratio which no developer really wants to do.

As for virtual buttons, the keyboard is so close to the home button on the Galaxy Nexus that people have been crying foul. Virtual buttons are a horrible idea, especially when there would only be just one.

 

[runawayprisoner]

Apple can make it so that the keyboard overlaps the virtual buttons. That gives more screen real estate to view what is being typed, and also prevents the user from accidentally hitting something random.

Alternatively, they can change the virtual buttons into a "dismiss keyboard" button so if someone does accidentally hit something, it'll just dimiss the keyboard.

 

[Steelbom]

Because licensing a future product and shipping an actual product are 2 different things.
PowerVR 6 most likely won't be shipped in any SoC product until early next year.

I'm well aware of that, but we don't know the time frame required to have a PowerVR GPU up and running and ready for the iPhone.

That link/quote you gave is completely worthless and doesn't give any time frames.
What is the launch time frame of SoC's featuring PowerVR 6 GPUs from ST-Ericsson, Texas Instruments, Renesas Electronics, MediaTek, and Apple?

It's not worthless, it shows that they've been licensed and delivered to some companies. That means Apple is at the very least working on it, whether it can be ready in eight months neither of us know. That aside, it's possible large companies such as Apple have had access to it before Jan 10.

Sorry, I just don't see PowerVR 6 shipping in any SoC product(including Apple's) within the next 6 months or less(June to October time frame of the iPhone launch) unless they delay the iPhone launch.
The iPad4 will be launched in February/March next year. That is enough time for PowerVR 6 to be ready and is very possible that it would be featured in the next iPad.

It may not, but it'll be great if it does. It'll definitely be in the next iPad.

Ditto. Think about game routines that implicitly depend on a 3:2 ratio. They'd have to be recoded to support a new ratio which no developer really wants to do.

As for virtual buttons, the keyboard is so close to the home button on the Galaxy Nexus that people have been crying foul. Virtual buttons are a horrible idea, especially when there would only be just one.

That's right, changing the ratio is a no go, and in my opinion, virtual buttons are too.