Apple iPad announced

[Ailuros]

Not in all performance aspects of course. I was mainly referring to this post from warmi regarding fillrate:

Under normal conditions all performance characteristics scale with higher frequencies on a chip. The SGX535 in the iPad is obviously clocked higher than the one in the 3GS and thus will inevitably also have a higher fill-rate amongst others.

So in regards to fillrate running at native resolution: iPhone = iPhone 3G = iPad = iPhone 4th-gen
Totally simplified of course (and assuming the iPhone 4th-gen uses an (slightly slower) A4 and has a 960x640 resolution).

iPhone3GS = 153600 pixels
iPad = 786432 pixels
(your) iPhone"next" = 614400 pixels

Under that reasoning and assuming Apple will use the 535 again, they could clock it lower than in the iPad. I still don't see any "anomaly" or better don't understand what you really mean. I said a long time ago that IMHO the iPhone3GS has too much fill-rate. If you look at all other smartphones of the 3GS class containing SGX you'll see that the widest majority contains a SGX530 and not a 535.

And as most know already:

SGX530 = 1 TMU
SGX535 = 2 TMUs
SGX54x = 2 TMUs

In other words going above a 53x for Apple wouldn't had gotten them more texel fill-rate per MHz and in my mind confidentially the 535 in the 3GS has one TMU too much. One license though for multiple devices is always cheaper though

In any case if you meant something along that line I totally agree. Other than that I don't see anything weird.

I think that the 65nm SGX535 in the iPhone 3GS is clocked at 200Mhz.

Which could mean that the frequency for the 535 in the iPad is quite a bit higher than 250MHz, which I don't think so.

iPhone3GS = 153600 pixels to fill = 105185 kTexels/s multi-textured (SGX535 = 2 pixels/clock)
iPad = 786432 pixels to fill = 236559 kTexels/s multi-textured (SGX535 = 2 pixels/clock)

iPhone3G = 153600 pixels to fill = 28508 kTexels/s multi-textured (MBX Lite = 1 pixel/2 clocks)

My personal estimate for the above is in that order 150, 250, 100MHz.

 

[warmi]

I said a long time ago that IMHO the iPhone3GS has too much fill-rate. If you look at all other smartphones of the 3GS class containing SGX you'll see that the widest majority contains a SGX530 and not a 535.

That's irrelevant... Considering a typical game developer who got used to being able to push the envelope in terms of fill-rate on a 3gs device, it will take significant adjustments in terms of managing visual quality to get the same application working on the iPad.

 

[Ailuros]

That's irrelevant... Considering a typical game developer who got used to being able to push the envelope in terms of fill-rate on a 3gs device, it will take significant adjustments in terms of managing visual quality to get the same application working on the iPad.

Smartphones in their majority don't have even remotely close usable fill-rate than a 3GS. I'm obviously no developer but I'd expect a developer not to ignore the iPhone3G/2G, Touch devices as possible lowest common denominators for game development and scale up from there. Eventually such a mobile game could work also on all other existing MBX Lite/MBX smartphones and have a quite wider userbase. Just developing with only one smartphone in mind sounds damn limited to me.

 

[rpg.314]

Eventually such a mobile game could work also on all other existing MBX Lite/MBX smartphones and have a quite wider userbase. Just developing with only one smartphone in mind sounds damn limited to me.

SJ: iForbid

 

[warmi]

Just developing with only one smartphone in mind sounds damn limited to me.

Normally , I wouldn't disagree but .. this is Apple/iPhone/AppStore combo we are talking about here and there are a lot of iPhone-only games out there ...

 

[Entropy]

Let me rephrase/correct/edit. In the markets Apple has decided to compete, it has so far thrashed all others put together. In the >$1000 desktop/laptop market too, I seem to recall that Apple has >~50% revenue share. On the basis of track record, I doubt Apple's competition is any good. The only solace is that Apple will prolly not compete in the low margin category, leaving a window for the competition there.

NPD has pegged Apples market share in the >$1000 desktop/laptop market at 90%(+) for some time. It went from 88% to 91% going from May 2009 to June 2009, and as far as I've seen has remained at those levels.

It also gives some perspective on how tiny the market for "premium" Windows PCs really is compared to the whole.

 

[eastmen]

What's a "mobile Xbox360" exactly or better what is there integrated in a multitude of current devices that isn't a mobile XBox360 already?

a mobile 360 would be a deviced dedicated to gaming that has hardware buttons to play more complex games on it.


Think of the ds or psp. IT would be a modern version of those

 

[silent_guy]

I think for the iPhone internals to be that small Apple must surely use a SoC-based approach.

That's really not saying anything: all cell phone chips are SOCs... But if you mean specifically that the baseband is integrated into the main die: I doubt it.
There are many reasons not to do it: you're wedded to the schede of the base band, it's highly specialized technology that can't easily be bought (both in terms of IP and engineers), it requires a relatively low speed interface so you don't have a lot of integration benefits anyway etc.
I haven't picked up anything about Apple hiring dsp and telecom engineers (allround designers is a whole different story, they have been hiring like crazy for a year now.)

Maybe they integrated it into the same package, but that's also unlikely since it would hamper their ability to integrate memory, which has much higher benefits to reduce PCB complexity.

IMHO it will feature the exact same chip as the A4. Spinning smaller cost derivatives is rarely cost efficient.

 

[Mike11]

I'm obviously no developer but I'd expect a developer not to ignore the iPhone3G/2G, Touch devices as possible lowest common denominators for game development and scale up from there.

This forward(?) compatibility issue is why I really really hope that Apple won't continue to offer two hardware generations at the same time after this summer (like right now with the iPhone 3G and 3GS). That just makes it worse. Just offer a $99 8GB version (besides the 32GB and 64GB) of the current high-end iPhone and accept a little lower margins for that entry model. IMHO that would benefit Apple in the long-run. Same goes for any future iPad generations. And same goes for iPod touch OS updates. Make them free so that customers are more likely to update (right now a lot of iPod touch user don't).

 

[MfA]

It also gives some perspective on how tiny the market for "premium" Windows PCs really is compared to the whole.

With a PC there is no point to spend that much money for most people. Mac Pro's configuration is into a range of hugely diminishing returns as far as component costs go ... it's just that the middle ground does not exist, they are the only way to get decent hardware which will (officially) run OS X.

If they sold i7+5870 macs in an expandable case at reasonable margins the market for Mac Pros would shrink drastically.

 

[wco81]

This forward(?) compatibility issue is why I really really hope that Apple won't continue to offer two hardware generations at the same time after this summer (like right now with the iPhone 3G and 3GS). That just makes it worse. Just offer a $99 8GB version (besides the 32GB and 64GB) of the current high-end iPhone and accept a little lower margins for that entry model. IMHO that would benefit Apple in the long-run. Same goes for any future iPad generations. And same goes for iPod touch OS updates. Make them free so that customers are more likely to update (right now a lot of iPod touch user don't).

Do other manufacturers sell different generations of phones? A big company like Nokia probably has a lot of previous gen inventory in the channel.

And Android supports phones of a wide range of hardware specs.

So it may be a competitive advantage to have as homogenous platform as possible. But the installed base is going to be heterogenous as people hang on to their phones for a couple of years. Developers will still have to target older SKUs or support them.

 

[Pressure]

That's really not saying anything: all cell phone chips are SOCs... But if you mean specifically that the baseband is integrated into the main die: I doubt it.
There are many reasons not to do it: you're wedded to the schede of the base band, it's highly specialized technology that can't easily be bought (both in terms of IP and engineers), it requires a relatively low speed interface so you don't have a lot of integration benefits anyway etc.
I haven't picked up anything about Apple hiring dsp and telecom engineers (allround designers is a whole different story, they have been hiring like crazy for a year now.)

Maybe they integrated it into the same package, but that's also unlikely since it would hamper their ability to integrate memory, which has much higher benefits to reduce PCB complexity.

IMHO it will feature the exact same chip as the A4. Spinning smaller cost derivatives is rarely cost efficient.

Yeah, I can see how it was pretty vague formulated. However, there is no denying that things have to have changed when going from something that uses this amount of space.

To this

 

[rpg.314]

That's really not saying anything: all cell phone chips are SOCs... But if you mean specifically that the baseband is integrated into the main die: I doubt it.
There are many reasons not to do it: you're wedded to the schede of the base band, it's highly specialized technology that can't easily be bought (both in terms of IP and engineers), it requires a relatively low speed interface so you don't have a lot of integration benefits anyway etc.
I haven't picked up anything about Apple hiring dsp and telecom engineers (allround designers is a whole different story, they have been hiring like crazy for a year now.)

Maybe they integrated it into the same package, but that's also unlikely since it would hamper their ability to integrate memory, which has much higher benefits to reduce PCB complexity.

IMHO it will feature the exact same chip as the A4. Spinning smaller cost derivatives is rarely cost efficient.

AFAIK, the baseband is not on the same die so that the same SoC can be used in different markets with different carriers/frequencies etc. unlike Snapdragon.

 

[rpg.314]

Yeah, I can see how it was pretty vague formulated. However, there is no denying that things have to have changed when going from something that uses this amount of space.

To this

Whoa, hadn't seen those before. What's the second one from again?

 

[Mike11]

Do other manufacturers sell different generations of phones? A big company like Nokia probably has a lot of previous gen inventory in the channel.

And Android supports phones of a wide range of hardware specs.

Yes, they do.

So it may be a competitive advantage to have as homogenous platform as possible. But the installed base is going to be heterogenous as people hang on to their phones for a couple of years. Developers will still have to target older SKUs or support them.

Yes, IMHO it would be a big competitive advantage to have an as homogeneous platform as possible. That means moving customers to newer, more powerful/capable SoCs as soon as possible/available, to make sure that when they upgrade, they upgrade to the new version, not the old one, extending the lifetime of that old model another 2-3 years (contract duration + buffer).
E.g. someone who bought the original iPhone in late 2007 renews his contract in late 2009 and chooses an iPhone 3G. That means he uses the 2007 SoC until 2011 instead of just until 2009, if the entry level iPhone in 2009 would have been an iPhone 3GS SKU.

Apple is in a unique position to do so because it's the sole supplier of iPhones and only brings out one new iPhone per year and is on a yearly release cycle. So why extend the lifetime of last years version by keep offering it even (for another year) after the successor is released. And I'm not talking about 1-2 months to clear inventory. But yes, it's probably cheaper and increases Apple's profits short term.

Same goes for future iPad generations.

Whoa, hadn't seen those before. What's the second one from again?

Leaked iPhone 4th-gen prototype.

For size comparison, the first one has a (Mini-)SIM slot, the second one has a Micro-SIM slot (in the middle). As a reference point you can use the six SIM contacts that should have the same size on each board (since the SIM chip itself is identical).

I linked the image of the new board some posts above:

Assuming the iPhone 4th-gen also uses an A4, how much more empty (or totally battery dominated) would the iPad have looked on the inside if had used the 4th-gens logic board? That board is really super small...

http://cache-01.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2010/04/open19_01.jpg
Gallery: http://gizmodo.com/5520877/open-gal//gallery/1

Article about the internals:
http://gizmodo.com/5520876/the-next-iphone-dissected

And the original article about the leak is here:
http://gizmodo.com/5520164/this-is-apples-next-iphone

 

[silent_guy]

Yeah, saw that too.

Given that gizmodo had already ripped the thing apart, I had hoped that they'd gone all the way and tear this down too.

But we're left to speculate.

With the now proven high volume of the iPhone and iPad, there'll probably find very willing suppliers to bend to their needs.

Potential improvements, based on the annotated version here.
- integrated GPS/WIFI/bluetooth chip. I believe a couple of companies have been working on this.
- baseband processor and baseband SRAM chips can be merged into a POP package
- PMIC and BB-PMIC can also be merged.

With just these 3 optimizations, you already go a long way. Still, it's a very impressive piece of engineering. Can't wait for the teardown of this.

 

[wco81]

There's a rumor that Apple is looking to buy ARM for $8 billion.

Is there any other competitive mobile CPU?

 

[Ailuros]

Normally , I wouldn't disagree but .. this is Apple/iPhone/AppStore combo we are talking about here and there are a lot of iPhone-only games out there ...

Are those iPhone-only games (spreading over 2G/3G/3GS) or iPhone3GS-only games (honest question as all the others)? Because if it's the first, there's quite a difference between 50+MTexels (MBX Lite@100+MHz) and 300MTexels/s (SGX535@150MHz) for the exact same target resolution.

a mobile 360 would be a deviced dedicated to gaming that has hardware buttons to play more complex games on it.
Think of the ds or psp. IT would be a modern version of those

I'm not sure but Microsoft's future plans sound to me more like a possible tablet device than a hand-held console.

This forward(?) compatibility issue is why I really really hope that Apple won't continue to offer two hardware generations at the same time after this summer (like right now with the iPhone 3G and 3GS). That just makes it worse. Just offer a $99 8GB version (besides the 32GB and 64GB) of the current high-end iPhone and accept a little lower margins for that entry model. IMHO that would benefit Apple in the long-run. Same goes for any future iPad generations. And same goes for iPod touch OS updates. Make them free so that customers are more likely to update (right now a lot of iPod touch user don't).

For the time being Apple sells the 3G starting from $99 and the 3GS starting from $199. In other words the 3G hasn't phased out yet and it still poses the lowest possible iPhone denominator for Apple's smart-phones. Considering how long the 3G has been available and its price today, it wouldn't be out of line to suggest that the amount of 3G devices sold or better in user hands today is quite a bit larger than 3GS owners.

Yes, IMHO it would be a big competitive advantage to have an as homogeneous platform as possible. That means moving customers to newer, more powerful/capable SoCs as soon as possible/available, to make sure that when they upgrade, they upgrade to the new version, not the old one, extending the lifetime of that old model another 2-3 years (contract duration + buffer).

While there's no doubt that SGX is a far more capable and efficient GPU than MBX Lite, how many of the first's advanced capabilities are really used in today's iPhone games after all? Yes there's a sizable performance difference between those two, but why should the "rules" for game development in the embedded market be any different than in the PC space for example especially considering how humble in general game content still is?

Besides what's "homogenous" platform anyway considering that Apple will inevitably move to another GPU IP eventually (if it's not this year it'll be the next year) since they can't really forever use for all that long a SGX535 in the end? There's always going to be a more advanced component (be it CPU or GPU or whatever else) in future SoCs. Of course as always only Apple itself knows about its future plans and we mostly find out most of the aspects shortly before or after each devices release.

However on a purely speculative basis IMG has announced that SGX543 MP has been licensed by 3 of their lead partners so far. IF Apple is one of them and they'll release it next year if I'd only assume a 2MP at the very same frequency compared to a 535 you'll end up with over 8x times the FLOPs, twice the texel fill-rate and about 4x times triangle rate and z/stencil fill-rate. It doesn't have to be IMG IP, but there are always going to be upgrades where disparities will appear between current and former generation devices.

Only Apple knows what it wants or feels that it needs for the future. But just like the used the MBX Lite for iPhone2G/3G, iPod Touch, they'll also re-use the SGX535 for a higher amount of devices. One license as I said is always cheaper than having more than one; any IHV/OEM won't just keep it forever.

 

[rpg.314]

There's a rumor that Apple is looking to buy ARM for $8 billion.

I am EXTREMELY doubtful if it will happen.

Also, I don't think other CPU's are as perf/W efficient. I suppose x86 is the only alternative game in town if this happens, because of Intel's muscle.

 

[Ailuros]

I am EXTREMELY doubtful if it will happen.

Also, I don't think other CPU's are as perf/W efficient. I suppose x86 is the only alternative game in town if this happens, because of Intel's muscle.

While I doubt it too, it would be for sure a very interesting twist in the entire market picture if true. Albeit I've learned through the years never to say never again, I don't think Apple would want to take such a huge risk. What for anyway?