[Arun]

Just thought I'd start a thread since we're likely to be fast entering silly season, and I thought I'd come up with my own speculation for silliness's sake:

iPhone 5 Pro
3.7" 960x640 LCD (Edge-to-Edge horizontally to keep the same dimensions?)
A5 (similar clocks but thermally limited when using both cores or GPU)
Qualcomm MDM6660 14.4Mbps & 5 HSPA Bands + EV-DO CDMA
NFC via Broadcom? Or no NFC? (cannot be NXP/Inside Secure)
Audience eS310 voice processor (replacing Audience A1026)
1GB 64-bit LPDDR2 DRAM
Sony 8MP rear camera
720p front camera
32-64GB NAND

iPhone 5 Nano (assuming Apple doesn't keep selling the iPhone 4 which seems rather likely)
3.5" 960x640 LCD Edge-to-Edge (smaller home button) OR 3.2" 480x320 LCD (more realistic cost-wise really) - either way lower quality than iPhone 4 (ala iPod Touch 4G: worse contrast etc.)
A4 (remember it's actually smaller than the 3GS SoC)
ex-Infineon XMM 6160 7.2Mbps (same as iPhone 4)
ex-Infineon UE2 RF & 5 HSPA bands (replaces UE)
512MB or 256MB LPDDR1 (A4 can't use LPDDR2)
720p <2MP rear camera (see: iPod Touch)
VGA Front Camera
Cheaper materials
Smaller battery

Unsubsidised Pricing: $249-329 for 8-32GB
Subsidised Pricing: $0 for 32GB (slightly cheaper contract than iPhone 4)

I know it's not generally accepted that Apple would release an iPhone Nano-like product this year (and the name iPhone 5 Pro is rather unlikely but that's besides the point), however notice the components are exactly what you'd expect from a cost-optimised iPod Touch 5G except for the presence of a 3G baseband (the camera might be controversial but it saves on cost and would help make it very thin). If Apple wanted to be especially secretive, they can simply pretend they're negociating for iPod Touch components, not iPhone ones. And a next-gen iPod Touch is suspiciously absent from the iOS 5.0 device list... And I didn't say this was likely, just doing my part making silly season, well, silly

EDITs: Various small changes (typos, clarity, extra points)

[Ailuros]

Just because we're about to enter silly season I don't see why you have to be part of it, but I am fetching a box of popcorn and am stretching my legs....

[Lazy8s]

I don't see a real need to change the resolution from 960x640.

If they were making an alternative version based upon screen size, I could see it being >4 inches.

I don't see them dropping the quality of the backside camera on any iPhone model.

The A5 SoC is big because they wanted to implement it that way. I assume they controlled the size to still be suitable for the next generation iPhone(s) and iPod touch(s).

[Arun]

Originally Posted by Lazy8s

I don't see a real need to change the resolution from 960x640.

Argh, obviously neither do I. That's a typo/brainfart probably because I thought of a 3.2" inch 480x320 resolution screeb for the iPhone Nano but decided it didn't make sense.

If they were making an alternative version based upon screen size, I could see it being >4 inches.

But then their DPI bar for Retina Displays becomes a problem. And Steve Jobs has indicated he wasn't a fan of bigger devices.

I don't see them dropping the quality of the backside camera on any iPhone model.

720p sensor ala iPod Touch and iPad 2 is indeed fairly extreme, but Apple evidently seems to think it's "good enough" for some purposes, so who knows. Otherwise a lower quality 5MP 1.4um sensor without auto focus would make sense.

The A5 SoC is big because they wanted to implement it that way. I assume they controlled the size to still be suitable for the next generation iPhone(s) and iPod touch(s).

It doesn't make sense for Apple to use the same SoC in all future devices IMO. The A5 is certainly suitable for iPhones in general, but not for one at $249 unsubsidised.

[rpg.314]

Skimmed over the hypo-specs but seems like iphone5 nano is just iphone4.

[Arun]

Originally Posted by rpg.314

Skimmed over the hypo-specs but seems like iphone5 nano is just iphone4.

I updated my original post to be a bit more detailed. But it's pretty close, yeah. Still, you've got much cheaper RF (UE2), much cheaper rear camera (controversially so I'll admit), a cheaper/smaller battery, and probably much cheaper materials. And obviously they can allow themselves slightly lower margins here.

If you want to reduce costs further, two things you can do are using a 3.2" 480x320 screen instead of 3.5" 960x480 one, and sticking to 256MB RAM (ala iPod Touch 4G) instead of 512MB RAM. Just look at the iPod Touch 4G with 8GB NAND selling for $229 to get an idea of what's possible. The 3G subsystem (in that kind of volume) and associated patent royalties (proportional to device price which is much lower here) won't cost more than $30-35, so at 40% gross margins that's only $50-60 extra. Consider incremental cost reductions for everything else and a $20 higher price, and you're in the right ballpark.

I suppose if they wanted incremental volume without hurting their ASPs too much, they could just sell a 8GB iPhone 4 for $0 subsidised (similarly to how they sell the 3GS for $49 today). Realistically, that's by far the most likely possibility.

[ltcommander.data]

Originally Posted by Arun

I suppose if they wanted incremental volume without hurting their ASPs too much, they could just sell a 8GB iPhone 4 for $0 subsidised (similarly to how they sell the 3GS for $49 today). Realistically, that's by far the most likely possibility.

I think keeping the iPhone 4 around as the low-end model makes more sense than trying to replace it with a iPhone 5 Nano. Even with the push back of the iPhone 5 launch from June to September, it seemed strange to go ahead with the launch of the Verizon iPhone 4 and even more so the much delayed white iPhone 4 so late in the iPhone 4's product cycle. Or at least if product cycle is considered solely on when the iPhone 4 is Apple's top model. If the iPhone 4 remains another year as the low end model after the launch of the iPhone 5, then delayed launches of the Verizon and white iPhone 4 don't seem as late.

In any case, I hope that Apple moves the low-end model up from 8GB to 16GB. With the expanding capabilities of the SoC and major games like those by Gameloft already getting close to 1GB in size once installed, 8GB of storage space is too limiting. Especially if you are wanting to leave room for 5MP photos and 720p video. And Apple certainly doesn't want to discourage people from buying apps because of the lack of storage space. Of course going 16GB on the low-end model, pushes the iPhone 5 to 32GB and 64GB sizes and likely the 5th gen iPod Touch up to 128GB, and I'm not sure if that squeezes the margins enough that Apple won't want to do it.

Ars Technica reported that OmniVisions new 8MP camera actually has decidedly worse light sensitivity than the current OmniVision 5MP camera in the iPhone 4. So going 8MP will be mainly for marketing points rather than performance and may not be something Apple wants given that they stressed the importance of making sure each pixel gets enough light in the iPhone 4. Perhaps they will stick with the 5MP camera in the iPhone 5, but promote 1080p video recording with the rear camera and 720p FaceTime HD with the front camera over WiFi or VGA FaceTime over 3G from the front camera. The 5th Gen iPod Touch will then similarly get a bump to a 1080p fixed focus rear camera and a 720p front camera.

[Arun]

Originally Posted by ltcommander.data

I think keeping the iPhone 4 around as the low-end model makes more sense than trying to replace it with a iPhone 5 Nano. Even with the push back of the iPhone 5 launch from June to September, it seemed strange to go ahead with the launch of the Verizon iPhone 4 and even more so the much delayed white iPhone 4 so late in the iPhone 4's product cycle. Or at least if product cycle is considered solely on when the iPhone 4 is Apple's top model. If the iPhone 4 remains another year as the low end model after the launch of the iPhone 5, then delayed launches of the Verizon and white iPhone 4 don't seem as late.

Agreed and very good point, that makes a lot of sense. I would say all the evidence points in that direction with two small exceptions:
1) This AppleInsider leak: "Source: Apple drastically reduces orders for iPhone 4 camera flash"
2) The existence of two next-gen iPhones in iOS 5 despite the next-gen iPhone definitely being a world phone according to all reliable sources. Doesn't mean much though.

In any case, I hope that Apple moves the low-end model up from 8GB to 16GB. With the expanding capabilities of the SoC and major games like those by Gameloft already getting close to 1GB in size once installed, 8GB of storage space is too limiting. Especially if you are wanting to leave room for 5MP photos and 720p video.

Agreed, but Apple isn't (entirely) responsible for worldwide NAND pricing. But things seem to be moving in the right direction to make that possible: http://www.dramexchange.com/WeeklyRe...st/2/2714.html

At the start of mass production, $7/4GB for the iPhone 4, $6/4GB for the iPod Touch 4G, $5/4GB for the iPad 2, and despite a small spike in Q2 it looks like we're on track for $4/4GB for the next-gen iPhone. Contract prices are decided well in advance but OEMs can allow themselves slightly lower or higher margins at product launch as long as they're confident it'll even out over the product's lifetime.

and likely the 5th gen iPod Touch up to 128GB

Frankly, I'm expecting there won't be an iPod Touch 5G for some time. I expect they'll simply stick to the current A4-based one for another year and reduce the price and/or increase capacity instead. The iPod Touch is inherently a lower cost option to the iPhone, and the current generation is already perfectly cost optimised in every way.

Ars Technica reported that OmniVisions new 8MP camera actually has decidedly worse light sensitivity than the current OmniVision 5MP camera in the iPhone 4. So going 8MP will be mainly for marketing points rather than performance and may not be something Apple wants given that they stressed the importance of making sure each pixel gets enough light in the iPhone 4.

Yeah, the OV5650 is an absolute beast. It's ridiculously better than practically every other 5MP sensor out there, and the OV8830 can't match it. And it wouldn't even be ready in time anyway, while the OV8820 is even worse. It might not be as bad as the raw sensitivity specs imply (e.g. lower noise?) but no miracles here.

My expectation is that Omnivision has simply lost the 8MP contract to Sony. Digitimes claims that Omnivision will supply 90% of next-gen iPhone sensors and Sony only 10%, but they have a very spotty track record on Apple rumours, and I heavily suspect they have been used by analysts/insiders/whatever to manipulate certain stocks for financial gain in the past. There's nothing fundamentally impossible delivering a similarly good 8MP sensor, but it's impossible for it to come from Omnivision in that timeframe.

---

I think at this point the most likely and realistic line-up would be:
iPhone 4S 64GB: $299
iPhone 4S 32GB: $199
iPhone 4 16GB: $49 (possibly with minor internal hardware revisions?)

---

EDIT: BTW, there's a small chance that Apple switched Wi-Fi/Bluetooth/GPS from the BCM4329 plus Broadcom or Qualcomm GPS to a ST-Ericsson CG2900 Bluetooth/GPS chip and an Atheros AR6003 Wi-Fi chip. It's far from certain, but I've heard some noteworthy hints in the direction of the CG2900 but without the ST-E Wi-Fi solution, which would hint heavily at Atheros to go with it. Or I could have misunderstood and that was for another very high visibility phone (not the Galaxy S2, that's using a BCM4239 with a CSR SiRFStar IV for GPS).

Keep in mind I've got a pretty good track record on the connectivity side for the iPhone since I correctly said the iPhone 3G would use a CSR BlueCore6 with the same Marvell Wi-Fi chip and the iPod Touch 3 would use a BCM4329 iirc (although I was surprised by the BCM4325 in the iPod Touch 2G tbh). Also keep in mind my track record for everything else is pretty awful

[Lazy8s]

The average person, in many cases, has already been relating the "4" in iPhone 4 to the "4G" qualifier a lot of other brands have been using in their product names, so I wonder how Apple will steer away from that confusion in the subtitle of their next iPhone.

[wco81]

There are people who believe that Apple could sell the iPhone 4 design for about $350 unsubsidized and still make a healthy profit.

The $649 and $749 unsubsidized prices represent, according to this view, the carriers pushing up the prices to tie people to contracts.

The other thing is, Apple could use their supply-chain advantages to price their flagship phone SKUs at parity with the top Android phone, rather than command a premium, just as Android tablet makers seem to be struggling to achieve price-parity with iPad 2.

[Arun]

Originally Posted by wco81

There are people who believe that Apple could sell the iPhone 4 design for about $350 unsubsidized and still make a healthy profit. The $649 and $749 unsubsidized prices represent, according to this view, the carriers pushing up the prices to tie people to contracts.

It is claimed that Apple gets $300-400 subsidies from operators, and I've heard that $300 for ultra-high-end smartphones is very plausible. $400 might be pushing it, but it's not impossible for some operators (especially AT&T pre-Verizon iPhone).

So that gets us from $199 subsidised to $499-599 unsubsidised. There's definitely still a gap there, but it gets us nowhere near $349. If Apple actually sold it for $499 at 50% gross margins, selling it at $349 would require them lowering their gross margins to 28.5%. Not strictly impossible, but not very Apple-like and they'd need 2.5x as much volume to justify it ($100 vs $250 gross profit) which seems too optimistic. I suspect they wouldn't really want to do an iPhone Nano-like product without 40% gross margins.

The other thing is, Apple could use their supply-chain advantages to price their flagship phone SKUs at parity with the top Android phone, rather than command a premium, just as Android tablet makers seem to be struggling to achieve price-parity with iPad 2.

There is a little bit of truth to that, but much of the cost benefit from the iPad simply comes from higher volumes and securing great deals for the most expensive components like LCDs. An ultra-high-end smartphone from Motorola or HTC can easily sell quite a few millions of units (versus only hundreds of thousands for a tablet today) and the volume discounts are sublinear, so Apple's advantage isn't as significant here.

[tangey]

Before the "reveal" about the direction and operation of the cloud, I would have said that the next logical inclusion for advices would be usb3.

However apple is very clearly moving away from syncing and wired downloading of content, so although it's natural that usb3 will likely appear at some stage, it no longer is a key feature advantage that it once would have been. Mind you, you can cloud all you like but it's still way quickly to get 10G of music/video to you idevice by USB than any other way

[Arun]

Originally Posted by tangey

Before the "reveal" about the direction and operation of the cloud, I would have said that the next logical inclusion for advices would be usb3.

Agreed, doesn't seem so likely now, even more so with Apple's focus on Thunderbolt. In the very long term, it would be interesting if they implemented WiGig 60GHz, but that's several years down the road.

But they've already done one key thing for improving wireless streaming: despite using the same BCM4329 chipset as the iPhone 4, the iPad 2 finally supports 5GHz Wi-Fi which today has significantly less interference from other users in the real world. BTW, it's noteworthy that the primary cost advantage of integrated Power Amplifiers in these Wi-Fi chips is actually 5GHz - for volume reasons mostly (but likely not exclusively), 2.4GHz PAs are very cheap and 5GHz PAs quite expensive. Broadcom claims 70 cents of savings from integrated PAs iirc, but that's mostly on the 5GHz side, and when you include silicon costs of including both it's probably closer to 10 cents for 2.4GHz-only devices. Sorry, I'm rambling

In the short-term, as I noted in my first post, I wouldn't be surprised if they switched from Broadcom to an Atheros AR6003 here. That gives you 150Mbps over 5GHz - either via a 5GHz router or Wi-Fi Direct. And in the medium-term (late 2012?) I can imagine them going for something like the AR6004 with MIMO on the iPad and later the iPhone.

Then in the long-term... One thing that's probably going to blow some people's minds is that 802.11ac *will* certainly happen on tablets and probably smartphones eventually. That means moving from 300Mbps (via 40MHz 64QAM 2x2 MIMO on 5GHz) to 867Mbps (via 80MHz 256QAM 2x2 MIMO on 5GHz). Most likely you'll actually stick to 433Mbps with a single stream on the upload side (ala LTE which is mostly why you get 100/50Mbps rather than 100/100) to reduce power consumption on phones, but even there you'll get the full 867Mbps on the download side which is perfect for iCloud among other things.

[wco81]

Latest rumors are about a "radical" new case design, to be unveiled in August.

Previous rumors were about a "modest" upgrade over iPhone 4 with just the internals (A4 to A5) changing -- of course in this forum, the internals are the main thing of interest.

iPhone and iPad's broad appeal have been more than about specs. If Apple does offer a lower-priced SKU -- and some people suggest the only way Apple is going to keep up with low-cost Android phones is to offer a SKU with an unsubsidized price under $400, maybe $300 -- it seems they would differentiate by industrial design as well as internals. The cheaper iPhone must also have the potential to upsell -- that is, not only cannibalize sales of the higher-priced SKU but entice some buyers to pony up more for the prettier, better-spec'd model.

[phenix]

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20110624PB201.html


Rumors about A6 to be produced at TSCMC possibly for iPad3 and iPhone6. They don't say it but I expect this to be 28nm chip with dual core A15 and improved GPU (PowerVR 6th generation).

[ltcommander.data]

Originally Posted by phenix

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20110624PB201.html


Rumors about A6 to be produced at TSCMC possibly for iPad3 and iPhone6. They don't say it but I expect this to be 28nm chip with dual core A15 and improved GPU (PowerVR 6th generation).

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20110624PB201.html

But even if TSMC grabs all Apple's tablet chip orders for 2012, sales generated from the orders will account for only 2% of TSMC's overall sales for the year, Heyler was quoted as saying.

Orders for non-iPad tablet devices are expected to contribute only 3% to TSMC's consolidated revenues in 2011, and 4% in 2012, Heyler said, as cited by the paper.

Do those revenue shares make sense? Ie. if TSMC gains all of Apple's iPad 3 orders it's only 2% of their revenues whereas non-iPad tablets might be 4% of their revenue in 2012. The iPad's share of the market is expected to decline overtime, but by 2012 are non-iPad tablets already going to have double the sales of the iPad?

And I really wonder if Apple is going to go Cortex A15 and 6th Gen PowerVR for the Apple A6. Up to now, Apple has kept everything for 2 generations. ARM11/PowerVR MBX Lite and Cortex A8/PowerVR SGX535, just with process shrinks or clock speed bumps for the 2nd year refresh. It makes you wonder if they'll just go with a tweaked, high clock speed Cortex A9 and a high clock speed SGX543, perhaps a bump to MP4 to support a Retina iPad 3. Would a ~1.5GHz dual core Cortex A9 with SGX543MP4 really put them behind the top devices of 2012?

[phenix]

Originally Posted by ltcommander.data

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20110624PB201.html


Do those revenue shares make sense? Ie. if TSMC gains all of Apple's iPad 3 orders it's only 2% of their revenues whereas non-iPad tablets might be 4% of their revenue in 2012. The iPad's share of the market is expected to decline overtime, but by 2012 are non-iPad tablets already going to have double the sales of the iPad?

And I really wonder if Apple is going to go Cortex A15 and 6th Gen PowerVR for the Apple A6. Up to now, Apple has kept everything for 2 generations. ARM11/PowerVR MBX Lite and Cortex A8/PowerVR SGX535, just with process shrinks or clock speed bumps for the 2nd year refresh. It makes you wonder if they'll just go with a tweaked, high clock speed Cortex A9 and a high clock speed SGX543, perhaps a bump to MP4 to support a Retina iPad 3. Would a ~1.5GHz dual core Cortex A9 with SGX543MP4 really put them behind the top devices of 2012?

There has been some suggestions that Apple will switch and unify their announcement times for new iPad/iPhone/iPods. I am assuming that their next generation will be announced towards Q4 of 2012. There will be many A15 based Socs in 2012 from others. I am just suggesting that they should also adapt this CPUs to remain competitive with other manufacturers. PowerVR6 is also a wish rather then a prediction. As far as I know only one manufacturer announced products based on this GPU (ST-Ericcson), obviously Apple never announced any plans whether they will adapt it or not.

[rpg.314]

Would a ~1.5GHz dual core Cortex A9 with SGX543MP4 really put them behind the top devices of 2012?

It'd make psp2 blush for sure.

[Lazy8s]

2012 Q4 announcement, as in the announcement for A7? They'll definitely be prepping for Series 6 and Cortex-A15 by then.

Unless they're pushing back all 2012 iOS device launches by several months, which, with iPhone 5's delay may very well be the case, A6 could be too early for Rogue + A15.

ST-Ericsson's (600+ MHz Rogue x 2) + (2.5 GHz A15 x2) will be hard to match next year. Any semi trying to push too hard on the CPU side, thereby taking away from the GPU's potential, will be at a competitive disadvantage.

[phenix]

Keep in mind that Apples announcements and hard launches are usually very close to each other. Whatever they show around holidays 2012 they will start to sell it in a month, A6 or juiced up A5.

[Ailuros]

Originally Posted by phenix

As far as I know only one manufacturer announced products based on this GPU (ST-Ericcson), obviously Apple never announced any plans whether they will adapt it or not.

When did Apple ever since the beginning pre-announce what kind of graphics processor (or CPU for that matter) their next generation SoC will contain?

While it has nothing to do with the subject there are according to 6 Series6/Rogue licensees. ST Ericsson, Texas Instruments (OMAP6) and MediaTek have been officially announced. Take a guess who the remaining 3 unnamed lead partners could be. However I wouldn't expect from anyone anything from Series6 before 28nm and that for a good reason.

If I'd were Apple I'd take the A5 through a die shrink to the next best smaller manufacturing process, save quite some die area (and resources) and simply bump up the clocks.

I don't see why there would be a need for a MP4 as others suggest; sure four cores are better than two, but so does N*2 frequency vs. N. It doesn't even have to be twice the iPad2 MP2 frequency. Even at 400MHz it's already twice as fast on paper than the MP4 in the PS Vita.

Besides everyone seems to expect that because display resolution could be 4x times as high an equal bump of graphics power would have to happen (or I'm reading a few things the wrong way here).

1. Just because the native resolution could end up being in "iPad3" at 2048 or even higher, it doesn't necessarily mean that 3D applications would run in that resolution. How many mobile games are there out there that support such resolutions? For 1024*768 the MP2 in the iPad2 sounds to me like it's got fill-rates to spare and not the other way around. I assume (but do not know) that the MP2 frequency in iPad2 is =/>250MHz. Given 4 TMUs that equals to 1 GTexel/s raw fill-rate.

2. What exactly has the entire competition in the works for hypothetically early 2012 (and I'm obviously talking about final devices on shelves) that they'd need to move from a MP2 in iPad2 immediately to Series6 in the followup tablet? Yes ST Ericsson has claimed that A9600 will sample in late 2011 (if all goes according to plans I assume) but the SoCs will end up in devices when exactly?

3. Which manufacturing process will be used for Apple's next SoC? I severely doubt they'll move straight from 45 to 28nm, but that's probably just me. But when it comes to squeezing a Rogue into anything <28nm a wild exaggeration could be how you'd fit an elephant in a mainstream household refrigerator: open door, push elephant in, close door. That simple

Originally Posted by rpg.314

It'd make psp2 blush for sure.

If you'd take the PS Vita and let it run iOS for sure. In any other case I suppose the latter being a handheld console, it retains for a bit of time it's "closed box" advantage without any sw overheads.

[Arun]

You forget that Apple has designed (not just specified) many more chips than they publicly let on. In addition to the A4 and A5, you've got three chips with Apple markings: the 65nm ARM11 in the iPod Touch 2G, the 65nm Cortex-A8 in the 3GS, and the 45nm Cortex-A8 in the iPod Touch 3G. The first and the last were clearly made to gain design experience on the process. Based on that cadence (which btw is faster than TI or NVIDIA) I would expect at least two more chips before a 28nm Rogue-based SoC from Apple for the iPad 4 in late 2012 or early 2013.

[ltcommander.data]

Originally Posted by Ailuros

If I'd were Apple I'd take the A5 through a die shrink to the next best smaller manufacturing process, save quite some die area (and resources) and simply bump up the clocks.

I don't see why there would be a need for a MP4 as others suggest; sure four cores are better than two, but so does N*2 frequency vs. N. It doesn't even have to be twice the iPad2 MP2 frequency. Even at 400MHz it's already twice as fast on paper than the MP4 in the PS Vita.

Perhaps it's hard to make a general statement, but which is the more power efficient way to double performance, doubling clock speed or doubling transistors (ie. MP4)? Apple would probably choose whichever option is more power efficient even if it costs more to have a bigger die. Presumably with a shrink from 45nm to 28nm, Apple now has die area to spare, and if SGX cores are pretty area efficient, doubling core count should be very viable.

Originally Posted by Ailuros

Besides everyone seems to expect that because display resolution could be 4x times as high an equal bump of graphics power would have to happen (or I'm reading a few things the wrong way here).

1. Just because the native resolution could end up being in "iPad3" at 2048 or even higher, it doesn't necessarily mean that 3D applications would run in that resolution. How many mobile games are there out there that support such resolutions? For 1024*768 the MP2 in the iPad2 sounds to me like it's got fill-rates to spare and not the other way around. I assume (but do not know) that the MP2 frequency in iPad2 is =/>250MHz. Given 4 TMUs that equals to 1 GTexel/s raw fill-rate.

Well, popular casual titles will no doubt quickly make the transition to Retina on the iPad 3. But of course we are more concerned with more graphically aggressive games from major developers. What I'm thinking about here is the state of the asset pipeline for major franchises/developers. Much to the chagrin of PC games, the current consoles target 720p, if not lower, and so game assets target that resolution, which matches well with the current 1024x768 iPad resolution. However, by 2012, the Wii U will presumably be out and Microsoft and Sony could be announcing their next gen consoles which will precipitate a transition to 1080p assets being standard, which will match well with a Retina iPad 3. As the power of mobile devices increases, developers will no doubt want to have as much asset reuse cross-platform as possible. So if the iPad 3 has a Retina Display, it would probably most convenient for major developers to use their 1080p assets if Apple includes a sufficiently powerful GPU to drive the higher resolution, so I don't think it'll be the case where the Retina display resolution will go unused for graphically intensive 3D games.

EDIT: The other thing here is with HDMI out and now AirPlay Apple isn't interested in just driving the native display. In fact, the just leaked release notes for iOS 5.0 Beta 2 say Airplay is now enabled by default for all video content in applications and websites. Secondary display capability will just put further pressure on Apple to keep increasing GPU power. It'll really be something to see an iPad 3 driving a Retina Display and a 1080p TV, even if the native display is only doing 2D information.

Originally Posted by Arun

You forget that Apple has designed (not just specified) many more chips than they publicly let on. In addition to the A4 and A5, you've got three chips with Apple markings: the 65nm ARM11 in the iPod Touch 2G, the 65nm Cortex-A8 in the 3GS, and the 45nm Cortex-A8 in the iPod Touch 3G. The first and the last were clearly made to gain design experience on the process. Based on that cadence (which btw is faster than TI or NVIDIA) I would expect at least two more chips before a 28nm Rogue-based SoC from Apple for the iPad 4 in late 2012 or early 2013.

Well if Apple continues on their cadence, there will only be 1 more chip before a 28nm Rogue not 2.

90nm 412MHz ARM11/MBX Lite (2007)
65nm 533MHz ARM11/MBX Lite (2008)
65nm 600MHz Cortex A8/SGX535 (2009)
45nm 1GHz Cortex A8/SGX535 (2010)
45nm 1GHz Cortex A9/SGX543MP2 (2011)

Continued cadence:
32nm/28nm High clock Cortex A9/SGX543MP2 (2012)
32nm/28nm Cortex A15/Rogue (2013)

EDIT: I just realized I forgot about the 3rd gen Touch getting a 45nm shrink of the 600MHz Cortex A8/SGX535 SoC. The cadence then doesn't look quite as clear with Samsung's 45nm process seeming to hang around for too long. Unless of course, the rumours of TSMC getting Apple A5 orders are actually correct. The A5 could get a minor shrink to TSMC 40nm just for the iPhone 5 and 5th gen Touch to get experience with TSMC's tools using a known design. The iPad 2 could remain at Samsung until end of life.

[Erinyes]

Originally Posted by Ailuros

If I'd were Apple I'd take the A5 through a die shrink to the next best smaller manufacturing process, save quite some die area (and resources) and simply bump up the clocks.

I agree and I think thats the general sentiment from past discussions as well, and it fits in with the cadence they've been following so far (with the exception of the ipod 3G 45nm chip). An A6 with dual A9's at 1.5 ghz and 543 MP2 at 400 mhz will still be a powerful chip in early 2012 and i think thats the way they're gonna go. There wont be a match for it until MSM 8960 or OMAP 5 are out in H2 2012. Tegra 3 will be out a few months earlier and ahead in CPU performance but will lose out on graphics performance (and even 8960/OMAP 5 will probably just about match this hypothetical A6 on graphics performance. Of the announced SoC's so far, only A9600 seems like it will beat this hypothetical A6 in graphics performance).

About the process, well apart from 28nm which other process is there? Rumour is that they're moving away from Samsung and to TSMC, in which case there's only 28nm. And if they are staying with Samsung, does Samsung intend to produce anything on the 32nm node or are they jumping straight to 28nm as well?

[Arun]

Originally Posted by Erinyes

About the process, well apart from 28nm which other process is there? Rumour is that they're moving away from Samsung and to TSMC, in which case there's only 28nm. And if they are staying with Samsung, does Samsung intend to produce anything on the 32nm node or are they jumping straight to 28nm as well?

Samsung definitely has a 32nm process they intend to go in mass production with. I don't buy the idea that they'd switch completely to TSMC - however, it would make sense to start dual-sourcing some of their chips to alleviate potential capacity constraints and gain even more leverage in wafer pricing negotiations.