• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Apple A9x chip discussion

M

monstercameron

Diamond Member
Details are still coming out. What we know is that it is made for the ipad tank.
Will update the op as new info comes out.

apple-a9x.jpg

...The A9X in the iPad Pro is a doozy, packing up to 80 percent better performance than the A8X from the iPad Air 2. It's a champ beyond raw computational power, too, with twice the graphics and storage performance as well as double the memory bandwidth. Supposedly, the A9X is more powerful than 80 percent of portable PCs released in the past yea...
Click to expand...
http://www.engadget.com/2015/09/09/apple-a9x-processor/
 
Last edited:
If generational performance leaps continue to be 80% a year then eventually it is going to leapfrog intel.
 
sm625 said:
If generational performance leaps continue to be 80% a year then eventually it is going to leapfrog intel.
Click to expand...

It might be a quadcore CPU. This already adds 33% (theoretical) performance. Apple can't add more cores every year so their improvements will decline, too.
One more core, 10% better IPC and a clock bump to 1.9Ghz and we have 80% more performance. It will be an impressive chip.
 
That is probably built on one of the 14/16nm FF nodes we've been hearing about for a while.

Looking forward to some actual performance numbers.
 
Apple%20September%202015-259_575px.jpg


Apple confirms it's built on FINFET process.

Apple%20September%202015-263_575px.jpg


M9 motion coprocessor on-die now instead of seperate chip.
 
looking forward to the skylake core m and a9x comparisons. The pricing on the ipad pro is surface pro 3 tier.
 
MrTeal said:
I wonder how they define "Desktop-class" CPU and "Console-Class" GPU.
Click to expand...

If it's Desktop-class, maybe Apple eventually will migrate Mac Book Air to the A* CPU too. That should save them a lot of money, using their own CPU. Also CPU does perform very well, and has good perf/watt.
 
Fjodor2001 said:
If it's Desktop-class, maybe Apple eventually will migrate Mac Book Air to the A* CPU too. That should save them a lot of money, using their own CPU. Also CPU does perform very well, and has good perf/watt.
Click to expand...

No, but I could see Apple basically trying to push Mac users to the iPad Pro.
 
Arachnotronic said:
That iPad Pro seems drool-worthy. I'd take that over a Surface Pro any day...
Click to expand...

I use windows because a most of my on the go productivity apps (bloomberg professional for example) are only on windows. I think if I could get something with a core m7 with 8 gb and 256gb of space I'd get that in a surface pro 4.
 
krumme said:
I agree.
But 1 year ago the argument was also core was far superior. Its irrelevant today. Hell it might even be faster than core m.
Click to expand...

So what's stopping Apple from migrating to A* CPU on MBA now? x86 compatibility issue, since A* is ARM based?

Remember that Apple has changed ISA before, when they moved from PPC to x86.

There could probably be a lot gained by having all Apple products on the A* CPU.
 
They've been claiming desktop class performance for a few years now. A term which literally means nothing yet everyone gets all excited about.
 
Fjodor2001 said:
So what's stopping Apple from migrating to A* CPU on MBA now? x86 compatibility issue, since A* is ARM based?

Remember that Apple has changed ISA before, when they moved from PPC to x86.

There could probably be a lot gained by having all Apple products on the A* CPU.
Click to expand...
My guess mba is a little dying market.
 
krumme said:
I agree.
But 1 year ago the argument was also core was far superior. Its irrelevant today. Hell it might even be faster than core m.
Click to expand...

Intel is quoting 2x as fast as Apple A8X CPU performance for Skylake-Y (probably Core m7-6Y75).
I agree with Snafuh, I think Apple added a 4th core here so while multi-core performance might not be too far Core M should still win ST performance metrics.

From a hardware perspective iPad Pro is a very interesting device and I'm crossing my fingers for a similar Core m7 + Windows 10 design from the PC OEMs.

Ps: No word on 2GB RAM for the iPhone 6S? Please don't ruin such an awesome phone with 1GB RAM limitations Apple.
 
Last edited:
Sweepr said:
Intel is quoting 2x as fast as Apple A8X CPU performance for Skylake-Y (probably Core m7-6Y75).
I agree with Snafuh, I think Apple added a 4th core here so while multi-core performance might not be too far Core M should still win ST performance metrics.

From a hardware perspective iPad Pro is a very interesting device and I'm crossing my fingers for a similar Core m7 + Windows 10 design from the PC OEMs.

Ps: No word on 2GB RAM for the iPhone 6S? Please don't ruin such an awesome phone with 1GB RAM limitations Apple.
Click to expand...

I wonder how many transistors are crammed into the A9X? I mean the A8X has 3 billion. From what I'm reading the Broadwell based Core M has 1.3 Billion. Nothing yet released about Skylake, that I can find. I don't think the Gen 9 HD 515 GPU in Core M 6Y's will beat whatever PowerVR has cooking in the A9X. Regardless, the Broadwell based Core M has always been pretty terrible at gaming due to the 4.5w TDP limit. I don't think that will change with Skylake?
 
Last edited:
Face2Face said:
I wonder how many transistors are crammed into the A9X? I mean the A8X has 3 billion. From what I'm reading Core M Skylake has 1.3 Billion.
Click to expand...

There's a good reason why Intel stopped publicly disclosing transistor counts, and it's not because they're lower. It's a meaningless metric to the end-user and can't be used to compare between companies anyway since there are a number of different ways to count 'transistors' with wildly varying results.
 
Apple says their cpu with the a9x is 1.8x the speed of last years model

So lets say 4th core adds 33% theoretical performance increase

That still means they need to gain an addition 35% via cpu architecture gains and clock speed. I am curious how much is architecture and how much is moving to a 14nm or 16nm process.

----

I have not watched the presentation but did they give us any hints to allow us to know if its Samsung or TMSC for the Ipad Pro Chip?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top